LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
MANITOBA
Thursday, May 5, 1994
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Oil and Natural Gas
Rights Sales
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I have a statement for the House and copies for opposition members.
I am pleased to report to the House that the results of
competitive bidding for Crown oil and natural gas rights offered by the
Department of Energy and Mines have again shown an increase.
The Crown lease sale was conducted on May 4, 1994, and
resulted in the highest revenues since 1985.
A total of $831,725 was received when bids were accepted on 107 of 113
leases, and three of three exploration reservations.
The
previous sale conducted on November 3, 1993, was the largest since 1986.
During the November 1993 sale, $525,257 was received when
bids on 61 of 77 leased parcels and five of nine exploration reservations were
accepted. Yesterday's figure of $831,725
more than doubled the revenue of $411,087 from May 1993 and exceeded last
November's revenue.
The highest price per hectare from this sale has exceeded
the November figure of $121.88 as well.
Williston Wildcatters Oil Corporation of Arcola, Saskatchewan and Dorset
Exploration Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta paid $219 per hectare for seven separate
lease parcels located six kilometres west of Lyleton. Yesterday's sale nearly equals the 1993
combined total of the May and November sales of $936,344 which was the highest
collected since 1986 when the total was $891,358.
Mr. Speaker, I remind members that we can still look
forward to the November 1994 sales which will again add revenues for the
province.
I am further pleased to report that the total area of dispositions
purchased by the petroleum industry at this sale was the highest since
1980. As well, the total area of leases
purchased was the highest recorded since oil and gas lease sales were
introduced in 1979. Members of this
House will recall that no sales were recorded between 1972 and 1978.
The results of competitive bidding and the recent surge in
drilling activities are encouraging signs that the oil industry continues to
play a significant role in Manitoba's economy.
I believe that the policies and programs introduced by this government
since 1988 have been instrumental in attracting new investment in the
province's oil sector. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, 87 wells were drilled in this province in 1993, a figure which
represents an increase of 210 percent over the previous year. Depending on oil prices, we expect drilling
activity to continue at this pace for the remainder of the year. A second sale this year will be conducted
November 2.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will want to acknowledge
this good news for Manitoba, again coming from Manitoba's oil patch. Thank you.
* (1335)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I find it a rather interesting
ministerial statement. In fact, it is interesting
that the minister has gone into such detail to point out that revenue has now
come back to the level it was in terms of 1985.
So certainly that was rather an interesting comment coming from that
member. I believe the dates that were
being used here, that there was an NDP government in place at the time. I remember there was a lot of criticism at
the time from members opposite in terms of the oil industry.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that the
minister seems to spend a great deal of time, obviously, going through these
types of statistics but has not brought in some other interesting statistics in
terms of our resource sector, particularly in the mining industry where we are
going to see zero revenue in terms of the mining industry this year, as part of
the budget indicated a lack of royalties.
Despite the fact the government has been announcing mines
that are possibly going to open in communities that have seen their mines shut
down, in terms of communities such as Snow Lake and Lynn Lake, we are seeing
continuing difficulty, including my own constituency in Thompson where at this
point in time, despite all the tax breaks that were given to the mining
industry, employment is being reduced by 200 jobs in the community. We are seeing the minister announce outside
of the House, the same potash mine that was announced prior to the 1981
election.
An Honourable Member: Do not stop us now.
Mr. Ashton: Do not stop us now, indeed, Mr. Speaker. So we welcome any good news, but I hope when
the minister has the time to go through some of the other statistics, he might
want to bring in some sort of ministerial statement outlining the fact that, in
terms of some other areas in the resource sector, there are continuing
difficulties.
We are still a long way from recovering from the recession,
and even though this is good news, here is a case where we have recovered to
the 1985 level. If the minister would
care to look at the other statistics, he will see we have a long way to go in
other sectors, particularly in the mining sector here in the province of
Manitoba.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, let me
start by saying that we share in the optimism that I think the government has
about the options that have been purchased here. We hope that they translate into drilling and
activity which benefits the province.
Obviously, this is an important industry and we are happy to see that
this sale has gone successfully. We hope
that the November 2 sale as well continues that trend.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to simply leave on the record our
continuing hope and optimism as well that, in the minerals area, and I know
this is also the minister responsible for those issues, things like Williams
Lake indeed will come to fruition. We
are very hopeful that there will be a strike of significant size that major
investment can be made.
We also, of course, hope that the nickel price generally
goes up so that the major investments companies like Inco have already made
will in fact lead to higher employment.
Mr. Speaker, I do also hope that the investments, the
rights that have been purchased here are followed up upon as quickly as
possible. I do not know the timetable of
some of the companies that have purchased these, but we certainly encourage
them to invest, not for any partisan purpose but simply to help the citizens of
this province.
It
is an important industry. We hope that
it grows and continues to grow in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the Westwood Collegiate fifty Grade 11 students under the
direction of Mr. Richard Ford. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Stefanson).
Also, from the Sisler High School, we have thirty Grade 11
students under Mr. Mike Gartner. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
* (1340)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Foster Families
Per Diems‑‑Extended
Families
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Last week it was revealed by the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) that relatives of foster care children were going to have a major
reduction in their rates.
We have since received a letter from the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, which I will table in this House today, that indicates this
will have a dramatic impact on First Nations children. The chiefs go on, to quote: "80% of First Nations placements occur
within the extended family."
This reduction will place tremendous hardship on their
families, as it will, we believe, with children in foster care with relatives
outside of the First Nations communities.
I would like to ask the Premier how many children in
placement will be affected by this reduction from the provincial
government. What will this impact be on
foster care line‑ups that are already taking place, and what will be the
impact in terms of federal revenues flowing to First Nations communities for
the 80 percent of the children who are impacted?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because I do want to
clarify the record and put facts on the table.
We have over $6 million more in the child welfare budget
this year than we had last year. That is
a major increase. We have more children
coming into care, and in discussions with Child and Family Services agencies
and with working with our biggest child welfare agency, that is with Winnipeg
Child and Family Services, there was a sense that the system we have in place
today is not working. We have to look at
new and innovative ways of providing services for children.
Mr. Speaker, with the rates for relatives, there is still
$320 per month tax free to provide for the basic needs for children, that is
food and clothing. The other dollars
that are in the system will still be there.
Those dollars will be redirected in supports around the child, for the
sake of the child and in support of those foster families who are caring for
children.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government will note that
the system they are talking about that is not working is a system that they in
fact put in place when they got rid of the volunteers and the other community
activity when they amalgamated everything into a downtown agency again and took
away the community supports, community volunteers, prevention programs and
people working in the schools and communities with our children.
Having said that, and I am surprised the minister would
admit that today, but I ask this minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) a
specific question.
How many children in Manitoba will be reduced by the rate
the government has stated? How many of
those children will be in our First Nations communities? What will be the impact on revenues to those
communities in terms of economic and social development in our First Nations
communities? Did the government know the
answer to the question before they made the move, and if they did know the
answer to the question, could they please share it with the rest of Manitobans
who are feeling the brunt of this arbitrary government decision?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, there will not be any child that
will suffer with this change, because I have indicated already that there will
be adequate dollars there for basic needs, for food and for clothing. The dollars will still be there for the child
in the child welfare system. There will
be over $6 million more in the system in support of children.
What we are looking at, with a new vision worked out with
the Child and Family Services agencies, our largest agency in Winnipeg, is a
vision that talks about family support, family preservation and family
responsibility. The dollars will still
be there in the system, augmented dollars to put the services in a place around
the child, to put the supports in place around the foster families so that
those children can be managed and dealt with in a different way, in a different
fashion and in a more productive way.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, my question, again, is to the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr.
Praznik).
Because the federal government is following through on the
same reductions that the provincial government is making in terms of their
rates, and because of the fact there is a 50 percent higher cost of living in
northern Manitoba that affects many of the First Nations communities, and 80
percent of the children in First Nations communities that are in foster care
are in extended care‑‑which, of course, we think is an advantage
after the previous government stopped the adoptions south of the border for
many of the children that was taking place, as Judge Kimelman had indicated in
his report and had recommended in his report in the early '80s‑‑I
would like to ask the Minister of Native Affairs or the Premier, in his
capacity as minister responsible for federal‑provincial affairs, were you
aware of the impact of your decision on children in the federal jurisdiction?
Have you discussed this with the federal government? What is the plan in place in First Nations
communities, and how are we going to deal with our children that need care and
need economic investment, not economic and social cutbacks in our First Nations
communities?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is because this government
does care about children that there will be more money in the system, not less‑‑over
$6 million more to serve children in the child welfare system. Our dollars have been refocused around
support for children in foster placement and support for foster families,
whether it be homemaker services or whether it be professional services that are
needed to serve the best interests of the child.
We have every confidence that the federal Liberal
government will, in fact, maintain all of the support they presently put around
children in the native agencies, that they provide the majority of the funding
for, to ensure that those services are surrounding children throughout our
Manitoba communities.
Foster Families
Per Diems‑‑Extended
Families
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the
Minister of Family Services on a related matter. We are talking about foster care.
Did the minister consult with the federal Liberal
government and also the aboriginal child care agencies prior to making these
cuts in foster care rates that are coming into effect this June? Is this minister aware that the federal
government is now going to make the same cuts as this province?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because he is putting
false information on the record. In
fact, there are not cuts to child welfare in the province of Manitoba. There is an increase of over $6 million.
I indicated in my previous answers that the dollars that
will be there for basic needs for children in foster care will be $320 a month
tax free. That is for food and for
clothing. The additional dollars that
are still in the system will be refocused around supports for the child in the
system, supports for the foster family, so that, in fact, we can see the number
of children having to come into care decrease, not increase.
So we are concerned.
We believe that the vision that looks at family support, family
preservation and family responsibility is the direction we need to go.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, last month, along with the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), I attended the conference of the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs and the federal minister concerning the dismantling of the
Department of Indian Affairs in this province.
The federal government signed a Memorandum of
Understanding, which stated that there would be no reductions in funding
programs or services between the department and also First Nations.
I
would like to table that memorandum for the information of members, Mr.
Speaker.
My question is: Given
that 80 percent or more of foster parents on reserves are relatives, does this
minister not recognize that this cut will have major implications on northern
Manitoba First Nations reserves, where the cost of living is at a minimum 50 to
80 percent higher than in southern Manitoba?
What studies has she conducted on the implication of these cuts?
* (1350)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the supports
will still be there for the child, for the sake of the child. I think that is our first priority as a
government to ensure that the supports are around the child so that we can
reverse the trend that has been taking more children into care and try to work
within families to preserve the family unit.
We are extremely concerned that we move in that direction.
I had a meeting set up with the federal Minister of Indian
Affairs, which he cancelled at very short notice, and I have been trying to get
another meeting set up with him.
We understand that there will be some changes with
devolution of authority and power to First Nations, and, Mr. Speaker, we want
to know what implication that is going to have on Manitoba and Manitobans.
I am communicating presently with the minister to see
whether in fact, if we cannot set up a meeting and he does not have the ability
to meet with me here, in fact, we will be asking him very direct questions and
looking for very direct responses.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I, too, agree that we have to
consider our children as being a very important responsibility and the vital
role that foster care homes play.
Is this minister now prepared to put these cuts on hold and
consult with the federal Liberal government, child care agencies and also
aboriginal organizations about the implications of these cuts on aboriginal
children, so that they do not have another lost generation of children who are
taken from their home reserves and shipped elsewhere?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I again would like to correct
the record, that there is no cut to supports around children. Unless the federal government arbitrarily
decides to reduce their funding for their responsibility on reserve for
children, there are no cuts.
The money will be there to support the children, and the
children are our first interest. We want
to assure that the professional supports, the homemaking supports are provided
around the child and around the foster family.
That money is in the system, and more money is in the system to redirect
and refocus and try to make a difference, and a positive difference, for
Manitoba children.
Manitoba Sugar Co.
Contingency Plan
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as I
think all members are aware, there have been extensive negotiations continuing
between the employees of the sugar company and B.C. Sugar revolving around the
plant in the city of Winnipeg, and 165 jobs are at stake.
I know the minister has been involved, and Mr. Fox‑Decent
has been doing all that he can to get the parties together. I also know that the minister made some
suggestions this morning.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not he has
a plan B of sorts. That is, Mr. Speaker,
if in fact these parties, and, of course, we all hope that they can resolve
this, if in fact they do not, if in fact it is clear that the company is going
to walk away from this industry in Manitoba, has the minister a plan in place
to try to save this industry, to try to save these jobs? Specifically I ask him if he has considered
looking to the Crocus Fund as a possible source of revenue, looking to the
employees to perhaps see if they are interested in taking on ownership of this
plant, perhaps the producers, as is the case in the United States, a producers
co‑op.
Has the minister a contingency plan in the short term to
deal with this situation to try to preserve this industry if in fact these
parties cannot get together?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, firstly, let me say that what is
a critical factor in this dispute and what will ultimately determine the time
frames on which a resolution can occur is the weather.
If the weather‑‑[interjection] Members may
laugh across the way, but I think it demonstrates a lack of appreciation for
what in fact is happening. The only
reason why this issue is still here today is because we had a rain this week
and we had cold weather. The farmers and
producers that we have been in touch with across the beet‑growing belt,
quite frankly, when the weather warms up slightly, will be in the fields seeding. It could be later today or tomorrow, they
will be seeding. Whether it is beet
seeds or it is other seeds that they are putting in the ground will be the
determination of what is going on this afternoon, as we speak, between the two
parties.
So I say to the member that the options he raises this
afternoon and he has floated certainly are options that industry can consider
in the long term, but I do not think a buyout by employees, however financed,
that there is sufficient time for that to occur at this particular point.
* (1355)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, clearly, we cannot control the
weather and we cannot control these negotiations. What I think all members want to do is be on
the side of the workers and the producers who are wanting to keep their
livelihood. I am very disappointed to
hear that the minister has written off other options.
Has the minister in fact spoken to the board of the fund in
order to see if there is any opportunity to at least secure the crop for this
year and then buy some time to structure some form of a buyout?‑‑because
this has been coming for some time.
Have there been any discussions with the operators of the
Crocus Fund to determine whether or not there are any opportunities to look at
other ways of saving this business, as was done successfully‑‑granted,
with a longer timetable‑‑for Abitibi‑Price? Why can we not give the same effort and the
same contribution of effort and time to this particular plant in this season?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party,
in the preamble to his question, made a very interesting point. He said very clearly that he is on the side
of the employees in this particular dispute, and the beet producers. Let me assure him that as Minister of Labour
I am not on the side of either the employers or the employees. They are adults. They have an issue to deal with.
From my experience and from the knowledge that I have from
what has been occurring at the table and behind the scenes in discussions, I
can tell you quite frankly in this House today, as I have said to the media and
I said to both parties this morning in this building in Room 254, both bear
some of the responsibility here. They
have to, in the very short time period, put aside their personal bickering and
all of the things that have kept them from reaching a conclusion, recognize
that they are on the precipice and come to a resolution of this matter if
either the company wants to continue that operation or the employees want to have
their jobs. They have reached the
precipice. They must make a choice in
the next few hours.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the
minister. No one has criticized, least
of all us, his efforts and Mr. Fox‑Decent's efforts to get these parties
together.
Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the minister is: Is there absolutely no contingency plan if
these parties cannot get together? We
have examples in the United States of the producers, through co‑operatives,
owning plants like this. We have
experience in this province and a fund dedicated to assisting with employees
buying out and participating in the businesses.
Is there absolutely no plan B in the event that these two parties cannot
reconcile their differences?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised that my
colleague in the law would not appreciate that as one reaches the most crucial
moments in negotiation, the important part is for both parties to recognize
that they are on the precipice.
What the Leader of the Liberal Party does in fact today,
with his question, is jeopardize the negotiations that are going on this
afternoon in holding out some impractical solution to keep people away from
making the hard decisions that both parties have to make in the next few hours.
I say to the member opposite that members of this bench, my
colleagues who represent the beet‑producing areas, the member for Emerson
(Mr. Penner) and the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the
producers of the province want a sugar industry, and I am sure there will be a
sugar industry. Whether Manitoba Sugar
and the people of UFCW are part of that sugar industry is a decision that they
have to make in the next few hours, but there will be, inevitably, a sugar
industry in Manitoba.
Maintenance Enforcement
Income Deduction
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, poverty suffered by our women
and children in Manitoba is often the product of separation and divorce. While a recent Canadian court decision has
provided at least some relief hopefully for families receiving maintenance
payments, this province continues to condemn children to poverty because of
this government's failure to pursue spouses who do not pay. We need tough new measures.
My question to the Minister of Justice is: Will she advise the House why she is not
taking action to deduct support payments automatically from income sources as
is done with income tax?
* (1400)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, payment of support to women and children, in most cases‑‑and
in some cases it is to the man, as the member may know‑‑is of
utmost importance. Certainly, benefits
which would flow through to children are of importance. This government takes that issue extremely
seriously, and we have made a number of efforts within my department to make
that the most efficient system possible.
In addition, I will tell the member that my department is
making an effort to meet with those people who receive maintenance enforcement
support, community groups and so on, to make sure that their suggestions and
their recommendations about how the enforcement and also the flow of payment
can be done in a most efficient way.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, given that one cannot even get
through to the Maintenance Enforcement Branch‑‑it takes sometimes
days to get through and once you get through they will only take a message‑‑my
question to the minister is: Will she
try and understand that it is also important to prevent the default in
maintenance payments, and will she consider a program which automatically
deducts payments at the source?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, there has been in the past
couple of days, in particular, certainly a large number of calls which have
flowed into our Maintenance Enforcement office.
So I will just remind the member of some of the initiatives that we have
taken as a department over the past two years‑‑this is not
something which has occurred just in the past couple of days‑‑in
specific, to make sure that this office operates in the most efficient way.
I can tell the member that this government in the past two
years has allocated $120,000 to assist in the area of computer enhancement and
automation so that information is available to individuals.
Also, we are moving to a voice‑automated system which
should assist people when they wish to phone up so that they can get
information about what is the level of their account when payments have been
made, and so on, by simply using the buttons on the telephone. So we are making every effort.
I will also tell the member that certainly we do look to
other jurisdictions as well to see if they have had success in any additional
ways that might help us in Manitoba.
Mr. Mackintosh: My final supplementary to the minister
is: Given that any work done in that
department has done nothing but reinforce the fact that the Maintenance
Enforcement program is one of the worst disgraces of this government, will the
minister advise what emergency plan of new innovative action she is prepared to
take, including looking and bringing into this House measures so that there is
an automatic deduction at the source?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would not
want to have provided an insult to the hard‑working people in this area
who have managed to increase the amount of money collected on behalf of
Manitobans by 9.5 percent in the past year.
They in fact do their work very earnestly.
He also refers to an emergency plan. That is the only kind of thinking he is able
to do. We on the other hand have a plan,
and I will be happy to go over it with him again. I will remind him that we have increased
resources in that area by five people in the last two years by five staff
years.
We have also, as I said to him, allotted $120,000 to the
area of computer enhancement. We are
moving to a voice‑automated system.
We are reviewing the legislation, a very important component, but we are
taking the time in reviewing the legislation to make sure we have spoken to
interested groups.
Lastly, I will tell the member that we work as part of a
federal‑provincial territorial group for improvement to the REMO act
which I hope that the federal Liberal government will take a leadership role
in.
CN Rail/CP Rail Merger
Impact on Employment
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, reports out today indicate that
the merger of CN and CP are proceeding full speed ahead with the blessing of
the federal Liberal government. Last fall,
I wrote to the Minister of Highways and Transportation warning him of the
potential impacts upon the province of Manitoba if this merger was to take
place. Manitoba has already lost some
3,000 rail jobs since 1988.
