LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Tuesday, May 31, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee of Supply
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr.
Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the Department of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table today the
Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the 1994‑95
Departmental Expenditure Estimates of the Department of Labour.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Estimates for the Department
of Natural Resources for the year 1994‑95.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister charged with the administration of The Crown Corporations Public
Review and Accountability Act): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the 1993 Annual Report for the Crown
Corporations Council.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 301‑‑The Misericordia General
Hospital Incorporation Amendment A ct
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that leave be given to introduce
Bill 301, The Misericordia General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act, Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Misericordia General Hospital,"
and that the same be now received and read for the first time.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the Royal School twenty‑one Grade 5 students under the
direction of Mrs. James. This school is
located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Also this afternoon, from the Roseau Valley School, we have
twenty‑four Grades 2 and 3 students under the direction of Ms. Moya
Geddes and Ms. Wendy Newman. This school
is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner).
From the Leaf Rapids Educational Centre, we have twenty‑three
Grade 8 students under the direction of Mrs. Carol Bowman. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome
you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Motor Coach Industries
Acquisition
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, on May 18, the Motor Coach Industries company
was acquired by a rival company, Grupo Dina from Mexico, a company that has
over $900 million in sales U.S., compared to Motor Coach Industries, some $453
million sales U.S.
Workers, about 1,700 workers at the plant, are very
concerned, Mr. Speaker. We have talked
to a few of them about this acquisition.
They are concerned that the cost of producing buses in Mexico is about
$6 per hour. In the United States, it is
about $30 per hour. In Canada, it is
under $20 an hour, and now, with the Mulroney NAFTA agreement proclaimed by the
Liberals, they are very concerned about their jobs‑‑[interjection]
If you were a worker at the plant, you would be worried right now yourself.
I would just like to ask the government a question. Have they contacted the new parent company,
Mr. Speaker, and have they received any guarantees about the existing jobs and
workforce here in the city of Winnipeg and in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that our
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism has had extensive discussions and
briefings from the local management of the firm.
As the member probably knows, employment at Motor Coach
currently stands at 1,615, which is a 13‑year high. They have a very full order book, and they
also have been showing, as I understand it, a very profitable operation as a
result of many things that have happened over recent years.
In that respect, the local management is very confident that
they continue to be the best alternative for bus production even within the
larger company, that they have a very cost‑effective, very efficient
plant that is going to ensure that the work remains here and that the
operations remain here with a very substantial workforce.
I did hear the discussion that took place and the concerns
expressed on the radio by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the
Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards), and just to absolutely verify the
information, we will certainly be in contact with the parent company and
request their assurances and request their support for continuance of the
company's operations here.
* (1340)
Western Diversification Funds
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Premier to
contact the parent company. I think it
is important. I know local management
feels confident, and they are at a peak of their employment, but the workers at
the plant are very concerned, as you would expect, with the different labour
costs. They do feel they produce a good
product, but they are very worried today about the developments with the
purchase of this company.
I have a further
question. When the government is
contacting the parent company, the Premier will know that the Western
Diversification grant and a provincial government grant to MCI in 1992 produced
an investment of some $36 million, $10 million from the public sector and $26
million from the company here in Winnipeg.
Will the Premier be contacting the parent company about the
status of that investment in the new bus production here in Manitoba and the
status of provincial government money and federal government money under
Western Diversification being invested wisely in the Motor Coach Industries
plant here in Winnipeg?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that, you
know, results in the knee‑jerk reaction that the Leader of the Opposition
is perpetrating here is one in which the focus is made on the costs of labour. The company management informs us that labour
is only 8 percent of the entire costs of the production there, so he should
not, I think, fuel either speculation or fear on the part of workers that this
is in any way a major factor in the costs of production.
It is all of the other costs of production that, of course,
are far more important. Obviously, the
other 92 percent of the costs are far more important than the 8 percent that is
the labour component, and I think he should be aware of that when he makes
these kinds of judgments.
With respect to the money that has been put towards the
expansion that has resulted in the all‑time record levels of employment
that are there, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, of the $5 million that
has been committed by the provincial government, at this point, a small part of
that has been flowed. I believe it is
$1.3 million.
There has not been a flowing of the entire $5 million by
any stretch, and it is based, of course, on them meeting certain targets and obligations,
all of which they have met to this point.
That will indeed be part of the entire briefing that we get and that we
discuss with the company.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will note that
Mercedes located a new bus plant in Mexico just recently, after the NAFTA
ratification, so that concern comes from the workers, and I would ask the
Premier to follow that up.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
Layoffs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a related job question, a
supplementary jobs question, yesterday, we asked questions about the job
situation at Bristol, and today we heard about AECL in terms of potential
layoffs. I was absolutely shocked today
to hear that a minister in the government was criticizing the provincial
government for the loss of jobs at Bristol and AECL, partly due to the
provincial government. Usually,
political parties of all stripes work together to get jobs for a certain
province. They do not blame each other
when jobs are lost.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): The concern is that a certain amount of
responsibility rests with the Filmon government for the layoffs at AECL and
Bristol Aerospace. I would ask the
Premier, what blame does he accept responsibility for, for the layoffs of those
jobs at those plants?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely unfortunate that we are not able to
work productively with the federal government.
In fact, the member for Portage‑Interlake has made the comments he
has made as it relates particularly to AECL and Bristol when, in fact, the
decisions they made as a federal government are the direct results we are
seeing here in Manitoba.
For example, this province supported AECL and the community
by cost‑sharing $25,000 of a $50,000 study to see how we could expand
AECL. The federal government did not put
one nickel into it.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
Layoffs
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I may not be in quite as
magnanimous a mood as my Leader.
Mr. Speaker, approximately a year ago, I raised the
question of MCI's stability because of the prospective purchase of MCI, and
today, we are now aware that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) is concerned.
My question to the First Minister or the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism is, did Dr. Jon Gerard, the minister of science,
research and development contact the provincial government? Has he contacted the provincial government,
the First Minister or anyone else to outline how these cutbacks are going to
affect AECL, the people at Pinawa and the hundreds of people who rely on AECL
for employment in that constituency?
* (1345)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
If I understand the question correctly, Mr. Speaker, it is what
communication has there been by Mr. Gerard, the federal Liberal member as it
relates to that.
I am not aware of any calls or any contacts directly with
the community, directly with the government, to find out what may, in fact, be
done or to give us any information, and I am disappointed in that.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that some 600
people stand to lose their jobs across Canada, can the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) indicate how many of those jobs are likely to fall out as a result of
the cutbacks at AECL in Pinawa? How many
people are going to be affected, and how many millions of dollars in wealth is
this economy going to lose as a result of the cuts?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I must say to the member for
Flin Flon that no notice was provided to me as local MLA or to ministers of
this government until after the fact. In
fact, it was people from the community who were contacting us yesterday to
relay the information.
But how badly this is organized, Mr. Speaker, is that
nobody knows, quite frankly, what positions are going to be affected, and what
the federal announcement made yesterday did was to basically leave most people
in the communities affected, or those which have AECL facilities, not knowing
who is affected.
It is an absolute mess, Mr. Speaker, and it is shameful the
way it was carried on, in my opinion, by the Government of Canada.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the
response from the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and the member for Lac du Bonnet
(Mr. Praznik), these charges that Dr. Gerard has laid out cannot be completely
without foundation. They have been said
by members opposite, the former member for Portage la Prairie. I and others in the business community have
made the same allegations about the lack of a proactive response on the part of
this government.
My question is, when is the First Minister (Mr. Filmon)
going to take it upon himself to correct the inactivity, the lack of direction
from the government that perhaps caused some of these layoffs to occur in
Manitoba, as well as many others in the aerospace industry and other industries
in the province?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as a minister of this government
who has been working with AECL for a long period of time, along with my
colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey) and with the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
I can tell you that we have made on many occasions suggestions and comments
about some of the fundamental problems that AECL is experiencing in getting
itself together to be a company that can survive into the future.
I regret to say that, despite the assistance of a local
member of Parliament there, very little has been taken up by the federal
administration in making some of the key changes that they have to.
I have said this publicly before, and I say this here
today. They have some fundamental
problems in their senior management that they have yet to address, and we as a
province have been very willing to work with them on a host of things, but
they, quite frankly, cannot get their act together at the senior level. Until they do that, we are going to have very
serious problems with that particular company.
Manitoba Telephone System
Layoffs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks ago, the government announced through the Manitoba Telephone System that
200 individuals would be laid off‑‑somewhat like the AECL layoffs
that my friend is speaking about‑‑over a period of time, no naming
of who that would be, sometime over the next nine months.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since that time, there has been a
petition filed with over some 200, 220 names on it with respect to one of the
unions coming forward and specifically asking that union to hold a vote, a
secret ballot, amongst all of the members of that union to determine whether or
not, in fact, those union members are prepared to take the 10 days off, rather
than face the layoffs. That is the
equation and the trade‑off that this government put forward at that
time. The union has rejected that. It has not seen fit to allow that.
