Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 40A (37th Legislature, 3rd Session)

37-3-40a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LII No. 40A- 10 a.m., Thursday, May 30, 2002

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETI, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HA WRANIK, Gerald HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY,Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEV AKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charles wood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Lac du Bonnet Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Transcona South dale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

1999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 30, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS Intr oduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honour able Govemment House Leader, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Charleswood Junior High 134 Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Barbara Fitzjohn. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill14. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill14-The Public Schools Modernization Act (Public Schools Act Amended) Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 14, The Public Schools Modemization Act (Public Schools Act Amended), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minnedosa? [Agreed] Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 14, the modemization of school divisions. In my previous career I used to work in Frontier School Division. As an administrator in Frontier School Division and a teacher, I leamed a great deal about how school divisions operate. I leamed that, through some amalgamations in Frontier School Division many years ago, they took over the operations of Gypsumville. When they took over the operations and administration of Gypsumville School there was a lot of fear out there. The fear was that the quality of school, the local autonomy, et cetera, would disappear.

I am pleased to say that, after the amalga mation of the administration in Frontier School Division from Gypsumville, something has hap pened. First, there was additional programming offered in the school. There were more guidance counsellors. There were more consultants and clinicians. There was a lot more to offer to the teachers as support. There was more administra tive support. Other things that happened in the Frontier amalgamation was that payroll was done cen trally. Purchasing was done centrally.

A lot of the administrative functions created were done centrally which provided that the administrative money was able to be funnelled to the school itself. Rather than have a large administration, what we then did was we were able to get cheaper prices on the purchasing. We were able to get proper consultant and clinician services for students, so we were able to support the teachers better in the classroom. Then, over the years, the program delivery also improved. Programs such as adult education, such as work education, guidance, work experience, et cetera, were then offered to the school.

Then what happened was through the amalgamation you provided better delivery for teachers, better delivery for students and better programs. Because of that, I believe that Bill 14 will do a few things: One, it will force money that is presently spent for administration, pres ently that goes to the purchasing, to payroll, to bus administration, to central administration, that

2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 money will no longer go to bureaucrats but will actually go to classrooms and go to students. I think that is important. As a former bureaucrat, I know that what the cost will be in Frontier School Division to add a few communities will not mean they will hire a whole bunch of new people. What that means is they will keep existing staff, with a little bit more support, and the extra money will go to students.

When we are starting to talk about that, let us say that in some small jurisdictions where you have 7%, 8% or 9% administration costs, then if you have some communities that have high administration costs, that money, if you can then bring it down 2 percent or 3 percent from 9 percent, you will get 2% savings; 2 percent on a million dollars is a considerable amount of money so that might hire a T A.

If you take 2% savings over $10 million, which would be very, very much possible, then you are talking $200,000, you are talking numbers of teachers, special resource programs, you are talking clini cians, and you are talking money in the classroom. It is very, very important to take the money and put it where it is necessary, and that is with students, so I think that this amalga mation is important.

By capping the amount of money that schools spend on adminis tration, and with a gov ernment that continues to put more money and more resources into schools, what that means is students will get better education because they will get more resources, more T As, more money in the classroom rather than in administration. I know, as a former educator-[interjection] Yes, we are taking it from the boardroom to the classroom. We are taking it from administrators into teachers' assistants, into support for stu dents, and that is what we need to do.

I am pleased to be part of a government that looks at students first, not administration. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Government, I am pleased to support Bill 14. Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers on Bill 14? As previously agreed, the bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer). * * * Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, Training and Youth (Mr. Caldwell), that the House resolve into the Committee of Supply.

Motion agreed to. * (10:30) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) CONSERVATION Mr. Chair person (Harry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Conservation. We are on item 12.4. Conservation Pro grams (

k) Lands

(3) Remote Sensing (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $55 1,300 on page 50 of the main Estimates book. At the last sitting of this committee, there had been agreement to revert to 12.4.(

f) Fisheries, which had previously been passed in order to allow the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) to ask questions. Is that still the will of the committee? Mr. Harry Enos (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move these Estimates along with just a comment we have had, and I appreciate the minister's willingness to accommodate a col league of mine. We have had a lengthy discussion on the fisheries issues. The minister, the Government and department are fully aware of some of the concerns that we have.

I would just like to, in leavirig that section, remind all of us that Lake of the Prairies, we talk largely about its fishing, its sustainab ility of the fisheries, its asking the fisheries, but I want to remind the minister and his department that Lake of the Prairies is essentially a flood control structure. The issues of management on that lake are very often decided about what is happening in the city of Winnipeg. For instance, the city of Brandon that gets its water supply from it, the com mitment that the department has and the regime

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2001 that is built into the management of Lake of the Prairies to ensure an adequate supply of water is maintained throughout the length of the Assini boine River are very important features of the management of that lake. Mr. Speaker, I can foresee a time when, for instance, if our improving flood forecasting shows that there is a very heavy buildup of moisture in the upper reaches of the Assiniboine, Saskatchewan border, that the regime that the lake management is presently under could be drawn down severely to anticipate the heavy flows in the fall.

That may not be in agreement with the management of the lake that is pre dicated entirely on what is the most optimum fisheries conditions. I just put on the record what is known and just a reminder that these structures that were built, and they were man-made structures that were built, let us not lose sight of the primary reason for Lake of the Prairies and the Shell mouth Dam is that is part of a tripartite Winnipeg floodway, Portage diversion, Shell mouth Dam, flood protection measures that a royal commission recommended and was acted upon by previous governments. Mr.

Chairman, with those few comments, I am prepared to move on to the rest. Pass. Mr. Ch airperson: We are now on item 12.4. Conservation Programs (

k) Lands

(3) Remote Sensing (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $551,300-pass; (

b) Other Expenditures $239 ,000-pass. I will just read 12.4.(k)(3)(

c) into the record. Item 12.4.(k)(3)(

c) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($23,700). 12.4.(k)

(4) Land Mapping Services (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $459,900-pass; (

b) Other Expenditures $73,1 00-pass. 12.4.(

m) Habitat Enhancement Fund $50,000-pass. Resolution 12.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $52,600, 700 for Conservation Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2003. Resolution agreed to. Mr. Chair person: We will move on to page 51, Resolution 12.5. Environmental Stewardship (

a) Divisional Administration

(1) Salaries and Em ployee Benefits $143, 700. Shall the line pass? Mr. Eons: Under the heading of Environmental Stewardship is a fairly broad question of poli cies, plans, programs sustainable. I would ask the honourable minister to accommodate my colleague from Portage la Prairie who has a forestry question, a new innovative forestry question to ask, that if at all possible he could raise it with the committee at this point. Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for the Member for Portage la Prairie to ask this question? [Agreed] Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Thank you very much.

I am sure the minister is familiar with the work of Doctor Durand who developed the Discovery elm, which is tolerant of Dutch elm disease, and has further worked involving Dr. Tam McEwen with hybrid poplar. Currently, the progress in development work with the hybrid poplar and species that are showing extreme promise for our temperate climate here and offering quite a number of economic benefits with their work.

They have approached a number of departments, I will speak specifically of Agri culture, and found very limited abilities from that department because of stretched resources and another crop, if you might, being added to Agriculture, which the production through hy brid poplar would probably have an agricultural component and be able to work into that industry.

I had suggested to them, after finding a relatively cool response by Agriculture, that they approach Conservation and express to them that under Environmental Stewardship as well as you providing for resources to individuals who are studying and coming up with solutions for climate change and global warming that perhaps your department would be able to assist in this new technology and the potential that hybrid poplar production has for this province in quite a number of sectors that would benefit from hybrid poplar production.

2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 I am wondering whether the mmtster can update and provide information about this initi ative and whether it is a consideration of his department. * (10:40) Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conser vation): I can indicate to the member that we are aware of Mr. McEwen's work with this project, the hybrid poplar. We will certainly look at assisting his work, either through the Agro Woodlot Program or perhaps through the Sus tainable Development Innovations Fund. Mr.

Faurschou: Well, I am appreciative that the minister is aware of Doctor McEwen because I think the application, as I have expressed earlier, has a very broad range of application, whether it be for the pulp and paper, softwood lumber, or mature trees they have found could have application in the hardwood, as well, providing stability for conservation programs and also quick establishment of forestry reforestation of areas damaged by fire, erosion, wind, water. So I am very pleased that you have there, and I encourage you to continue.

One other question I had for the minister in regard to management and long-range planning, I will be very specific to the J .R. Simplot undertaking in Portage Ia Prairie and that being a potato processing facility. At the time of announcement by Premier Doer that there would be a number of ministries working in co operation with Agriculture to provide for the enhanced infrastructure which would come under Minister Friesen's direction but also, too, the development work that would be required for irrigation and land management.

I am wondering if the minister can update me as to the number of meetings that the minister has had with his colleagues Minister Mihychuk, Minister W owchuk, Minister Friesen within this context to provide for expanded areas for potato production under irrigation. Mr. Lathlin: I thank the member for the question. I can also advise him that, yes, we have been working on the issue of water availa bility for irrigation, and, currently, based on the information that we have, we are confident that the water will be available where it is needed.

We continue to work with the Department of Agriculture and Food on that issue, well, on a regular basis. Mr. Faurschou: I thank the mmtster for his response. I just want to take this opportunity to compliment his department and the staff who attended the Clean Environment Commission hearings earlier this year on this topic of water quality and water availability for not only the processing component but that of potato pro duction and the staff that attended those very lengthy hearings in December and in January.

I do want to compliment their professional, well-prepared presentations and their responses to questions that were raised by presenters in those proceedings, that they were extraordinarily well prepared and well versed with the infor mation that was needed for that decision and ultimately the licence being granted. I do want to stress at this time to the minister that this is a very timely and vitally important process to have the plan in place and ultimately the infrastructure or design for infrastructure be ready in very short order, because as we speak construction is underway for that plant.

Within a year and a halfs time, we are looking to have a requirement of almost 20 000 acres of additional potato production in Manitoba to provide for that processing plant in Portage. It is vitally important for us in the Legis lature here that not only your department but Industry and Trade, Agriculture work very co operatively and with the idea that time is of the essence here. I cannot stress more strongly that this is vitally important to the agricultural econo my in Manitoba, that we diversify, have more high-value crops produced.

I am certain the minister is well aware of the U.S. farm bill passed into law with presidential signing last week and that we must in this prov ince make for the planning and ultimate support for diversification here in the province. Mr. Lathlin: Yes, I can indicate to the member we are continuing to work in co-operation with other departments on this particular project.