My question is for the Minister of Highways and
Transportation: Can the Minister of
Highways and Transportation tell the House what involvement he has had in any
way regarding the discussions dealing with the merger of CN and CP?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, if the member had been in the House the other night, he
would have heard my answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) when we talked about exactly this issue. It is a delicate issue, requires considerable
knowledge of the issue. Certainly, three
provinces in western Canada and, I hope, four provinces, will come together to
do a complete analysis of the impact of this potential decision regarding
eastern Canada. As we go into that
process, we are going to ask that the consultant do a complete analysis that
affects all of western Canada and, most particularly, Winnipeg and all the
workers in the rail industry.
I can assure the member that there are also some upsides in
this process. Winnipeg is seen more and
more as a rail hub for east‑west and north‑south, and there is some
real silver lining in the overall process of change of trade patterns that is
going on in North America relative to the rail industry in Winnipeg.
Mr. Reid: My supplementary question is to the same
minister.
Since the minister has met with rail representatives as he
has indicated, what information can he share with the House concerning CN and
CP's long‑term plan for jobs and services? What impact will that merger have on the real
jobs in this province? Have there been
any interim studies done?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, clearly, the answer to that
question lies in my answer to his first question. We are going through a major analysis that
will give us some of those answers. The
member full well knows that both railways have announced significant layoffs
over the next period of time right across the country as they adjust to be
competitive in the changing trade patterns.
I can assure you that there is a lot of discussion going on
amongst all the different carriers of freight, whether it is rail, road or air,
but there is a greater co‑operation amongst them all. I see, as I said in my earlier answer,
Winnipeg being a more and more important hub for movement of goods east‑west,
north‑south in all of North America.
Public Hearings
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Because there is potential for serious impact
upon the province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, will this minister follow Ontario's
lead by writing to the federal minister responsible for transportation and
calling for full public hearings, intervener funding and a review of other
potential solutions other than the merger?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the National Transportation
Association, NTA, will play a major role in the decision‑making
process. It is absolutely imperative
that they do hold public hearings, so that all the different groups that are
impacted have an opportunity for input before they make that final
decision. So, yes, I support public
hearings by the NTA on this issue when it is put in front of them.
Maintenance Enforcement
Pension Plans
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice, as well, on the subject of maintenance enforcement.
Women in Canada are rejoicing in the Federal Court of
Appeal decision. However, in order for
this ruling to truly benefit single parents and their children, we must ensure
that these payments actually reach them.
Today in Manitoba over $27 million in back‑child payments is owed
to the children of Manitoba.
Has her department investigated amending The Pension
Benefits Act and the maintenance enforcement act to allow pension principle to
be available to be garnisheed to satisfy outstanding amounts and not simply
pension benefits?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, a very large piece of the money which
is owing is owing from jurisdictions outside of the province of Manitoba. I am not sure if in her investigation she
actually uncovered that number, so it is very important for us to have co‑operation
among jurisdictions.
The issue of actually paying is a federal issue, a national
issue, and so we are working with the federal‑provincial‑territorial
working group to look at how we can improve payment from other jurisdictions.
I answered in an earlier answer, as well, that my
department is working with community groups to seek ideas of where important
changes to the maintenance enforcement act should come from, what those changes
might be, and we are looking to review that.
Service Access
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary: The Minister of Justice indicated that the Maintenance
Enforcement office is moving toward E‑mail. One of the many complaints we have been
receiving from women is that they do not get the opportunity to talk to a
person. Caseloads are 800 to 900.
How
will this E‑mail system address access to the people who are going to
assist the women with their inquiries?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of caseloads. I can tell her that is in fact a significant
change and a reduction in caseload, a very significant reduction, thanks to
some of the initiatives which have been put in place. They were much, much higher before.
I
can also tell her that is a comparable caseload across Canada for the kinds of
caseloads that workers may have.
The member asks how the E‑mail may work. It will allow individuals to access
information about their file without the need to have long waits on the
phone. It will then also allow our staff
who are there to be available to then work with those particular individuals
where there are very specific problems, rather than answering some questions
which may simply be to give out an amount of money that is within an account,
or when a last payment date was.
* (1410)
Reduced Work Week
Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): I have a final question for the minister.
Can the minister assure this House that the imposition of
Filmon Fridays on the employees in the Maintenance Enforcement office will not
cause hardship in July and August, as was the case when the processing of
cheques was delayed in January?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have taken great care both last
year and this year to make sure that funds are flowed, that there is not an
interruption on behalf of individuals in Manitoba. We will be taking that same care this year
because money flowed to those people who need it, particularly children, is
important.
Grain Exports
U.S. Market
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, three members of the U.S.
International Trade Commission will be in Winnipeg to gather information about
the Canadian durum wheat exports. This committee
will be making recommendations to President Clinton as to whether restrictions
should be put on Canadian wheat sales.
My question to the Minister of Agriculture is: Will he take this opportunity to stand up for
Canadian producers and explain to this committee the true facts, that we are
not dumping durum wheat into the U.S. and that the U.S. market is gaining much
more in agriculture trade than Canadians farmers are?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I do
genuinely appreciate the fact that my honourable friend from the New Democratic
Party has come to the full recognition of the importance of our trade with our
biggest trade‑‑[interjection]
Members will recall that it has always been my position
that once the review and the discussion about our trading practices with the
United States were removed from the heated environment of Montana and North
Dakota and took place in a more neutral setting like Washington, then cooler
heads would prevail.
I am absolutely delighted that this organization, which
normally does not travel outside of Washington, has chosen to come to Winnipeg,
Manitoba to hear our position.
I can indicate to you and to the House that I have
requested today by fax that I be given an opportunity to present myself to this
commission, along with the people as you would expect that they have
specifically requested to hear from: the
Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian International Grains Institute; the
Canadian Wheat Board; accredited exporters and country elevator companies. Those are the specific organizations that
this very important international review committee has requested.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will
take a strong stand and stand up for Canadian farmers at this meeting.
Since we know that the federal Minister of Agriculture has
been taking a very weak stand on behalf of Canadian farmers and there is a risk
that there will be caps put on the amount of durum that we can ship to the
U.S., has the minister had discussions with other western Agriculture ministers
to try to strengthen the position of Canadian farmers with the federal Minister
of Agriculture?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I have a considerable amount of
respect for the federal Minister of Agriculture of this country, and I do want
to go on the record as refuting that suggestion that he has in fact not been
making every possible effort to protect Canadian farmers' position on this very
important matter. I say that without fear
of contradiction. Mr. Goodale has been
an energetic proponent of Canada's justification for our enhanced trade with
that country.
Really, this is an opportunity where it behooves us both
provincially and federally to work as strongly and as co‑operatively as
we can.
Department of Agriculture
Research and Development
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Given that this government talks about
supporting development of value‑added jobs, how can the minister justify
cutting back the research and development section of his Department of Agriculture
budget when we have to have the value‑added jobs?
We are in disputes about durum wheat. Why are we not working towards getting some
of the extra value‑added jobs here into this province, rather than
shipping wheat out and getting macaroni and other pasta products in? How can he justify the cuts to the research
and development?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): I refute that this
government has in any way reduced monies going toward any and all opportunities
as value‑added. In fact, we have
found new agencies of the government.
Our Economic Committee of Cabinet works toward that end. We have continued to support the Portage la
Prairie institute. We have a number of
institutions. It is simply not
necessarily housed in the traditional place where it was housed within the
Department of Agriculture.
But, Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this one
opportunity. You want to talk about
value‑added, then let us look at our potato industry where we have 600 to
700 people who work in Carberry. We
could do with a little bit of reasonable support allowing for the responsible
and prudent use of water when it comes to irrigation to ensure that we have
that kind of value‑added production taking place on the farms of
Manitoba.
Francophone Schools
Governance
Federal Funding
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Education minister.
Last year, this government introduced the new Francophone
School Division pursuant to the Supreme Court decision that came down in the last
year. At that time, the government
indicated it would be receiving a substantial amount of money from the federal
government, some $112 million I believe it was, to implement the Supreme Court
decision that was divided amongst all the provinces, part of the $112 million.
I want to ask the Minister of Education whether he can
indicate whether this present federal government is still committed to
providing those dollars to the provinces to implement this decision and what
amount it would be for Manitoba and how much we will be receiving this year.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the question is a fair one and certainly I say to the member that the
federal government says they are still committed to the policy that was
announced by the former PC administration in Ottawa.
The $112 million and what share should appropriately be
directed toward the Province of Manitoba is, I guess I would use the words
"in dispute," and at this particular point in time there is not an
agreement acceptable to the Province of Manitoba as to what rightful share it
should have with that $112 million.
Mr. Plohman: So, Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister is
saying that we have no commitment as to the amount as yet.
Compensation
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I would like to ask the minister as well
whether he supports the policy that we had put forward last year in raising
questions on this issue in the House at the time that the legislation was
introduced that no existing students in existing school divisions would be
negatively impacted by the establishment of the new division and that if they
were, there would be compensation for those school divisions.
Has the minister accepted that policy and that principle in
introducing the Francophone School Division in Manitoba, and if so, can he
indicate so today?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, there are many, many questions posed within the single question posed
by the member.
I would say to him that the statement made by my
predecessor at that point in time still stands.
Nevertheless, when there are changes made‑‑certainly when
there are students moving from a provider of the existing division to the new
school division, No. 49‑‑we have put into place some money this
year with respect to general funding to try and alleviate some of the impact of
the change to the existing division.
With regard, though, to the changes and ultimately whether or not there is
equity of funding, Mr. Speaker, we certainly believe there is equity of funding
in place today.
Arbitration‑‑Notre
Dame de Lourdes
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, my final question to the
minister: Can he indicate whether
pursuant to Bill 34 he has appointed or taken any action with regard to the
dispute over schools in the Notre Dame de Lourdes area, whether in fact an
arbitrator or a committee has been appointed to deal with this issue? If so, is there a report that has been
brought forward to the minister?
* (1420)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member is well aware this is a most sensitive issue. With respect to the ownership of schools per
the registration vote that was conducted on behalf of the government and the
whole process by former Chief Justice Monnin, we are living within the spirit
and indeed the intent of Bill 34 that was brought down.
I would remind the member that the government of Manitoba
has no discretion with respect to the transfer of buildings of actual schools. Mr. Speaker, outside of that, we are using
whatever powers we have to try and bring to bear some orderly solution to this
difference of views.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to my giving a ruling today, I would
like to draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where
we have a very good friend of all of us, Mr. Dave Blake, the former member for
Minnedosa. On behalf of all honourable
members I would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: During Question Period on April 27, 1994, the
honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) rose on a matter of privilege
and moved that the issue of a judicial compensation package now offered to
provincial court judges for the purposes of retirement and the government's
apparent failure to comply with Section 11.1 of The Provincial Court Act,
thereby obstructing and interfering with the duties of members of the Assembly,
be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. After receiving advice from members of the
House, for which I thank them, I took the matter under advisement.
The honourable member fulfilled the first condition of
privilege by raising the matter at the first available opportunity. As to the second condition, that of
establishing a prima facie case, I am ruling that this is not a matter of
privilege.
As there is no Manitoba precedent for this issue, I looked
to other authorities. Joseph Maingot,
the Canadian author, at page 153 in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,
quoting from a 1980 ruling of House of Commons Speaker Jeanne Sauve states, and
I quote: The Chair is in no position to
interpret either the law or the Constitution.
Whether something which takes place in this House is constitutional or
legal is not for the Chair to decide.
The Chair only decides whether we are following our own rules.
Speaker Sauve went on to say: That is spelled out in the standing orders
which read, the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide
questions of order. That is the scope of
my responsibility.
I would point out that our Manitoba subrule 5(1) is
virtually identical to that cited by the House of Commons Speaker.
The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh)
alleged in his matter of privilege that the government was not complying with
the law. Whether or not a law has been
broken is for the courts, not the Speaker, to decide. In this regard, I refer to Beauchesne
Citation 31(9). This citation is based
on another ruling of Speaker Jeanne Sauve made in 1981. At that time, when a matter of privilege was
raised about a requirement in a statute she said, and I quote: It is quite clear there is no question of privilege. I remind the honourable member that failure
to comply with the law is not a matter for the Speaker to determine, but rather
should be decided by the courts.
Also, Beauchesne Citation 168(5) is very clear. It reads:
"The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional
question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point
of order or privilege."
Therefore, I find no prima facie case evidence of a matter
of privilege and am ruling the honourable member's motion out of order. Having done so, the honourable member is
certainly entitled to raise the matter in some other way. For example, it could be dealt with as a
substantive motion by a private member.
MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE
Sugar Beet Industry
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, under
Rule 27(1), I would like to move a motion requesting a debate on a matter of
urgent public importance.
I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux),
that under Rule 27, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss
a matter of urgent public importance; namely, the crisis in Manitoba's sugar
beet industry.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Before recognizing the honourable Leader of
the second opposition party, I believe I should remind all members that under
our Rule 27(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance
and one member of each of the other parties in the House is allowed not more
than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating this matter immediately.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I detect from the early response
of members around me that they are sensitive about this issue. I ask them to simply allow some period of
time that is allowed to make the case.
Firstly, under that rule, obviously the public interest
must be best served by debating it today and, secondly, there is no ordinary
opportunity which will allow the matter to be brought on early enough. Mr. Speaker, I believe both of these criteria
are met in this case.
Clearly we heard from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
earlier today and again in the House today that the only thing which has
stopped an outright crisis so far has been the weather. Obviously, we cannot count on that to
continue. He raises the urgency
himself. I think we all understand
that. Secondly, negotiations are, by all
accounts, at a critical stage, if not very close to completion; we, of course,
hope successfully.
The issue that is raised that I wish to raise as a
consideration today is the issue of what the contingency plan is. To suggest that is going to have any effect,
let alone an adverse effect, on current negotiations, is absolutely
ludicrous. In fact, it is irresponsible
for the members of this House to suggest‑‑or to not contemplate
what a contingency plan will be.
I remind the minister and I remind members of this House
that this government has stepped into a number of situations far before a
crisis is reached, including a recent set of negotiations involving Abitibi‑Price
in the member's own riding before final crisis had been reached by the parties.
Mr. Speaker, the government is not a party to the
negotiations, but the government is very definitely and should be an interested
party in preserving these jobs and this industry in this province. We cannot sit back and wait for this crisis
not only to come to fruition but to result in the loss of a $100 million
industry with all the spinoffs in this province. We must start now.
What was clear from the answers brought forward by the
Minister of Labour was that he has not developed a contingency plan. He did not have to go into the details. What was simply asked was for him to put on
the record that there would be further government involvement to ensure that
the industry stayed. Secondly, what is
clear from his remarks is that he has no intention of moving into that stage in
the event that negotiations fail.
Mr. Speaker, I also raised with the minister whether it is
the only possibility of a solution to this in the event that things do not work
out. I am not saying that. What I have put forward is a specific
suggestion that the minister immediately sit down with the board of the Crocus
Investment Fund. That is one
opportunity, one alternative that I have put forward.
With respect to the comments that that would not be
appropriate, Mr. Speaker, I remind all members of the specific indication in
the prospectus, which sets out at Section 3.03(3) the specific restrictions on
investments to the Crocus Fund. Clearly
an investment in this operation, were it desirable by the parties involved,
would not be restricted under the prospectus of the Crocus Fund, which is dated
December 17, 1993.
I also refer members to 3.03(4). I want to just put on the record one of the
primary purposes of that fund, which is that the fund will also attempt to make
investments that promote employee ownership opportunities where other sources
of equity or debt financing are available to create a greater degree of
employee ownership than would be created by the fund's investment alone.
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, this is a primary goal of this fund. I recognize what the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
says, which is that time is very short, people want to plant quickly. What I am asking the minister to do is to
immediately explore those opportunities.
Today is the day. We need to have
that discussion and that debate now.
Again, this, far from prejudicing these negotiations, simply puts into
place an opportunity to explore what alternatives will be there in the event
that they fail. Perhaps there are none,
but what we have to do as legislators is leave no stone unturned and today is
the day to start that process. Thank
you.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I will be exercising the right
to speak on behalf of the government on this particular issue. There is no doubt that there is an urgency to
this particular matter, nor that there are not other opportunities today to
debate this. There certainly are not
others.
I want to say to members opposite‑‑and I am
very certain that members of the New Democratic Party will appreciate and
understand what is happening here; I have no doubt of that. But I want to say this to the Leader of the
Liberal Party and I am being very sincere in what I say to him. I know from time to time it is easy in these
opportunities to speak to MUPIs, to get into debating the issue and putting
positions on the line, but we are at an extremely critical point this
afternoon, the last critical point.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I had opportunity to call both
sides to this dispute into this building, as I indicated in Question
Period. I laid out for them what options
were available to them to settle this.
What is absolutely critical‑‑and I cannot stress this enough
to the Leader of the Liberal Party and I do recognize that there are larger
issues about the sugar industry that he wants to get into. I do fully appreciate his desire to have that
public debate, and I certainly respect that.
But what is absolutely critical to these discussions today
is that the parties who have to make some decisions internally know fully that
they have reached the precipice. My
great fear about getting into this debate this afternoon, and I say this as
Labour minister and someone who has been at the table with both of them this
morning, who is in contact with the mediator, is that anything that gives some
sense of a false hope, quite frankly, that there is a solution that will delay
people coming to the realization that they have reached the precipice, will put
this situation where it could delay a resolution, any possible resolution this
afternoon.
I tell the honourable member most sincerely‑‑I
know he is getting and pointing and speaking from his seat‑‑that if
we do not have a resolution to this dispute in the next few hours, quite
frankly, the seeders of this province that put in the beets will be out in the
field seeding other crops, and this issue will be totally irrelevant.
Mr. Speaker, if I could, just for a moment, plead with the
member for St. James, surely this is one of those rare moments in this House
where what is required is some sense that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable
minister it is not the member for St. James who will decide whether or not this
is a matter of urgent public importance.
I would ask the honourable minister to address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, what I say to the Chair very clearly
is there is no doubt that there is an important public interest in this issue
and that today is a very critical time.
I ask, through the Chair, that the Leader of the Liberal
Party would reconsider putting this motion forward on the grounds of the
greater interest of seeing a resolution to this dispute, rather than anyone
making political hay on what could be a very serious loss to the province and
the workers involved.
I ask, Sir, through your Chair, if the Leader of the
Liberal Party would please, appreciating the sensitivity and what is at risk
for so many Manitobans here, that in the interest of allowing the parties to
reach an agreement this afternoon, he withdraw his motion for a debate.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I want
to indicate that in raising issues before this House, I think all of us have an
obligation to raise them with discretion.
Today, obviously, the situation at the Manitoba Sugar industry is very
much on everyone's mind.
We had a discussion ourselves. I am not giving away any caucus confidence,
Mr. Speaker, but our decision today was not to raise the matter in Question
Period because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. Indeed, I would go further to suggest that
there be an even greater obligation when it comes to raising this very
sensitive issue in the form of this particular motion. If this particular motion is to be put to the
House and to be adopted by the House, we will then spend the rest of the day
not debating Health Estimates or Rural Development or drug patent law later
today but debating what is a very, very sensitive situation.
I believe‑‑and while we do not agree entirely
with the government's position in terms of the sugar beet industry, the need
for a long plan, et cetera, I certainly share the comments put forward by the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) speaking on this particular issue.
The fact is unless a resolution is reached between the
parties, we are into some very uncharted waters within probably a space of 24
hours. I do not want to even comment
further on the potential implications because even that, I think, is very much
dealing with a sensitive situation.
I believe the appropriate thing in terms of the Liberal
Party‑‑they have raised the issue.
I consider that to have been somewhat inadvisable and inappropriate, Mr.
Speaker, and I could comment on the ironies of the Liberal Party raising this
issue, given the fact they were instrumental in voting out final offer
selection which would have provided a mechanism for all parties to resolve this
particular dispute. I could get into a
lengthy debate in terms of the position of the Liberal Party on labour issues,
but I will not, and I will ask that we deal with this matter fairly quickly.