My question for the Minister responsible for Manitoba
Telephone System: Will he, in order to
ensure that there is an accurate reading on what the members of that union
want, solicit the views in a proper fashion of those members with respect to
that very fundamental question which is going to have serious impacts on
whether or not 200 people have jobs or not?
* (1350)
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party,
who one would think would have a better understanding of labour relations than
he has exhibited here today, is asking the government to interfere in what is
in essence an internal union matter.
They have to determine as a union how they make a
decision. That was one of the reasons
why, in fact, this government brought in Bill 22 and provided the mechanism to
have that imposed if a union would not be co‑operative. Now, the situation is such that they are not
within our jurisdiction.
So the question that the member poses about whether or not
the members of a particular union, quite frankly, should have the opportunity
to decide must be answered by the leadership of the union who must bear the
responsibility for that decision.
Mr. Edwards: Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that the
minister and I obviously have a disagreement as to the extent of what he can
do.
But leaving that aside, my further question for the
minister: Given his comments, has he
spoken to the unions involved and specifically asked them to have that secret
ballot vote to indicate whether or not the members of that union, the workers,
want to accept the 10 days off in lieu of the layoffs, because there appears to
be overwhelming support to have that vote taken.
As well, there are serious allegations in the petition that
the initial decision was made by somewhere around 300 to 400 people. They are saying it was not an accurate
reading of what they wanted. All they
are asking for is a chance to have their views known. Has the minister spoken to the union
leadership about those concerns?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) has made it very clear. The
dispute is between the membership of the union and their leadership.
I can assure the member that the executive and the board
members of MTS have been in discussion with the union leaders, have had several
meetings, and we all want everybody who has the right to vote to have the
opportunity to express their opinion through a secret ballot. I wish they would get on with it.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this petition has just gone to
that union at the end of last week.
I would ask the minister to clarify his comments just
now. Has he, in fact, since that
petition came forward with over 200 names on it, spoken to the union leadership
and expressed those very views, that the government would like to see an
accurate reflection by secret ballot of what the workers want?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the spokesperson in a Crown
corporation for the minister in these kinds of matters is the executive of that
Crown and the board of that Crown, and they are in constant and continuous
negotiations and discussion. If the member
wants my feelings, I have just given them in the answer to his second question.
Medical Research
Funding
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the federal minister of science
and technology made some rather strong comments today respecting health
funding. The federal minister said and I
quote: The basic provincial funding for
medical research is drastically underfunded in Manitoba, and the result is that
Manitoba did very poorly on the national funding to the Medical Research
Council in the last competition.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister: Does the minister agree with the statements
of the federal minister that medical research funding is underfunded in
Manitoba, and, as a result, we have received less money from the federal
government?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Whether it be for research or delivery of
program in the area of health or a number of other areas, Mr. Speaker, it has
been a subject of ongoing concern for several years here in Manitoba about the
contribution that comes our way from the federal government.
We recognize that federal governments have significant
challenges, including the present federal government. I will use all my efforts to make sure that
Manitoba gets its fair share of the pie, whatever size the pie happens to be.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why
funding to the Manitoba Health Research Council, provincial funding, has gone
down by $200,000 from two years ago?
Mr. McCrae: I will make some investigations on this
point. It is a question the honourable
member could have raised when we had staff here at the time of the examination
of the Estimates, but there are a lot of issues in Estimates and only so much
time, and I understand that. I will make
some inquiries and make some information available to the honourable member.
* (1355)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, will the minister today promise
this House that he will take definitive steps to secure additional funding from
the federal government, so that next year at this time, we will not have a
federal cabinet minister coming into Manitoba and saying, you have not devoted
enough to medical research and therefore you are not getting money from Ottawa?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I think there were those who
thought that with 12 members of Parliament out of 14 represented on the
government side in Ottawa, Manitoba would be the beneficiary of maybe a better
deal than we seem to be getting. Yes,
indeed, I will move at every possible opportunity to make Manitoba's point with
Ottawa.
It is basically the case we make itself that is going to be
very important, but how well we make it is also going to be very important when
it comes to political terms.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Impact on Canadian Wheat Board
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board was
established to assist grain producers in selling their product in world markets
and in getting a fair price for farmers and has been very successful in
ensuring adequate returns for producers and a fair price for consumers.
However, the Canadian Wheat Board's success is the reason
the Americans are now attacking it and want to see the Canadians follow their
example of a less efficient private market system. They are using the Free Trade Agreement and
NAFTA to attack the Canadian Wheat Board.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will
explain to this House and to agriculture producers across the province why he
and his government supported NAFTA and free trade when it was clear, even in
the early days of the agreement, that the deal was only going to foster
disputes and threats to crucial institutes such as the Canadian Wheat Board and
marketing boards.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Since the signing of
these agreements with our biggest trading partner, Manitoba's exports to the
United States have risen some 44 percent.
More specifically, the agricultural component of these exports has risen
some 58 percent.
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba farmers and particularly the grain
producers would be in a very serious situation right now if we would not have
had that market that allowed us to move an extraordinary amount of grain into
the American market, which by the way, has brought about the current situation
that is being expressed by the American Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Espy.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the international
commission that was in Winnipeg just a few weeks ago has taken a calm and
deliberate look at our trading practices and will come to the same conclusion
that was arrived at the last time Americans looked seriously at our marketing
and the Canadian Wheat Board and found it in order and not constituting an
unfair trading practice.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to
admit that part of the reason for the increased trade is the change in the
dollar value.
This government has to recognize that the U.S. government
is using the Free Trade Agreement to attack the Canadian Wheat Board, which is
a very important institution for Canadian farmers.
I want to ask the minister what steps he will take to
ensure that the Wheat Board is protected.
Will he contact the federal minister of agriculture and trade and urge
him to take a tough stand to protect the Canadian Wheat Board and ensure that
it is there to serve Canadian farmers as it has done for many years?
* (1400)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, responding to the member for
Swan River, first of all, let me say that having had the privilege of having
several meetings with our new federal Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable
Mr. Goodale, I am satisfied that he is, in fact, acting on behalf of the
farmers of Manitoba and indeed western farmers and grain farmers in particular
in a very strong defence that he has publicly and privately stated with respect
to the current trade harassment by the Americans.
Mr. Speaker, what the honourable member I think should
understand is, what we are witnessing here is an American administration led by
President Clinton trying to pay off some political debts, as they do in
American hardball politics. When he
needed the NAFTA agreement signed through the American Congress, he was looking
for specific votes, and he got those votes from the wheat states, Montana,
North Dakota and South Dakota, on the promise that he would do precisely what
he is doing now, that he would review the Canadian grain industries because of
the success that we were having in penetrating the American market.
American millers, American processors of pasta and other
products, they are busy down there in Washington right now telling the American
administration, do not bother the Canadians too much about their wheat. California senators are in Washington right
now saying, do not bother the Canadians too much about their wheat because we
want to send them our concentrated orange juice; we want to send them our
vegetable produce, our lettuce; we want to send them our California wine.
Mr. Speaker, this is all being played out on a stage of
politics in the States. I am satisfied
that the Wheat Board is in no jeopardy.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that
this is tied in to NAFTA. I want to
assure the minister that we all want trade, but we want fairness, as well.
Given that supply management has always protected producers
and commodity markets have fluctuated, will the minister guarantee Manitoba
producers that he will speak to the federal minister of trade, who is
negotiating very weakly, and encourage him not to cave in to the pressures of
the U.S. government and ensure that he will not allow a trade‑off between
the marketing boards and the Canadian Wheat Board? Will he encourage the federal minister of
trade to stand up and put up a good fight for Canadian farmers?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, on the road to Damascus, many
conversions have taken place, both in the distant past and in the not‑too‑distant
past. The most recent one was our Prime
Minister, the Honourable Prime Minister Chretien, and the entire Liberal Party
with respect to NAFTA.
I will do the honourable members of the New Democratic
Party a favour. You will also make that
conversion if you are ever placed in authority to have to face that issue. So save yourself the trouble. Acknowledge that trade means jobs. Jobs are important to all of us, so get off
that ideological horse you are riding and understand what trade is all about.
Foster Care
Fee Schedule‑‑Extended Families
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters
from my constituents raising their concerns about the reduction in allowances
to children in foster care on reserves being looked after by family members. As the minister knows full well, it is a
tradition on reserves that children are often cared for by extended family
members. When we have questioned the
Minister of Family Services about this matter, she has refused to admit that
the changes in policy discriminate unfairly against aboriginal peoples.
My question is, since there has been no consultation with
the people affected by the change in policy, why has she approved the reduction
in per diem funding to foster families who are relatives of the children in
their care?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity, again, to respond on record to the
change in our vision around support for children in Manitoba. That vision is family support, family
preservation and family responsibility.
We have indicated that there is still more money in the child welfare
system today than there was last year, over $6 million more. That is to ensure that the supports are put
around the children and to look at a new way of doing business for children in
Manitoba.
I believe the decision that has been made is the right
decision and there will be the opportunity, with the additional dollars that
are within the system today, to ensure that children are kept in their family
unit with the supports put around them to ensure that we can keep families
together more often in the future.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House
today when she expects to meet with the federal Minister of Indian Affairs to
discuss this discriminatory change? Will
she put the cuts on hold until that meeting has taken place with the federal
minister?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is not from lack of trying to
meet with the federal minister. I have
corresponded with him and have not had the opportunity, as yet, to receive a
response. I had one meeting set up with
the federal minister that he cancelled, and I am working really hard to try to
get another meeting.