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2003 I want to add, though, to the earlier response gave him where I talked about how the availability of water for irrigation or, I guess, quantity of water is being addressed. I also wanted to say, though, that we are also working on the issue of water quality in the Assiniboine River. There are studies currently going on to try to determine the quality. Both our own and Simplot's work, I think, in the end will determine what is needed for a healthy river. So we are concerned for both the quantity as well as the health of the river. Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move this

section along, with just allowing me to add my voice's support to that of my colleague from Portage la Prairie. I know that earlier 011 with respect to the forestry question that he asked on the hybrid poplars, earlier on in the Forestry division you advised us that the province buys all of its seedlings for reforestry from the Pineland agency.

I appreciate that the Pineland agency is a stand-alone agency as such, but I think what we are really and what Doctor McEwen and others who have moved along this project are looking for is some kind of interest shown by an agency like the Pineland Nursery that would, even on a pilot project, purchase a quantity of these seed lings, and that is on a commercial scale, test out some of the opportunities that this hybrid poplar tree has for us. I am thinking about such reforestry areas up in the Swan River area that with the Louisiana Pacific group harvesting in that area and others.

It seems that the research work by Doctor McEwen has been done but has failed to get a kind of pick-up or a lift-up from the province and from commercial users. There might be an opportunity, and even if nothing else, if the department were to discuss this issue with Pineland, I appreciate forestry decisions will be made by those expert in that field, but I think that is what the member from Portage is looking for. With those few comments, I welcome the minister's response. * (10:50) Mr. Lathlin: think earlier I responded by saying that we would look at assisting Mr.

McEwen's work either from the Agro Woodlot Program or maybe from the SDIF. I will go further and say I would be willing to meet with Mr. McEwen in order to discuss further his project at some future date. Let me also say that with respect to Pine land, although we do go out for competitive bids, so far Pineland has been able to win the bidding. No, I would be more than willing to meet with Mr. McEwen to see what he has. Mr. Cha irperson: We will go back to line 5. Environmental Stewardship (

a) Divisional Administration

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $143, 700-pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $165,100-pass;

(3) Northern Initiatives $400,000-pass;

(4) Grant Assistance $110,900- pass. We will go on to 5.(

b) Sustainable Resource Management

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,096,400. Shall the line pass? Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the other day the minister was good enough to table an additional supplementary booklet on the Sustainable Devel opment Innovations Fund initiative, $3.4 mil lion. Where in these Estimates is that $3.4 million? Can you point that out to me? Mr. Lathlin: I understand that that particular

section will be dealt with at a separate time. It is not part of this Estimates process here. Mr. Enos: As I recall, though I was not the responsible minister, in essence these funds come from what I call environmental taxes that were imposed on the people some time ago, various levies on everything from pop bottles, whiskey bottles, although I think the tire tax is a little separate dedication. But is that still more or less the case, that the $3.4 million, although we are not discussing it now, but I am just reacting to that information that you provided the House the other day, Mr. Minister.

That $3.4 million comes from that source? Mr. Lathlin: I can indicate to the member that the source of funding for the SDIF is the provincial sales tax on disposable diapers and the I 0-cent levy on liquor bottles. That is where that is.

2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 Mr. Eons: In previous years, under the administration that I was part of, this fund was used extensively to support a host of citizen groups, for want of a better word, across the province in various projects that had some element of conservation to them, some element that could range from cleaning up a creek bed here in some of the urban parts like the Seine River or Sturgeon Creek, to the planting of trees and shrubberies. There was admittedly a liberal

interpretation of what that contained. A com munity might want to enhance a playground with some shrubbery and trees. They often raised money of their own and made application to this fund for some supplementary funding. I note from the information supplied that it would appear that this fund is now being, after what I notice a bit of a hiccup in the flowing of the money from the year before, it has now been more or less restored- Mr. Chair person: Order, please. Just as notice, you are talking about the Enabling Appropri ations, which are scheduled in the Chamber.

It would be more applicable to do it in the Cham ber. However, if the minister wishes to answer the question, that is fine. But, just as infor mation, it is really not in Room 254. This is done in the Chamber. Mr. Enos: Mr. Chair, I sense the pressure from staff here. I will back off. I am quite prepared to discuss that at the appropriate time. It is probably just as well we have raised the issues, but these are some of the questions that we will be asking when that vote comes up at the appropriate time in the House. I do accept the redirection. Mr. Chair person: I thank the member for his co-operation. Mr.

Lathlin: Perhaps I can answer the last question that the member was asking, even though we are still going to be talking about this at another forum. The member's question is: Is this still the case with respect to SDIF money being set aside to fund what we would call environmental projects? Yes, that is still the case. I think we can go into more specific examples of projects that are being funded for the member. But let me give you at least the broad allocation portion of the fund.

For example, we fund the Environmental Youth Corps, $200,000; the waste reduction and prevention program, $550,000; Climate Change, $250,000; orphan mine site from Conservation, $250, 000; orphan mine site through Industry, Trade and Mines, $250,000; the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation southwest wood lot, $312,000. 1t gives us a total of$3.4 million. Mr. Enos: Mr. Chairman, we will move on. There will be another occasion to discuss this more fully. Pass. Mr. Chairperson: 5. Environmental Steward ship (

b) Sustainable Resource Management (

I) Salaries and Benefits $1,096,400-pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $1,011,800-pass;

(3) Grant Assist ance $1 0,200-pass. 5.(

c) Environmental Assessment and Licensing (

I) Salaries and Employee Benefits $965,900-pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $107 ,900-pass. 5 .(

d) Aboriginal Relations

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $181, 800. Shall the line pass? Mr. Eons: Mr. Chairman, I believe I raised a question on this issue. This is the appropriation line that covers the cost of the Aboriginal council that the minister has referred to, more specifically of the group that Mr. Fontaine is chairman of. Is that part of this? * (11 :00) Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, the Aboriginal Relations Branch is located in the Environmental Stewardship Division. It is a branch. The staff contained therein act as a support to the Aboriginal Resource Council.

The Aboriginal Resource Council, as I said earlier, was estab lished some two years ago. So the staff that are situated in the Aboriginal Relations Branch are really providing support through that Aboriginal Resource Council. I might also, because I think the member was referencing Mr. Fontaine, Mr. Fontaine has been appointed to chair the east side round table, while it has some connection but not directly.

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2005 Mr. Eons: Okay, Mr. Chairman, more speci fically, we are now discussing $181,000 for salaries under a heading which is Aboriginal Relations. Who exactly is being paid this $181 ,000 of salaries under this item? Mr. Lathlin: I am not certain if the member is asking for names of the individuals who are working in that particular branch. I can tell him that there is a director and two analysts. In total, there are three people working there. If he wants, I can give him the names. Mr. Enos: Mr.

Chairman, what I am trying to put together is the level of commitment that the department, the Government has with respect to its Aboriginal Relations. You have different seg ments in different portions throughout your Estimates. You have a group doing round tabling under the chairmanship of Mr. Fontaine in east Winnipeg. You have an Aboriginal council. We have a directorate and a division here of Aboriginal Relations for $181,000.

I will find some other way, but I am trying to put together what the Aboriginal component is, if you like; that is, a system advising this minister, this department and government on a host of areas. You are telling me, Mr. Minister, I kind of assumed that maybe it came under this line here, that the Aboriginal council is in addition to this, if you understand what I am getting at. Mr. Lathlin: No, I am not really certain as to what the member is asking, but I know he will come back to me. Let me tell him now that the east side round table that Mr.

Fontaine has been asked to chair is funded out of the Sustainable Resource Management Branch. Mr. Chairman, there is $350,000 allocated for that process. I want to tell the member that the east side process is not what I would call a purely Abori ginal process. It is very multiparty. There are different stakeholders being involved. With respect to the Aboriginal Relations Branch, as I said, there is a director and two analysts. They liaise with the Aboriginal com munity.

They give advice to the department as a whole, and they also work with the Aboriginal Resource Council mainly as a support to help organize meetings, facilitate research and so on and so forth, but they also will provide advice when they are asked by groups like the east side or any activity where there might be some Aboriginal people involved. Mr. Eons: I ask the minister, and I probably should know having watched this department for a while, is this a new initiative on the part of this Government, this minister? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, this initiative is not new this year. We started two years ago.

But, yes, it is a new government initiative. Mr. Ch airperson: We will go on with 5. Environmental Stewardship (

d) Aboriginal Relations ( 1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $181 ,800-pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $46,000-pass. Resolution 12.5. RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,239,700 for Conservation, Environmental Stewardship, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2003. Resolution agreed to. Mr. Chai rperson: We will go on to Resolution 12.6. Clean Environment Commission (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $262,400. Mr. Enos: Mr. Chairman, no specific questions here. Is the commission dealing with any speci fic issues at the moment? I know that they have concluded the most recent hearings. The major hearings were probably the ones that my col league from Portage already referred to in the Simplot application. Is there a major developmental proposal under the commission's review at this time? I am just trying to get some idea of the current activi ties of the commission. Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Chairperson, I can indicate to the member that the work that is ongoing currently includes a mediation exercise that the commission is involved in with respect to the Maple Leaf, Rothesay, rendering operation and area residents.

2006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 There is also another similar exercise that they are doing. That is the southern area forest consultation process. Another piece of work that they are doing is the development of a public consultation process on the nutrient management strategy. They are also working on the environmental impact statement guidelines with respect to the Wuskwatim generation and transmission consul tation and report preparation work they are doing. * (11:10) Mr. Eons: The commission was housed briefly in Steinbach. When was it brought back to Winnipeg?

The correct chairman is still Mr. Duguid? Mr. Lathlin: Yes, the chairperson of the Clean Environment Commission is still Terry Duguid. With respect to the Steinbach office, my information is that when I came along I inquired about it because I knew that we were gearing up to get the commission going again. So I was advised at the time that under the previous administration, the commission, although it was situated in Steinbach, conducted most of its work and business in Winnipeg.

The old Clean Environment Commission office space is now occupied by additional staff the department has added to process the intensive livestock appli cations from the Steinbach facility. Mr. Enos: I just want to advise the committee that the honourable member from River Heights was hoping to ask some questions on the Clean Environment Commission. I would defer to him at this time. * (11:20) Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I note in the report to the Clean Environment Com mission of the public hearings on Simplot data processing plant in Portage Ia Prairie that the minister chose not to follow a couple of the recommendations. One that was not followed dealt with phosphorus removal. The report suggested that phosphorus be removed to levels consistent with those established in other Prairie cities, including Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Calgary.