Our position is that it would be absolutely inappropriate,
given the sensitivity of the negotiations right now, to even discuss this any
further than the comments we are putting on the record. We would hope that this matter would not be put
forward to the House, and we will accept the responsible, appropriate course,
which is not in any way, shape or form to do anything that might affect the
very sensitive negotiations.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for
St. James (Mr. Edwards) should be debated today.
I did receive the notice required under our subrule
27.(1). According to Rule 27 and
Beauchesne's Citations 389 and 390, there are two conditions which must be met
in order for a matter of urgent public importance to be proceeded with. They are:
a) the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary
opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought on early enough; and
b) it must be shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not
given immediate attention.
I acknowledge that the subject of the honourable member's
motion is an important one, but I am not convinced that the public interest
will suffer if it is not debated today.
There are, in my opinion, other opportunities for the
honourable member to debate this issue.
The Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism will be
under consideration shortly in the committee room, perhaps as early as
today. Other opportunities to debate
this issue could arise during the consideration of the Estimates of the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labour. In addition, I note that the honourable
member for St. James could also raise this matter under a grievance, as he has
not used that opportunity for debate in this session.
Therefore, I am ruling that the honourable member's motion
does not meet the criteria set out in our rules and practices. The honourable member's motion is out of
order as a matter of urgent public importance.
* (1440)
Voice Vote
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the ruling.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question before the House is that the
ruling of the Chair having been challenged, all those in favour of that motion,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling
of the Chair‑‑
An Honourable Member: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will do it that way. That is better. That will not hurt anybody. So the question before the House is shall the
ruling of the Chair be sustained?
All
those in favour of sustaining the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: That is better. The Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Lamoureux (Second Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, Yeas and Nays.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett,
Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Filmon, Findlay, Friesen,
Gilleshammer, Helwer, Hickes, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Mackintosh, Maloway,
Manness, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard,
Pallister, Penner, Plohman, Praznik, Reid, Reimer, Render, Robinson, Rose,
Santos, Schellenberg, Stefanson, Storie, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Edwards, Gaudry, Gray, Kowalski, Lamoureux,
McCormick.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 47, Nays 6.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
* (1500)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair
and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Departments of Rural Development, and Industry, Trade and Tourism; and the
honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the
Department of Health.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon the section of the
Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of the Department of Rural Development. When the committee last sat it had been
considering item 13.7(b)(1) on page 138 of the Estimates book.
Item 13.7(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $173,000‑‑pass;
item 13.7(b)(2) Other Expenditures $52,100‑‑pass. I am sorry, the Member for Lakeside,
Interlake, I am sorry.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. You have muffled that up
good.
An Honourable Member: Order, please. That is a reflection of the minister.
Mr. Clif Evans: I certainly do apologize if the Acting Deputy
Chairperon took that in any other way than I meant it.
I have here a letter dated June of 1993 from a Hugh Brown,
community planner, I believe out of Selkirk, and it is Rural Development. It is to Ms. Jean Clearwater, who is the
chairperson of the Grahamdale Development Corporation. It is with respect to the REDI Infrastructure
Development program, Steeprock Marina expansion.
I can table the letter.
It is almost a year ago, but I was contacted by Ms. Clearwater just a
few weeks ago with a package on their development. I guess in her cover letter, if I can just
read from it: We have applied to the
provincial REDI program in 1992. They
would entertain the idea of funding the moving of the entrance but not the
marina. We stressed to them at that time
that without the marina there was no point in moving the roadway. We felt that the marina did come under their
infrastructure program, but unfortunately, it was not looked at favourably.
Since then they have applied to the Manitoba Environment to
change their position on one roadway and doing it another way. My question is: how, if in any way, can Rural Development,
under the infrastructure program, get involved with the Grahamdale Development
Corporation, and what should they do?
* (1510)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Our
development offices around the province are always prepared to assist
individuals like this particular one to try and work out problems if they
can. I would suggest that perhaps this
individual come in contact with our regional office and lay out the problems
and then we would certainly be prepared to examine what it is that the
situation is, and then approach the appropriate departments or individuals to
try and work the matter through.
Now, I am not familiar with that individual's details, but
if the member would like to share them with us, we would certainly be prepared
to take whatever action we can. I cannot
be more specific than that at this time because I do not know the specific details
of the situation.
Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, I will.
Actually, I will copy what I have received, and I am sure the department
somewhere might have most of this. I
will certainly do that and have it to the minister on Monday.
I am not sure whether it is the matter of the 50‑50
funding that they do not have available, but I think the question is, they are
looking for a way and a means to be able to find a way and means to be able to
continue with this project so that they can also work on establishing the
marina in the area. So I have just been
asked to discuss it with you and see how we can approach it.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this letter
from Mr. Brown, the Community Planner, indicates that the applicants should
proceed by completing the attached application and submitting it to the
office. It indicates what is necessary
in the application, and then if there are questions with respect to the filling
out of the application, the individuals should contact the office.
My understanding is that is where the project is at right
now, and that once the individual approaches our office, we will certainly be
prepared to work with them.
Mr. Clif Evans: I will pass that on to Ms. Clearwater and to
the development corporation that is in charge of it. I am sure that we will be hearing from the
Minister of Environment as to whether their application for the new roadway is
accepted and then proceed from there.
What I am looking for is opening the door to continue this.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson
(Mr. Reimer): Item 13.7.(b)(3) Programs $6,959,100‑‑pass;
7.(c) Special Projects $2,000,000‑‑pass.
Item
13.7.(d) Unconditional Grants‑‑Rural Community Development
$4,000,000.
Mr. Clif Evans: This could probably have waited for the
Minister's Salary, but I would like to deal with it.
On May 2, our Leader brought to the attention of the
Premier a situation with Mr. Rolla‑‑the Rolla family‑‑I
have dealt with it, and I know that I have made many, many inquiries on this
and have spoken to the minister's department, the environmental
department. I would just like to see if
we can do something with this. If I
might just quote from the Executive Council's Estimates, the Premier's
words: I want to assure the member that
the Department of Rural Development continues to deal with Mr. Rolla and to
pursue this issue in terms of the municipal responsibility. It has not been dropped, and we will attempt
to try to resolve it through whatever authority we have at our disposal.
The minister's department was made aware of this when I was
called by Mr. Rolla a year ago September.
I guess it is a struggle between his situation, his family situation and
the local municipality, and it just seems there is no where and no way that
this family has to go. They are looking
to government, some department. They
have gone to the Premier with it, and the Premier's department has talked to
them, to the family; we have. I would
really like to hear or to be able to pass on to Mr. Rolla just where the
Department of Rural Development is taking this, how far they are taking it, and
just what their attempt is at resolving this matter, what they are doing with
it.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just for the
record. I hope we are talking about the
same individual. The individual we have
been in contact with is Mr. Merv Rolla.
The matter is one which came to our attention about a year or more ago
and has been dealt with since that time.
The Disaster Assistance Board has certainly been, in my estimation, been
very fair with Mr. Rolla and has probably gone further than would be the norm,
if you like, in his particular situation.
There does not seem to be any satisfaction by Mr. Rolla in terms of what
action has been taken, but basically this is a municipal matter at this time
and one that has to be resolved by the municipality.
Our department is very open in talking to Mr. Rolla. I can tell the member that staff from my own
office have been on the telephone with Mr. Rolla for not 10 or 15 minutes a day
but indeed for hours at a time on a daily basis. It just does not seem that we can satisfy Mr.
Rolla's concerns. I can tell you that
through the Disaster Board, I believe Mr. Rolla received‑‑the
Disaster Assistance Board has paid something in the neighbourhood of $50,000 to
improve drainage around Mr. Rolla's property, and certainly, I believe, that
has been more than fair considering the impact of damages that were caused by
weather conditions.
Now, there are greater problems there than just what occurred
in that particular incident. It goes
back, and also it has a great deal to do with the municipality and Mr. Rolla,
so I think we have probably gone as far as we can. Certainly we are not closing the door. We will continue to leave our doors open to Mr.
Rolla to contact our office, but I think that basically we have treated this
individual very fairly. We have been in
contact with the municipality to try and address the situation as well, and I
think the municipality probably has the same view that we do in that they have
tried to address the concerns as best they can.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Clif Evans: Just reiterating Mr. Doer's words and, of
course, the reply from the Premier on this, given that under the provincial
Planning Act‑‑and it is an act of this Legislature‑‑municipalities
are constitutional creatures of the provincial government, that there is some
follow‑up from both the Premier's senior staff and the minister or the
minister's staff, so that the municipality knows that we just do not let
citizens get potentially treated this way without‑‑about the
concern and fairness in dealing with a matter such as this. Is there really nothing that can be done in
discussions with the municipality, with Mr. Rolla or with the department?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess we cannot say
that nothing has been done. Indeed, a
tremendous amount of staff time and effort, both I think at the municipal and
the departmental level, has been expended on this particular situation,
including staff time from the Disaster Assistance Board. I believe that the Disaster Assistance Board
was very generous in their award to Mr. Rolla and in trying to correct some of
the problem, but I believe that the problem is deeper than just simply a
natural weather kind of situation that has caused him problems. I think the problems are ones which probably
should have been taken care of before Mr. Rolla proceeded with the construction
of his home there.
* (1520)
Nevertheless, we have tried to address them; we have tried
to be as open as we can. As a matter of
fact, my deputy minister was in touch with the municipality today on the issue,
so I have to say that staff from my department and also, I think, the
municipality have really been sincere in trying to address this particular
problem.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 7.(d) Unconditional Grants‑‑Rural
Community Development $4,000,000.
Mr. Clif Evans: On the infrastructure section of the REDI
program, can the minister just explain what falls under the infrastructure
program as far as the initiatives or the programs that are available? What falls under that category that people
can apply for and under?
Mr. Derkach: A clarification. Is the member talking about the federal‑provincial
infrastructure program?
Mr. Clif Evans: No, the REDI program itself.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the infrastructure
program under the REDI umbrella, if you like, is one which was established to assist
municipalities or communities, or businesses within communities, to improve
water, sewer and energy services, transportation access, waste disposal
facilities and telecommunications which might assist in the infrastructure
works to an existing or expanding business, or a new business that is
developing in a particular community.
Our department, under the REDI umbrella, has a component
called infrastructure where we can give to a municipality or component of a
project an amount of money which would not exceed $100,000 within one
municipality, but if there were two municipalities that wanted to go jointly on
a particular infrastructure project, they could access up to $500,000 on a
sharing basis in that we would pay 50 percent, up to $500,000, and they would
pay 50 percent, up to $500,000.
So that is the type of infrastructure program that is
available under the REDI program. We
have had to date 10 projects under the infrastructure component which have been
approved, and I think the total is something close to $500,000 so far.
Mr. Clif Evans: Could he explain transportation access,
meaning a roadway, or exactly what is meant by transportation access?
Mr. Derkach: Transportation access would mean either an
approach into a property, perhaps a driveway that would be into the particular
plant. It is an access which would allow
transportation into the particular business or plant.
Mr. Clif Evans: And that business could be a private
business, commercial one, a mall?
Mr. Derkach: The program has to be tied to business
development of some kind, a business development project. In other words, it cannot be an existing
industrial park, and the town council comes to us and says, we would like to
put a new road into our existing industrial park. This is more a program that is designed to
give access to a business that is expanding, or a new business that is locating
in an area. So it is not to maintain
existing roadways and roads to industrial parks and that sort of thing.
Mr. Clif Evans: But it would not categorize under a private
individual wanting to perhaps expand his business, or having the potential to
expand his business, and going to the local municipality and asking for the
supports through the REDI program to have a road access to, let us say, to his
parking lot as a commercial parking lot.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if it is an access
road to a business that is expanding, then it would qualify. I give the example of the Monsanto plant in Morden
where we assisted the municipality in building an access road into the
plant. So whether it is a new plant or
an expansion of a plant, those kinds of projects would qualify under the
infrastructure program.
Mr. Clif Evans: Under that program, would a parking lot be
considered part of that infrastructure?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not like to
support parking lots because parking lots, in many cases, are used jointly by
perhaps service industries, by others, whether it is service businesses such as
grocery stores, clothing stores, etc., and a business may be locating in a mall
within that area and may want to improve the parking lot. That is very difficult for us to support. I would not categorically reject every
application that comes for that kind of infrastructure, but we would examine
that on a case‑by‑case basis very carefully to ensure that kind of
infrastructure is specifically designed for that business and not for a group
of businesses within a mall or within a square.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Resolution 13.7:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$14,006,100 for Rural Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the
Department of Rural Development is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary. At this point we request that the minister's
staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we consider
this particular item, I would just like to put some concluding remarks on the
record. First of all, I would like to
thank my staff‑‑my deputy minister and all my staff‑‑for
the excellent work they have done throughout the year, not only in preparing
these Estimates, but indeed in carrying out the many programs that we have
embarked on. I think it is through the
excellent efforts of staff within my department that we have been able to
deliver some excellent programs in rural Manitoba.
By and large, I feel that municipalities throughout
Manitoba, communities in rural Manitoba are generally pleased with some of the
programs that have been developed. They
have been developed with input from the communities with the grassroots, if you
like, input, and indeed I think staff have been very responsive. There are a couple of areas that staff in my
department have been very active in. One
is in the Grow Bonds and the REDI program.
There is a new area that is emerging in the whole area of
telecommunications and call centres on which staff from my department are
working very aggressively with communities.
Our economic development officers are out there trying to make sure that
the community is revitalized in every way, shape and form.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to just conclude by
thanking my staff for doing a very excellent job in the Department of Rural
Development.
I would also like to thank my critics who have taken a very
mature approach to this particular department and have dealt with issues
specifically, and we have not strayed too far from dealing with the important
issues that concern rural Manitoba.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I would like to just add to the comments of the
minister, to say thank you to the staff also.
I know I have a few other questions, but I will deal with them with the
minister at a later date. Again, thank
you to the staff for the support that they give to the critics and thank you to
the minister also.
* (1530)
Mr. Clif Evans: Also, in conclusion‑‑and I have
done this I do not know how many times as far as the minister's staff goes; it
will probably be the third time‑‑I thank them also for their time
and effort during Estimates and also in dealing with me on matters. When I come to them with a problem, I am
treated very well by them. As far as
Rural Development goes, I know that we will be keeping an eye on the department. It is very important to me and, I know, to
our side, and I would like to see more of the youth involvement that we have
seen in Brandon. Perhaps there is
something further that can be put together that we can have the youth in rural
Manitoba work alongside Rural Development.
So those are my closing comments.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the committee for an enjoyable day.
We
will now deal with line 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$1,219,400 for Rural Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
That concludes the Department of Rural Development. We will now be moving on to the Department of
Industry Trade and Tourism.
Would the committee like to take a five‑minute recess
to allow the critics an opportunity?
Five minutes. We are in recess.
The
committee recessed at 3:32 p.m.
After Recess
The
committee resumed at 3:38 p.m.
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND
TOURISM
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Supply, please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade
and Tourism.
Does
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism have an opening statement?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
Yes, Mr. Deputy Chair. I want to
just ask the Liberal opposition if it would be possible to try and do Estimates
tomorrow afternoon as I have an internal trade ministers' meeting on Monday and
Tuesday, which I am co‑chairing, with all the ministers across Canada and
the federal government. If we could
accommodate trying to conclude the Estimates, it would allow me the opportunity
Monday to carry out that responsibility‑‑if we could possibly do it
tomorrow afternoon, do the Estimates tomorrow afternoon, and this evening if
that would help. I spoke to the New
Democratic critic who said he has a commitment later on in the week which is
difficult for him to extend it. So I
just wonder if it would be possible, the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to advise the honourable
minister that we would have to get the leave from the House to decide whether
we are going to sit. So, if the House
leaders could get together this afternoon before six o'clock, because it has to
be announced in the House before six.
So, if you want to come to some type of informal arrangement, that is
fine, and the House can advise me of how we are going to handle the committee
later than that.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): In other words, you would want to sit this
evening and tomorrow afternoon, but your Leader is saying the Member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) cannot sit tonight. Is
that it?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I can sit tonight.
Mr. Gaudry: Oh, okay.
I will find out, because I cannot personally.
Mr. Storie: You cannot?
Mr. Gaudry: Well, I am not the critic.
* (1540)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Let us not get all the informal discussion on
the record. I think we can allow our
House leaders to have that discussion.
At this time, we will get the committee rolling, and if we can inform
the House leaders to do the negotiating, possibly carry on and have this
meeting go.
The
honourable minister, with his opening statement, please.
Mr. Downey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I will try and move through it fairly quickly
so we can get on with some of the questions that the members may have.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to present the 1994‑95 fiscal year spending Estimates for the
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to the Committee of Supply of the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. As you
know, the challenge of economic development in this province changes only in
the detail from year to year. The broad
strategy of this government and this department remains essentially the same as
it has been for the past six years. In
that time, this government has worked to turn Manitoba around from an
uncompetitive tax and fiscal structure and make Manitoba an attractive place in
which to live and invest, to steer the province through a difficult recession
without sacrificing essential services and position our province to prosper in
a new globally oriented economy.
As we head into another fiscal year, the state of our
provincial economy is looking better than it has for some time. For example, our total employment in 1993
averaged 490,000 or 6,000 higher than in 1992.
In 1993, our job growth rate was 1.2 percent, the third highest in
Canada.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Statistics Canada says those 6,000 new jobs were all in the
private sector, and 5,000 of these jobs, or 83 percent of the total, were full‑time
positions. This was much better than the
national performance where only 40 percent of the 1993 job growth was in full‑time
positions.
The Manitoba growth rate for full‑time jobs last year
was 1.3 percent, the second best in Canada and more than twice the national
gain of 0.6 percent.
For 1994 our job prospects are even brighter. The Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure
Works Agreement is expected to create thousands of new jobs in Manitoba over
the next two years. In the past few
weeks, the agreement has generated nearly $140‑million worth of projects,
which are expected to create at least 2,400 new jobs direct.
That is just the beginning.
More than $60 million of infrastructure funding is yet to be
allocated. These infrastructure projects
will act as an immediate stimulus to the Manitoba economy, creating hundreds of
jobs almost instantly. We expect a major
boost to Manitoba's retail and service sectors as well from the anticipated
increase in consumer spending.
As well, predictions from improved growth rates and capital
investment, a significant drop in the number of bankruptcies last year, and an
unemployment rate that is amongst the lowest in the country all bode well for
the future.
In the fiscal year 1994‑95, we are predicting steady
growth with employment, personal income and government revenues below pre‑recession
levels for some time to come.
As a government, we believe our primary responsibility is
to create a stable and positive fiscal environment in which all Manitobans can prosper. The greatest contribution we can make in this
area is a balanced budget. As the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) stated in our recent budget, we are on
track to achieve that by fiscal year 1996‑97. Our government is actually aiming for a budget
surplus of $150 million by 1997‑98.
For 1994‑95, we are projecting a deficit of $296 million, which
represents $165 million or nearly 36 percent decline from the deficit forecast
for fiscal '93‑94.
Clearly, we are winning the war against government debt. Moreover, we have now held the line on major
taxes in our past seven budgets, and we continue to seek ways to decrease the
tax burden, particularly on smaller businesses and firms in certain strategic
sectors.
Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism sees its role as a
facilitator and catalyst for economic growth and sustainable development. More specifically, all our programs are aimed
at advancing our broad role and mission which can be set out in the following
eight points:
First, we must foster the conditions necessary for
creating, retaining, expanding and recruiting business enterprise and jobs that
go along with it. We must encourage an
entrepreneurial and innovative economic climate through partnership with the
private sector, labour, research and educational institutions, communities and
other agencies of all government at all levels.