The federal government does have financial responsibility
on reserve, and we talked in great detail in the Estimates process around the
task force that was done on aboriginal peoples for Child and Family Services.
We are yet awaiting a response from the federal government
to indicate whether they will accept their responsibility to support Status
Indians on and off reserve and whether, in fact, they are looking at federal
legislation. That was the key
recommendation. We all know there is a
special federal responsibility, and we want them to live up to that
responsibility and that commitment and ensure us that they are going to take on
that role.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, what rationale was used to make
this change in policy, since it clearly was not through consultation with the
people affected? Can the minister tell
this House today what response she has today to the many people who have
written to me to share their concerns about this discrimination on them?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my honourable
friend to share the correspondence he has received with me so that I could
respond in greater detail to each and every one of those people who has
written.
But, Mr. Speaker, I go back again to indicating that we
have a new vision for child welfare, and that is family support, family
preservation and family responsibility.
I believe this is the right direction to go. There is still more money in the system today
than there was last year or in any other year, including those years under the
NDP administration.
The dollars will still be there to support the children in
the system. As a matter of fact, we will
be able to work with families more aggressively to ensure that children do not
have to be taken into care and removed from their family unit. We will put the supports in place around the
family and around the child for the child's sake.
Provincial Laboratory Committee
Restructuring
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
The minister is well aware of the continuing controversy
over his Provincial Laboratory Committee, and he knows, I would say, that we
are in jeopardy of getting a report that is very much fair, unbiased and truly
reflective of the needs of Manitobans.
I am wondering if the minister is prepared to rethink the
committee structure and put in place a committee which will ensure that, in
fact, we are not pitting private lab interests against public labs and that, in
fact, we get the best recommendations for the needs of Manitobans.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the honourable
member prefaces her question by putting a high priority on the needs of
Manitobans. That is where I am coming
from, too, and I am concerned in the same way that the honourable member is
concerned.
I think what is happening is‑‑well, earlier
today, Mr. Olfert, the head of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, made a
particular point about this, about union representation on this committee, and
in doing so made comments about the other people on the committee. See, you cannot advocate that we ask care
providers and people involved in this system to give us advice, and then when
we do that, be critical of us for doing that.
If Mr. Olfert does not have the confidence in the
leadership of Ron Wally, who is the Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions'
representative on this committee, if Mr. Olfert is not comfortable with that,
it is not for me to sort out disputes that go on within the union movement here
in Manitoba. I suggest that Mr. Olfert
take this matter up with Irene Giesbrecht, who is the head of that council, and
tell Irene Giesbrecht about his problems with the leadership of Mr. Wally. I do not have that same problem.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary to the same
minister, can he tell us, should this committee come up with recommendations
which are contrary to the Bass report which is already well documented, a
report commissioned by this government, what is the minister going to do if the
recommendations from this particular committee are contrary to those of the
Bass report?
Mr. McCrae: It is always a dangerous thing, Mr. Speaker,
to attempt to answer hypothetical questions, so I will pose my own hypothetical
question and answer that one instead of the one asked by the member.
My question is, if there is any recommendation that is contrary
to the public's interests, I will not accept such recommendations.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to
the minister, if the minister is not prepared to accept the recommendations of
this committee if they are contrary to the Bass report, why, in fact, are we
having another committee when there are well laid out recommendations from the
Bass report in regard to laboratory services in this province?
* (1410)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, laboratories in Manitoba play an
important role, and a lot of money goes into the operation of these labs, be
they publicly run or privately owned. I
think we should look to a very large number of people who are already on this
committee, representing various backgrounds and interests, but bringing to the
table expertise that we need, that we in government do not possess all by
ourselves.
You cannot, as I say‑‑and this is directed to
my friends in the New Democratic Party more than the honourable member. You cannot suggest or urge us to seek the
advice of the people in the system, and then when we do seek that advice, come
at us for some other thing that really is driven by some major disagreement
amongst the unions. I would have thought
the New Democrats would have been better placed to iron out those kinds of
difficulties than I would. I do not
think it is my role to be a referee between unions.
My concern is the same as the member for Crescentwood's,
that is, the needs of Manitobans.
Legislative Building
Wheelchair Access
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the
Minister of Government Services.
As is obvious to anybody visiting the Legislative Building,
the provincial government is currently spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars repairing the steps to the building.
My question is, could the minister inform Manitobans how
much money they are spending, how long the construction will take and whether
there will be a wheelchair access ramp added to the front of this building?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised the member from across the way has noticed. We have been going since last Wednesday.
First of all, it is not just repair of the steps. There is a complete removal of the granite
steps. There is demolition and removal
of the existing reinforced concrete structural slab. There is rebuilding the reinforced concrete
structural slab, and then we will replace the steps.
All four steps surrounding the building will be done. The period is until November 1. The first phase will be finished about July
1. The lowest of all tenders was
$752,000 to do the total building and the total steps, four steps surrounding
the building, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dewar: It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, that the
minister can read his briefing notes, but he did not find the answer to the
question.
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Access Awareness
Week. My question is to the minister.
Is he including in the plans of the rebuilding of the
Legislative steps a wheelchair access ramp for handicapped Manitobans?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, if we would have gotten to
Estimates last year, the member would have seen in the Estimates that we spent
in this building $152,000 for wheelchair access upstairs, and new wheelchair
access at the back was done also in that $152,000 last year.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that handicapped
Manitobans have to enter the building from the back door.
Mr. Speaker, my final question is for this minister. What example is this government setting for
all community organizations in this province when they will not put wheelchair
access facilities at the front of this building?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the member
would ask, when they waited‑‑they were here for 20 years, and
wheelchair access could not even be upstairs in the gallery.
We had wheelchair access in the west end of the building
updated last year, so I hope this year maybe the member will get to Government
Services, and we can explain some of the things we have done throughout this
building.
Capital Gains Tax
Family Trust Exemptions
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
Family trusts were exempted from capital gains tax by the
Liberal government in 1972 for a period of 21 years. Instead of allowing this exemption to end in
1993, the Mulroney government extended this exemption for another 21 years,
thereby giving up an estimated $1 billion in tax revenue. It is now under review by the federal
Minister of Finance.
Can this Minister of Finance advise the House whether he
has a position on this matter?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will
take the details of that question as notice.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I would ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he
would undertake to contact his federal counterpart and urge him to end this
exemption on the basis of bringing about a fairer tax system. The federal government is cutting UI
benefits, yet allows family trusts to be exempt from taxes. It is time to end this unfair situation.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I will take that part of the
question as notice, as well.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
Has the minister been lobbied by anyone or by groups such
as the Canadian Association of Family Enterprise on this matter of extending
the exemption of taxes on trusts?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the organization the member for
Brandon East refers to has not made contact directly with my office or
myself. They may have somewhere within
Finance, but if they have that information, it has not been brought to my
attention.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us this afternoon
Mr. Jean Allard, the former MLA for Rupertsland.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Portage School Division Award of Excellence
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Portage la
Prairie have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Brian Pallister
(Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the
House today to pay tribute to a friend and a fine teacher from Portage la
Prairie. Mrs. Lou Collett, a teacher at
the Crescentview School for the last 13 years, was recognized by her peers last
week in our school division. Lou was
presented with the Portage School Division Award of Excellence for her
dedication.
School Principal Cornie Furdievich said that Lou genuinely
cares for the children and is always there for them. Lou was praised as standing above many of her
peers for her willingness to take an active role in the education of our
children. She takes on tasks that are
given to her without complaint, and she does not seek personal recognition.
In addition to her professional duties, Lou is a dedicated
wife, mother and volunteer in our community, Mr. Speaker. It is that kind of dedication to the future
of our education system in the community of Portage la Prairie and in the
province of Manitoba that I know all of us in this Chamber want to praise and
recognize.
Lou Collett deserves our recognition and our thanks. I join with my colleagues, her associates,
family and her many friends in offering her our congratulations. Thank you.
* (1420)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Agriculture; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs.
Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Justice.
* (1430)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply
meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the
Department of Agriculture.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item
3. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, Administration, on page 16 of the
Estimates book.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, allow me to introduce senior management officials of the Manitoba
Agricultural Credit Corporation. To my
immediate left is, of course, Mr. Gill Shaw, the General Manager. We have Ms. Charlene Kibbins who is the
Regional Credit Manager operating out of Morris and also responsible for
special loans. We have my Deputy
Minister, of course, Mr. Greg Lacomy, whom you have met before and Ms. Davetta
Sheppard who is the Director of Finance Administration of that corporation.
Allow me a very brief introduction of this item of my
Estimates. The Manitoba Agricultural
Credit Corporation has proven over the many years to be one of the main tools available
in the arsenal of the Department of Agriculture to support agriculture in the
province in its many diverse areas. But
specifically, it has enabled governments, both this one and previous
administrations, to find some method of expression in a real way of the
priorities of the government of the day whether it is the direction of special
assistance to young farmers, whether it is the consideration of other
difficulties in the farming area as it was in the mid‑'80s when extremely
high interest rates were of considerable concern to the then
administration. It enables the
government to focus in on the specific areas that are deemed to be of import to
that government and ministry.