I just raise a concern with the minister that the minister seems to be treating Portage Ia Prairie citizens and Manitoba citizens inequita bly compared to other Prairie cities, and whether the minister can provide justification for his decision not to have better phosphorus removal in the Portage Ia Prairie Simplot plant? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the member for the question. I would like to start by saying that I would like to differ with his opinion with respect to treating Portage Ia Prairie differently.

In fact, I believe the majority of the citizens of Portage Ia Prairie, certainly the civic leadership of Portage Ia Prairie and indeed the MLA for Portage Ia Prairie and others, have been quite supportive in the department's decision. This issue is still an open issue. The technical advice has been that the phosphorus is not the limiting nutrient for concern in the river and Lake Winnipeg. So the required tens of millions of dollars of investment for phosphorus removal that may not be required would be probably a poor use of resources at this time.

Instead, we are doing extensive river studies that will determine what treatment may be required in the future. The Clean Environment Commis sion licence that was issued clearly outlines that commitment. Mr. Chairperson, I might add that very recently I have exchanged correspondence with the federal Minister of the Environm ent, Mr. Anderson, on this issue, which I would be glad to share with him, because I think the letter that I signed off to Minister Anderson was quite informative.

So we are committed to join with the federal government in dealing with the results of the water quality studies if they show that additional treatment is required at Simplot. Mr. Gerrard: I note as well that the minister has waived the recommendation with regard to ammonia limits.

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2007 Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We cannot hear you. Mr. Gerrard: Oh, I am sorry. I note that the minister has waived the recommendation with regard to ammonia levels as well. I would ask the minister to comment on this and to provide an understanding or a commitment as to what the minister's plan would be if the research were to indicate that action needed to be taken to reduce ammonia or nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the Assiniboine River. Mr. Lathlin: I can indicate to the member that the ammonia levels remain at the current limits.

They, too, are a part of our study that we are doing as well as the current review of our provincial water quality objectives. The present licence limits do meet our current water quality objectives. But if further research indicates that these need to be lowered then steps will be taken to ensure that appropriate treatment occurs at the Simplot plant. Mr.

Gerrard: One of the recommendations was that there be a pilot project established demon strating how a regional watershed authority could work as a mechanism to address water quality and quantity issues and that this should be considered for a portion of the Assiniboine Basin. I would like you to comment on this recommendation and what the plans of the department are with respect to such a pilot project. Mr. Lathlin: I can indicate to the member that this work is going to be part of our water management strategy as well. We agree with the CEC recommendation, the watershed planning approach.

We will be having the water manage ment strategy group provide us with some advice as to implementation with respect to the pilot, and from there we will probably take a broader approach. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to have the minister comment on one of the items which was brought up by the Clean Environment Commission report. Let me just quote from the report: The commission panel was given the impression that there is little monitoring of water licences. The lack of effective reporting and enforcement mechanisms may be permitting excessive and inappropriate water use.

It ap pears, however, that there is currently no effec tive means of knowing how serious this situation might be. Much of the licensing of water withdrawal in Manitoba is done on the basis of estimates with very little actual measurement through water metering. The current licensing arrange ments do not appear to assign any significance to the environmental impact of water use.

There seems to be little incentive for irrigators and other water licence holders to conserve water. * (11:30) I note in the report that the current estimates and modelling show an overall supply of 70 000 acre-feet available for licensing in the region from all sources. I note, in the report, that it has been estimated that potato producers in the area would require an estimated 10 000 acre-feet of water from all sources to grow the potatoes required for the Simplot processing plant.

I would like to get the minister's estimates and numbers on how much of that 70 000 acre-feet available is being used, and to what extent these numbers are known with any certainty, and what the minister is doing to address the clear short fall that was pointed out in the Clean Environ ment Commission report. Mr. Lathlin: I want to advise the member that we recognize the problems that exist with respect to water licensing. However, we are setting in motion, as part of our water manage ment strategy, improvements to the system, including metering.

With respect to the water, my information and the advice that I am getting thus far from professional people is that there will be enough water. We do not feel that there will be a deficit. Mr. Gerrard: I note, on another subject in the Assiniboine River, that there is a recommen dation from the Clean Environment Commission that a notification system is needed to alert downstream water users of changes in water conditions along the Assiniboine River. Now, as the minister may well know, the road on the south side of the Assiniboine River just west of the Perimeter is called Lido Plage

2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 Road because it was a widely used swimming area, Lido Plage referring to the beach, and that the Assiniboine River was a favourite swimming spot for many Winnipeggers in the 1930s. I suspect the MLA for Lakeside would attest to this phenomenon. I believe that the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is also aware that there are good camping spots where Highway 1 crosses the Assiniboine River. Mr. Chair, this was a river which has been, in the past, widely used for recreation, including widely used for swimming.

I would bring to the minister's attention that the Rural Municipality of Cartier has recently put in a boat launch area for increased recre ational use along the Assiniboine River down stream from Portage Ia Prairie. In the current environment there is a great deal of uncertainty about the water quality and how safe or not it is to swim, concerns about not only E. coli levels, for example, but concerns about the chemicals which may be in the water as a result of the various inputs that come from a variety of sources along the length of the river.

I think that the minister might find that the response of the department, that notification of, you know, unusual water quantity conditions that is currently in place is a totally inadequate response given the increased recreational use of this river and the desire of individuals to know how safe it is for use for recreational purposes, including swimming. Right now there does not seem to be any information provided on a Web site, as it could be done conveniently, or another way from the minister's office to allow people to know what the current situation is. Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Chairperson, yes, there is a notification system that is in place for water treatment purposes on the Assiniboine River. We are looking at whether more can be done. Of course, like with everyone else, water quality is of great concern to everybody, including us. That is why we are undertaking a three-year study of the water quality in that river. I think the member should be aware that our water quality objectives for nutrients in the river are exceeded naturally at the Saskatchewan border. Mr.

Gerrard: My concern, for example, for recreational uses is probably less in terms of phosphorous and nitrogen in the immediate impact except to the extent that they cause alga blooms, but I think that the concerns in terms of monitoring of water quality for recreational uses, like swimming, is more in terms of levels of E. coli and other potential chemicals, which, you know, might be hazardous or toxic or not good for people to swim in for example.

I just wonder whether the minister will make a commitment while he is minister to provide regular reporting on these areas so that people who are interested in recreational use of the Assiniboine River will have a basis to make a decision in terms of whether they want to go swimming and so on in the river. Mr. Lathlin: I can advise the member that we do have surface water quality monitoring stations along the Assiniboine River, you know, which tests for various parameters, I am told, including E. coli, but maybe not as frequently as we should be doing.

So I want to assure the member that I think during the summer months we should be testing it more frequently. So I will make a commitment with respect to in the summer months to test more frequently. As far as the regular water quality moni toring that goes on, this is now reported on publicly. Also, when our ongoing studies are completed and reports are prepared, those will be made public and shared with the communities that are situated along the river. So I will make that commitment. * (11:40) Mr. Gerrard: I thank the minister.

Because the Internet is a widely available form of access, I just wonder if rather than just writing, as it were, to the different R.M.s, can there be a commit ment to make sure that information is available so that anyone in the public can see it. Mr. Lathlin: Yes, we will definitely look at that recommendation. Mr. Chairperson: 12.6. Clean Environment Commission (

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $262, 400.

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2009 Mr. Eons: Is the commission fully staffed currently? Mr. Lathlin: The answer is yes. Mr. Ch airperson: 6.(

a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $262,40Q-pass; (

b) Other Expenditures $274,90Q-pass. Resolution 12.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $537,300 for Conservation, Clean Environment Commission, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2003. Resolution agreed to. Mr. Chair person: Resolution 12.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,145,900 for Conservation, International Institute For Sus tainable Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2003. Shall the resolution pass? Mr.

Enos: At the time this institution was established it was, you know, at the height of the introduction of sustainable development to soci ety following . the Bruntland Commission, et cetera. It was believed to be, certainly my former premier, Premier Filmon, and the previous administration were pleased to be able to secure its headquartering here in Manitoba and in Winnipeg, inasmuch as certainly the Manitoba governments were among the leaders in em bracing sustainable development as a general policy throughout all government activity.

My simple question here is, as we are dedicating a million dollars, a million-plus to the continuance of operation of this institute, is the minister satisfied that it is still performing to its original mandate? Has it run out of steam? Was it a fad? I would appreciate a few comments from the minister as to what he feels are the benefits to the environment in Manitoba for this particular expenditure item in his Estimates. Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, the answer to the member's question is yes. When I first became minister, I looked at this, as a matter of fact, because I had the same questions.

It has been there for awhile so does it need revisiting to see whether it is still relevant. So I believe that the institute, its mandate and its role are still very much relevant, particularly now as we go into areas like climate change and so forth. The institute has a very substantial reputation around the world. It is housed [interjection] Mr. Chairperson, I am sorry, I had to make sure I had my numbers right. Around the world they have 10 to 12 what they call virtual offices. So they provide I think a very useful function and because of their existence here they have showcased Manitoba as its home base.

I visited the office once. It is located at the Canada Bank Building, and they employ ap proximately 40 people. So, in my opinion and based on the information and advice that I have been able to get when I had questions, I have decided to continue to support it. * (11 :50) Mr. Gerrard: I would like to sort of take the question of the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Eons) a step further in terms of the International Insti tute for Sustainable Development.

It seems to me that this could be a leading-edge effort which highlights and is integrated with a lot of other things that are happening in Manitoba to make sure we have a sustainable economy.

I think that it is quite important, for example, that reports which are released on a regular basis from the institute are addressed, recommendations are looked at with some care and that just like we have with the Clean Environment Commission the ability to look carefully at recommendations coming from the Clean Environment Commission, that the minister should be providing some feedback on what his actions are in terms of recommen dations which come from the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

So I think this institute has a larger role than perhaps the minister has suggested, and I would like him to comment a little bit further. Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, of course, I did not want to appear to convey the message that the institute does not play a very large and important role in the area of sustainable develop ment. We have limited time here, but I will tell the member that we distribute many of the

2010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 institute's reports that come to us to colleagues across the country. Several of the institute's initiatives are being used by us, as a matter of fact. One very good example is the sustainability indicators that we are now well into. Maybe I can also advise the member that the objectives of the institute, the vision is better living for all sustainably, and its mission reads: to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably.