We must identify and encourage business to capitalize on Manitoba's
comparative economic advantages and resource strengths. We must help business gain access to
investment capital. We must encourage
the development and commercial application of advanced technologies. We must foster the overall growth and
diversification of domestic and international trade. We must market Manitoba as a unique tourist
destination and help companies and communities develop world‑class
tourism attractions. Finally, we must
provide a variety of accessible and useful business information and advisory
services.
Let me turn now to some of the initiatives our department
has been pursuing and will continue to pursue in the year ahead. First is the critical issue of investment
capital. Capital is the engine of
business growth and of job creation, ultimately the very basis of our
prosperity of our province and of our quality of life. Without adequate financing, businesses are
limited to their ability to upgrade technology, develop new products and
services, and pursue new markets‑‑in a word, to be
competitive. However, with the dynamic
capital market and a strong base of entrepreneurs, promising ideas can be
transformed into commercial products and successful enterprises, thus improving
access to capital remains a high priority for our government.
Recently our government set up a 13‑member task force
on capital markets to better understand investment markets in this province and
address related concerns. The task force
is looking especially at ways to increase access to capital for small‑
and medium‑sized businesses. It is
expected to report later this spring and recommend several courses of action
for developing the local capital market in Manitoba.
This year the department's budget includes $200,000 for the
introduction of the small business expansion fund. This fund, which will comprise contributions
from government, financial institutions and businesses themselves, will aim to
reduce the risk of lending to small‑ and medium‑sized
companies. This new fund builds on the
success of the department's Business Start program, a loan guarantee program
that has helped create hundreds of new businesses and jobs since its inception
in 1990.
Our 1994‑95 Estimates include an additional $200,000
that will enable our staff, in partnership with Manitoba Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, to plan a wide range of activities and festivities to celebrate
Manitoba's 125th birthday in 1995. The
tourism initiative plans to capitalize on this occasion using it as a primary
theme in its 1995 promotional strategy.
We expect to welcome home many former Manitobans, and I
encourage each of you to plan to welcome your friends and family home in 1995.
Thirdly, recognizing the importance of advanced technology
and innovation to our economy, the department's support for Manitoba Centres of
Excellence research at the University of Manitoba will continue. Our 1994‑95 Estimates include an
additional $200,000 for this purpose. We
certainly hope the Centres of Excellence research will complement and support
the department's ongoing effort to foster the development and early commercialization
of health care products and of course the work of the Economic Innovation and
Technology Council to promote advanced manufacturing technologies.
Another issue of great concern to our department is
interprovincial barriers to trade. As a
trading economy that exports almost half of what we produce and that sells most
of our exports to other provinces, Manitoba depends on gaining access to other
provinces as well as other nations.
While we are generally encouraged with the potential now offered
by the North American Free Trade Agreement, there are still hundreds of
barriers within Canada that restrict the flow of goods, services, money and
people between provinces. These
restrictions lead to inefficient use of resources, limit industries' ability to
seek economies of scale and ultimately increase both taxes and costs of
consumer goods.
In December of 1992, the federal‑provincial Committee
of Ministers on Internal Trade began negotiations aimed at reaching a
comprehensive agreement on internal trade barriers. Manitoba has been an active participant in
these talks which are expected to produce an agreement by June 30, 1994.
At this time, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would also
like to recognize the work of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson), who has co‑chaired the internal trade ministers' work, and
thank him for his work and efforts in this area, and look forward to carry on
with some success that we hope will be able to be achieved, again, meetings
that take place here on Monday and Tuesday.
Hopefully we can have an agreement by the end of June.
As I mentioned earlier, our department, and indeed our
government, are committed to nurturing an environment in which an
entrepreneurship and innovators can flourish.
To this end, the Economic Innovation and Technology Council and the
Clerk of the Executive Council recently launched a joint venture to encourage
entrepreneurship within government to improve the quality of client services
provided by government and to eliminate duplication and overlap in how those
services are provided.
* (1550)
As well, an advisory public private sector panel has been
struck to review the process of setting business regulations, and I am pleased
the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) is chairing this
committee. It will consult with business
on such issues as developing a code of conduct for business regulations, pre‑enactment
consultation and reducing red tape, with its report expected by June 30 of this
year.
In presenting the Estimates of this department in 1993, my
colleague, the Honourable Eric Stefanson, explained the departmental
restructuring that had recently taken place and spoke of the six strategic
sectors that I, T & T is focusing its efforts on. These sectors, you will recall, are health
care industries, aerospace, information and telecommunications, agri‑food,
environmental industries and tourism.
Each sector has a strong competitive cluster of companies here in
Manitoba on which to build, or represents an industry that we believe will see
tremendous growth in the world economy.
Moreover, most are high technology fields where innovation is key, and
with innovation comes the potential for spin‑off benefits from other
industries.
Over the past 12 months, we have seen important
developments in each of these areas.
While our department certainly cannot take credit for all of these
advances, we have supported our partners in the private sector in many direct
and indirect ways.
In the health care industries, biotechnology has emerged as
the dominant subsector in the past year.
Novopharm Biotechnology has made a strong contribution through its
investment and development work in the therapies for treating brain tumours and
cancer. This work employs about 20 scientists.
Other companies moving steadily ahead include Apotex
Fermentation Inc., which has completed a $17.5‑million expansion of its
manufacturing capacity and created 18 new jobs.
Our department assisted Apotex with a $2.2‑million loan and
Biovail Lifesciences, which has negotiated licensing agreements with major
multinational companies and will likely be hiring more people as it begins
manufacturing here. Rh Pharmaceuticals,
which has also seen healthy growth in the past year, is now ready to introduce
various products developed in its existing research facilities in Manitoba.
In the aerospace sector, the cancellation of the EH‑101
helicopter contract was of course devastating news to Manitoba. However, other developments in North American
industry have had a positive impact on our industry, and several companies,
including Bristol Aerospace, Boeing Canada Technology and Standard Aero have
picked up new business.
I should say, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that the
cancellation of the EH‑101, I believe, has caused the layoff of some over
100 engineers that were trained and educated here at the University of Manitoba
and are having to find jobs in other industry‑related activities here in
the province, but it was very devastating to several of the companies that were
relying on that contract.
Our department has been working hard to support the sector
through the various partnership arrangements, organizing the Manitoba Aerospace
Forum and publishing an industry capabilities brochure and company director.
In addition, our aerospace initiative staff organized a
Manitoba exhibit for the Airshow Canada last August, an information booth at
major shows in Britain in September and will take part in the Farnborough
Airshow this fall.
Finally, we are working vigorously to foster the
development of a Spaceport Canada, the proposed commercial sounding rocket and
satellite launch facility at the Churchill Research Range.
Under the Information and Telecommunications Initiatives,
the department has attracted six new call management centres to Manitoba in the
last year, with the prospects of creating as many as a thousand new jobs. These call centre operations include
AT&T, Transtec, Canada Post, CP Rail, Stentor, all of them being in Winnipeg,
GWE Group Inc. in Brandon, and Central Canada Telemanagement in Russell. There are other hot prospects in the wings,
which together could generate well over 2,000 jobs.
There have been several significant developments in the
agrifood sector in 1993‑94, including Ready Foods Ltd., which has
completed a $3.4‑million capital program to build a new plant in Winnipeg
and purchase new automated equipment.
This project will help retain 130 existing jobs and create some 50 new
positions. Our department has assisted
Ready Foods with a $500,000 loan.
Woodstone Foods has announced a $1.6‑million
expansion to its Portage la Prairie pea processing plant. It is expected to add up to an additional 20
new jobs within the next year or two to its current 50 employees.
Supreme
Produce is building a $1‑million minicarrot plant, which will create up
to 25 new jobs.
Winkler Meats has completed a $400,000 expansion of their
meat processing plant. This will enable
them to double their production of fresh and processed pork and create an
additional 10 jobs.
Our department was successful at attracting Gilbert
International from out of province to Arborg where they are establishing a
miniquiche plant, and it should create some 15 jobs.
Keystone Grain has invested $900,000 in resurrecting a
sunflower dehulling plant in Winkler, creating some 20 jobs.
Meanwhile, the department is continuing its efforts to
promote export development through its assistance of the Manitoba Food
Processors Association and the Food Beverage Canada Association. This latter group, which we were instrumental
in setting up, is an umbrella group representing the four Western Canadian Food
Processor Association. Both these
associations, of course, are focused on co‑ordination and co‑operation
among agrifood companies in developing export markets.
In the environmental field, our Environmental Industries
Development Initiative has awarded grants totalling over $70,000, and these
grants went to New World Technologies which remanufactures laser printer toner
cartridges, Nemco Resources which recycles plastic containers, Western
Industrial Services Ltd. which cleans and transports hazardous and other kinds
of waste, and International Fibreboard which uses old newspaper and wood chips
to make fibreboard.
Besides their environmental benefits, these projects have
generated more than a million and a half in total investment and about 70
jobs. Our department has financially
supported and works closely with the Manitoba Environmental Industries Association
and has also assisted the Canadian Environmental Technology Association to set
up offices in Winnipeg.
Tourism remains a major industry for this province,
bringing in more than $372 million in annual revenues from out‑of‑province
visitors. It employs over some 20,000
Manitobans and overall contributes more than a billion dollars to our economy
each year. Well, 1993 saw small tourism
growth across Canada. The number of American
tourists visiting Manitoba increased by 2.5 percent, which I think is a
positive sign. In 1994‑95, we will
maintain a strong focus on attracting U.S. visitors, taking advantage of the
low Canadian dollar through incentives aimed at the American market.
Our marketing strategy is also aimed to capitalize on Manitoba's
diverse attractions in outdoor adventure culture festivals and events and
various urban tourist products. The
Canada‑Manitoba Tourism Agreement offers the department new support for
market and product development. We will
also continue to provide visitor information services through six travel
information centres, including the new Manitoba Travel Idea Centre at The
Forks, which will be officially opened later this month. I invite all members to participate.
Finally I would like to discuss one specific economic
development initiative program which we feel is successfully advancing the
department's objectives. The Manitoba
Industrial Opportunities Program, or MIOP, provides financial incentives to
companies seeking to locate or expand in Manitoba. The program requires certain benefits to
Manitoba in terms of job creation or capital expenditures. In 1993‑94, MIOP approved six loans
ranging from $500,000 to $2.2 million, with an expectation of nearly 600 jobs
being created or retained in Manitoba.
Total capital investment is estimated to be over $31 million.
This then provides a brief overview of the key strategies,
initiatives and results of my department's programs, both reviewing 1993 and
'94 and looking ahead to the current fiscal year. We believe we are preparing Manitoba for a
diversified, innovative and competitive future, building on our traditional
strengths and seizing new opportunities in emerging world markets as they
appear for the benefit and prosperity of all Manitobans.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in closing my remarks, I
would like to acknowledge the work of the previous minister, whom I had the
privilege of following in the portfolio, the previous two ministers, seeing as
the one prior to him just walked in the room.
I have to acknowledge him as well, seeing as I want a favour from him.
I also want to acknowledge at this time the work of Mr.
Paul Goyan, who has gone on to the Department of Education to become the deputy
minister responsible for the training component within that department, a very
capable and a very good person to work with.
I just want to acknowledge on the record the work that Paul has done
within the department, and I want to indicate as well how much I enjoyed
working with him. As well, I look forward
to working with the individuals I will be introducing and all of the other
departmental people who I think commit their time and their lives in a very
committed way to making Manitoba a better place to work and do business and for
our families to live.
Thank
you, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
* (1600)
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I thank the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the
honourable member for Flin Flon, have any opening comments?
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thought,
when the minister was thanking previous ministers, he may have been talking
about myself.
I certainly have some affinity with the work that is being
done in this department, and I want to commend the minister for one of the, I
guess, best‑read speeches as opening remarks. If there was an Academy Award for that
performance, I think this committee should offer it to the minister, because,
of course, much of what the minister said, much of the rhetoric and much of the
tone of the minister's remarks is belied by the facts that Manitobans face, and
contrary to what the minister says, Manitobans are not better off after six
years of this minister's and other ministers of this government's leadership.
The fact is that we have fewer jobs today in Manitoba than
we did in 1988. That is a fact, an
irrefutable fact. The minister, I guess,
ignores the fact that the number of people unemployed is higher, ignores the
fact that despite, yes, some successes over the last six years, some successes
over the last year, on balance we have lost thousands and thousands, as many as
15,000 manufacturing jobs over the last few years, and the impact on our
economy has been staggering.
I noticed in the paper today, and I am sure the minister
did not fail to notice the fact, that the number of bankruptcies has declined a
few percentage points. This was deemed
to be good news, but we are still talking about hundreds of bankruptcies,
hundreds and hundreds in the first quarter of this year.
The fact of the matter is that Manitoba's small business,
particularly the retail sector, and that was pointed out in the article, is
suffering. Part of the reason for that, of
course, is a campaign by the government to in effect lower wages, a lack of
commitment on the part of the government to maintain jobs, not just to create
jobs with the private sector and through government agencies and government
support, but a lack of initiative in protecting jobs.
I met with the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I have met with chambers of commerce across
the province, and I can tell you that the best single indicator of small
business success in any province, in any jurisdiction, in any country, is the
population of people who are working. It
is that simple. The small business
sector thrives when people are working.
There is, I think, a lack of focus on the government's
industrial strategy, a lack of focus on the government's small business
strategy and a lack of recognition of the role of government in supporting both
the industrial sector and the small business sector in the province as well as
having a hand in serving as a partner in the long‑term policy directions
that the province sets.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on the minister's
opening remarks. I wish the minister, as
is tradition, would give us a copy, and I am sure the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) would like a copy of the minister's opening remarks so at some point
we can shred them. [interjection] No, I meant as opposed to just throwing them
in the garbage.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to just spend some
time on one other topic that the minister addressed in his opening remarks and
that was in relation to telecommunications.
The minister is talking about the six new businesses, call centres is
what he referred to them as, and they are a service sector business.
The fact is that companies like GWE, which are providing
some jobs in the community of Brandon, and a number of other smaller companies
in other communities in the province which are providing jobs, are very
susceptible to economic ups and downs.
They are also the kinds of jobs that can move in and out of provinces
and jurisdictions with tremendous ease.
They are also the kind of jobs where the term "long‑term
employment" means a month. For
many, many of these types of occupations a month in them is a long time. The wages are low end of the service sector,
certainly, $5, $6 quite often, very few benefits. It is no substitute for a strong
manufacturing sector.
We talked about the telecommunications industry. Well, the telecommunications industry on the
manufacturing side has not been nearly as successful. We need only talk about Northern Telecom,
talk about the jobs that are being lost there, the manufacturing jobs. We need to have, I think, a recognition that
it is not just the service end of the telecommunications information transfer
component of our economy‑‑we need to be involved in the
manufacturing and high‑end servicing, so we need the computer skills and
the technology skills to create higher paying, higher skill jobs in the
province.
Simply being an operator at a call centre, and they are not
paid, as I said, substantial wages, is not a real long‑term commitment to
the economy that manufacturing type jobs would be. So there may have been limited success; there
have been some other I think failures that the minister did not talk about,
including the Royal Trust jobs and the MacLeod‑Stedman jobs that were
supposed to be coming from Toronto, et cetera.
In terms of the whole high‑tech information
technology areas, one of the areas where the government I think has missed the
boat is in using the information technology centre. The InfoTech Centre, which was established in
1985 or '86 and established on Ness Avenue, which brought together some of the
largest computer hardware manufacturers and some of the software manufacturers,
trying to create a centre of excellence in terms of the use of computer
technology, both for small business and the educational field, that initiative
seems to have lost a lot of steam.
I know the government has some newfound interest in the
information highway, but really that was what we were trying to do in 1985‑86
when we established the Info‑Tech Centre, and in fact established the
first educational information network.
MINET was established I believe in 1986 or '87, and really
was a forerunner of the information networks that we are now hearing so much
about. They were not developed to their
potential in my estimation, and it is something that we are probably going to
regret, as a province, and I wish the government had proceeded with.
I
will leave that for a time; we have got some sections where we can talk about
that.
I want to put the minister on notice that there are a
number of pieces of information that we will be requesting as we go through
with. One specifically, I have already
provided the minister notice on this, I would like some information on a
contract that was given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to a
one S.L. Bond.
Both the previous ministers, who were sitting here earlier,
both the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) and the member for Charleswood
(Mr. Ernst) had promised, in fact, to provide me with terms of reference for
this contract. I believe it was let in
1989 or '90, and I know the department spent something like $300,000. I know from other sources that it was money
not well spent.
I would like to know whether there have been any further
contracts. I would like to have the
government table a copy of the contract, and a copy of the terms of
reference. Again, this is the third
request, and it does not seem to me that this is something that should be
highly confidential; it is a contract paid for with public money. It has been promised in the past and I would
like this minister to deliver.
The second piece of information that I am going to be
requesting is information on the spending of the Economic Innovation and
Technology Council. I would like a
report on the grants that have been provided, the research grants which I
gather followed from the Manitoba Research Council initiatives, some of which
were underway, or many of which were already underway. I would like to know where the money is going
that used to flow through the Manitoba Research Council, and I would
specifically like to know what grants have been made from the economic innovation
fund. I think that is the title. Yes, the Economic Innovation and Technology
Fund.
* (1610)
I would like some specific information about the
undertaking to create "innovation" videos. I understand that almost half of the money
that was expended from this fund in the last budget was for a video, or a
series of videos, and I would like some information on it. I would also like some information on the
government's intentions with respect to airing these videos, what sort of
promotional use they will be put to and whether we can expect to see them on
the public airwaves anytime soon.
I think that is enough for opening remarks. I will let my colleague from St. James put
some remarks on the record.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I thank the member
for Flin Flon for those remarks. Does
the critic for the Second Opposition Party, the honourable member for St. James‑‑
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Yes, I want to start
by indicating that I missed the opening comments, although I understand there
was some discussion about sitting in these Estimates tonight. I am unavailable; however, having discussed
this with my colleague the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), he is prepared
to sit tonight on my behalf.
I understand that the minister feels he has to go to some
meeting, and we are prepared to accommodate that.
Mr. Storie: Go crazy.
Mr. Edwards: I will not accept the invitation of my friend
the member for Flin Flon to go crazy, but I will put some comments on the
record at this point on the understanding that, not being able to participate
tonight and in the event that these Estimates close tonight, I may not have a
chance to ask some of the questions I might have asked as the critic. But I assume and know from past experience
that the minister will, hopefully, accommodate specific questions in the normal
course of business of the House as he has done in the past.
Specifically, I want to say, by way of opening comment,
that the approach to Industry, Trade and Tourism, which is really the foremost
department saddled with the responsibility of doing whatever government can do
to promote economic growth, I view as a critical department. The numbers, the actual budget perhaps
suggests that it is, on the expenditure side, not one of the largest; however,
I think in terms of importance and getting the philosophy and strategy right
there are very few, if any, departments of more importance. The department is really given the task of
doing whatever government can do to help assist and promote economic growth.
I start with the assumption that there are expenditure
problems in government. We have to deal
with those, but ultimately if we are going to pay for these services, we are
going to need economic growth to occur at a reasonable rate. I think we are all aiming for a rate that is
in a sustainable basis which will provide revenue for these services which I
predict all parties today and certainly in the next election will stand up and
say that we all like.
We all want to pay for high‑quality health care, we
all want to pay for high‑quality education, and we want the dollars to do
that. We have discrepancies over how
much should be spent where and some priorities, but the bottom line is that we
need growth to occur, all of us need growth to occur, to pay for those things.
Having said that, I do have some concerns about the
direction of the government. I view the
government as being overly concerned about attracting outside investors and
being prepared to commit taxpayers' dollars to get those investors to come to
Manitoba.
No one would be happier to sign a profitable deal on behalf
of this province with outside investors than I or representatives of the
Liberal Party, but as a mainstay of economic growth, I think that the first and
foremost priority must be our own businesses that are here and our own
entrepreneurs who are here because clearly those people have a proven
commitment to this community.