In that light, in the past four or five months or certainly
the past half‑year, some significant amendments have been made to the
Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation's way of doing business. They include upping the limits of loans
available, more or less taking into consideration the reality of farming today.
They also have created more flexibility in enabling us to
consider seriously what could in the past have been termed hobby farmers, if
you like, though that perhaps is not the right term. There were specifications in the regulations
that prohibited the Agricultural Credit Corporation from considering a loan
application from persons who were earning in excess of a certain amount of
dollars off farm. Members of the
committee will be only too well aware that in today's world all too often start‑up
farmers, young farmers, that we encourage and want to see enter agriculture,
have to have employment off the farm to enable them to get started. The amendments that I refer to take that into
consideration.
Amendments have also been made to one of the programs that
we have had considerable success with, and I predict a growing success mainly
due to actions taken by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am
referring to the support programs that the corporation provides to entice,
encourage and try to build up the cattle feeder industry in the province
again. We have a number of co‑operative
groups of young farmers, cattle farmers, joining together and being supported
by the corporation in this endeavour.
To recognize the increasing importance of livestock
operations in the Manitoba agriculture scene, a further amendment has been
concluded and passed just recently that strikes out the word "cattle"
because it was specific and inserts the word "livestock" which would
enable a corporation to respond to similar proposals from other producers
involving livestock other than cattle, and of course hogs, pork, come to mind.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I make these few comments and
invite honourable members of the committee to hopefully offer their constructive
advice, criticism, if need be. No
operation of government is above and beyond criticism from time to time, and I
am sure that senior members of the corporation will accept your comments in the
spirit and manner they are given to enable them to do a better job for the
primary producers of Manitoba.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for those opening comments. There are
several questions that we want to address in this area.
The minister indicated that many young farmers are working
off farm now, and in fact it is not only young farmers but many farmers and
their spouses have had to take off‑farm jobs to continue to be able to
hang on to their farms because of the difficulties that the industry has been
in for the past several years. I think
that is a good move, that there is more flexibility in that part of the act to
allow those people who are trying to get started in farming, but when their
assets were looked at or their occupation was looked at, they were not
classified as farmers and could not access the money. So I think it is a good move on that part of
the corporation to address that.
The questions I have to ask are, to begin with, general
questions about the corporation, about the number of people who are accessing
loans and whether the corporation is still being called upon as often or
whether there is a change in pattern. I
would like to know some comparison over the last couple of years to this year
on the people who are accessing funding.
Is there a trend to move away from the Farm Credit Corporation, and are
people going more to their local banks and getting funds more through their
local banks?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can comment just
generally to the honourable member for Swan River that the corporation has in
the past 12 months experienced a fair bit of activity with the situation being
that interest rates have dropped substantially in the other sectors‑‑well,
just generally speaking, by the various money‑lending institutions of the
province. That has put a call on the
corporation to enable contract holders to take advantage of the clause in the
contract that provides for no specific penalty for writing down a long‑term
mortgage in favour of another institution.
I would want to freely acknowledge that a number of
accounts had done just that, principally with the federal credit corporation,
which have, I think it is fair to say, actively pursued some of the accounts to
do just that.
However, the interest situation is volatile. The Bank of Canada rate is going down a few
weeks, then going back up again. This is
a normal situation for the corporation to deal with. It is always our primary interest, of course,
to serve the best interests of our contract holders, and if in fact they can
save themselves some dollars by making that change, they have done so and we
have accommodated them. There have been
some costs associated with that, of course, because mortgage documents are not
drawn up for free, and the institutions, both the other institutions and ours,
have to make these charges.
Now, the other part of the question, there has been
considerable activity with respect to the '93‑94 loan applications. Some 456 direct lending loans were concluded
for a total of some $24.5 million. We
have a fairly active program of guaranteeing loans, which is another form of
support that we provide. We did that to
some 370 applicants, in effect guaranteeing an additional $26.6 million.
We have established two more additional feeder associations‑‑these
were the associations that I alluded to in my brief opening comments‑‑for
a total outlay or exposure of some $13.8 million. I believe we have in the order of eight of
these feeder associations operating with a total exposure of about $17
million. These are doing extremely well.
They are providing just the right amount of help, in my
opinion, to make it happen, and I predict quite frankly that the corporation
will see more activity in this area as more and more Manitoba producers
realize, and Saskatchewan and Alberta producers, that there is no particular
advantage out of taking the calves out of our province. They may not be completely finished here, but
I think you will see more backgrounding programs and, generally speaking, more
feeding programs taking place in Manitoba.
There are some 281 members involved in these eight feeder co‑ops
that I speak of.
* (1440)
Further information for the honourable member for Swan
River (Ms. Wowchuk), as indicated, the federal credit corporation has been
aggressive and quite active in Manitoba.
Their total of loans to date numbers some $50.2 million, which covers
some 729 accounts as compared to $29 million just a year ago covering some 391
accounts. So that gives the member for
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) a pretty clear idea of the action taken by the federal
credit corporation this past year.
Suffice to say, though, what is important is that Manitoba farmers are
accessing credit, whether it is our corporation, whether it is the federal credit
corporation or indeed whether it is the credit unions and the private banking
institutions.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister
indicate, then, what you are saying is that the people‑‑is the
minister saying that the clients that were with the MACC have been able to get
lower interest money from FCC and have transferred their accounts there? Is that why the increase has gone‑‑
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff advises me
that, yes, that has occurred, and the reason for that, I will just cite a few
examples where the differences become apparent.
Under, for instance, a 15‑year mortgage rate with our corporation,
the interest rate would be 8.75 and they are at 10.25. Why would they change? This is not the information that I‑‑
Allow me a little bit‑‑but we are satisfied
that on any length of period of time Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation
consistently provides probably the best money at the best rates available. But loans that were made some years ago at
considerably higher interest rates‑‑we have situations where a
farmer will have an outstanding mortgage, 15‑20 year mortgage, that we
are charging him 12 or 12.5 or 13 percent interest rates and along comes FCC,
as they have done this past year, and say, look, we will offer you a 10‑year
mortgage rate at 8.5 percent or a 15 one at 10.25 percent. That, then, has been reason enough, depending
on the amount of savings that the actual borrower can accrue to incur the
expenses involved in making that change.
I point out our corporation has no penalty for that buy out
of that mortgage, but there are costs involved in meeting the redrawing,
redrafting of the new mortgage arrangements with the new lender, but those are
the kinds of examples that have caused this to happen.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand that
with the Fishermen's Loans Program, when the interest rate was at a high rate
and then the interest dropped in this last year, the fishermen were able to
negotiate on the fishermen loans a lower interest rate without changing to
another institution.
I wonder, was there a possibility of doing that, and did
the department give any consideration in order to retain those accounts to
write down the interest rates? Is that a
possibility?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the fishermen have
always had a kind of special relationship, and it is true that they have
enjoyed some particular provisions under the borrowing provisions that enabled
them to, for instance, convert a loan.
If he had an outstanding loan that perhaps was taken out at a time at 11
or 12 percent and he was taking out some additional money, it would then be
blended and brought down to the current level of interest which may be 7 or 8
percent or 9 percent.
I am not really qualified to deal too excessively with
respect to the fishermen's loans because the member will recall that entire
portfolio was taken from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation a year
ago now, I believe, or two years ago and transferred to the economic
development council or corporation under the then capable leadership of my
great friend Hamish‑‑what is his name? His name escapes me‑‑Downey, the
member for Arthur. So the honourable
member would have to await the Estimates of my colleague the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) to delve into the specific details of the
fishermen's loans.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson,
Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
misunderstood me. I was not trying to
get into the details of fishermen's loans.
I was asking whether there were provisions under the Manitoba
Agricultural Credit Corporation to write down interest rate loans rather than
the farmers having to go through the expense of transferring to another
institution, such as the Farm Credit Corporation or a credit union or another
bank. I was only using the fishermen's
loans as a comparison because I know that they have the ability to do that there. Is there any ability in the legislation with
the MACC to write down the interest rates?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this has been
an issue that the corporation has discussed with me on numerous occasions. My recommendations to the corporation have
been that in all instances to be as forthcoming and co‑operative as
possible with the contractholder. We
recognized that in some instances that there would be significant savings
involved for the contractholder.
All the time, I think the honourable member should
appreciate, this difference showed up on the corporation's books as a cost or
charge to us because we contract that money from the province. At the time the mortgage was given, and that
procedure has not changed since virtually the inception of the corporation, we
have as good a rate as we can get from the province. I think it is the provincial rate of interest
plus 1 percent to cover some of the administration costs. So that when five years ago or eight years
ago the corporation received X number of millions of dollars at what then was
the rate, 12 percent, 13 percent, that is a charge to the corporation that we
have to pay back to Treasury Board to the Consolidated Revenue Fund at those
levels.