It promotes the concept of environmentally sustainable economic develop ment and the integration of the principles and practices of sustainable development within and between the public, private and voluntary sectors here in Canada and abroad. Some of the activity that they are involved in is identifying, supporting, promoting and conducting research in Canada and inter nationally, as well, in the field of sustainable development. It initiates and supports education and information programs.

That will, of course, enable citizens to understand and increase their knowledge of the principles and benefits of sustainable development. So that is why I sup port the work that the institute is doing. The institute, for example, has participated in the work of the Manitoba Climate Change Task Force that was led by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy. Its president, David Runnalls, served on the task force, and the staff in Winnipeg played a very strong supporting role. The institute's appreciative inquiry project in the community of Skownan in Manitoba involved over 100 interviews and six community work shops.

In 2001-2002, five Manitobans participated in the Young Canadian Leaders for a Sustainable Future. The institute analysis on the North American Free Trade Agreement's

Chapter 11 on investor-state provisions was very well received and deemed to be an important piece of work. Lastly, I want to say that the institute con tinues to play a very important and strong role in the Arctic, focussing on how it can help strengthen the voice of the indigenous people of the North. Recently, I viewed a videotape that was co-sponsored by the institute, and it showed the effects of global warming in some Inuit hamlet up north. I forget the name of the hamlet now, but it was quite graphic, and I think whoever sees it will probably be affected by the images created in that video.

The meetings that I go to I always say that for those of us who sit in office towers in Calgary and Montreal and Toronto and Winni peg, well, I should not say Winnipeg because it is different, but those people, you know, they do not see the effects of global warming, so they go on planning for all kinds of things. I think in Manitoba it is a little different story. That is why we have been quite supportive of the federal government's work on the Kyoto Protocol, because in Manitoba here we are seeing the effects of global warming already. All we have to do is look at our winter roads.

We can barely get in there every winter to transport building materials and all kinds of necessary goods and services that northern isolated communities require. Of course, again in Churchill, we see the effects of global warming on polar bears. So there are all kinds of good work that the institute is doing, and that is why we are being supported. Mr. Gerrard: I would just like to follow up, perhaps in part because of the reference and the involvement of the International Institute for Sustainable Development personnel and the Global Climate Change Task Force.

I ask the minister when he will be providing a response to the recommendations of the task force in the public document. Mr. Lathlin: I can indicate to the member that we. are going to be releasing the provincial action plan very shortly. Mr. Gerrard: I thank the minister, and I look forward to receiving that, Mr. Chairperson, because I think that clearly there were a whole series of very worthwhile recommendations which need a response, and I look forward to seeing that. Mr.

Chairperson: Resolution 12.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,145, 900 for Conservation, International Institute for Sustain able Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2003.

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2011 Resolution agreed to. Mr. Chairperson: The time being 12 noon, I am interrupting proceedings. The Committee of Supply will resume sitting this afternoon following the conclusion of Routine Pro ceedings. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD * (10:20) Madam Chair person (Bonnie Korzeniowski): Good morning. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning, this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture and Food. We are currently considering the motion moved at our last sitting by the Member for Emerson. The floor is now open. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Chair person, in order to expedite the proceedings in committee, I listened to what many of the members said yesterday, and it is certainly not my will to impede on a very small procedural matter or delay the Estimates any longer.

Therefore, I would suggest that the committee dispense formally with the motion that is on the floor. Because I was the mover of the motion, I would withdraw the motion if that is the will of the committee. Madam Chairperson: Is there unanimous con sent for the member from Emerson to withdraw his motion? [Agreed} Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agri culture and Food): Madam Chair, I thank all members who put advice on that motion on the record yesterday, and I thank the member for withdrawing the motion. We had agreed that we would do Crop Insurance first of all, but our staff is not here.

If we could just take a few minutes and if I would have agreement with the member, we could start with Executive Support, and then, as we agreed, right after lunch the staff from Crop Insurance, who have to come in from Portage, will be here. Then we would be prepared to revert to Crop Insurance, as we had agreed. Madam Chairpers on: We will proceed to consider line 3.1. Administration and Finance (

b) Executive Support. The floor is open for questions. Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, the staff is just coming in from across the street on the Executive Support, if we could wait for five minutes for staff to be here. Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to wait or take a five-minute recess? Mr. Jack Penner: Madam Chair, I think it would be useful to have staff here, that staff knows what the discussions have been and the procedure has been. Therefore, I would suggest we wait long enough, adjourn long enough. Is adjourn the right word? {interjection} Recess long enough to let staff be here.

Madam Chairperson: Is it agreed that the committee will recess for five minutes? {Agreed} The committee recessed at 10:25 a.m. The committee resumed at 10:33 a.m. Madam Chairperson: Will the committee come back to order, please. The floor is open for questions. Mr. Jack Penner: I would like to, first of all, say to the minister that the debate around the table yesterday clearly demonstrated, I think, the desire for the minister and her colleagues to curtail the Estimates process in committee. Many of the comments that were made will be duly noted and will be responded to in some form or another.

They will not, however, be dealt with within this committee. They will not be addressed by me to this committee, because I think they were irrelevant to the operations of the Department of Agriculture. I think that the Department of Agriculture has a tremendously arduous task ahead of it, especially this year. It is not all in light of the U.S. farm bill. Some of it is of the minister's own making. The difficulties that we face in

2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 agriculture today is the difficulty of making the decision as to how far we want to diversify this economy in this province, and how fast we want to allow the diversification diversification of the agricultura l community in this province. The farm community is prepared to make the transitional changes that are going to be required to be made. They, however, do want some assurances that they will be allowed the flexibility and the freedom to make the decisions based on good, sound financial analysis.

Many of our farmers today have a far greater expertise within their own operations than what has ever happened before in agriculture. There are many farms today who hire agronomists to give them advice. They hire environmental people to give them sound plan ning advice. They hire experts of all different mann ers, especially when they are planning multimilli on-dollar investments such as live stock operations and other operations.

I know on our farm specifically, and I am not going to talk much about my farm operation, but on our farm specifically when we made the switch from sugar beets to beans, it caused a huge investment decision to have to be made. It was a multi million-dollar decision that we made and it was not made easily. We had many market analysts who gave us advice and many, many people who supplied the products that we needed to make the transition, such as chemical companies, what kind of pest management processes we would use, what kind of fungicide management process we would need.

We consulted with people in Ontario and people in the United States, farmers, industry people, marketing people, and then we drew up a plan. Once the plan was drawn, it included virtually everything. It included how we would impact the environment, how we would finan cially manage the resources that would be required to keep the operation viable and how we would function in the marketplace. As a matter of fact, it was some I 0 years ago that I approached a local seed plant operator, and I suggested to him that he might want to look at changing his operation to a pulse operation.

For him, as well, that was a major change m his operation. I suggested to him that we had done the numbers on it and we had done all the background work, that if he was not going to move into bean processing, we would. We would have made the investment; however he phoned me six to eight months later, and he said they had had significant discussions with a supplier out of Ontario and a processor and that they were looking at forming a partnership in developing this new industry. So many of the changes that we see are not changes that happen overnight or by accident. They are caused.

What I saw in that business, the huge investments he had to make-we talk about multimillion-dollar investments on our farm, but this individual who caused his total processing industry to change made even a much greater investment in the business, in the transitional business. Not only were we contemplating spending large amounts of money, we were also looking at losing large amounts of money. By one decision in Ottawa, our industry was closed in this prov ince of Manitoba, the sugar processing industry.

That refinery would still be operating today if Ottawa would have made one slight adjustment in their policy, and I will never, ever forgive the administration in Ottawa. I do not care whether they were governed by the Conservatives or the Liberals. It was the administration that advised the politicians. That is why I raise this when we are dealing with the executive management team here, for a very specific reason, because the politicians took the advice of the bureaucrats to not allow the processing of sugar industry to continue in west em Canada.

They did that in order to protect the interest of the eastern refineries. I will never forgive the bureaucrats in Ottawa nor the politi cians in Ottawa for what they did. * (1 0:40) We had a tremendous opportunity to expand that industry if we would have only adopted the same principles of protectionism operated under in every sugar-producing nation in the world. They all abide by the same principles. Canada chose to walk outside of that line. Canada chose

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2013 to decide outside of it for one simple reason. It was to allow the eastern processors, and even the western processor, the one that is still there in British Columbia, to be able to buy offshore sugar at dumped prices. Some of that sugar came into this country at less than 2 cents a pound. The justification made in Ottawa was simply: We are protecting the jobs in Montreal and in New Brunswick and Atlantic Sugar, Redpath Sugar, St. Lawrence Sugar. We are protecting the jobs in those industries.

Ottawa never gave any consideration at all to the huge number of jobs that would be affected and farmers that would be affected in Manitoba. I raise this because of the dramatic changes that caused on our farm. Was it detrimental in the end? As it turned out, it was probably a benefit to our own operations because sugar beets had returned us a slight profit but not one that would be sustainable over the long term unless those policy changes would have been made.

The Americans were getting a protection of 1 7 cents a pound on raw sugar coming into the United States, and the American refiners were given the option of then refining that sugar, in other words, just spinning the molasses out of that sugar and then exporting that sugar as white refined sugar. They then were able to draw back. It was called the tariff drawdown program. They were able to draw back and apply for a refund on those tariffs. In other words, if they exported the sugar, they received that 17 cents a pound paid on top of what they were exporting the sugar for as a refund.

We as farmers simply could not compete, nor could Manitoba Sugar compete in that sort of environment. There were all kinds of things said about the allotments under the trade agreement. I believe it was 100 000 tonnes originally. It was drawn down to 10 000 tonnes of exportable sugar that we could have supplied the U.S. even under those agreements. It, in the final analysis, killed us. I want to say to the minister, where we are dealing today with again a huge transitional environment in this province, it is not so much the specialty crops that we are dealing with today. That was a decade ago when we did that.

We are dealing with a livestock transitional program. We all knew that when the Crow benefit would disappear, when Ottawa would finally get rid of the Crow, there would be vast changes. I am on record as supporting that change. As a matter of fact, in a speech I did a number of years ago, I applauded the Govern ment for even looking at making the change because I believe that the competitive factors should be allowed to rule whether an industry is justified or not justified.