Time has shown and our record has shown that those are the
best investment. The people who are here
because they have already got a proven commitment are much more likely to
stay. We have learned time and time
again that outside investors come, take and leave. I believe that our first priority should be
our domestic, our local people.
I had an interesting anecdote I just wanted to leave with
members based on‑‑which sort of gives me the encouragement that the
right track is to promote people who are here.
I was in Altona, meeting with Mr. Friesen, who, I know, is known to many
members of the government, and I asked him the question as to how this business
got going. I think his grandfather
started in Altona. His comment was very
interesting. His grandfather had started
it because he thought it could be a viable business, although one could, I
think, look at a map and say, well, perhaps for transportation reasons and
other things, it should be somewhere else.
It got started there because that is where Mr. Friesen lived, and he
wanted to do something to create employment for youth in Altona and in that
region.
I think the lesson there is‑‑and, of course, it
has become a very, very successful firm with worldwide clients‑‑that
we have the people here who are going to hold the key to our future. They are already here, and I think our challenge
is to ensure that those people are given a chance to invest, start profitable
businesses and grow.
Boeing is in Seattle because that is where Mr. Boeing
lived. Most often, I think, successful
business does not come from people in the Legislature or other institutions or
think tanks saying this industry is going to take off and this business is
going to take off. That is certainly
worthwhile, but most often you find successful businesses grow and stay and provide
jobs because there is a driving force, a driving person or group of people and
this is where they live. This is, as a
result, where they make their commitment and where they stay.
With respect to going on from that overview, and really, I
think, which represents a significant philosophical difference with this
government, which I see as overly interested in giving taxpayers' dollars to
outside investors, I am going to be very interested in getting full details of
the grants given in particular under the grants program, specifically to businesses,
which falls under, I believe, Industry Development and subappropriation
10.2.(b), that is, Financial Services.
I would like full details of grants given under the
Business Immigration Program and what is happening with that. I would like a full breakdown of the 42
projects listed under the Manitoba Industrial Opportunities Program and the
jobs that are listed there and how those jobs are broken down. I would also like details about the projects
in the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative and the jobs that are listed
there. Those are things that I would
like a greater breakdown on.
In addition, the Manitoba Business Development Fund gives
grant and loan support and I would like a breakdown of the companies that got
support and in what amounts, and, as well, an update on the Energy Intensive
Industries initiative, which is based out in Selkirk, I believe. The project, I think, is going to wind up
this year. I just would be interested to
get an update on that and what we have actually achieved from that investment.
So, in particular, focus on subappropriation 10.2.(b), and
in the event that I am not here when those questions are asked, I would like
specifics of the programs that are listed in general terms under those headings
and the monies that have gone‑‑and a breakdown of where the jobs
that are alleged to have been created have been created.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am going to conclude my opening
comments with that. Again, that does not
represent all of the issues and concerns that I had intended to raise had I
been present for all of this, but I will certainly review whatever issues my
friend the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for St. Boniface
(Mr. Gaudry) raise tonight. I trust that
whatever flows from that is left unanswered and flows from these documents
will, as it has in the past, be answered fully by the minister.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those
statements.
* (1620)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have any
problems with the questions asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party that, if
we are not able to provide the information this evening, I am prepared to
provide it to him in an appropriate way either in writing or verbally to him,
but I will get the information. If he
has additional questions as it relates to the department that he has not put on
the record, I am prepared to respond positively to that.
For the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), I can do what I
can to try and raise the contract that he has referred to. I will reread the commitments made by my
colleagues, but I take him at his word that there was a commitment made, and I
will attempt to provide him with the information. I am not knowledgeable of it, but I will in
fact check into it. The same goes for
the member for Flin Flon. If in
tonight's discussion there are questions we cannot deal with or he does not
get, I am quite open, because I think it is important that we do provide the
information to the members of the Legislature on aspects of the expenditures of
all departments. So I would proceed to
find out what I can for him and, if not tonight, then be very open to provide
that information for him at another time.
I again thank the members for their opening comments and am
prepared to have staff come forward, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if that is your
wish.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank the minister for
that. Under Manitoba practice, debate of
the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the
Estimates of the department.
Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed
with consideration of the next line, and at this time, we invite the minister's
staff to join us at the table. We ask
the minister to introduce the staff present.
We
will be dealing with 1.(b)(1) on page 102.
Mr. Downey: We have Mr. Stephen Kupfer, who is the acting
deputy minister, who is filling in the position of deputy minister for the
position that Paul Goyan had, who has gone over to deputy minister in Education
for the area of training and universities.
We have Mr. Jack Dalgliesh, who is responsible for the finance and
administration of the department, and Val Zinger, who was formerly there, who
is knowledgeable and was very much involved in the development of the Estimates
and has now gone over to the acting partner in the Environmental Industries
section within the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
So we have all the people with all the answers, and I will
just sit here and pass the information over to my colleagues.
Mr. Storie: Given the co‑operative mood we all seem
to be in, I would recommend that perhaps we not follow so rigidly the Estimates
process as preferred perhaps by this Chair.
My colleague from St. James who is not going to be here this evening
could perhaps ask some more broad‑ranging questions, and we could float a
little bit, if that is the will of committee.
Mr. Downey: I agree with that, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. I will try to accommodate
to maximize the time that is available to us.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Then, by leave, the committee can refer to
whatever they want tonight. How is that?
Mr. Downey: Then it is our intention to pass it all at
once.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleagues on
the committee for accommodating me.
I want to refer to specifically subappropriation 10.2(b)
under Financial Services of the Industry Development area. This is the primary source of financial
incentive to businesses to expand or locate in Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Chair, looking at the Expected Results, it
indicates that there are 42 projects that were approved that would result in
the creation or retention of approximately 6,312 jobs. Is there a breakdown available of those 42
projects and those jobs, and does that represent one year's, that is the 1993‑94,
efforts in that department?
Mr. Downey: The numbers which are in the Supplementary
Information, those are the projects that have been there for the life of the
program, nine years I believe it is. So
it is not just one year's projects, it is the life of the program.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Deputy Chair, given that, can the
minister indicate which projects have been initiated in this coming year under
that program?
Mr. Downey: In the last year?
Mr. Edwards: Yes.
Mr. Downey: There are six that have been completed and
signed this past year‑‑not initiated maybe, but completed and
signed.
Mr. Edwards: Can the minister give a thumbnail sketch of
those six?
Mr. Downey: Yes I can, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. We are dealing with Carte International,
Palliser Furniture, Builders Furniture, Readyfoods, which I put on the record
in my opening statement, Apotex Fermentation and Standard Knitting.
Mr. Edwards: Can the minister indicate in those six what
the dollar amount was and what the form of the loan agreement was, whether it
was grants, loans, forgivable loans, et cetera?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, basically the total
amount of all of those combined was $3.2 million. They were all repayable loans with interest
forgiven if job targets are met, except for one, and it was a loan guarantee. The numbers of jobs that are to be created, I
am told, are 586 out of those loans.
Mr. Edwards: I recognize the names of those
companies. Apotex obviously is not a
Manitoba company. How many of those
companies are Manitoba companies, and how many are corporations from outside of
the province? Is that breakdown
available?
Mr. Downey: I think basically if they were not Manitoba
companies, they are now. You referred to
Apotex, but I think all the other ones are traditionally Manitoba companies
but, again, what is your definition of a Manitoba company?
* (1630)
Mr. Edwards: The definition I am thinking of is simply a
company that has not been here in the past and is attracted as opposed to a
company that is here and is being assisted to expand.
Is
that distinction available?
Mr. Downey: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that
these are all existing companies that are expanding.
Mr. Edwards: Under the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment
Initiative, which is the next one listed there, it says it is a program that
has only been in existence for two years.
What is the distinction between the Recruitment Initiative
criteria and the Opportunities Program criteria? What is the difference in focus of these two
programs?
Mr. Downey: The difference, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is
that MIOP is more the traditional bricks and mortar, equipment type loan. The Industrial Recruitment Initiative is more
for the call centre initiatives and the high‑tech area.
Mr. Edwards: Given that, can the minister give us the same
detail on the three projects that are listed under that initiative?
Mr. Downey: They are basically loan programs. The Winnipeg Airport Authority, the UMA
Engineering which has already been repaid because it did not meet the targets
in jobs that it was to create, and the GWE will be a forgivable loan if job
targets are, in fact, met.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Edwards: What was the Winnipeg airport agreement, how
much, and what was it for?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it was a three‑way
funding from the City of Winnipeg, the federal government, WD, and the Province
of Manitoba, $300,000 each to take it over and make it a local operating
authority from a federal Transport Canada controlled authority.
Mr. Edwards: That is bridge funding to allow for that
transition, or is there going to be any capital purchases flowing from
that? What is the idea behind that
$900,000?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is
basically the set‑up costs of the authority, legal, contracts had to be
put together, basically the developmental part of it, and once it becomes
operational, it is repayable.
Mr. Edwards: What then is the total for those three? We have the $300,000 for the airport. I know there is a $600,000 for GWE. Is that the extent of it, and maybe the
minister can just indicate what UMA had got and repaid.
Mr. Downey: The amounts are $300,000 for Winnipeg Airport
Authority; $300,000 for UMA, which has been repaid; and GWE is $484,000, which
brings a total of $1,084,000. The difference
I think the number the member has is that there is a training component that
goes with GWE to assist the training at ACC at Brandon.
Mr. Edwards: Actually, I think that there is the training
component in addition to a $600,000 contribution to the capital cost‑‑at
least that is what the press release initially said. The total contribution to GWE is I think a
$1.4‑million facility, $484,000.
Was there any money from other levels of government, because I believe‑‑and
I do not have it in front of me, but that there was a total of $600,000
contributed?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would have
to double check. As far as the
Department of I, T and T is concerned, the number which comes under the MIRI
program is $484,000. I can check as to
whether or not there is any other department of government. I know there is a training component which is
over and above this. As far as
additional government money, I cannot speak to that, but I do know this is all
that the MIRI program has put into it.
Mr. Edwards: In the agreement with GWE, the minister
indicates that there was a forgivable portion if job targets are met. Are those job targets available? Is the time frame and the numbers available
for public view?
Mr. Downey: That detail I can get for the member. We have a 115 job target here. I will get the details as to the additional
information that he is asking for if there are additional commitments that have
to be made.
Mr. Edwards: That would be appreciated. With respect to the Winnipeg authority,
presumably there are no ties to jobs under that, that is simply that
transitional funding. Is that correct?
Mr. Downey: That is correct.
Mr. Edwards: So we are not expecting the province, the
other levels are not expecting additional jobs.
It is just a joint decision to support this initiative.
Mr. Downey: Basically, it is bridge financing and there
is not a job component tied to that.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to the two programs, the Industrial
Opportunities Program and the Industrial Recruitment Initiative, is there a
list‑‑and we are not going to go over it here, obviously, but is
there an overall list which lists the 42 projects, not just the six this last
year, but is there an overall master list that could be made available?
Mr. Downey: Yes.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that and presumably that 42 goes
back nine years, the length of the program.
Mr. Downey: That is correct.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to these two programs and I see
there are others, but I am particularly interested in these. How are these promoted? How are these dealt with? Is it based on interest being expressed by
companies coming to the government or the government answering them and telling
about these programs? Are there
educational initiatives, promotional initiatives, for these programs both
inside and outside of Manitoba? If so,
what are they?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, basically, we
have a number of staff within the department that work within the different
business initiative areas that are meeting with, making contact with and are
being contacted by people interested in doing business in Manitoba and/or
businesses in Manitoba planning to expand, any combination of ways. We do usually receive calls, people who are
talking or thinking or needing support to expand their business. They will make a contact to some department
of government, if not I, T and, T, maybe Rural Development or vice‑versa. But, basically, it is through the staff that
work within the department.
Mr. Edwards: Is the strategy to respond to inquiries or
are there specific targeted initiatives that members of the department actually
initiate themselves in terms of local companies or outside companies based on
certain strategic areas that the government feels expansion can occur in? In other words, is there a proactive as well
as a reactive aspect to these programs?
Mr. Downey: Yes.
Mr. Edwards: Is the information available as to which specific
companies have been approached by department officials as part of that
strategy?
Mr. Downey: I missed the first part of it, I am sorry.
Mr. Edwards: Assuming there is a proactive approach and
that the department would presumably have a record of approaches that were made
to companies, is that information available for the last year as to which
companies were approached by the department to consider expansion, consider
participation in these programs?
Mr. Downey: I do not know whether we would have a
specific list, but I would think that we could get some additional companies
that were approached and some that did approach us. For sure we have not been able to land or be
successful in all cases. In discussion
with the deputy minister and with different staff, they are always aggressively
working.
* (1640)
We have the six strategic areas which we have been working
on. We have several managing partners
who are aggressively out there looking for opportunities. I would not guarantee the member I could get
a list of all the people that we have contacted or have contacted us, but I
could give him some ideas of the numbers that we are talking of if that would
be helpful to him.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Edwards: I realize there are the six strategic areas,
and I am not looking for a log of every phone call that was made either in or
out to the department to businesses under these programs. What I am looking for are the companies
within those six areas that were specifically targeted by the department to
determine if they‑‑there is obviously this proactive aspect, and
that is the aspect that I am specifically questioning on here as opposed to
those who approached us‑‑but the companies that the department
targeted and attempted to interest either in coming to Manitoba or expanding in
Manitoba under these programs.
Again, I am not looking for every phone call that was made,
but presumably under those six strategy areas there are specific companies that
were set out as reasonably with having a prospect of success. Whether or not they were ultimately
successful or not, obviously, we can tell by comparing it to the ones that
deals are now in place. There may be
others that people are working on now and will be in place in the next year.
What I am looking for is the companies that the department
under those six initiatives specifically targeted and went out to attempt to
interest, and if possible, an outline of whether or not there are still some
negotiations underway or it was unsuccessful or successful.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would try and be as
helpful as I can, although I think there may be some negotiations and
discussions that are still ongoing.
Talking publicly about them may not be in the best interests of the
plans of the company that may want their strategy not made public, so I do not
want to overextend my generosity in this area.
If there is a reporting system which I feel is able to be
provided for the member, if not publicly, in a confidential way I might be able
to do that. I do not want to put in
jeopardy some of the work that is being carried out. Even though the proposal or the company may
not have gone ahead, say, six months ago, conditions may change that may have
them come back. I am a little cautious
on that, but I will try and be as helpful as I can, if the member will accept
that. If he is not, he can push me again
for additional commitments. I will try
and be as helpful as I can on giving him information that we feel is not
damaging to potential businesses.
Mr. Edwards: Obviously, it is not the intent of this to
damage any negotiations that are ongoing.
I think the other side of this is I am not asking for details of
whatever negotiations are going. I would
like to know other than possibly the name of the company and the current
status, i.e., we are still in negotiations, negotiations have broken off, or
obviously there is a deal in place. I
accept the minister's statement that he will use his best efforts to see if
that information is available and can be provided.
With respect to the Industrial Recruitment Initiative, it
is indicated there are three projects involving about 250 jobs. With the 250 jobs and three projects, I see
here GWE is 115, Winnipeg Airport is none, UMA is repaid. Where are the other 135 jobs?
Mr. Downey: I did not follow the member.
We talk about 115 with GWE.
UMA did not meet their target, or did not accomplish the goal that was
established, and that was 200. So that
is 315. The Winnipeg Airport Authority
had no job commitments.
Mr. Edwards: What I am reading from is the wording right
above where it indicates: "The
program has been in effect for 2 years and has resulted in 3 projects involving
about 250 jobs." Are those three
projects spoken of there the three we have just talked about, airport, UMA and
GWE, because if so, UMA may well have been 200 jobs, but that has not panned
out, so those I assume do not count in that 250. Winnipeg airport has none, we have talked
about that. GWE has 115. Should the figure currently based on the UMA
record be 115 jobs in that statement?
Mr. Downey: You will not get a debate from me on
that. That is probably the case.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to the program having been in
effect for two years, that is the extent of the activity in those two
years. The statement that is three
projects, that is the two‑year record, or are there other projects from
the prior year?
Mr. Downey: These represent the ones that have been signed
by the government, not including any that are being worked on now and/or from
prior years, I am told.
Mr. Edwards: But the three does represent a cumulative
number for the two‑year period.
Mr. Downey: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Edwards: Thank you.
With respect to the Surface Transportation Technology and
indications there about the bus industry, what is happening under that
particular heading? I recall back in, I
think, June or July of last year sitting in a committee talking about New Flyer
and writing off what we wrote off, and it was an enormous amount of money. I do not know what it was‑‑$107
million to $114 million essentially. Is
this the tail end of that initiative, or what is this about?
Mr. Downey: No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this does not
have anything to do with New Flyer. This
is dealing with Motor Coach Industries.
Mr. Edwards: Motor Coach Industries is the sum total of
this particular program's effort at this point.
Mr. Downey: Yes.
Mr. Edwards: When it indicates here that they are working
on a newly designed, newly engineered intercity bus and the creation of over 40
high‑level engineering jobs, how much money has been committed to MCI in
this program, and what is the timetable on that? Is MCI close to fruition here? What is happening with that project?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because there is a
series of numbers here, projections and‑‑would the member just give
me a little bit more of an idea of the specifics of the question, so I can‑‑
Mr. Edwards: I would like to know what monies have been
committed thus far under this initiative by the department and on what
terms. Maybe we can start with that.
* (1650)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that $5
million has been committed, and that is out of a total package, I believe, if I
am reading this correctly, of just over $21 million of which the province and
Western Diversification are also involved.
Our commitment is a $5‑million package of which we have not flown
that amount of money because the request has not been there for that amount of
money at this point.
Mr. Edwards: Can the minister tell us how much of the $5
million has been committed and, in fact, gone at this point?
Mr. Downey: Yes, I am told that just over $1.3 million
has been actually spent by the province.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to the $21 million, is our
contribution to that capped at $5 million and the other $16 million comes from
Western Diversification?
Mr. Downey: No.
Motor Coach Industries has a commitment of $11 million, Western Diversification just over $5 million,
and us at $5 million.
Mr. Edwards: What is the time line on that? Is there current information as to when this
project might come to fruition? I am not
quite clear on what they are actually doing, except designing a new bus. Is that going to come to fruition at some
point? When are we going to pay out the
rest of the $5 million?
Mr. Downey: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that
the commitment is there to have the project completed within the two years, so
I would expect that would require the provincial commitment to flow in that
period of time.
Mr. Edwards: Now the two years, when was the signing
date? When did the agreement start?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 1991‑92, so it
is to be completed within two years from now.
Mr. Edwards: Okay.
So it is to be completed two years from now, that is, it was originally
a four‑year agreement, or was it originally a two‑year agreement,
in which case we would be finished by now?
Mr. Downey: Originally, a five‑year agreement.
Mr. Edwards: Now I see on the line that there was actually‑‑is
it $500,000 that was contributed this year out of the $1.3 million that has
been committed so far?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, $500,000 is next
year's commitment.
Mr. Edwards: What was actually committed this year?
Mr. Downey: For the year 1994‑95, it would be
$500,000, and for 1993‑94, it was just under $195,000.
Mr. Edwards: That is for creation of over 40 high‑level
engineering jobs. Is that the 40 jobs in
the design stage over that five‑year period that are to be created?
Mr. Downey: Part of it is a bigger employment picture
than that. I think they have something
like 1,400 employees in total, and this adds to the R & D component, of
which the 40 engineering jobs are to be added to that, I believe.
Mr. Edwards: Is that money, the potential for $5 million,
a loan, forgivable loan, grant? What are
the terms of that money?
Mr. Downey: It is an R & D grant.
Mr. Edwards: Meaning obviously that it is nonrepayable?