So to the extent that we accommodate the contractholder in
getting out of that obligation, if you like, to take advantage of cheaper
money, that costs the corporation some money.
We are monitoring that on a fairly constant basis. I share the concern that the corporation has,
that this is manageable. I am advised
that it is, that we have not had reason to, for instance, seek additional funds
from Treasury money to cover any of this shortfall, and we will be in a better
position a year from now to indicate to you what, in fact, the changes were.
It is volatile, and even Bank of Canada rates, I do not
know what they did today. They went up a
bit today and people are watching that.
For a period of time interest rates were on a steady and regular decline. That has changed somewhat in the last little
while, and that is being reflected in this kind of activity.
* (1450)
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister had indicated that there were in
the last year loans for some 456 clients that have direct loans at the present
time. How does that compare to the
number of loans that we would have had a couple of years ago? Has there been a large decrease in the number
of people who are taking out their money through the corporation?
Mr. Enns: I should have the '92‑93 immediate past
year by way of comparison. We find
numbers that I would say are very comparable.
Direct loans, 341; stocker loans, 91; guaranteed loans, 370, which is
virtually the same as‑‑well, no, pardon me, 377. We have these charts. If we go back a few more years to '91‑92,
'90‑91, '89‑90, '88‑89, that five‑year period, the total
loans range from 414 for '91; 458 for '90; 475 for '88‑90; 282 for '88‑‑so
basically a fairly level flow, yes.
Ms. Wowchuk: Many farmers, because of high interest rates
and situations that they have gotten into, have not been able to carry through
on their financial commitments and have had to renegotiate or else close down
their operations. In the last year, how
many farmers have had their loans foreclosed on them by MACC?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased
to report that the general manager informs me that we have had no foreclosures
in the past year. Now that is not to say‑‑and
I want to indicate to the honourable member that we do have continuing
activity, although, again, much less with the Farm Mediation Board which, you know,
the corporation has some familiarity with but which is dealt with somewhat
separately in the Estimates. I would be
pleased to try to answer any questions that I can at this time.
Again, just for further information for the committee
members, there were a total of 78 loans that went to mediation of which 54 were
resolved. Again, it is a percentage
figure that I take some comfort in in the sense that these are obviously
situations, as the member herself described, that had some pretty serious
difficulties to trigger this mechanism.
So, of those 78, 54 were resolved.
There are currently some 24 cases still unresolved, but they are being
worked on, and they are being carried forward‑‑54 resolved, 24
unresolved of a total of 78.
Ms. Wowchuk: We will get back to that a little later on,
but the minister had talked about new loans and new areas that the corporation
was lending money in. There is a new
industry, talk about extension in the feeder associations. The hog industry is growing very
quickly. Another industry that is very
important to rural Manitoba is the PMU industry, and I wonder, has the
association lent any money to PMU operations, and how many of them have
borrowed money through this corporation?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, staff advises
me that, yes, we have involved ourselves in supporting the expansion in the PMU
industry. Some 28 new accounts were
provided financial assistance, too, by the corporation, which represented some
40 percent of the total of the new and expanded PMU operations in the last
year. I do not have the total amount,
dollar figures, involved in the loans. I
suppose we could take that as notice and provide that to the member at some
later date.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would take it that those loans‑‑you
had indicated that it was just over the last two years that you had begun
lending money into the PMU industry.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member may
or may not be familiar with the fact that one of the difficulties about
providing assistance to the PMU industry was that up until just the last two
years the contracting company, Ayerst, provided only one‑year
contracts. That provided a difficulty,
understandably, for credit grantors, whether it was our corporation or the
private sector, banks and credit unions, to respond to legitimate loan requests
from PMU operators.
It was under the kind of forceful direction by this
government when approached by Ayerst Organics to provide some assistance to
them, as we were pleased to do in the final analysis, along with the Government
of Canada through the Western Diversification Fund, but I was certainly
strongly supported by, again, my colleagues like the member for Arthur (Mr.
Downey) and others, that we lean on the company to provide longer‑term
contracts which would then provide the kind of security that the corporation
and the private sector could respond to.
* (1500)
We knew that there would be demand for these monies. We were being told, and we were being assured
that there would be an expansion take place.
Existing operators, in some instances, you know, needed to modify,
enhance and enlarge their facilities, and of course the new operators building
to the now fairly stringent conditions that are involved in housing
requirements by the company's own code of ethics in the humane and appropriate
treatment of the animals housed in the PMU barns‑‑that there would
be demands for credit.
So we were able to convince Ayerst Organics for the first
time in its considerably long history of doing business in the province of
Manitoba to provide and to offer to our PMU contract holders extended‑‑I
think they were five‑year‑‑contracts, which is a first for
the company. So that then gave the
corporation sufficient confidence to provide loan assistance to these
operators.
Ms. Wowchuk: Are all loans negotiated at an equal
rate? Is the interest rate regular for
everybody? I guess I am looking at,
because the minister says this a more stable industry, whether there is a
variance in the interest rate or whether it is people going in to borrow money
for land or cattle or for the PMU industry, or is it all negotiated at the same
interest rate?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
correct. The rates are the same for all
loans made to any primary producer in the province of Manitoba. The differences are in the terms of the
loans, ranging from one to 30 years.
There is a different scale of interest rates charged, and they are
amended or changed in mid‑term on an annual basis‑‑or mid‑month,
pardon me, on a monthly basis.
The difficulty was that with a one‑year contract the
corporation was simply not in a position to consider them. I am advised that that was also the case for
many of the private lending institutions.
They just wanted greater security, because it is understandable that
unlike other agricultural products for which markets are there, maybe not
always under the conditions and terms that the producer would like‑‑but
you know, I may not be happy with next year's cattle prices, but I will sell my
cattle. The difficulty with this product
is there is only one end user of the product.
If that end user, for one reason or another, is not there to purchase
the next year's product, the credit lending agency has absolutely nothing to
fall back on.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am pleased that the corporation has seen
that this is an important industry in Manitoba.
It is a very viable industry. The
company has now given the farmers more stability, because it is true there were
farmers who were investing a very large amount of money but without any
guarantees that they would continue to be able to sell the product. Indeed, they still do not have any guarantees
if they do not follow all the rules that are put in place by the company. The rules are good rules to ensure that there
is a high‑quality product and that the animals are being treated
humanely.
I guess I would‑‑just one question on
that. I want to ask, of the 28 accounts
that are in place right now, are there any of them that the corporation is
experiencing any difficulty with, or are they all sound operations?
Mr. Enns: It seems to be corporate agreement at the
table here that they are all very sound.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have many more questions in this area, but I
will defer to the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey) who has some
questions as well, and then when he is done go back to the questions that I
have.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I
not only have some questions, I have a few comments I would like to put on the
record as I think it is important to acknowledge, as Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism but also as a member representing a farm community in
southwestern Manitoba, the important role that MACC has played and I believe
will continue to play.
I think it is important to acknowledge as well for some of
the new members that if one were to look back at the history of the province of
Manitoba, the establishment of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation
came about under the Duff Roblin Progressive Conservative government, as we saw
not only the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation formed but also the Crop
Insurance Corporation and many tools which further supported‑‑and
call them safety nets if we like‑‑but tools which were put in place
to enable the farm community to play a more active role in the whole Canadian
agriculture picture.
So I think one should acknowledge the leadership role that
was taken, and I should as well acknowledge the current minister's role in his
early days as the Minister responsible for Agriculture. I am sure there have been many changes that
he has seen as they have come about, probably more traditionally from land‑based
loans to more diversified activity. I
think that I would ask for a comment at a later time as to really what is the
breakdown now as it relates to the loans that are more tending to the
diversification sector rather than just strictly land‑based.
Let me as well say, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am as
well aware of the fact that it was a Conservative government that introduced
the Young Farmer Rebate program which encouraged young people to get into
farming, to reduce some of the up‑front costs; and as well acknowledge
the fact that it was a Conservative government that brought in the off‑farm
income capability where people were not penalized if they earned money off
farm, but they can in fact go to MACC to borrow money and were not restricted
from borrowing from them.
Again, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) may not like
to hear this, but I think it is important that the members of this committee
appreciate it as well. I note the
numbers of feeder cattle co‑ops that are in the province of Manitoba, now
some eight feeder cattle co‑ops which again are adding value to a very
important resource in the province of Manitoba, that being the beef
industry. The ones that I am aware of,
and the minister may want to comment, are working extremely well as it relates
to the maintenance of livestock on farms, but adding value to those cattle
using the resources that each farmer produces and, again, adds stability to the
industry all the way through that sector.
So I am just trying to do a bit of an overview, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson. I say as a rural
member, and also the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, I am pleased the
direction that the credit corporation is going.
They have made changes as it relates to the needs of the farm community.
I also would like to ask the question as it relates to
turnaround times for loans. It is my
understanding, and I know one of the concerns that constituents that I have had
brought to me is that they are concerned about the amount of time that it took
to get at least an indication from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation
whether or not they would qualify for a loan.
I would like to know what the current turnaround time is from first
contact to office as it relates to some indication if it is at all viable, as
to when they may be able to proceed.