I truly am what you would call a free trader because I believe it is only in the long term that competitive forces can decide whether an industry or a business should survive. If they are good at what they do they will find ways to do that. However, we have now seen in the past 10 years an indication by Europe that they are not going to move away from agriculture as a livelihood. They are going to ensure that they maintain a large number of people in their rural areas to maintain their rural communities.

When I was in Germany we were told point-blank that it had nothing to do with agriculture production or maintaining an agriculture food supply. It had everything to do with maintaining a social atmosphere on a much broader basis than having them confined in the large urban areas. They thought it was cheaper over the long term to utilize these kinds of programs than to build the infrastructure that would be required to bring nine million or ten million people into centres such as Berlin and others. I concur with that. I applaud them for doing that.

However, it does cause us a significant amount of problems when an administration such as the U.S. decides that they are going to get into matching them dollar for dollar. What is the cost to the American people of maintaining a rural infrastructure and a rural community base? I do not think that cost can ever be calculated. I think there is a social aspect to this that you can never evaluate in dollars and cents. I think there is a human benefit that is derived from ensuring that local, rural, smaller communities are maintained.

I believe that we as a society need to reflect sometimes on a much, much broader basis when we make decisions and how we affect everybody else down the line with those decisions.

20 14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 I see in the Estimates book here a line that deals with the mission statement. It says: "The department's mission and role statements support the provincial government's commitment to improve the quality of life for all Manitobans." I say that I believe the U.S. and the Europeans have done that and have made major, major policy decisions to improve the life of rural people in those countries. So they are going to inject and keep on injecting significant amounts of money.

What would it cost our federal government and our provincial governments if we made a decision like that? How would it change western Canada? Well, let me say this. I believe that western Canada would dramatically change if Ottawa would only allow the true competitive factor to be instilled in western Canada and allow western Canada to operate as many of the eastern provinces are allowed to operate. Whose fault is it that we do not? I think it is our fault in western Canada.

We can seldom ever agree on the same process even in the Department of Agriculture, least of all in many of the other departments, in a process that we should adopt and establish. If we would allow ourselves the ability to think beyond .where we currently are today and leave our political wrangling or our political views, put them aside and do what would be best for society, then I think you could accomplish the improvement of life in Manitoba to a much broader mandate than what we currently envision. What would the cost be to the federal treasury? In the long term I suspect it would profit the federal treasury.

It would mean a short-term, fairly significant investment, because I believe the next round of the WTO and other trade discussions will lead towards a much greater reflection of equality in all the nations, because food will be the essence of the debate and food could very well be the next war. I think we are into it now, the food war. I think if countries want to make allotments for those countries that can be the suppliers to meet the needs of the more needy countries, I think that is another whole social debate that needs to be struck.

I also believe that Ottawa has neglected to recognize the importance of developing a rural infrastructure that will lead towards the expan sion of the agriculture to capacity, that this country has. I believe that we have just even started to touch on our potential. If Ottawa would use some visionary measures, they would have already said to Canadians that we will do exactly as the Americans have done, until we come to our senses and until we come to agreements and arrangements that will put our producers and our people in this country on an equal level playing field.

What is needed to get Ottawa to recognize that? We need some very strong provincial representation to Ottawa. We have not got that. We have not got the will, the desire and, I believe, quite frankly, the expertise to develop a unified front to put to Ottawa.

I believe that there is not enough will and that Ottawa will do everything in its power to keep the divisions that we currently encounter at almost every avenue in negotiations and debate in Ottawa. * (10:50) We need to bring in to this department and in all levels of government the expertise that is needed to do the debate, do the negotiations agreements that will get us down the road. Quite frankly, it does not matter which political party is in power, but the political party that is in power needs to start furnishing itself with the data and the human resources to get the deal done.

I think, if there was a political will across this nation by the provinces, to join forces and join in the effort, we could very quickly con vince Ottawa to move much differently than we have. So far, there has not been a unified ap proach to this.

Having said that, Madam Chairperson, when we look at the Executive branch of this depart ment, I think we have some wonderful staff in this department that have served the agricultural community in a narrowly focussed sense, and that is to help them operate, to help them gain the expertise that they need and to give them the advice that is sometimes asked for and desired by the farm community. I think we have some very high-level people in that regard. I would suspect that we should be very careful that we do not allow the very narrowly

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2015 minded and very narrow-minded views to be front and centre in decision making that we see today. We have organizations that have an agenda, that is very narrowly based, and I suspect that they have some political ties in this province that they use. I would also suspect that they will keep on driving their agenda, such as PET A, such as Hogwatch. Many of the environ mental groups have very narrowly based policy proposals, and we need to be, as a Government, very careful that we do not allow those people to set the agenda for this province.

The environment is something that every farmer deals with every day. His or her capacity to stay in business in large part on how they deal with the environment, because if they destroy the water base or the land base that they utilize to make a living, they are gone. Every farmer knows that. Every farmer is far more aware of that than anybody else is in this province, that you need a good, sound, healthy soil base and a good, sound, healthy water supply. Those are the main ingredients of maintaining a livestock operation, of maintaining a farm operation.

I am really shocked when I see a Minister of Agriculture bring forward a bill such as Bill 23. Really, when I first saw it, I almost chuckled, but then I took a serious read of this bill, and I said what are we really saying with this bill as a government? What are we really saying to farmers with this bill? We are saying to farmers we do not trust you to make the decisions that you have made all your lives. We do not trust you to be able to handle products that you have handled all your lives. We do not trust you to build equipment that can deal with these matters.

Two years ago, we were asked by our neighbour whether he could use a quarter

section of land to apply fertilizer on, natural fertilizer, hog manure. We said, yes, you can. Here is how much nutrients we want. We want 70 pounds an acre N, and we need 40 pounds an acre of phosphate. We are going to apply some of the minor nutrients later on such as copper and zinc and all those kinds of things, but we can do that when we apply the seed. So this guy did the tests on the material that he was going to put into the ground and gave us exactly what we wanted.

We had to add 20 pounds of phosphate later on because there was not enough phosphate in the material that he was supplying to supplement the nitrates in the material he was supplying. How did we do that? There was an appli cator hired which cost us $10 an acre. This guy had built his applicator himself, attached a four and a half inch hose to this applicator. It was two and a half miles long.

He set up a big pump at the reservoir, and this machine dragged this hose back and forth along the field while he was applying it, and it was injecting the liquid right into the soil and you could not even smell when you drove into the field with a car. Now, who built this? Who designed it? It was a farmer, because they wanted to make sure that the nutrients that they applied-and we wanted to make sure-were going to be able to be applied at the rate that we needed to produce the crop. Many people do not recognize that you can kill a crop if you over-fertilize.

If we put twice the amount of nitrogen onto a crop than you actually need to raise a crop, you will kill it. What farmer would be silly enough or economically irresponsible enough to mis manage that? I mean, nobody in their right mind would pay $1,000 an acre to apply $20 an acre worth of material to kill his crop. I mean, that is silly.

When I saw Bill 23 as a proposition before the House saying that the farmers are now going to have to be trained to apply their own manure to their own farms and/or if their neighbour wants some manure applied with the applicator that this farmer owns, he is going to have to have a licence and he is going to have to be trained for nutrient management and all that, who do you think would train them? Have we got people in the Department of Agriculture who have more expertise than the people who have developed the system?

I find this astounding, absolutely astounding that the minister would be naive enough-and she is a farmer or she puts herself off to be a farmer to think that these farmers will destroy the very environment that they live and work in. All I am saying is, the executive branch of this depart ment has a responsibility to ensure that the minister is advised of what is already going on out there.

20 16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 * (1 1:00) I say this in all reality. I have been the Minister of Natural Resources. When I walked into the Department of Natural Resources I was as green as grass green could be, and I depended entirely on the good advice I got from my executive branch. They were great at this, but you always had to be careful that you did not set aside good advice and follow your own little agenda which could be driven by the environ mentalists, could be driven by Hogwatch, could be driven by any plethora of groups that we have in this province.

I suspect that is where the mtmster is. I suspect the advice that she got from the execu tive branch is adverse to what she actually put forward in legislation. I suspect that, but we will get into that once we get into the Estimates of the department. I want to ask the minister today whether she is agreed with her mission statement and whether she has read her mission statement in her department. Madam Chair; does she agree with that mission statement? Ms.

Wowchuk: You know, Madam Chair person, the member put a lot of inform11tion on the record, and whether it is accurate or not, that is something that the people who read the information can read, but I would have to say that much of what he has said is quite, quite inaccurate. You know, the member talked about the subsidies, the whole issue of the U.S. farm bill, and where Europe is going. There is a negative impact on our producers because other countries are not living up to their commitment to the WTO.

I think the move by the U.S. government in the last couple of weeks is going to have a detrimental effect on agriculture in Canada, and particularly on the prairies, because it is on the prairies that grains and oil seeds are important commodities and pulses are important com modities. It is on the prairies that we have a lot of movement of livestock both ways across the border and the country of origin labelling that is in the U.S. farm bill. It could have some serious consequences for our producers. Those are all very important issues.

The member talked about the sugar beet industry, and I know he was very active when the sugar beet industry was shutting down, as was our caucus. The present Premier (Mr. Doer), then in Opposition, worked very hard with the sugar beet facility and with the workers at that facility trying to get something set up and lead the discussions to try to maintain the plant here in this province. So everyone recognized the importance of that industry to Manitoba, important for the farmers, important for the workers in Winnipeg, because there was certainly an opportunity to value-add to that industry.

We were all very concerned about it and still are concerned with the fact that because of decisions made by Ottawa, we lost a very important industry, but our farmers are, I think, some of the best in the world, the farmers here in Manitoba. They took a tragedy, a loss, and turned it to an advantage, and have diversified into other crops that are now very valuable crops for producers. The major crop that they have diversified into is beans.

Our producers are quite fortunate that beans are not covered off by the U.S. farm bill, but the pulse crops are, and that will mean there is going to be pressure on those people. The member talked about the depth and the quality of staff in executive support that we have in this department, and I want to tell the member that I have all the confidence in this staff that a minister could have. I get very good advice.

There is a tremendous amount of depth and information and visionary thinking within the staff as to what is happening, what the impacts ofthe federal government's decisions are, as well as where we see agriculture going. Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff, Ac ting Chairperson, in the Chair The member asked about the vision state ment and whether I support the vision statement. Well, I can tell the member that if I did not support the vision statement, then I do not think it would be in the Estimates book. I believe that what we have here is a very good statement. It sets out where we see the industry going.