Mr. Downey: Correct.
Mr. Edwards: Is the grant similarly tied to employment
numbers? Is it tied in any way to future
employment beyond the 40 jobs in the design stage?
Mr. Downey: Yes, it is tied to employment being
maintained in the province.
Mr. Edwards: Does that mean that it is tied to existing
employment being maintained, or are there new employment targets which are
built in to the repayment agreement?
Mr. Downey: I am told, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that they
have to maintain their existing job level.
Mr. Edwards: Now presumably that would be taking the job
level as of the time the agreement was signed back in 1991‑92. Can the minister indicate what that job level
was?
Mr. Downey: It is my understanding‑‑and if it
is not correct, I will correct it‑‑it is 1,400.
Mr. Edwards: Are there currently 1,400 people still
working at Motor Coach Industries, or at least are there currently the same
employment complement as there was in 1991‑92, or have they gone down or
up? Does the minister know?
Mr. Downey: It is my understanding, I am told‑‑and
again, this is subject to further correction, if there is a change, but I think
these are accurate‑‑this was based on 1,400 when it was started,
and they now have something in Winnipeg of 1,400 to 1,500 jobs.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to the Business Immigration
Program also listed under this heading, obviously that program had its
difficulties in this province, resulting in the May 1993 withdrawal after the
December 1992 moratorium. Where is the
province at in terms of that program?
Are there any discussions to reinstigate it under a different monitoring
system, or is the province out of its sum total for the foreseeable future?
Mr. Downey: Our current position, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
is to not move forward at this particular time.
We have asked the federal government to maintain the position which we
have put forward, and that was, one particular project, a freeze on the funds. There has not been a decision to change and
advance in any other area of the Immigrant Investor Program.
Mr. Edwards: To the minister's knowledge, have any other
provinces placed moratoriums on this in a similar fashion?
Mr. Downey: I am told that there is not any moratorium
placed on by any other province.
Mr. Edwards: I do not want to go on too much further. Can the minister indicate why ours went awry
and others did not? Was there something
differently done in Manitoba? I do not
have that report in front of me, but what happened here that did not happen in
the rest of the country, or is the rest of the country just not as concerned
about some of the problems?
Mr. Downey: I do not know whether one could assume that
there are not problems in other provinces.
It is not for me to speak to other provinces. That is why we are taking the position that
we are‑‑is not to change our position because we believe it is the
correct one. It is not a matter of
trying to get this behind us so that we come in line with other provinces. If there are problems in other provinces, we
believe they should be dealt with the same way as we want to deal with them.
I think the country should in fact deal with it openly and honestly
because it has not left the best impression of investing in Canada, and it is
unfortunate.
We think, if we can get back on track in Manitoba, that
some day the policy could be revisited, but we want to do so on a sound
footing.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being five o'clock, time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
HEALTH
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Health.
We are on Item 1.(b)(1), page 81.
Would
the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, yesterday when we left off
we had discussed briefly the situation of the CT scanners, and I asked the
minister a question concerning Seven Oaks.
I am wondering if the minister can give me any idea, does he have any
idea when a decision will be rendered with respect to the CT scanner at Seven
Oaks?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): We are looking at a proposal put forward by
Seven Oaks, we meaning the Imaging Committee, and I am not able to say when the
Imaging Committee will make known its views when it addresses the Seven Oaks
proposal. At that point, it will make
its recommendations and then we will move accordingly. At this point I am unable to tell the
honourable member when.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, earlier on during the
Question Period in the House I indicated to the minister that the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) was going to ask some general questions. We are waiting now for the staff that can
deal with those questions, and I appreciate the fact that the minister lined up
the specific staff to deal with the questions that will be posed by the member
for The Pas.
In the interim period I am going to advise the minister‑‑the
minister is very fond, has spent a lot of time in this committee talking about
the Province of Ontario. I generally do not
spend a good deal of time dealing with other provinces, but I do have a
document here dealing with utilization of nurse practitioners in Ontario, which
is a summary of a paper produced by the McMaster University School of Nursing. I thought, if the minister would like, I will
forward a copy of that document to him for review by the committee and by his
nursing adviser concerning the issue of the nurse practitioners and their
future in Manitoba, because I think there are some excellent recommendations in
this paper. I will be forwarding that to
the minister for review.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, we too are interested in
what is happening in Ontario. When they
are positive things, we are interested in those positive kinds of things as
well as, for comparison purposes, some of the others. I refer to the others only when hypocrisy
causes people to raise questions about health matters here, so I am very happy
to look at things that are going on in Ontario.
In some areas, Ontario leads the pack, it is true.
In fact, in the area of midwifery, which I just had
occasion to make some comments and announcements about today, Ontario is out
ahead of the other provinces. So I think
it is important that I be fair too and recognize that some very progressive
things come out of Ontario and that has been the history of Ontario. Ontario has played an important role.
With respect to nurse practitioners and nurse‑managed
care issues, the department, in consultation with other providers and
consumers, is maintaining an ongoing dialogue with respect to the role of
nursing. As a matter of fact, it was
just last week, because of all of the charges and countercharges and things
that do go on amongst professionals, I convened a meeting. I felt that one of the best ways to help
resolve some of the outstanding nursing roles and education issues might be to
call several groups together and discuss it.
I invited Dr. John Arnett, a psychologist, to assist in
leading or moderating the meeting. We
invited representatives of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the
Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, the Registered Psychiatric
Nurses Association of Manitoba, representatives of nursing aides, and our
government's new Nursing Adviser, Carolyn Park, who is in the vicinity and may
join us at some point.
That meeting was a day‑long meeting, and it was
designed to discuss roles and those things.
I invited the Manitoba Nurses' Union, and we did that in a collaborative
way to set the date so that it worked for everybody. On the day before the meeting, I got a
message that the Manitoba Nurses' Union was not going to attend.
I got on the telephone and spoke to Vera Chernecki to urge
her to ensure that if she could not be at the meeting that she would at least
send a representative. However, that was
not to be. Unfortunately, the Manitoba
Nurses' Union set its priorities in such a way that it did not attend the
meeting. I found that regrettable, but I
did not find that enough of a reason not to allow the meeting to go
forward. The meeting did go
forward. I think that as nursing
professionals, addressed together, rather than apart, their roles in the
continuum of care in this province and nursing education needs will have a
better chance of success. That is why we
regret the MNU did not go to the meeting.
I think it was important. In any
event, that is water under the bridge; it did not happen.
We had the other partners in health attending. They are going to have more meetings. They are going to, I hope, report to me by
June 15 with what kind of progress they have made in these discussions. As part of all this, the issue of nurse
practitioners, the issue of nurse‑managed care and the role of nursing as
a group, we will be able to address those issues, I think, better if we can
come to an understanding amongst ourselves about who should be doing what and
so forth.
So once some of these meetings have been completed, I am
very hopeful for a positive result so that we can move forward in a positive, collaborative
and co‑operative way in the future and not be engaging in disputes over
one thing and another in the delivery of health services in Manitoba.
* (1510)
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Madam Chairperson, I would like to thank the
Chair for allowing me a little bit of time to ask the Minister of Health (Mr.
McCrae) some questions as well.
I wanted to start off by getting into federal‑provincial
agreements. I know that there are all
kinds of federal‑provincial financial arrangements that are made from
time to time. Some arrangements are
still in existence. Some arrangements
have expired. Areas, for example, where
there have been federal‑provincial financial arrangements would be in the
areas of policing, justice, natural resources, social services and health.
Now I wanted to maybe ask the minister a couple of
questions on Health as it pertains to aboriginal people from the area that I
come from. I know that there is a
federal‑provincial health agreement that has been in existence since 1964,
Madam Chair. One of my questions for the
minister this afternoon is, what amount of money, federal money that is, does
the provincial government, namely the Department of Health, get from the
federal government, namely the Department of National Health and Welfare? How much of that money is incorporated into
the provincial Health department to provide services for nontreaty Indians and
treaty Indians in Moose Lake, Grand Rapids, Easterville and Shoal River? Perhaps at the same time, Madam Chair, I would
ask the minister if he could provide me with funds that are allocated for each
of those communities.
Mr. McCrae: I apologize to the honourable member for the
delay. I had to be brought up to date by
staff of the department as to the situation, and I have met with, for example,
Swampy Cree people on the issue. The
issue is one of long standing, it is true, and the issue I think resolves
itself into a consideration of the following:
the bands I believe want to have provincial funds focused or transferred
to the bands.
The position that we have been taking is that we want to
see band governments reach understandings with neighbouring communities so that
if funds should be transferred that all of the people in a particular region
would then be appropriately looked after under such an arrangement. So we await resolution of some of those
issues before we engage in amendments to those agreements like that.
Mr. Lathlin: Thank you.
Madam Chair, I am not sure if I understand the minister's response. It is my understanding‑‑and I
think I have a good understanding of the negotiations that have been going on
between the Swampy Cree Tribal Council and the Department of Health.
Originally the idea came from negotiations that had gone on
between Swampy Cree and the federal government.
The federal government has a health transfer policy which I am sure the
minister is aware of. Not all that long
ago, the federal Minister of Health was in Winnipeg and made a public statement
as to the federal government's intention on implementing the health transfer
policy.
Now, from what I understand of the issue, Madam Chair, the
federal Health department is ready to do business with the Swampy Cree Tribal
Council, but I think where the problem arises is at the provincial level in
that the Department of Health, through the minister, is insisting that there be
agreement between Swampy Cree, which represents treaty aboriginal people, for
Swampy Cree to get an agreement with the neighbouring communities, as he puts
it, usually Metis people who live adjacent to each other in some of the
communities.
I believe Swampy Cree Tribal Council is ready to move ahead
with the health transfer process.
Negotiations and meetings have gone on for quite a long time. I was copied a letter that was written to the
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), oh, a month, two months ago maybe, where the
tribal council was expressing a high level of frustration that they are
experiencing in their negotiations with the Department of Health.
What I was interested in knowing from the minister though
is, the monies that are federally appropriated, given to the provincial
government, how much is it? How much of
that money is being used in Moose Lake, Grand Rapids, Easterville and Shoal
River as a result of that joint agreement?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I regret if anybody feels
any frustrations. I think that part of
the problem here has to do with, as I said, communities in the vicinity. I mean, we are talking in Manitoba about
regionalized health care service delivery, people working together. That remains part of the discussion or the
debate or perhaps the frustration too, but also part of it is I think that if
there were to be a transfer directly from the province to the band that there
might not be a total understanding here about the levels of services that we
are talking about transferring money for.
You see, we can only transfer funds to the level of service
delivery that we as a government here in Manitoba provide services. If bands want to enhance that service, that
then is not something we are prepared to sweeten the pot up, if that is the
right expression, to cover. If we are
going to enter into that kind of arrangement, it would be at the levels of
funding that we make available now. Only
if and when government policy in Manitoba were to change and more services were
to be part of our total system would we want to increase the funding
accordingly. I think I have got that
stated correctly. So those are some
issues that remain outstanding.
* (1520)
I think that maybe we could reduce the frustration if both
sides understood that is the basis from which the provincial government is
operating. We do not want to have a
situation where some regions of Manitoba have a wider variety of services or
higher level of services, or lower for that matter, than the rest of the
province. So that remains a problem for
us, and if it creates frustration, I would ask that the parties get together
and discuss those things. It is just
that we cannot, I do not think, enhance service under one funding arrangement
and not do that everywhere else in the province, and that becomes the problem
for the provincial government.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I regret that I do not have that
letter with me here, because as I recall it, the thrust of that letter had to
do with every time there is an agreement, or at least every time the Swampy
Cree Tribal Council thinks they have reached a tentative agreement with the department,
the department through the‑‑as Mr. Dorion puts it in his letter,
the bureaucracy will change things around in between meetings. That was the frustrating part that was
contained in that letter that was written by Mr. Dorion, the executive director
of the tribal council.
My understanding is that the whole problem lies in the fact
that the Department of Health is not prepared to finalize or conclude the
negotiations. The federal government is
standing there waiting for the two sides to come to an agreement.
Now, I am going to ask the minister again, if you are‑‑I
will give examples here. If your budget
for Moose Lake, for example, is $100,000, that $100,000 is required to provide
health services to Moose Lake. I
understand there are Metis people there and there are treaty Indians
there. My question is, how much of that
$100,000 is federal money that is geared towards treaty Indian people. The same thing would go for the other
communities, like Grand Rapids, Easterville and Shoal River. Is there any sort of breakdown that would
give us that information?
Mr. McCrae: I will ask my staff here to work on the
second part of that question, and I will talk about the first part.
The honourable member has stated that there is some frustration
with the Health department bureaucracy, and on this occasion, I will say that I
do not think that they have any complaint with the bureaucracy that they do not
have with me. I am quite prepared to say
that, as I understand the department's handling of this, I do not have any
quarrel with the department on this issue.
There are some times, as I have said, that the bureaucracy
gets in the way, in some programs, of the public seeing a user‑friendly
sort of a system, but in this particular issue, I do not believe they should
blame the bureaucracy. If they are
unhappy they could blame me if they want, because I have had discussions‑‑[interjection]
Well, okay then. Do
not blame the bureaucracy, blame me. The
bureaucracy has had a rough ride the last couple of days, as a matter of fact,
and so on this one they are into this with me.
I will just pause before I do this.
To continue, Madam Chairperson, with respect to the
hypothetical situation the member points out, the $100,000 example, we do not
know what federal monies are being spent on reserves. Let us take Moose Lake, for example. We do not know what the federal people
transfer there to be spent there. We
know how much provincial dollars are spent both on the reserve and off the
reserve. We know that amount, and as
part of an agreement, if we get one arrived at, that is the amount we could
transfer under the agreement.
Other issues arise and that is, I believe, what the
aboriginal negotiators refer to as gaps in the service, that somehow we are
supposed to come in and plug those, fill those holes. That in our submission is not something we
need to be responsible for, and maybe it is the honourable member's frustration
but it sure is mine, too, has been ever since I have been in politics, all the
rules that we have to have, federal, provincial, whose responsibility. I do not care for that system, but until Ron
Irwin and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs get some things sorted out, I am
afraid we are all stuck with that.
The honourable member knows my frustration about that, but
I do say also that myself and the Minister responsible for Native Affairs, the
honourable member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), we did send a letter to the
Swampy Cree on this topic, setting out some of our concerns and responses to
some of theirs. The ball in my view is
in the court of Swampy Cree at this time.
We are awaiting their response right now.
Mr. Lathlin: I am not going to dwell on that much longer,
but I would like to say, as I leave that area, for example, one of the areas
that is frustrating the tribal council is initially when negotiations started,
the federal government was a part of the negotiating process, I guess. Somewhere along the way, the Department of
Health, provincially, advised the tribal council that the federal government
was‑‑either the Department of Health, provincially, did not want
the federal government to be part of their negotiating process anymore. It was something to that effect as I recall
from Mr. Dorion's letter. That is one
example.
The other example is when meetings are held, the tribal
council, as I stated earlier, has the understanding that there is an agreement
or a tentative agreement, and by the time letters come out to the tribal
council or when the next meeting is held, you know, certain positions change on
the part of Health. Mainly that is what
frustrates the tribal council.
The last time I talked with Mr. Dorion, I believe it was in
February, end of January, their position was that if the provincial government
is not willing to come to a conclusion of the negotiations or come to an
agreement, that they were willing to go the route of health transfer without
the participation of the provincial government.
That is why, I believe, they are now asking the provincial government,
the Department of Health, as to what amount of federal money is involved in the
1964 agreement so they can get on with their health transfer process, because
the minister was here in Winnipeg a couple of months ago and made that public
statement. So they want to go ahead;
they do not want to get left behind. As
the minister stated, there is all kinds of activity going on right now with
regard to Mr. Irwin's and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' negotiations on the
dismantling of Indian Affairs.
* (1530)
So I can understand the tribal council's position on that,
but as I said, what they wanted to know was the amount of federal money that is
given to the provincial government for the provision of health services to
those 64 agreement communities.
Madam Chair, I might add that recently I went back to
reading the report that was prepared by George Bass who is the Chair for the
Northern Air Medical Services task force when they presented their interim
report to the steering committee of the Health Advisory Network in September of
1992.
Their third recommendation had to do with, and I quote from
the report: Recommendation (3) It is
recommended that the 1964 Memorandum of Agreement be rescinded and that there be
established a new division of responsibility‑‑including in this
case they were talking about a new means of patient transportation, co‑ordination
among Manitoba, Canada and First Nations.
Even the Northern Air Medical Services task force deemed it
appropriate and recommended that the 1964 agreement be rescinded and work get
on.
Perhaps my last question on that issue, Madam Chair, is to
ask the minister whether he could give me an indication as to when these
negotiations might conclude. I remember
reading Mr. Dorions's letter again wherein he said they were asking for a
meeting. Has that meeting been held in
response to Mr. Dorion's request for a meeting?
I understand from the letter that he was requesting a meeting with the
minister.
My suggestion to the minister, if he were asking for my
suggestion, would be to advise him to meet with the tribal council chiefs and
lay all the cards on the table, and maybe at the same time clear up any
misunderstandings that may be there and also deal with the numerous
frustrations that the chiefs are experiencing in their negotiations with the
provincial government. I do want to
know, though, when I am advising him to meet with the chiefs of the Tribal
Council. Also, I would ask him to maybe
give an indication as to when those negotiations might be concluded, because it
is quite important for the Tribal Council in their endeavours to establish the
infrastructure that is going to be required in the event that the health
transfer takes place.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I realize this is
important to them, and I respect that. I
think that the members of the Swampy Cree Tribal Council are trying their best
to deliver the best quality services to the people they represent as they
possibly can. So it is not a question of
any lack of understanding of the importance on my part, because I agree with
the honourable member.
The cards are on the table.
I believe they are. I think
everybody understands what the issues are, and then it is a question of
agreeing to a course of action that everybody feels is satisfactory and will be
able to live with and sustain over the longer haul.
Just a brief chronology‑‑I do not have the
dates, but earlier this year, I met with the council. I then asked my department to ensure that
they followed up by meeting with representatives of the council as well. Following that meeting amongst officials, we
sent out a letter setting out our understanding, I take it our staff did or our
officials, of the positions taken and so on and asking for a response from the
Tribal Council. We are at the point now
where we are awaiting that response. So
we are working with them. There are some
principles that they have in mind and some that we have in mind, and that is
the nature of these kinds of discussions and negotiations.
There is always that other party, that federal government,
as well. I mean, the honourable member
is asking me things like about what monies are coming in from the federal
people. I do not know that, and that is
something that Mr. Irwin or the Tribal Council itself could tell the honourable
member, I would think. Was it Mr. Irwin
or Madam Marleau, the Health minister?
One of those two can tell the honourable member those things better than
I can, because they are federal monies.
I realize the report of the Arrow Medical Services is available.
I just want to point out to the honourable member something
that he said a while ago with respect to the 1964 agreement. There is no reference to money in that
agreement. That agreement sets out
issues like who is going to deliver what and to whom, that kind of an
agreement, without reference to dollars or numbers of dollars.
Mr. Lathlin: Still on that issue, Madam Chair, I would
like to point out to the minister that the federal government usually does not
get into an agreement with a provincial government unless things are spelled
out very clearly, particularly when it comes to aboriginal people. In fact I think I had to go to the federal
government for this information, and that is Natural Resources, in the trapping
area. I was able to find out for myself
that indeed there had been a five‑year agreement. That agreement expired last year, and the
provincial Natural Resources department annually received a little over
$300,000 a year from the Department of Indian Affairs for a treaty Indian
trappers program. So I guess we will
have to go to the federal government to get those numbers, seeing as how the
minister is not able to break them down for us here today, Madam Chairperson. So I will leave that as it is.