Maybe the minister could give us what it was some five years ago as to
what it is today as it relates to turnaround time within the corporation.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
I would also like to know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what is
the direct connection between the mediation and the mediation department within
agriculture and also the ability for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit
Corporation, how does it use the mediation as part of the corporation's
activity? If an individual is in
trouble, can they say to the constituent or to the farmer, look, you have a
financial difficulty, we have had difficulties with you in dealing with you
before, we would appreciate that you go to the Mediation Board and get some
kind of a statement or a support, then we as Manitoba Agricultural Credit
Corporation can help you. It is my
understanding the policy is if you have lost money, the corporation has lost
money with a client, that they have to go through the mediation system to in
fact qualify to get into MACC support again.
I wonder if the minister could give us a little clarification on the
connection between the credit corporation and the mediation within the
Department of Agriculture.
I would also like him to comment as well, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, because I think that the member for Swan River‑‑and I
appreciated her comments and her questions about PMU. I again acknowledge the work that the MACC
did in working with the banks and the government to encourage Ayerst to expand
the length of time on which they could contract to the producers. Would it be helpful if there was a statement
that continually came out from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party
of a full endorsement of an industry like PMU that would give support to MACC
and their loans, the confidence in those loans?
* (1510)
Could I as well ask, if it would help the minister in the
expansion of agriculture‑‑because we know that if we were to double
the hog production in Manitoba, MACC would be playing a considerable role in
the financing of some of those operations.
There are some 8,000 to 10,000 jobs, I understand, if that were to take
place. Would it be helpful as well if we
had the two opposition parties to make a statement of policy as it relates to
supporting MACC, a vote of confidence in them and their ability to lend money
in this field? Would it be helpful for
the minister if the two parties would come out and endorse an expansion in both
the PMU operation and the hog industry in Manitoba? Would that be helpful in his drive to create
jobs in rural Manitoba and related processing jobs as it relates to‑‑[interjection]
No, these questions are directed at the minister.
The Liberal Party will have ample opportunity in the coming
weeks to put their position forward as it relates to how they support the
livestock sector in this province. They
have been very silent, in fact, somewhat negative to this point. I am saying that of the Liberal Party because
they have not‑‑silence is certainly not good enough.
I would also like to‑‑and it does not have to
happen today, but the minister could probably give us some of the limits which
they now have in place as it relates to loans.
As the industry has grown, there has had to be changes in maximums which
producers can borrow, and I would like the minister to give us some of the
indication as to what has happened as it relates to limits that are available
to the producers. I would also like to
just get an idea of, as I said at the outset, the numbers of loans that are now
in diversified operations as it relates to straight grain operations. What has that change been over the last
period of, say, five or so years?
I want to conclude my comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, by
saying that I compliment fully the minister, the staff and all those people
working at the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation for their work because
it is an important tool for the expansion and growth of agriculture,
particularly as it relates to the diversification of agriculture.
That is why I ask the question, if it would be helpful for
the two opposition parties to come out fully behind the work and activities of
which public monies are being lent: into
PMU, into hog expansion, into the feedlot co‑op activities. Those are the kinds of policy statements that
we really have not heard come from the Liberal or the New Democratic Parties,
so I am asking the minister, in his operations with MACC, if it would be
helpful for them to come out and fully endorse the expansion of both the hog
industry, the PMU operation, because it adds security to the public monies that
are leant in these operations.
I would just like the minister to comment on those
questions and again acknowledge the work of the MACC and all the staff for
their hard work and effort on behalf of the constituents that I represent and
the farm community, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Thank you.
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do welcome
and I am genuinely appreciative of the kind comments directed at me personally
and at the senior staff. However, I say
that with some reservation. His somewhat
partisan attacks have aroused deep within the bosom of my agricultural critic
deep and dark and emotional political rejoinder which I fear will disturb the
pastoral serenity that has thus far dominated these considerations of the
Department of Agriculture.
Nonetheless, he has reminded me of my responsibility and he
has a point. For instance, on the
question of the turnaround which is of some importance, the turnaround today is
11.42 days as compared to 78 days in '87 or 47 days in '88 and in '89, 31
days. There has been a steady
progression. I take no credit for this,
but I am certainly pleased to read these into the records because the member
for Arthur is correct. The senior
management at the corporation has made that an obvious priority, and they have
succeeded. So I am pleased to read that
into the record.
Other questions that the honourable member has indicated
were about raising the limits and being in greater recognition of today's
agriculture. They have been raised from
$150,000 to $250,000 for long‑ and immediate‑term loans. The guaranteed operating loan has been raised
to $150,000. The stocker agreement loans
have been raised to $60,000 which in combination were at a maximum of $3
million and are now up to $5 million, partly anticipation of the added activity
that we will see in this area of loans.
We should understand that.
We do not attempt to service those, whatever it is, 10, 15
or 20 percent of what you would call the large commercial farming
operations. They have, quite frankly, no
need of our service. They are
financially sound, secure, to make their own banking arrangements. We are targeting specifically the medium‑
and the start‑up farmer. That is
the mandate of the corporation and, unless otherwise directed, that is the
mandate that we will continue. Our job
is to get them into that quarter‑of‑a‑million dollar range
and, if they then choose, to be moved one step further into the more commercial
type farming operation, God bless them.
That is the role of the corporation.
We have specifically directed and I would ask the
corporation, even in the last year, what was the direct support, if you like,
of the Young Farmer Rebate program? It
was in the millions of dollars, $4 million I am advised. The honourable member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk) frequently asks that question.
What is the government doing for the young farmer, the start‑up
farmer, is a $4‑million rebate on interest rates that the young farmers
have received from this corporation during the past year.
I would hope that the corporation members of the committee
will support me and the corporation in recognizing that they have, in my
opinion, an expanding role to play in the future livestock expansion that, in
my humble opinion, needs to take place for numerous reasons. We will perhaps get into greater discussion
about that when we deal with the Animal Industry Branch and its various
components, but certainly the credit corporation has a very specific role to
play in helping to accommodate, helping farmers adjust, in some cases, coming
back into a livestock operation that they had abandoned or their fathers had
abandoned years ago to gain re‑entry into that part of the farming
business.
* (1520)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister referred
to the Young Farmer Rebate program, and he had indicated that $4 million had
been deferred in loan payments. I want
just some information on how the Young Farmer Rebate program works. Does it apply only to people who are
borrowing money through MACC, or does it apply to those people who cannot
borrow money through MACC and have chosen to borrow money through a different
financial institution?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, the program is
restricted specifically to accounts held by Manitoba Agricultural Credit
Corporation.
Ms. Wowchuk: Then I would take it that‑‑has
that amount decreased from what it was last year, or has there been an increase
in the amount of money that is paid out through the Young Farmer Rebate
program?
Mr. Enns: The actual rebate paid figures for the last
three years indicate that we had some $3.2 million paid out in '92, some $3.7
million paid out in '93‑‑pardon me, 4.1 applied to this point of
time in the '94 year. What has occurred,
I am advised, that there is virtually a hundred percent compliance with meeting
the due date on their loan payment to take advantage of the rebate being
offered.
That may be somewhat surprising to the honourable member in
view of some of the harvest conditions that we have had in the last few years,
but it again indicates the kind of support that payments under the different
safety programs, notably the GRIP program, have enabled farmers to make these
payments. They have made the payments
and have received full advantage of the interest rebate on their accounts.
Ms. Wowchuk: If this only applies to farmers who have
their loans with MACC, it seems like that is an unfair advantage to those
farmers. What percentage of the farmers'
accounts would MACC have as compared to those that are through other financial
institutions?
I am wanting to know how much of an advantage it is, and I
guess I look at this and I wonder whether the corporation has ever looked at
the possibility of applying the Young Farmer Rebate to loans that are held with
other institutions. Is that possible
then to create some fairness for those people as well who are borrowing money
through other ones? They are still
operators. They are still facing
financial difficulty. Is that an
unrealistic goal, or is it something that has ever been considered?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the simple
answer to the question is no, that it has not really been considered. It is questionable whether it ought to be
considered. It is, after all, a program
that is offered to young farmers of Manitoba.
If they wish to avail themselves of this service, they step forward to
the various offices throughout the province of Manitoba and do just that. We have no way of knowing‑‑it
would be very difficult to track any number of loans that may have made credit
arrangements with the private lending institutions of the province. That is just too difficult a number to
inquire about.
I should point out to the honourable member that upwards to
96, 97 percent of all our new clients are young farmers. Obviously, it indicates to me that we are
successfully and particularly targeting this group of new entrants into farming. I think that is certainly an objective that
members of the committee would want to see supported. We are concerned about the age of existing
farm operators, and if there is to be government‑sponsored, by one means
or another, support for new entrants into farming, it surely ought to be
focused on what we call the young farmer.
It would seem to indicate that is a message that has been reasonably
well communicated to the farm community in Manitoba when such a high percentage
of our clients are in fact in the young‑farmer category.
Ms. Wowchuk: I certainly agree with the minister that we
have to look at ways of targeting our young farmers and giving them the
opportunity to come back to the farm, particularly with the aging population
that we have in many communities and in the farm community.