There is a tremendous change in agriculture in this province. We see land coming out of cereal grains and going into a variety of different

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2017 crops. We see more value added. Look at the agriculture stats that just came out, you see an increase in the amount of processed and semi processed products that are going out of this province. So I am very pleased with the work our producers are doing and the work that our Government is doing with the producers. We talk about diversification. We know we have a growing livestock industry, but we do not want all of that growth to be in the hog section. We want growth in the livestock section, in the cattle industry, in the feedlot industry.

Certainly there has been a substantial growth in the smaller species of animals as well. Sheep and goat have increased. In recognition of these we have hired a sheep and goat specialist to work in this prov ince. The people in that sector are very appreciative of it. We have hired an organic specialist that we have not had in this province. Producers see this as another opportunity. I think there is a wide range of opportunities. There are opportunities for large farms, for medium farms, for organic production. We have a large land base. We have a lot of expertise within the farm ing community.

As a department, we work with them in every aspect that we can to meet the challenges and opportunities that are ahead of us in this province. Mr.

Jack Penner: The mission statement says: "We are dedicated to creating a supportive environment that advances the greater prosperity and stability of our farm families." Yet, when I look at the two pieces of legislation that have just recently been introduced into this Legis lature, I wonder about the minister's trust in the very farm families that she is being the proponent of in this mission statement and whether she is really seriously advancing the thought of a greater prosperity and stability, because it would lead me to believe this can in fact cause doubt in the minds of the very people that make the investments, whether it is in the cattle industry, whether it is in the sheep indus try, or whether it is indeed the supply-managed industry.

Our supply-managed industry is also chang ing as we speak, whether she is extending the confidence or applying a confidence kind of an atmosphere, providing a confidence building atmosphere to rural families. So far the direction that I have seen this minister head in would lead me to believe that she is either unconsciously doing what she is doing or she is blatantly ignoring the needs of those farmers.

So I ask the minister if she seriously supports her own mission statement-and it is not a vision statement, it is a mission statement-of greater prosperity and stability, what other legis lation is she bringing forward that would cause the comfort in the agricultural community, in all sectors of the agricultural community, the com fort that investments they make and new directions they take will, in fact, find a welcome environment in this Government with them? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, if you look at the vision statement and if you look at the mis sion statement, we say: "We are dedicated to creating a supportive environment that advances the greater prosperity and stability of our farm families," through Agriculture and Food partners and rural communities. Agriculture is very im portant to the rural communities and the rural communities are very important to be there to provide service for the farming community, as well.

I think that the steps that we have taken and the legislation that we have introduced fits in very well with that statement and is in the best interest of all people who are living in rural communities. I can tell the member that there has been discussion with farm groups and all farmers want to ensure that as they do their farming that they do it in a way that it is there for the long term, that we are taking practices.

I believe most farmers do follow practices that will ensure the long-term stability of the soil, the land and the water that they are provided with to use, and the legislation that we are bringing forward will enhance that ability of farmers. * (11:1 0) I do not see, and I do not believe with the discussions that I have had with farming com munities, that they see this legislation in such a negative light as the member does. Producers that I have talked to see this as fitting in with their farm plans, fitting in with their manage ment plans, just as they have worked with other

2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 pieces of legislation that have been brought forward. The member is referring to the pesti cide and fertilizer application act. When you look at that piece of legislation, there is a com ponent of the legislation where there are courses that are offered to people who apply pesticides and there is licensing for that. This fits right in with that.

It has been discussed with the farm com munity, and I think that it fits well with the mission statement and with the vision that we have for a healthy rural community and the ability for the agrifood sector to be more profi table and competitive through expanded diversi fication and value-added and fits in with the plan for a growing livestock sector all within a sus tainable agriculture framework. Mr.

Jack Penner: The interesting thing about this legislation is it forces an operator, it forces a farmer who has developed a manure applicator operation who custom-applies for his neighbours as a sideline business. The minister's statement, originally when she was elected, she said my view of agriculture is that we will create an atmosphere whereby farmers wiii be able to allow to gain access to off-farm jobs that wiii help them maintain their farm operations. That was her vision of rural family life. In large part, that is true. That is happening today.

Many farm partners work off the farm to gain a second job, but many of the farmers are now joining forces, and they are incorporating. We call these the megafarms, the megacorporations now, the fac tory farms . Well, they are joining forces because they cannot afford to do it by themselves. You know, we had a tractor. The John Deere dealer brought a tractor down last week, Thurs day, to our farm. When I came home, it was sitting there, huge tracks on it, far larger than any municipal construction equipment that I had ever seen used to build roads or whatever. It was a 450-horsepower tractor.

It had a little satellite box on the top of the cab, a little round yellow bulb at the top of the cab. These guys punched a few buttons and aimed it at 70 degrees, set it at 70 degrees, and that tractor travelled in a 70- degree angle as straight as an arrow, nobody at the steering wheel, not an operator. The cost of this machine was just under $400,000, one could say just under half a million dollars, just a tractor. Can one farmer operating a 2000-acre farm afford this kind of advancement in technology and in the application of his farm? No, they cannot.

So what they do is they join forces, very often incorporating, very often forming partner ships, but more often than not now, farming incorporations, brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers incorporating their operation for two reasons, to be able to work together, utilize the equipment together, even though they oper ate and own separately, but they utilize the equipment together, and then make investments, very often jointly, in livestock operation, feedlot operation, cattle feedlot. I have seen elk opera tions, bison operations, all in this kind of a format. That is how agriculture is changing.

It is no longer the little single-family farm that generates most of the activity. It is, in large part, even those little family farms buy equipment together and use the application equipment together. Now we are forcing, under a new piece of legislation, we are going to force the person that owns that equipment, when he wants to apply for his neighbour, his manure coming out of a little hog bam or a big hog barn, it does not matter, we are going to force him to license that thing.

We are going to force him to go to school to learn, relearn from the guy that invented it, and he might, this person, or she might have been the person that invented it, now going to have to go to school to get a licence. I mean, how silly can we get in legislation? How absolutely intrusive do we want to become in application? I look under farm bill, under Bill 2, The Securities Act, where an inventory record wiii now have to be kept, which farmers do anyway. I mean, it does not matter, but the inventory will have to now be reported.

If there is a slight loss of inventory, who does the minister want that reported to? To the minister. How silly can that be? I mean, why would the minister want to know what loss of inventory is? Would she not want to say report it to the authorities? If it is under The Securities Act, should it not be reported first to the authorities, then if the authorities think it is important enough, bring it to the minister's attention? But she wants to

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2019 micromanage the farms of this province. Let me say to you that is one of the worse socialist approaches that I have seen yet and more intru sive into agriculture production than I have ever seen in this province before. It reminds me of a trip we made to Ukraine. We visited farms, and they showed us how huge farms operate, 65 000 hectares this one farm, all operating under one. Well, this minister wants to move the whole operation. Over there, it was not the manager of the farm that made the decision; the minister made the decision.

The minister decided this year we are going to apply fertilizer, and then fertilizer is applied. Mr. Chairperson, if the minister decided, no, we are not going to apply fertilizer, we are not going to apply ferti lizer. If the minister decides we are going to plow, then we are going to plow. If the minister decides we are going to apply manure, then we apply manure. If not, then the manure stays where it is.

That is what the manager of the farm told us when we were in Ukraine. * (1 1 :20) This legislation reminds me of exactly that kind of an approach, the centralist, ministerial, top-down authoritative approach that this Gov ernment is taking, and it is approaching the same visionary measures that were applied under the Communist rule of the U. S.S. R.

I would suspect that this minister really is headed in a very wrong direction, and I think the farmers of this province are becoming very, very skeptical when they hear that kind of legislation being proposed, not in consultation with them but imposed uni laterally without consultation with them, because I have yet to hear one farm leader say to me: We proposed this kind of legislation to the minister. It has not happened, my dear friends around this table.

So all I am saying to the mmtster is: Be careful how intrusive you become in the direct lives and livelihood and the ability to manage their own operations, because the co-operative spirit in our rural communities has not yet died, but if you impose these kinds of measures that you are proposing on much of our farm com munities today, and you do it under the auspices of the livestock review process that was done by Mr. Tyrchniewicz and his committee, I have not seen one recommendation that is applied to this Bill 23 in his entire report. I want to see the minister table at this committee the

section of that review of that report that applies to the licensing of manure application equipment. I want to see that because I have yet to read that in Mr. Tyrchniewicz's report. I say to the minister be careful of how intru sive you become in the lives of rural Manitobans because rural Manitobans do not have to stay in Manitoba. They have demonstrated that this past year in how many of the young people have left the farms and have moved out of the province. Many of them have and many more will if she is not careful.

Madam Chairperson in the Chair My next question to the minister is: What sort of an approach are you going to take or is this Government going to take in the war that is going on in some of our municipalities in deal ing with livestock issues and in either building, expanding or even maintaining what is currently involved in some of these municipalities? I ref er to a letter that I received from the R.M. of Piney and some of the changes that the R.M. of Piney is making to its livestock by-laws.

Can the minister indicate whether she has any concerns about the major restrictive application of municipal law that is being applied in the R.M. of Piney and how that impedes the ability for farmers to farm on their land and products that they can produce in Manitoba. Can the minister give us a bit of an overview as to what her direction will be and what her advice to her Government is going to be on how to manage these matters effectively to ensure that the expansion of our livestock industry can, in fact, occur in an orderly manner? Ms.

Wowchuk: There are several issues that I would like to address that the member put on the record. The member talked about the securities bill, and I am quite surprised that he is raising that bill because I thought that we had an agree ment that we would work those issues out. We had a meeting yesterday to talk about this. But he talks about the minister's authority under this act, and the member says he has been

2020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 around a long time, so he knows that in many pieces of legislation, a minister is outlined as the person who has the responsibility, but he also knows that under regulation there is delegated authority. That happens under many pieces of legislation in agriculture and in other areas. So this is not an intrusive step.

It applies to com mercial applicators, and, in fact, commercial applicators now, when they have loss of any inventory, there are a couple of commodities that are of concern, that they could be used in a negative way for explosives and such that there is a concern about. The security legislation is looking at how we can ensure the safety of people in this province, and it is recognized that there are a couple of agriculture commodities that could be used in a negative way.