Mr. McCrae: I hope the honourable member and I are
understanding each other. The money the
federal government transfers is not transferred to the provincial government. It is transferred to the band directly. Swampy Cree Tribal Council or the bands can
tell the honourable member, if they wish to do so, the amounts of monies that
are transferred from the federal government.
The province is reimbursed by the federal government for services
provided to Status people off reserve.
* (1540)
Strike that last statement.
I was incorrect there, Madam Chairperson. We do not bill the federal government for
services provided in our off‑reserve facilities for services rendered,
and I will get more detail around that for my own purposes.
The services we deliver on reserve are basically of the
nature of public health services, nursing‑type services in a public
health way. That is the kind of
contribution we make on reserve, and so it would be discussions like that,
discussions surrounding those services that would be the subject of any
transfer that Manitoba would be contemplating under any change to the 1964
arrangement.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chairperson, I know, for example, in the
children's dental program, the minister says that there is no federal money
coming into the department for the provision of health care services to those
communities that are tied up in the '64 agreements, but the provincial
government is also noted for not going into reserves and providing services for
nothing. I know that much because time
and time again when I was chief I tried negotiating things with the provincial
government, and each time I was shown the door to the federal government
because that is where I belonged; I was a federal responsibility.
So that is why I cannot understand why the minister would
say that there is no federal money to finance that '64 agreement. The provincial government is not noted for
providing any kind of service to reserves for nothing.
The recent example is the DOTC policing. The provincial government does not have a
track record of entering into federal‑provincial agreements and financing
the agreement all by themselves. Surely
there are federal funds that come into the Department of Health for the
provision of or for the financing of the 1964 agreement.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I think the honourable
member and I are getting into one of those classic discussions that we used to
get into when we talked about the constitution and those arrangements. I really, truly and sincerely wish the
federal government and the Assembly of Chiefs in Manitoba well in their
discussions for getting the federal government out of some of the management
and the governance of aboriginal people in Manitoba, because something has to
improve.
I will just vent my own frustrations. The honourable member no doubt has some. I have some because we have all these
different and special rules for different people in Manitoba. All that it ever ends up doing is it leads to
agreements that go back to 1964 that we have trouble changing, to discussions
about so and so is not getting fair treatment and a neighbouring community is
not going to get fair treatment if we deal with things in a certain way.
My frustration is, I think the member knows, a lot like his
own, depending on which side you are on.
It is just a real mess in my view and has been for probably over 125
years in Canada.
I look forward to the day‑‑I do not know if it
means throw out the Indian Act altogether, but it certainly means make some
changes there. Maybe Manitoba First
Nations can help lead the way for all First Nations in Canada. I wish them well because the issues the
member is raising really sound so much like so many other discussions we have
had with respect to jurisdiction and who is responsible for what.
My concern as a Health minister, formerly as a Justice
minister, no matter what portfolio I might be in, it is fairness for all
Manitobans, the highest level of service for all Manitobans that we can get
together and provide. That is my bottom
line. I said that to the Swampy Cree
representatives who came to see me. I
think they understand that.
I also know the wish and desire of First Nations to want to
take some control over their own affairs and their own services. That somehow has to work into a scheme that
treats all Manitobans relatively equitably when it comes to the delivery of
health care.
I just say that so the honourable member will understand
where I am coming from, and I say too that we continue to await a response from
the Swampy Cree Council so that we can move forward with these discussions.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chairperson, if as the minister says
there is no federal money financing the '64 agreement, why is he so reluctant
then to rescind the agreement if it is not going to cost him anything and allow
the tribal council to go on their own and make their arrangements with the
federal government?
Mr. McCrae: I hope I was clear. I think I talked about it a little while
ago. The issue resolves itself to a
consideration of the matter of the level of service being provided by Manitoba
now. As part of these discussions,
Swampy Cree seems to be saying to us, there are gaps in the service and we need
this and that enhanced, which really ends up calling for more provincial
dollars than is presently being spent.
That to me creates this inequity that I mentioned a few minutes ago.
If that was not on the table, I suspect we would be closer
to arriving at an arrangement. If there
is frustration, it may be frustration at the provincial government not being
prepared to provide services in one region that would be at a higher level than
services provided in other regions. That
would be the position of Manitoba that might be causing the negotiators for
Swampy Cree some frustration. That,
however, is not something I do not think I can negotiate, in other words, say
that the First Nations will get a better or higher level of service than other
parts of Manitoba. I cannot agree to
that, and if that is the source of their frustration, I am sorry, but that is
not my problem. That is something that
the Swampy Cree people will have to come to grips with. If they want to move forward‑‑we
have not said we are not willing to move forward on this. We are not saying that is not possible or is
not on or that we do not agree.
They are saying that there are gaps in service. So that requires‑‑and I do not know
if there are gaps in service or not, because there is still a federal presence
and we are not aware to what extent the federal people are involved in
financing services on reserves. So the
honourable member, as I say, I suggest in helping him get an understanding of
this, if he needs or wants to know about the federal contribution, find out
what that federal contribution is by asking Swampy Cree itself how many dollars
come in to the reserves for health care.
Maybe they will share that with you.
I do not know if the federal government does that or not, but if that is
an area of confusion, that can be settled by asking Swampy Cree how many
federal dollars are coming in.
* (1550)
Mr. Lathlin: The Swampy Cree Tribal Council and I know how
much federal money goes into the tribal councils and into the individual First
Nations health programs. We know that
because we have contribution agreements with the federal government. What we are interested in knowing, and what
the tribal council is interested in knowing, is that federal portion of
whatever it is that is financing the 1964 agreement.
Mr. McCrae: We as a province are not given an amount of
money from the federal government in trust for those particular people. That is my understanding. We cannot break it down in the way that the
honourable member seems to be suggesting we could. We are all here together, and our EPF
arrangements, our equalization arrangements‑‑equalization is
basically a tax issue, and I have got the former Minister of Finance here, who
is helping me too with this discussion.
The EPF is not measured in the way that the honourable member seems to
be suggesting I should know how the EPF affects the people in, let us say, the
Moose Lake Reserve area. That is not how
the pie is divvied up. We receive
transfers from Ottawa on the EPF, on the cap, on the equalization. Unfortunately, on the EPF it has been
dwindling since 1977 or so. That is
another story. The fact is, it is not
broken down in the way that the honourable member's question implies that it
is.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I will get to my last three
points. The tendering and the awarding
of travel services for the Northern Patient Transportation Program is causing a
lot of concern for the board of directors at The Pas Health Complex,
particularly after they had learned that American Express is one of those
companies that have been short listed.
The first part of my question to that would be to ask the minister to
maybe give us an update on that process, whether in fact contracts have been
awarded or they are on the verge of being awarded or where is it at.
Also, if we would maybe explain as well if it is in fact
being contemplated that the work be awarded to‑‑or American Express
is one of the companies being short‑listed. The concern that I always have and is also
being expressed by the people from The Pas Hospital is that if it is awarded to‑‑well,
in their words, this contract, if it is awarded the way they think it is going
to be awarded, will not do anything to boost economic development in the
North. They also say, as per usual, most
of the benefits will go to southern Manitoba and even to foreign interests.
Could I ask the minister maybe to give us an update as to
how the Northern Patient Transportation Program is going to be managed with
respect to the tendering and the awarding of the contract process and also
maybe to take into consideration the concerns that were expressed by people
from The Pas if the work does indeed go to foreign interests?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, after a brief discussion
with staff from the department, we would request the honourable member's
forbearance in allowing us to take a little bit of time to research the
question that he is asking and give him a full and complete response perhaps in
writing or I could read it into the record at the next sitting. If that would be satisfactory to the
honourable member, I would prefer to do it that way rather than venture into an
area that I am not quite prepared to respond to.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chairperson, the last two questions
that I have, again, have to do with The Pas and area. I know the Minister of Health this week
during Question Period alluded to the mental health program. During Question Period he mentioned The
Pas. I think when he did that he
expected me to smile and maybe rush over there and pat him on the back.
The concern that is being expressed to me by the people
from The Pas and people from The Pas hospital is that they are satisfied that
the work is progressing well on the physical renovations. As a matter of fact, I think it has gone to
the point of awarding an architectural contract to a company.
The concern, however, they have is that the human resource
components to the program have not yet been finalized. They expressed to me that if we do not get
moving on the human resources component to the program, we are going to have a
facility there and nobody to run it.
Maybe I could ask the minister to give us an update on that as well.
Mr. McCrae: I had the opportunity last fall to visit The
Pas to talk to the board there, the administration, nursing staff, and I was
very taken by the attitude of the people of The Pas and their attitude about
delivery of safe and quality health care services to their fellow citizens. That has been my experience in many
communities.
I would like to ask the honourable member to try to
understand that we are talking about redevelopment of hospitals in
Manitoba. That means we have a
commitment to the future of those hospitals.
That is what that means.
Hospitals are changing. Hospital
operations are changing. Services
delivered at hospitals are changing.
We announced an additional eight acute psychiatric beds for
The Pas. That is going to require
staff. We are not going to establish
acute psychiatric beds unless there is staff to look after the people in those
beds.
On the other hand, in our review of staffing guidelines
province‑wide, we are going to find some hospitals that have more staff per
patient day than you will find in other hospitals of Manitoba. That is not fair unless, as in the case of
The Pas, an appropriate case can be made for a hospital like that, that is on
several levels, three I think it is.
That is a different building configuration and may require attention in
terms of our staffing guidelines. Some
nurses made the point to me that the level of acuity of illness of people in
The Pas hospital could well be higher than in other places.
* (1600)
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
If that is true, then we should indeed take account of that
when we are looking at staffing guidelines.
Any other legitimate issues that come forward in an examination of
staffing guidelines ought to be looked at.
At the end of the day and after all those things are looked at with the
help of the MARN, the MALPN, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, a decision
is arrived at that The Pas hospital has quite a lot higher or a little bit
higher level of RNE, registered nurse equivalence, than Dauphin or somewhere
else like that, then a decision has to get made to be fair to the people in
both communities.
Some hospitals in Manitoba have operated within the
staffing guidelines and provided very high levels of quality care to
patients. Others for some reason have
not been able to do that. I do not know
where The Pas fits into all of this, but I say that whichever side it comes in
on, there is a fairness issue, but there is a patient care issue which is the
No. 1 overriding concern.
If The Pas hospital is used to operating and providing high
levels of quality care with a level of staffing even below the staffing
guideline, I say, share with us how you learned to do that, because we would
like to know how you did it. If,
however, The Pas hospital is operating with an RNE equivalent that is way up or
above the provincial average, well, I want to know why that happened, too. If it is because of the physical
configuration of the building, if it is because the acuity of illness of the
people at The Pas hospital is higher than elsewhere, those are legitimate
considerations that should be looked at.
I am trying to make sure that the process moves along so
that we do not put this off. I know
people who know they are overstaffed at their hospital and they know that is
going to have to be addressed. They are
saying, Mr. Minister, get on with it, it is necessary to do. We want to know what to do with the rest of
our lives, if we are going to be laid off or if we should be redeployed or
placed in some other kind of‑‑retrained or whatever is going to
happen. We just want to know.
I am sensitive to that, I say, to the honourable
member. So I am asking the department to
move that process of reviewing the staffing guidelines along and not to waste
any time on it, because we should indeed move along, not only for the personal
reasons of the staff who might be involved, but also to right whatever
inequities exist in the province with respect to staff. I just gave that answer to give the
honourable member an idea of what I am looking at.
In terms of redevelopments and changes in hospitals over
the years, and I do not know how old The Pas hospital is, but I know the
Brandon Hospital, the present building is about 30 years old. As I was saying the other day, over the years
we have added to a building that was designed 30 years ago, added all kinds of
new services and new equipment and new staff.
I imagine if you check the staffing levels of Brandon General Hospital
30 years ago, I wonder what it would be, or 30 years ago at The Pas, I wonder
what it would be as compared with today.
The fact is redevelopment, adding capital programs to
hospitals, means there is a commitment to the future of service delivery at that
hospital. Now does it mean that that
service is going to be delivered exactly the way it has been delivered for the
last 30 years? Absolutely not, because
we have wasted money for 30 years in the delivery of services in our health
care system. The people are sick and
tired of putting up with waste in our system.
We have to address that, and that is what restructuring is about. That is what shifting away from total
reliance on acute care is all about.
Now, in all of our regions, we have to make sure that we have
appropriate alternative care models available for people to use so that they do
not have to have reliance on expensive hospital care when that is not the
appropriate care for everybody.
I just say all those things to sort of bring the honourable
member up to date as to what the thinking is in the health care system.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the last item that I
have again has to do with The Pas Health Complex. The board for the The Pas Health Complex is
trying to have the family residency program reinstated in The Pas. They, of course, realize that the board
simply cannot be involved in the day‑to‑day operations and
management of the hospital. It is
virtually nonexistent today, I guess, but they still feel that in the overall medical
personnel planning that their role is vital and I support that 100 percent.
So they are asking government to reinstate the family
residency program. There are residents
who have been to The Pas who speak quite highly of the local program as it existed
and even apparently fourth‑year medical students who go to The Pas from
time to time have suggested that The Pas Health Complex hospital would be an
excellent facility for extended teaching services for medical students and post‑graduate
medical training.
Now, the minister knows that I am a strong supporter of The
Pas Health Complex being a teaching hospital because there is the Northern
Bachelor of Nursing Program that is just coming to an end. I know the people from The Pas are working on
a proposal that would see the development of a similar program maybe, but
indeed a degree program that would take the place of the Northern Bachelor of
Nursing Program that is just finishing.
They are in the process of finalizing the proposal that would go to
medical services and eventually would come‑‑if it has not come to
the provincial government all ready, it will come in time.
I know, when the Northern Bachelor of Nursing Program was
operating in The Pas, The Pas Health Complex became sort of like a teaching
hospital, I guess, because that is where the nurses went to train, besides
coming to Winnipeg. That is why I want
to go on record as supporting the board for The Pas Health Complex in their
endeavours to convince government, the Department of Health, to reinstate the
family residency program.
I am just wondering, Mr. Acting Chairperson, if the
minister has any comments about that particular program.
* (1610)
Mr. McCrae: I think that some of the things that we have
been doing in The Pas, Thompson and northern Manitoba demonstrate our interest
in the development of health services there.
I think that certainly in the area of mental health services, we have
shown a commitment to the Norman region, The Pas and Flin Flon. I am always interested in trying to build on
those kinds of commitments.
I think that proposals that come forward would be given
serious attention, and we would be interested in any discussions that would
flow from proposals coming forward. I
just leave it with the honourable member that I and my department would be open
to discussion of ideas and proposals that would come forward.
I know that it is quite a natural thing in a community that
in some ways is a very successful community.
The Pas and the Opaskwayak First Nation have been working very co‑operatively
together on a number of ventures, and that is all good and positive. In addition to initiatives begun, and I do
not refer strictly to mental health delivery services but health services
generally, we would look with interest at any proposal that came forward.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I had a couple of
questions for the minister about the nursing programs at universities, and I do
not know whether this is an appropriate section to ask those questions. I can wait if it is not.
The minister indicated he would try. He is probably very familiar with this
one. It is the development of the
collaborative baccalaureate nursing program in Brandon University. I know the minister has had an opportunity to
meet with the staff out there and see their proposal, and I have had that
opportunity as well. I must say that in
meeting with them and looking at the type of program that they would like to
see as well as some of the specialties in mental health, it sounds very
promising. I am wondering if the
minister could tell us the status of their particular proposal. I recognize there are some decisions that
would have to be made with the Department of Education as well, but I would ask
from the Department of Health side what his position would be on this program.
Mr. McCrae: This is a proposal that requires and has the
participation of a number of groups and organizations, including Brandon
General, Grace Hospital, Brandon University and the MARN and the
department. We are awaiting a final
proposal that addresses some of the information requirements that the
department would need in order to give the go‑ahead, if that is the right
expression. So I think the work is
ongoing. There is interest. I have attended more than one meeting about
it. I think in the development of any
proposal it does take some time and exchange of information, which is not
complete, but we are hoping to receive the information we need in the near
future.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, can the minister tell
us then, given that the information provided was acceptable to the minister in
principle, is he generally supportive of looking at this baccalaureate program
out of Brandon University?
Mr. McCrae: I have stated at the outset, when I have
discussed this with Dr. Anderson at the university and other people as well,
that in principle, yes indeed, I am always interested in seeing development of
the things happening in the city of Brandon.
But I also look at this from the point of view of a Minister of Health,
and we are going to need to know what the population needs are expected to be
as reported on by those who know how to do that. What will the population needs be in terms of
what kinds of nursing professionals will be required. How many people should we be putting through
this system? Will the curriculum be
appropriate to the kinds of population health needs there will be in this
reformed health system for the future?
Costs are always an ongoing issue.
All of those things remain the issues to tidy up, if you like. I look forward to the day when Brandon will
be another, as Brandon so often is, major, major centre for education, training
of various kinds.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I thank the minister
for those comments. We look forward to
the rest of the information the minister requires so that in fact that group
can move ahead, because it is not the type of program that can happen overnight
anyway, but we look forward to progress in that area.
I am wondering if the minister can tell us‑‑I
think the Department of Health is supportive, and I am not sure of the move
towards registered nurses becoming baccalaureate nurses, the move towards that
by the year 2000. Is the department
supportive of that concept, and if so, could he give us the status on the
number of RN training programs that are still operating in Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: It is a hard question to answer because there
are many people out there who feel that is the direction nursing is heading in,
in any event. I am also concerned, as I
spoke earlier, about all of the nursing professionals in the province and the
future of their professions. For that
reason, we have called together, with the help of Dr. John Arnett and our
departmental staff, all of the various nursing professionals, because if BN
2000 means that there is a negative impact in any other area of the profession,
that is a concern that we cannot just brush aside. That is important to people in Manitoba
because somehow‑‑well, licensed practical nurse professionals are
concerned about how that will impact their particular profession.
In many ways service needs are changing. Acuity of care in acute care centres is on
the rise, same as in personal care homes, so we have to have well‑trained
people in the future, but we have not made a formal declaration that it is
going to be BN 2000. But in so many ways
we are moving in that direction to some extent anyway, so we need to get a
clarification of the roles of the BN, of the RN who is still in the system, the
role of the LPN, the RPN and so forth.
That all has to be understood, I think, by everyone before we make any
firm declarations of support.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I take it that the
answer was not yes or it was not no. Can
the minister tell us, when is there going to be some decisions made on
that? I ask that question because if
some of the schools of nursing who train potential registered nurses are going
to continue functioning in the next fall term, et cetera, I think these schools
need to know if in fact they are going to be viable or whether in fact there is
going to be a winding down of registered nurses without having a BN.
Mr. McCrae: That is a legitimate point. Yet I am not able to make judgments or
decisions about a thing like that until I have the information in my hands that
would help me make a proper decision. So
we rely on our partners, the nursing organizations, to work with us
collaboratively to make sure that decisions we make are based on information
and good solid information.
So it is towards that end that I think I have taken a bit
of an initiative here to bring the various nursing professionals together to
try to sort out and clarify roles for the future. Maybe what I have done will help me answer
that question sooner.
* (1620)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, is this the same
committee that is going to be reporting to the minister by mid‑June, the
various nursing professionals? The
minister nods his head in the affirmative.
Could the minister perhaps provide terms of reference for
all the different activities and issues that this committee is going to be
looking at?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it started out fairly
informal in its nature. I do not think
we were able to answer that question before that first meeting, where basically
we talked about the various roles and education matters. As these meetings continue, I expect that its
own terms of reference will crystallize, if at the end of the process, and I
think they understand this as a mandate, to do what they can to try to identify
clearly how each profession fits into the continuum of care in a future health
care delivery system.