Since this rebate applies only to loans that are with MACC,
is there any provision for farmers who are with a banking institute or a credit
union to transfer their loan over to MACC as there was with‑‑they
have transferred out from MACC to FCC to get a lower interest rate. Is there any provision to take up loans to
allow these young farmers to take advantage of the program?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised that we
do encourage young farmers to come to us if they are facing a situation of
refinancing of debt that they have accrued elsewhere where this program is not
available. If they otherwise meet the
age criteria, they are then eligible for that Young Farmer Rebate.
In other words, a young farmer who has farm debt at a
credit union or at a bank and is made aware of the fact that had he had that
portfolio with us he would be eligible for‑‑and they are
substantial savings on any length contracts, 10 year.
It is 2 percent of the outstanding principal of the loan
for the first five years to a maximum of $10,000. So it is appropriate to say that upwards to
$10,000 is available as a direct support payment, if you like, for that young
farmer.
As I started to say, that young farmer who may not have
started with our program but hears of our program, wants to take advantage of
this program, as the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is
suggesting, can come to us. We will
refinance and consolidate his debt and if otherwise eligible for the program
would be eligible for that upwards to $10,000 support.
An Honourable Member: And young.
Mr. Enns: Oh, it is so cruel. Young is under 40. I do not qualify any more.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just one more point on the Young Farmer
Rebate, does that apply to any loan or is it loans just for land? Can it be loans for livestock, loans for
equipment?
Mr. Enns: I am advised that it applies to virtually all
loans with the exception of the stocker program, which is treated as a separate
program.
Ms. Wowchuk: Moving on then to the feeder association
program, the minister had said there had been a large expansion, going from two
loans to eight associations that have been established. How many applications were made to establish
feeder associations‑‑there are eight now‑‑but how many
areas, groups of people have tried to get loans but have not qualified?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff advises me that
we are not aware of any group that has seriously approached the corporation
being turned down. The honourable member
will appreciate that it takes a bit of doing to get them started. These are groups of farmers who wish to feed
cattle on a co‑operative basis.
They have specific individual requirements to have in place with respect
to funding. Facilities, of course, have
to be in place, and there are, for instance, at this time four additional
groups that are in discussion with the corporation for still further expansion
of this program.
* (1530)
For the record and for the committee members' information,
the associations can be identified:
Delta Plains in the Carman district, we have one in the Teulon district,
one in the southwest district at Deloraine, one in the Ste. Rose district,
Vita, Riverton, Prospect, Hamiota, and the Dugald area, the Baldy Mountain
area, Sifton, Killarney, Sandhills, in the community of Austin, Beausejour and
Roblin, involving a total of 327 individual producers. They are contracting with, what they call,
149 contracts involving over 13,500 feeders, and the loans currently
outstanding on these, at time of this compilation on this particular group, was
some $8.79 million.
I indicated to the honourable member that it is my feeling,
I could be wrong, but I just believe that there will be considerable growth in
this program. The program has grown, for
instance, from 1992, when the program was introduced. In the first year, we had some 8,000 cattle
on feed. In the year just concluded,
1993, that moved up to slightly in excess of 20,000. I suspect that the '94 figures will show
again substantial growth.
As I mentioned, the actions taken by our sister provinces
of Alberta and Saskatchewan will in fact encourage that growth. So I have asked officials within the
corporation to kind of anticipate that growth.
I ask honourable members of the committee, if I should need some
additional financial resources to accommodate that growth, I would like to
think that the honourable member for Swan River would be among the first that
would accompany me to Treasury Board on some occasion and help me persuade that
group of my colleagues that I will choose not to put on record what I sometimes
may wish to put on record.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would welcome the minister's invitation to
join him to pursue additional funds to help the growth of any sustainable
industry in rural Manitoba, and I will wait for that invitation to deal with
that.
I want to still continue on the feeder association
program. When an application is made, is
the credit rating of each of the people who is in the association taken into
consideration? It is my understanding
that if an individual has been involved with the corporation, has had
difficulty in farming, perhaps has gone through the Farm Debt Review Board,
that he or she will not be allowed to be one of the partners in the
corporation.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to report to
the committee that we are dealing with public taxpayers' funds, and we wish to
do that with the prudence that the taxpayer would expect of us. I attach absolutely no blame on governments
past or current, but particularly in the area of beef livestock we have had
several different programs which, while I am sure provided support to certain
levels, certain degrees, but also in some instances, and including even to the
current time, left the department or the government of the day holding on to
some accounts that simply have not been repaid.
That is, I suppose, normal happenings whenever you grant
lines of credit. It happens to banks, it
happens to credit unions, it happens to our Crown corporation, although I am
pleased to report, and I will be pleased to answer a specific question on that,
to a very, very low degree.
Certainly in the area, particularly of some of the past
support programs for the beef cattle industry there have been some less than
totally satisfying experiences, in terms of putting the necessary security
behind the kind of loan guarantees and loans that were made.
So the procedure is quite rigid, quite frankly, in this
instance, and it has a high degree of self‑discipline in it. First of all, the individual, if an
individual has a poor credit rating or has had a bad credit experience, he has
to first of all be approved by the group that he is joining. The seven or eight or nine other people that
are part of the co‑operative group have to accept him or her into their
association. Their individual credit
ratings then have to be approved at the bank, because the major portion of the
financing is done through the bank and privately. It then is approved by our own credit
corporation because of our involvement.
We have had instances, I am advised, where a member that
has formed a co‑op group like that has had an outstanding balance with
the corporation of a loan that had not been paid off. It is then incumbent upon that member, prior
to approval being given, for that loan to be repaid. In fact, I am advised by the general manager
that that has happened on several occasions.
So there is a great deal of‑‑you may wish to
say from one point of view maybe too much‑‑integrity attached to
the kind of exposure that the public purse has in its program, but we have all
the more of the confidence that we have in the program and all the more, quite
frankly, that I am prepared to press my colleagues, my government for our full
support of this program. It is in the
interests of the agricultural community that more of our livestock is fed in
Manitoba rather than shipped abroad, because when we ship them abroad, we ship
the jobs out of the province as well.
We have reasons to be concerned about consuming more of our
feed grains available in the province, particularly should there be ongoing
changes to the levels of support for putting feed grains into export position as
a result of changes to the Crow benefit.
Then all the more reason for us to be placing ourselves and positioning
ourselves in such a manner that we can find a home for a substantial percentage
of our home‑grown barley and other feed grains through various forms of
livestock.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to agree with the minister that we
should be looking at finishing as much stock as possible, and I hope that as
minister he will pursue even further the possibility of also processing that
product so that we get even more value‑added jobs from the livestock that
is raised here in Manitoba.
Pursuing the feeder association loans further, the minister
said that first the person has to be approved by the seven people that he or
she is involved with, but if that person, for example, had a loan written down
by the corporation, is that a reject? A
doubtful account written off, so to speak, would that be reason for the
corporation to reject him or her?
* (1540)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the short answer is yes.
I have a short correction.
The limit of the total in the association that can form is 15, so they
can have fairly significant groups.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a specific
case that I would like to talk about.
However, I do not want to put any names on the record, and I would
perhaps later be able to talk to the members of the staff to have this
particular case pursued. It is a farmer
who had faced some difficulties several years ago and has now become well
established, but because of the record that he had several years ago, he is
unable to participate in a feeder association although the association is, in
my understanding, operating. I would
like to perhaps talk to the staff and see what we can do to help him pursue
this avenue of farming.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I certainly invite
the honourable member for Swan River to do just that. It is always appropriate, in my opinion, for
any member of the Legislature to approach staff with specific constituency
problems. I, quite frankly, think it is
helpful in this case. We are talking
subjective opinion. It is recognized
that the individuals can have had a difficult experience but that ought not to
unnecessarily follow them throughout their lives.
How does one re‑establish that credit reputation is
by intervening in terms of, in some instances, simply good character
references, which in my judgment the honourable member could provide and/or
providing the lending agency with additional information or just causing them to
open the files and review a past applicant's situation. I am sure that staff will be more than
willing to do that, and I want to invite her to provide that information
directly to the staff at her convenience.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will pursue that after we are done with
this section. I want to just ask, again,
about where the corporation is going as far as leasing land. The corporation over the years came into a
lot of property, property that was taken back.
Has there been any change in policy?
Is the corporation pursuing to sell a lot more of the land they have
taken or are they still renting land out?
What direction is the corporation going in right now as far as the land
that they have in their holdings?
Mr. Enns: We have two kinds of basic categories of land
held by the corporation, those that are covered under long term and/or short
term. One to five‑year leases are,
of course,‑‑the decision to sell or not to sell is at the call of
the lessee to some extent. There are
provisions in the lease for the lessee to exercise a purchase option, but in
any event they are long‑term leases, you know, over five years up to the
age of 65.
We have some 42 of such leases covering some 12,000 acres
of land valued at over‑‑around $1.5 million. We have another 262 short‑term leases,
that is one year to five years, and that covers some 84,000 acres of land. Now that is a category of land held by the
corporation. From time to time some land
moves as the lessee exercises the option to purchase, but as I said before that
is at the call of the lessee.