We hope that it will never happen, but there has been an all-party committee that has been working on security legislation because since September 11, it was recognized that there could be some risks and some pieces of legis lation that had to be addressed provincially. All parties have been working on that, and we had a meeting yesterday, and we will continue to work on that piece of security legislation in the best interest of Manitobans. There is no interest for this Government in getting additional powers for ministers, as the member is implying.

He is fully aware that under pieces of legislation where it may be spelled out as reporting to the minister, that is then dele gated through regulation. But, ultimately, as the minister of this department, I am responsible. That is what the legislation says. For the member to imply that this is something that is happening to take control is just a bit farfetched. He knows that those discus sions have taken place amongst all parties, and we are trying to move this legislation forward in a co-operative way. I hope that the member will continue to be co-operative.

But we have seen, as the Member for Dauphin outlined the other day when we had an all-party committee dealing with the agriculture industry, it was the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) who then at the end of the process sort of got off track and did not support the farming community as they had expected all of us would. With respect to the pesticide and fertilizer application legislation that I have introduced into the House, this is not legislation about licensing equipment.

This is where we want people who are applying this manure as a fertilizer to have the comfort and security that they are doing things right. That is why there are courses that are going to be offered. Madam Chair, when they take the courses, these courses will make the participants aware of all the legislation, whether it be environmental legislation or legis lation in agriculture that people may not be aware of. So it is a way to provide more information. There are courses for pesticide applicators.

You know, Madam Chairperson, under the pesti cide applicators course, any farmer can come in and take that course. It does not mean that they will be a pesticide applicator. You can take the course to learn information. In fact, quite a few years ago I took the pesticide applicators course in Dauphin, Manitoba. My husband and I both took the course to learn a little bit more about the products and about legislation and the system and how it works and to learn about legislation. This course that will be developed will be available to all farmers.

I believe that many farmers, whether they are applicators or not, will take the course just to familiarize themselves with legislation and learn more about the application. Certainly there might be some of those farmers who can offer advice to other farmers. They might even learn about some equipment that one farmer has developed and they might be able to then adapt it to their equipment. I do not know why the mem ber sees this as such a negative.

Anywhere you go in life, if you can learn more and get an opportunity to meet with other people, learn about how their operations work, then I see that as a positive. * (11 :30) Now, the member says he has not heard about this anywhere. I would encourage him to read the Tyrchniewicz report. That report recom mends courses, it recommends certification of applicators. So again the member is wrong. He says it is not in the report. Well, it is in the report. He should read it. We put that committee

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 202 1 in place to give the public the opportunity to have a discussion, to give producers the oppor tunity to have a discussion about the livestock industry, because we know the livestock industry has grown in this province, is growing and will continue to grow. Mr. Jack Penner: I want to know where it says that we should license manure spreaders. Ms. Wowchuk: The member asks where it says it should license manure spreaders. Well, I can tell the member the legislation does not say we are going to license manure spreaders. Again, he is not reading the legislation.

So the member is wrong again. I am really worried about this member, because I do not know where his research staff is. Madam Chairperson, he is not reading the legislation right, because that is not what it says. He has got his own mind made up about what this is going to mean. He has done this a few times now. He went way off the deep end when we brought in our Budget and said we were moving the Food Development Centre from Portage Ia Prairie to Winnipeg. He said that on the radio. He created a big panic in Portage la Prairie, saying we were closing the Food Development Centre.

Well, lo and behold, if he would have just held his breath and not got hysterical for a little while, then he would have seen that in fact our Government was making a huge commitment to Portage la Prairie, far greater to food development than his govern ment ever made. So, you see, the member some times gets on a tangent. Now he is talking about licensing equipment. It is not in the legislation, and it is not licensing equipment. It is giving people some more information, making them aware of legislation. I believe it will help people with their applications.

Of course, what we want people to do, we do not want people wasting valuable fertilizer. We want to ensure that they are applying it properly. We want to ensure that there are not risks, because certainly there has been a lot of discussion. It is a whole educational process, so I hope that the member will recognize the value in education and training and in people getting together and sharing thoughts and ideas and gaining information.

In fact, for some of these farmers who have developed equipment, it might mean another business for them, because some one may like what they do and maybe they can sell their technology to another farmer. I see the opportunities there for producers, but, ulti mately, it is about providing information and ensuring long-term sustainability. I can tell the member, he may see this in a negative light. That is not what we have seen. With respect to the R.M. of Piney, that is an area that there has been a lot of debate about the livestock industry. I believe it is in the member's constituency.

So he is well aware of the issue, as are many of us in Government. What the mem ber knows is we have guidelines that are in place, and those guidelines determine setback and all of the other issues related to the industry. Madam Chairperson, we also have elected of ficials in this municipality, and those elected officials have responsibilities to make decisions in their municipalities. Right now, we are following this · very closely. They have responsibilities, but there are also guidelines in place as to how the livestock industry can expand.

I hope that, over the riext short while, this will work it out, but certainly there are recommendations in the Livestock Stewardship Initiative that have been made that we are working on to find a way where we can give the municipalities and the livestock industry the supports that they need to ensure that they can expand in a sustainable way. Mr. Jack Penner: I have a news

article which I believe came out of CBC this morning, which says the debate over livestock operations, parti cularly the hog farm, has been raging in this area for years. Then it says dozens of people cram med council chambers in Vasser Tuesday even ing. Many protest against the third and final reading of the by-law. At one point, RCMP were called in to quell the dispute. I raise this only because I believe that it is this minister's inaction that is causing the disputes to happ en.

People and municipalities simply have not got clear guidelines or clear direction from this Province as to what can or should be applied in search for an answer to the expansion of the livestock industry. This Gov ernment has made all kinds of noises but have

2022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 come with very few real applicable rules, regu lations or legislation that would pertain to a co ordinated, real effort to bring a much more civil kind of an approach to decision making in the municipalities. Any legislation that I have seen so far that has been brought forward by the minister only encourages further disagreements in that whole area. That is a problem. Her Governm ent should deal with this realistically.

I think they should search out and find ways to bring forward legislation and regu lations that would apply equally to all people and all producers in the province of Manitoba and all municipalities. How she does that is, of course, her prerogative. I mean, she is the one that will finally have to decide how they as a government want to deal with these matters, because I suspect that the civil disobedience that we have seen, or civil actions that we have seen in many of the municipalities and in large

part in my constituency, in the R.M. of Piney, will be reflected over and over again in this province until this minister and this Government realize that they are going to have to make some legislative decisions and changes in regulation that will give comfort to the municipalities and indeed the proponents livestock operations in this province. I ask the minister: Are they considering bringing any further legislation to bear that will deal with these matters in the near future, or are they just going to bring the manure spreader licensing bill forward?

Some have actually said we should call it the excrement bill, or there is even a different word for it that we could call it, but this is the only real legislation we have seen. Then, as I said, in Bill 2 it almost looks like the minister is trying to take total control of some of the measures, giving directions to farmers directly out of her office and getting farmers to report directly to her in her office. I find this absolutely unthinkable that any minister would have the audacity to try and force farmers to report directly to her.

As I said before, when I visited Ukraine they were trying to get out of that system very quickly, and this minister is legislating us back into that era 70 years ago. Can the minister give us some comf ort that she is, in fact, or her Government is going to come with some method of allowing the muni cipalities to deal equitably with this livestock development initiative? * (1 1 :40) Ms. Wowchuk: I think we have to reflect on the first few words this member said in his state ment. This member said: This debate about live stock has been going on for years. What is this minister going to do?

Well, the member has to remember that they were in government for 11 years and did sweet tweet on this. They did not do very much on this. Now all of a sudden in two and a half years we are supposed to solve all the problems. Well, I can tell this member we did a heck of a lot more than his government ever did. When you look at the work we have done with regard to planning districts, the investment we made in planning districts.

Since we have taken office and put those resources in, the majority of the municipalities in this province are now doing planning, which they were not doing under the previous administration. We have put more staff into the technical review process to speed up that process. We have put more staff into conservation. People are working with the livestock industry to ensure that it can expand sustainably. The member talks about legislation and regulations and what is going to happen there. Are we going to do anything? Are we bringing in any legislation?

Well, the member knows that we put forward the Livestock Stewardship Initi ative. We did consultation, and there were many, some 40 recommendations that were made. We have worked through many of those recommen dations. Many of the things that were recom mended by that committee we were already doing before the report came out. Others we are moving on. This is an area that involves three departments and a very important industry. We will be, in the near future, making a decision on the balance of the recommendations out of the report.

I would encourage the member to look back at his record in government, when he was a member on the government side and this issue

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2023 was developing right in his constituency, and he did nothing. He did nothing to address it. Our Government has taken many steps to ensure the industry develops in a sustainable way and with in a sustainable agriculture framework that we are providing leadership on.

I would ask the member to look at some of the brochures that have been put out, Living with Livestock, information that is put out for people within the industry, people who are not in the industry, where we provide them with infor mation to better understand agriculture, better understand the value of the industry and that rural people and agriculture and the hog industry can live together in harmony.

I would ask the member to look at his record on what they have done and what we have moved forward with to ensure the sustainable growth; but, ultimately, we know that munici palities have responsibilities and that there are guidelines that the Government puts forward and the industry has to expand with this. I am really troubled that the member would once again bring up Bill 2, the security bill. We have had the discussion on it. We know that this is an all-party bill. There has been a lot of dis cussion between all parties.

I believe his leader is on the committee, but maybe he does not talk to his leader about what is happening on this bill. We had the discussion yesterday where he raised a few concerns and we said we will be meeting again. He raised some legitimate concerns. But to imply that this is taking some unprecedented power into the minister's office is just a foolish statement by the member. He knows that, as in other pieces of legislation, the minister is put into the bill because the minister has the ultimate responsibility, but it is a delegated authority under legislation.

That was spelled out to him yesterday at a security committee meeting. We said we will meet again to discuss this. If the member wants to put it on the record, I will have to tell him again, he is wrong. This is not added power for the minister. It is a delegated authority that will then go to other people. Mr. Jack Penner: It really never ceases to amaze me that the minister will be surprised that I will raise a part or a portion of a bill that has been before the legislature now for at least a couple of weeks and that all the public has had access to and to make comment on.