They already know that that is their basic mandate in term
or terms of reference. There is not
something written, but that is the understanding of the parties around the
table.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, was there not a
report that the Department of Health had looked at, and I do not remember the
name of the report, but it involved looking at the roles of LPNs and RNs and
involved spending some time at Brandon University and meeting with the
individuals there? I am not sure of the
name of the report, but the department was involved. The department has been involved in reports
that look at the functions of registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses,
or LPNs, and I am wondering what has happened to that report.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the honourable member
can sort of take her pick. There is the
Sullivan report, there is the Desjardins report as it has been called, for the
LPNs I think it is. This whole professional
conflict‑‑what I call it, but it is really not quite a conflict‑‑goes
back 28 years. The issues of the
overlapping qualifications amongst nursing professionals goes back 28
years. Here I am in 1994 hoping and
thinking and wishing and dreaming that maybe finally we are going to be able to
resolve all this.
I think it is asking a lot, and yet I am trying. I really am hopeful that there can be a
meeting of the minds, but I already know that‑‑like, today for
example, at the announcement by the government to move forward with the area of
midwifery, that creates another profession, and creates maybe a little bit of
professional conflict, as I call it.
However, I do offer to give the honourable member a chronology of the
history of the nursing profession. The
reason I mention the 28‑year issue here is because I have recently read that
chronology, and it might be helpful for the honourable member. If there is some report that is available
that she reads about in that chronology, she can ask and I will see what I can
do about getting it for her.
You know, the system is changing fairly dramatically, now
and in the future, and the role of nurses of various kinds may change, and the
more we understand each other today, the more likelihood we are going to be
able to move forward. If we can all put
the focus on the patient or the health care consumer, then that helps us too in
ironing out whatever difficulties exist.
But I will undertake today to make available to the honourable member a
copy of that chronology that I recently read.
There may be questions flow from that, and I would welcome them.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering if the
minister, though, has some type of a time frame. Granted there have been these issues for 28
years, but his government has been in power for six years, and I am wondering
if he has a sense of when he would like to see some of these issues resolved in
terms of the variety of roles of various nursing professionals. What we want to see is your vision here in
Manitoba over the next 10 and 20 years.
Mr. McCrae: For a couple of reasons, Mr. Acting
Chairperson, I would like to see a lot of these issues resolved yesterday. The reason I say that is that we are trying
to make partners out of all of these groups as we move forward with changes to
the health system. There are some who
seem not to wish the partner. I
mentioned one group that failed to show up at the meeting, which I thought was
an extremely important one, because for the first time we brought so many
together in a long time. But from the
point of view of nurses working in the system and worrying and wondering what
the future is going to be for themselves and for their profession, for their
sake, I would like it to be yesterday.
For the sake of the people who will need care, for their
sake especially too, I want to see matters resolved because I want safe and
efficient care to be delivered to the people.
So I want it to be done right now, but I am realistic enough to know
that is not going to happen and it certainly did not happen yesterday. Even today I have reason to believe that with
the coming on stream of a professional discipline of midwifery that there are
those in the nursing area who feel that should have been part of their
responsibility. So you can see how these
things develop, and I am just hoping that we can all come to terms with all of
these things, to do it together and keep the health of the consumer as the
focus of our discussion.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I just want to change
tracks. I thank the minister for that
discussion on professionals.
It has been indicated to me that patients from Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface Hospital are being moved to other community
hospitals, specifically Concordia, and I have received a couple of calls from
individuals who have family at Concordia, as is this example, and who, they
feel, are now being forced out of Concordia into palliative care or to the
municipals because of other patients being transferred from Health Sciences
Centre and St. Boniface. This is
apparently what the staff is saying. Can
the minister comment on this?
* (1630)
Mr. McCrae: I know of one case that has been brought to
my attention, and it boiled down in that case to a dispute between the family
and the hospital as to the appropriate placement of the family member. I know of that. I guess it is a question of, are these moves
to long‑term or chronic care facilities necessitated because of a backup
of beds or because long‑term chronic care is the right place to be? I would like to get to the bottom of that.
If it is a suggestion that some people just prefer to be in
one place, I think we have to address that realistically and remember that
there are some people who need to be in that place. So we have to sometimes move people to long‑term
chronic care if that is the proper place for them. In the same way, hospitals ought not to be
used inappropriately on a weekend or for whatever reason. If home care is an appropriate alternative,
then home care services should be made available. If long term is the right alternative and it
is available, then we should use it to make the beds available.
So I do not know whose judgment it is that we are talking
about here. If this amounts to a
dispute, then that is a dispute, and it is not a comment on lack of capacity or
something like that. That sometimes
happens. But I am told that we have beds
at‑‑there are interim beds at Concordia, Deer Lodge and Riverview
for people before being panelled for personal care.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, just a comment, I
agree with the minister that, if in fact palliative care or another facility is
more appropriate for a person, then it should be that hospital that is working
with the family to ensure that the person receives that appropriate care and
that the moves are made in consultation with the family and with their
assistance.
As well, the minister then has indicated that people are
being moved to interim beds at‑‑it was Deer Lodge, Concordia and‑‑
Mr. McCrae: Riverview.
Ms. Gray: Oh, and Riverview, and these are individuals
who have been panelled for personal care home?
Mr. McCrae: Yes.
Ms. Gray: And awaiting placement? Okay.
Does the minister have statistics on the number of beds, and how many
people are flowing through from Health Sciences and St. Boniface to these other
facilities?
Mr. McCrae: I only have one statistic at this moment, Mr.
Acting Chairperson. Any others that are
available, we can make available if the member asks for them. I understand that there are 179 people in
this interim situation at the present time.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, what is the purpose
of this move? Is it because of moving
people from more expensive beds to less costly?
Is that the reason behind this or‑‑
Mr. McCrae: There is always a need in our acute care
centres to have capacity available for people who need acute care. So, if you do not need acute care, we would
put you into this interim system so that we can provide those who need acute
care with those services.
In addition, if long‑term or interim chronic care is
more appropriate than acute care, then that is more appropriate. The case that I am aware of really boils
down, I think, to a dispute. It boils down
to a dispute between hospital and family, and hospitals have to do their best
to try to work these things out in individual cases.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Chairperson, my only comment about
that, if in fact it would be the hospitals themselves, and people in the
Department of Health feel that these interim beds and moving people from Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface to these interim beds is appropriate use of
beds, then I would hope as well that that information is communicated by the
hospitals to their staff, because I think in the case of some of the calls I
have received, concerns expressed by family are being supported by some of the
staff. So I think if we all have the
same idea as to what is going on and why, that might‑‑and assist
the families in making that transition.
Mr. McCrae: I agree with the honourable member and would
ask staff to take note of that suggestion.
There are people working in our hospitals‑‑it has been
reported to me by people who have stayed at the hospitals that you are being
discharged today instead of tomorrow because of government cutbacks when that
is not the reason at all. Those things
are being said. That is very disturbing
to me because patients are the people who I work for. For those kinds of things to be said, I find
it disturbing, and yet I do not have control over what people say, but people
in positions of authority in our hospitals, from my information, do their best
to try to carry out amicable and courteous and co‑operative relationships
with the patients at the hospitals and most everybody else does too. I know that there are some few people working
in the hospitals who engage in telling patients things that are not so, but
that is not something I can control. I
dare say, I do not suppose hospital management can control it either.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister made a
major announcement about midwifery today and indicated that a council would be
established, an interim body, and legislation.
I am assuming, from reading the terms of reference and from reading the
government news release, that we will not be seeing legislation this current
session. Of course, that is also
contingent upon the length of this current session, but if one assumes this
current session should proceed, say, no longer than what is the norm‑‑I
am just wondering, I assume that we are not looking for legislation this
session, or am I incorrect in that?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, at first blush, I do
not think so. On second blush, if the
honourable member and colleagues wish to keep the Legislature going for a very
long time, then that would alter my answer considerably.
I am very, very happy to have been able to be the Minister
of Health at a time when we can announce that we are going to move forward in
the area of midwifery for Manitoba moms and families. I do not claim to understand everything, but
I believe that women in Manitoba want choice, and that is something I can
respect. I am glad to part of a system
that is able to respond to that.
It is not necessarily a move that is made without some courage
and some careful thought, obviously careful thought because we just finished
talking about professional issues. As
the member knows, professional issues do come up from time to time in this
business. I think that with our
announcement today, we can now move forward with the help of Carol Scurfield,
who is going to lead the Implementation Council, and that Implementation
Council will serve as the governing body for midwifery until legislation and
regulatory frameworks can be set up.
Obviously, we will need the Legislature to get a legislated framework.
We are empowering the council to serve as that interim body
and also to implement, to make recommendations to government as to what we
should be doing next with respect to setting up the program. I mean, the honourable member knows that even
though midwifery has been around for centuries, it has not been formally
recognized through regulation and legislation in Manitoba, and so we have a lot
to do. We have lots to learn from
jurisdictions that have done it in the past and from others that are getting
into it. Ontario has begun the
process. That was the reference I made
earlier when I was talking to the honourable member that Ontario leads in some
areas and leads in some other areas, too.
In this area, Ontario is out there; B.C., I believe, and Alberta have
stated their intentions and we are doing that.
With the help of Carol, Ms. Scurfield, we are fortunate, I
believe. One person asked me today, why
would you have a doctor lead this council, and I said anybody who asked that
does not know Carol Scurfield. That was
basically all I needed to say to make my point, and it did make the point.
So in addition though to Carol Scurfield, there will be
other interested parties, parties who have an interest in this. Who knows, somebody might even have a
conflict, I do not know. But they are
all going to be involved to help give the government good advice on how we
should move forward on midwifery.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, did the minister also
announce today the composition of the council, or is that still pending?
Mr. McCrae: I did not other than the chair. The other appointments will be made as soon
as we can make them, and they are pending.
* (1640)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this is an academic
question, but it is my own understanding of the issue. Effectively today nothing changes with
respect to the recognition or the legality of the practice of midwifery in
Manitoba other than we now have a council in effect. It is an interim body that will make
decisions until a permanent legislation is in effect. This interim body really has no legal
standing of any kind other than an advisory role, and midwifery is still
formally in the, shall I say, legal limbo that it always is until legislation
comes into effect. This is simply an
academic question I am just trying to frame.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in the narrow legal
sense the council is not empowered to act as a college of physicians and
surgeons, for example. That is not
legally possible. The only way to
actually get midwifery operating independently would be to get legislation
passed. So I say if we should happen to
move quickly enough and the honourable member keeps the session going long
enough, then conceivably we would be able to have legislation. We would sure want him to support it and do
it in a hurry too, but that is probably not likely, in my judgment. We will have to see how long this session
lasts.
In that strict, narrow legal sense, no, we are not able to
move forward as far as legislation would allow us to move forward. There are midwives, I am told, operating in
Manitoba who operate in conjuction with members of the medical profession, and
that will continue in the meantime.
Mr. Chomiak: I am advised that one of the weaknesses in
perhaps Ontario‑‑and I was just advised of this second hand‑‑was
that aboriginal and Metis representatives and others, outreach was not done
perhaps as extensively as is being proposed here. I think that is a very positive aspect of
this with respect to the outreach, and we certainly look forward to the
legislation coming before this Chamber.
I assume this body will be funded by a line item, under what
appropriation in Health?
Mr. McCrae: When we do get into it line by line, the
honourable member will note the Women's Health initiatives, and it would be in
that area from which this council will be funded.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I assume subsequently
if, for example, legislation were to be passed this session and the process
were to begin, say, January 1, 1995, most of the expenditure would come under
medical section of MHSC under that particular appropriation, or which pool of
money would it come out of?
Mr. McCrae: I think we are‑‑I am speculating
a little bit here, Mr. Acting Chairperson, in that I would see probably this
being as separate from the medical services line in the Estimates, but it is a
little early for me to tell.
Mr. Chomiak: That is fair enough; I was just trying to structurally
ascertain the direction. I appreciate it
is a little bit of a difficult question at this point. It may not at this point be actually a high
priority.
I just turn now, having spent time complimenting the
department; I have another helpful suggestion I am going to pass on to the
minister. I know the member for Pembina
(Mr. Orchard) will express his comments to the minister of how high in the past
I have attempted to be helpful and make positive suggestions‑‑
Mr. McCrae: He talks about it all the time.
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I am sure he does.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy
and Mines): I am still waiting for you to do it.
Mr. Chomiak: Helpful suggestions to the department.
Mr. Orchard: All I hear is ranting and raving and negativism.
Mr. Chomiak: You should leave cabinet and then come to our
caucus; it will be fun.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, to continue my discourse on this
course of action here, I had occasion this morning to meet with the group of
individuals who are involved in the mental health field. I know this does not directly apply to the‑‑it
applies generally to the 1.(b) appropriation.
During the course of our discussion talking about issues of preventative
nature, we got onto the topic of children.
I said, well, of course you will know you have been able to make
representations to the government's committee on Healthy Child, and not one of
the five representatives from the mental health community that I met with was
even aware of the committee's existence.
I was actually quite surprised because I had assumed that
it was fairly widespread in the community that this committee was operating,
and that prompts me to ask of the minister two questions. At what point in the deliberations is the
committee in its work; and secondly, how extensive was it? I was under the assumption that it was very
widely drawn, because many individuals whom I have contact with were aware of
the operations of that committee. But
how extensive the field from which people were drawn was in terms of that
committee and the various working groups underneath it?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, there is a fairly
extensive list of people involved in Healthy Child. I wonder if the honourable member wants me to‑‑I
guess, I missed what the question was.
* (1650)
Mr. Chomiak: I know that the member for Pembina (Mr.
Orchard) is convinced I am laying a trap in this question, but I can assure him
I am not. It just struck me‑‑I
actually developed my own answer for this question. I will give you the answer to the question,
and then the minister could guess the question perhaps.
Mr. Orchard: Let us hear your answer, Dave.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for Pembina says, let us hear the
answer.
Mr. McCrae: You do the answer, and I will do the
question.
Mr. Chomiak: Okay.
I will go back to my initial‑‑I was struck by the fact these
individuals were not aware of the existence of the committee, even though I was
aware of the fact the committee was fairly well represented from individuals
that I was aware of. It struck me that
perhaps the reason that these individuals were not aware is some of them were
active in other committees under the Department of Health, of the 89 that are
still existing, and perhaps there was not really a connection between‑‑the
committees perhaps are not liaisoned amongst each other in its entire
process. I am wondering if perhaps that
might have been the weakness, because it seems to me that integration between
some of these various committees would have been quite useful in the whole
process and maybe perhaps that is it.
Mr. McCrae: I am going to pass on the honourable member's
suggestion to the co‑chairs of this committee, Dr. Brian Postl and Marian
Boulanger, who is a nurse at the Health Sciences Centre. We will pass on what the honourable member
has said. It may well turn out to be
helpful.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, my next question to
the minister concerns‑‑he had indicated he would table or provide
us a list of those positions that are contained in this appropriation that I am
sure will soon be‑‑
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the secretary to the
minister, Sonia Smith. I do not know if
you know Sonia very well, but she has been around for long enough that the
honourable member and I can both learn some things from Sonia Smith. She goes back to when Roland Penner was the
Attorney General, they called him in those days. She keeps telling me that Roland Penner is
such a nice guy, and I say, I know he is a nice guy, Sonia, I know he is a nice
guy. I had quite a lot of dealings with
him when he was dean of the law school and I was Minister of Justice, and we
had dealings even before that when we were in the House, when we used to call
him things other than just Roland. But
now I call him Roland and he calls me Jim, and we are pretty good buddies.
That is the kind of person Sonia is. Actually she goes back to before Roland to
Gerry Mercier, his lordship Mr. Justice Mercier, and then after that was Victor
Schroeder. Then when it came time for me
to take over the Department of Health as minister, I felt that I did not know
how I was going to manage if we could not have Sonia Smith. So Sonia Smith, who has been with Justice
except for a very brief time when she joined Roland in the Education
Department, is in Health and we both have our hands full, there is no question
about that.
Then there is Kathleen Hachey, my special assistant, and
another special assistant, Barbara Thompson, and an executive assistant,
Cameron MacKay. Barbara is fairly new,
but Cameron MacKay is a very interesting fellow. If the honourable member had accepted my
often‑made invitation to come and visit me in my office, he would have
met all these people.
There is an administrative secretary, Lorraine Lejko, and
there is clerical support. There is one
job that is shared between Jackie Mackstead [phonetic] and Naomi MacKinnon and
another clerical support person, Betty Hammond.
A very, very busy office, and the people there, we try to make sure that
they are always nice and courteous and friendly to the public that we deal with
so much.
Then we get to the deputy's office, where the member would
have you believe that big bucks get spent, but speaking of big bucks, did the
honourable member hear about Marc Eliesen and what has been happening with
Marc?
An Honourable Member: He got fired.
Mr. McCrae: Well, besides a lot of rumours about his
getting fired, Marc Eliesen, you might remember, was involved with Manitoba
Hydro, ended up in B.C. I think he spent
some time in Ontario too, did he not?
Yes, he went to Ontario too. I do
not know, maybe they ran out of money in Ontario. I am not sure, but off he went to B.C., and
there he is pulling in a salary of a mere $158,000, I think, or was it higher
than that even? [interjection] No, I have got it somewhere else, what he was
getting. He really raked in the dough
there. I will just get that out for you
because I know you will want to know this.
I did not know Marc Eliesen directly, but I know‑‑
An Honourable Member: Did you see the contract he had in B.C.?
Mr. McCrae: Well, I was just dealing with it. I did not know him well. I do not know how this came up. I had it all there, but anyway, I will get
the precise numbers for Marc Eliesen maybe next time this matter comes up. But if you want to talk about big bucks, now
that is where the big bucks are, unless it is with Michael Decter. There it is.
This is according to the Vancouver Sun, May 5, '94. Marc Eliesen signed
a five‑year contract with Moe Sihota.
I do not know if you know Moe Sihota.
I know Moe Sihota. He is a
minister with the government there.
Well, Moe signed a five‑year contract with Eliesen that pays the
Hydro chief $195,000 annually, plus, oh, a performance bonus of up to 30
percent. He has been paid the maximum of
$58,000 each year to date, and now the story is, he is about to fired. Interesting.
I wonder about the symbolism there.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I asked the minister
about staff in his office, the deputy minister's office. Is the minister telling me that he is
contemplating hiring Marc Eliesen?
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): The honourable member for Kildonan does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the Department of
Health in Manitoba has a budget of $1.85 billion, but we cannot afford Marc
Eliesen. But the minister would like me
to finish‑‑[interjection] but I was not quite finished about Marc
Eliesen, though. We will get back to
Marc Eliesen next time. In addition to
the deputy minister and the deputy's office, there is an administrative
officer, Norma Bonnici. There is a
secretary to the deputy minister, Janice Kereluk; clerical support, Wendy
Jamison; and the provincial nursing adviser is under this appropriation, for
whatever reason.
The work goes well beyond just advising the deputy
minister, because the work includes a whole lot of consultation, attending
meetings and working with all kinds of people out there and giving direct
advice to the minister which he so often needs.
Carolyn Park, the provincial nursing adviser is also attached for budget
reasons to the deputy minister's office.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): The hour being five o'clock, committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there
have been some discussions between House leaders this afternoon respecting the continuation
of Estimates consideration today. I
believe, Sir, if you were to canvass the House you will find that there is
unanimous consent to waive private members' hour and for the House to sit
beyond 6 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to waive private
members' hour? [agreed]
Is
there unanimous consent for the House to sit beyond 6 p.m.? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Sir, I think you will find there is also
unanimous consent for myself to again move the motion to resolve into Committee
of Supply and for the committee to sit beyond 6 p.m. and rise at its
discretion.
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
allow the honourable government House leader to again move the motion to
resolve itself into a Committee of Supply and for the committee to sit beyond 6
p.m. and to rise at its discretion? Is
there unanimous consent? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, that having been done, with the
understanding that only the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room
255 to consider the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism
will sit, I move, seconded by the Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.