That she would be surprised that the critic for her depart ment would even dare mention this in committee certainly surprises me, almost to the point of being a bit funny. She also talks about the Livestock Steward ship program. There is one thing that I compli mented her for and her department for, for initi ating the livestock stewardship process. It should be done. I thought Mr. Tyrchniewicz and his committee did an excellent job of portraying what they had heard. The 43-some-odd recom mendations that are contained in that bill in large part were good recommendations.

Yet the minister has sat for almost two years on those recommendations and not acted upon them. She tinkered with one very small

section of the recommendations. Otherwise the industry has been left out in the cold dealing with the environmental lobbying that goes on in this province, dealing with such organizations as Hog Watch, dealing with the PET A organization and other organizations that are only there for one thing. That is to destroy our livestock sector and our herds. This minister, if she would have proceeded to act upon the recommendations that Mr. Tyrchniewicz made, all this uncertainty would have gone away and the farmers would have been given a clear direction as to what needed to happen.

The municip alities would have had clear direction on how to deal with matters. Yet, today, they just do not know. Today they sit there and wonder what is coming. That is what is causing the headlines in The Globe and Mail and other places, the headlines of RCMP officers having to come into council meetings to bring law and order in. It is uncertainty in legislation and law that is causing this. It is the Government's responsibility, not the municipality's responsibility, to cause action to be taken to give comfort to the industry and to the municipality. That is government's responsi bility.

Government created the uncertain atmos phere by allowing people input into the report, the committee. So they have raised false expec tations, and then, at the end of the day, there is no action. That is what is at stake here.

2024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 Government should only undertake that kind of process if they were going to take action. What did we do, and the minister said before, in my tenure, we had done nothing. Well, let us look at the committee that was established to deal with the value-added industry in this prov ince. That committee took upon itself to hold 33 meetings across this province, came back within a month and, within two months, had a clear-cut report with some very defined recommendations in that report, all of which the minister adopted within six months.

All of them were adopted within six months, and no uncertainty left there. What happened? Well, Madam Chair, we caused the expansion of the bean industry. We caused the expansion of the pea industry, of the chickpea industry. We caused the expansion of the beef industry, of the dairy industry, of the hog industry, and it was all done under a very regulated process. Then, when the feds came along three, four years ago and said we are doing away with the Crow, we knew.

Many of you have heard me say this time and time again, if the Crow is ever changed, it will cause massive other changes to have to happen, and this Government has not done that. This Government has not taken action. They have talked. They have had committees, and they have had reports and more committees and more reports but no action at the end of the reports. So I am asking the minister: When can the municipalities of this province and when can the livestock industry in this province expect some clear direction and vision from this Prov ince of Manitoba? Ms.

Wowchuk: The member all of sudden is saying that the bean and the pea industry expan ded because their government went out and did a value-added report. He said they did the report, then the Crow was eliminated, and all of this happened. Well, I think the member again had better check his record, because the Crow was eliminated long before the value-added report was done. Check your dates. I would have to say that I would want to give a lot more credit to the farmers of Mani toba. The farmers of Manitoba lost the Crow. The farmers of southern Manitoba saw the sugar beet industry grow.

They had land, and they are very innovative. They found ways, and they found crops. * (1 1 :50) I am not saying the Government did not do any work on it, but the member is wrong. The Crow was eliminated well before the value added report or those 30 meetings took place, but, on the hog industry, the member is raising issues, and he is talking about us not doing anything. Well, I want to thank him first of all for giving us credit for doing the Livestock Stewardship Initiative, but I have to ask the member: Where were they for 11 years? Why did they not recognize that these issues were out there?

Because there were RCMP officers at meetings before we took office. There have been conflicts with- Some Honourable Members: Not in my constituency. Ms. Wowchuk: Oh, no, the member says not in his constituency, but there were areas. This has been a heated debate for many, many years, but the member wants to put blinders on and pretend that this just happened over the last two years. It has been going on for some time. Mr. Stan Struthers, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mr. Acting Chairperson, we have taken a lot of steps. We did. We recognized the growth in the livestock industry.

We knew that there was going to be growth. We wanted full consultation, and we did. We had over 200 presentations, over 100 written reports that came in, and our com mittee did a good job on it. They made many recommendations, some 40 recommendations. The member says we have not acted on any of them. Well, he is wrong again. If you look at the number of recom mendations that have been made and the number that we have acted on, we have acted on over half of them already. Well over half of the recommendations have been acted on. There are a few outstanding issues. Mr.

Acting Chair person, the member talks about input from and consultation with municipalities. I can tell him that we are working very closely with AMM

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2025 which is the organizational body for all muni cipalities on how we should move forward on the various issues. The municipalities really appreciate the work that we have done and the staff that we have made available to ensure that planning can be properly done. The industry also appreciates the additional staff that we have put in to ensure that the technical review process is speeded up. Mr. Chairman, there are many issues that the member puts on the record that are not accurate.

But he is right that we did the right thing by putting a committee into place and having con sultations across the province because we know livestock is a very important industry in this province. We want to ensure that the growth is sustainable, and that is why we are acting on the recommendations. I can tell the member that the few out standing recommendations that are still there, we are working with the industry and with the muni cipal governments, and we will be making the balance of our position known very shortly. You know, he talks about the length of time.

I think we should take all the time that is neces sary. This is not creating uncertainty. This is working through with the industry and the muni cipalities to see that it is done properly. Other provinces have taken much longer than we have when they have studied the industry. We will take the time we need to do it right, both for pro ducers and for local governments. Mr. Jack Penner: I am wondering, Mr. Chair person, whether the minister is just telling us that there will be legislation brought before this Assembly before it adjourns. Is that what she is saying? Ms. Wowchuk: What I did say, Mr.

Chairman, is that we are working very closely with the industry and with local municipalities, with AMM, looking through the recommendations that are put forward and looking at what has to be done. We will be making a decision in due course on the balance of the recommendations, but we are going to take the time we need to ensure that we do it right. Mr. Jack Penner: Does that mean that there will be legislation introduced during this session? Ms.

Wowchuk: As I have indicated to the mem ber, we are consulting with the industry and farm organizations, with municipal governments on the recommendations of the Livestock Stew ardship Initiative, and we will be making an announcement in due course. Mr. Jack Penner: Will there be legislation introduced before we adjourn this session? Ms.

Wowchuk: As I indicated to the member, we are in consultation with the industry and with municipal governments and other farm organi zations as to the recommendations of the Live stock Stewardship Initiative and working through them, and we will be making an an nouncement in due course. Mr. Jack Penner: Could the minister give us a list of the names of the organizations and indus try representatives that she has met with or that government has met with through developing this pending legislation? Ms. Wowchuk: I think the member is reading more into my comments than I said. He said pending legislation.

What I said is that we are having discussions with municipalities, with people involved in the industry, looking at the recommendations that are there and are making decisions as to what steps should be taken to give the municipalities and the industry the tools that they need. We will be making an announce ment in due course. Mr. Jack Penner: Is the minister now telling me that there will not be legislation? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, what I said was that we have the Livestock Stewardship Initi ative report that made some 40 recommen dations. We have acted on many of the recom mendations.

There are still a few that require further discussion. We are having discussions with people in the livestock industry and with AMM and other community leaders to determine what action we should be taking on the balance of the

2026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 30, 2002 recommendations. We will be reporting in due course on our direction. Mr. Jack Penner: Could the minister indicate to this committee what the outstanding issues are that are still pending? Madam Chairperson in the Chair Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I believe we will be back in Estimates later this afternoon. At that time, I will have the opportunity to look at the recommendations and report to the mem ber which of the recommendations we have not acted on yet. Mr.

Jack Penner: Madam Chairperson, what I would like the minister to do then this afternoon is give me a list of the outstanding issues that she sees as being impediments to putting for ward legislation and/or regulations that are required in order to address this and give some comfort to the industry in this whole matter of livestock development. Ms. Wowchuk: I want the member to realize that the industry is fully aware of the recom mendations that have been put forward. There hl\5 been a thorough discussion with the industry. The member is implying that the industry is not aware of what is going on.

I want him to know that we have consulted and continue to consult with them as we move forward on these recommendations, and I will indicate to the member which of the recommendations we have not addressed yet. Madam Chairperson: The time being 12 noon, I am interrupting the proceedings. The Committee of Supply will resume sitting this afternoon following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings. JUSTICE * (10:20) Mr. Chair person (Conrad Santos): Will the Committee of Supply come to order please. This

section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber. We are on page 11 7 of the Estimates book, Resolution 4. 1. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): We talked about several things the last couple of days. We talked about the different organizational charts and the different components of the organizational chart. We talked about the Women's Advocacy. Abori ginal and community law, I want to touch on as well, going into several different aspects. Before we do that, we were talking about the court system yesterday.

We were talking about the kinds of things revolving around the police department in terms of some of the shortages they have, in terms of the child pornography. We talked a lot about that yesterday. Today I would like to continue along the organizational chart, touching on the major issues, speaking on the major issues. I want to say I want to put on record that I do think we have one of the finest police departments in the. world here in the province of Manitoba. That includes the municipal police, the Winnipeg city police, the Brandon city police, the RCMP.

The people there who are working in these police departments are outstanding individuals who have met with a lot of challenges over the last couple of years. The concern we should have within the context of the Justice Department is ensuring the streets are safe here in the city of Winnipeg and that people are safe in the rural areas, because that is what justice is all about, having a safe community where people feel they can live, work and play in an area where they will not be hurt, they will not be intimidated.

Unfortunately, in this province at this point in time we have the highest homicide, the highest violent crime rate, the highest sexual assault, and it goes on and on. Those stats are based on the Juristat that came out across Canada which held Manitoba up as being one of the most crime-ridden provinces in the country. I can appreciate the fact that members on both sides of the House have the challenges that are facing governments right now in terms of getting this under control. The

May 30, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2027 thing that puzzles me and I would like some clarification this morning on is whenever in the House in Question Period I bring up stats or I bring up numbers and I applaud the Government wherever I can, because there are some good initiatives that I have seen come forward and I give them credit for that, but I look at it as a partnership where we have to work together. I would like to take the justice area out of the political realm, and I would like to look at the problem that is out there and the needs that are facing the amount of money that is there.

I would like to look at the safety of Manitobans and how we can work together, not to argue as parties across the House but to look at the problems we are dealing with, and that is basically the high crime rate and also the new crimes. We talked a lot yesterday about Internet child

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-3-40a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 3rd hansardpdf 40a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	be3a95c02a7324497cda21aca8074f44a526cad7

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