Other than that the corporation is under instructions to
move land, to sell land whenever appropriate and possible, and there is a
steady sales activity that takes place, and overall the figure is
declining. We had, for instance, in the
year '92‑93 some 121,640 acres of land held by the corporation. That figure in '93‑94 was reduced to
109,016 acres. Total value of the land
in '92‑93 was $22.4 million, '93‑94 is $20 million.
There is no direction or certainly no instruction to the
corporation to fire‑sale the land.
We have appropriate procedures in place calling for a tendering process,
unless it is to an existing lessee who has the option, after due appraisal has
taken place, to meet the price that is being asked by the corporation. Then the land is sold. It is the desire to reduce the land
portfolio, and the corporation is under that instruction.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, there are a couple of questions
here. It is the desire to reduce the
amount of land that the corporation is holding.
I wonder is there difficulty leasing that land out? Is it sitting idle? Has that always been the intent of the corporation
to try to reduce the amount of land that they are holding, and is that a new
goal to try to reduce the amount of land in the corporation's holdings?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me explain it
this way to the honourable member for Swan River. You see, an acre of land owned by the
government has a capacity to produce 40 bushels of wheat. That same acre of land simply transferred to
private ownership produces 60 bushels of wheat.
That is hard to explain, whether it is genetic or whether the Lord meant
it that way, but that is the fact of life.
So that is a political philosophy that differs from the one
that you hold but one that I hold very deeply.
Very big and proud nation that I am proud to say my forebears came from,
tried for seventy years to change that.
They are finding out now that that simple equation I just put on the
record in fact is true. There is a
desire, a greater husbandry, a greater stewardship of the land that is owned by
a farming producer than of land that is leased.
Ms. Wowchuk: I do not know where the minister gets those
figures because I know many farmers who lease land and who make a very good
living of it and put their best effort into taking off a good crop. I do not think it is fair to taint all
farmers who lease land as people who are incapable of producing to the best of
their ability or that they take advantage of renting land and do not work as
hard at it, because I do not agree with the minister on that.
But since it is the direction of this minister, and he has
indicated in the past seven years that the direction he is taking is to reduce
the amount of land that the corporation owns, I wonder what kind of hardship
has this put on some farmers and of the land that is being sold. Are the people who have been leasing the land
given the first chance to buy that land when it is put up for sale? Is there any special consideration that is
given to them because they have been working on that land for some time, and in
many cases it is land that they have owned but through difficulties have lost
it and are now leasing it back, or is it that when the corporation decides that
it is going to sell a piece of land, are they just going to put it out on the
market and then put a tremendous amount of pressure on those people who are in
it right now?
* (1550)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is every effort
made to accommodate the farmer in his time of difficulty. If for reasons of farm failure, the farm
operator requires the services of our mediation board, and the corporation is
forced to foreclose or take back the land‑‑and that is how the
corporation acquires the land‑‑every effort is made, and in many
instances successfully, that we lease back that same land to the person who is
in difficulties.
Now, having shed himself of some of his immediate financial
problems, very often he is able within a relatively short period of years,
within that five‑year period, to exercise the option that he still
retains to buy back the land that he formerly owned at the evaluation placed on
it by the corporation.
Now, quite frankly, this is usually done at some cost to
the public Treasury. When I take these
Orders‑in‑Council forward to full cabinet for approval, they are
looked at pretty directly. Because there
have been some significant losses for the Consolidated Revenue, if you like, in
the sense that here you had farmer A who had maybe a $150,000, $200,000 or
$300,000 loan with the corporation and, for whatever reasons, ran into
financial difficulty and could not pay off the loans against the land. The land of course was chattel security for
the loan. The corporation moves in and
takes the land away, forecloses on the farmer, but does not throw the farmer
off the farm, and offers the farmer an opportunity to stay on that property and
to rebuild himself.
Very often operating loans and other loans have built up
far in excess of the value of the land.
While maybe a $300,000 loan in fact has been written off and is on the
books, four years later or five years later, when that farmer has brought
himself into a position where he can now make a bid on repurchasing his land,
he is purchasing land that may be at a price of $180,000 or $200,000, and on
the books, and in real life, we do not ask the farmer to pay back the
accumulated debt that originally got him into trouble. He has an opportunity to purchase back the
land at the value as duly appraised by the corporation at the time of sale, and
very often that is a considerable difference.
So quite the contrary to what the honourable member is
suggesting, I think this is a very legitimate and serious support, that through
the corporation, through our Mediation Board, through the Department of
Agriculture, we try to do and provide every service possible to help regain a
farm family onto a firmer financial footing, which includes the ownership of
their land.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicates that the leasing
program, holding the land and leasing it back to farmers, costs us money and it
costs the province money and that there have been loans that have been written
down. Can the minister indicate in the
last year what it has cost the corporation to write down loans? When he indicates that there is a loss in
leasing land versus selling it off, how much has it cost the corporation to
hold that land and lease it out versus selling it?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it has been
made plain to me that what in effect happens is that when a loan is defaulted,
which brings about the taking back of the land by the corporation, there is an
ongoing mortgage against that land that we owe to our Treasury Board, to our
consolidated revenue.
The corporation assumes these costs, plus any interest
charges, and those are some of the costs that I refer to. Those payments are made and the mortgages
concluded quite separate from the future sale of the land back to the party who
was originally in trouble. The party is
not‑‑you know, the loan, the mortgage is looked after by the
corporation and we in fact assume, absorb, all that cost.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
I do not have the global figure for what that may have
cost. You know, I do not know how large
it would be‑‑4 and 8 percent of the value of the land. We would have to compile a figure to put that
in a global context.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would appreciate that if at some point the
staff could find out what it is that it is costing the government to pick up
mortgages, and what kind of costs are absorbed by the province when these
situations arise where the province has to take back the land and carry the
mortgage. I think that that is an
important figure that we take into consideration. Many times we have urban members who question
us on what the cost is of these corporations, and I would appreciate that
figure.
Just on the doubtful accounts, then, I would think the
doubtful accounts would not take into consideration the mortgages that you pick
up from land. These are accounts that
are not being paid off, I suspect, and I wonder how much was spent on doubtful
accounts. Perhaps the minister could
give some clarification on what those doubtful accounts are.
Mr. Enns: Well, again, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
can only state that in the past few years there has been a very satisfactory
overall turnaround in the performance, partly reflecting a somewhat more
optimistic mood and feeling out on the farm along with some improvement in
commodity prices, notably in the cattle prices, the red meat cattle prices.
We have a very low percentage of arrears. As of March 31, '94, only 2 percent of our
entire loans portfolio is in arrears.
That is out of a total loans portfolio of $2.4 million and some 6,322
loans. We have in '93‑94 what we
would call direct loan write‑offs, in total some 55 for a monetary total
of $1,312,000.
* (1600)
That action was taken in the year '93‑94, but it
covers a span of loans over a period of three or four years or more. These actions, as the member will appreciate,
take a considerable time. It is a fairly
lengthy procedure before the corporation makes that final decision to totally
write off a loan. We make every attempt
through the various leasing arrangements, the various arrangements we have with
the former property owner, to maintain some presence on their farm.
Well, the member asks these questions, the write‑offs,
and these were the kinds of write‑offs that were called upon because of
the very serious difficulty that too many of our producers found themselves
in. Some date back to the years '83,
'84, '85, but they show up‑‑I give the member the figures for '92,
'93 and '94.
In the year ending March 31, '92, upwards to $3,470,000 of
doubtful accounts were written off. The
following year, '93, some $4,348,000 written off. I am advised by my manager that really we are
over the hump of the bulk of the bad loan situations, and that is reflected in
the pretty considerable drop in this year, 31st, '94. From where it was in excess of $4 million
last year, it is now $1,312,000.
I will think aloud, and if the staff shakes their heads in
unison with my talking, then I know that I will be on the right track. I am assuming that that is the total write‑offs
of the loans that have gotten into trouble, $300,000, $400,000 loans that a
farmer may have had that we have had to maybe foreclose and take back the land,
and the land value is only maybe worth subsequently $50,000, $60,000 or
$100,000, but there is a $200,000 loan.
The staff are shaking their heads in unison, so I am right, and that
accounts for these write‑offs.
What it says, and I want to say this not unkindly,
something about the management that allowed the corporation to have that level
of doubtful loans. I am quick to also
acknowledge, as the honourable member will quickly remind me, the extreme
difficulty that the farming population faced in those critical years,
commencing perhaps '86, '87, '88, when the sudden collapse of the grain prices,
along with other problems associated, generally speaking, in the farm industry.
So there has been a sizable acknowledgement of the
difficulties on the farm as evidenced by the actions of this corporation.
Ms. Wowchuk: So then, as I look at the Estimates, there
was about $2.5 million allowed for doubtful accounts in the year '93‑94,
but of that, only about $1.3 million was actually spent. Is that correct?
Mr. Enns: I am advised that the $2.5 million that the
honourable member refers to is the provision that we put in to have available
to the corporation for the write‑off loans. It can be exceeded in a given year and in
surplus in another year, but that is the actual provision that was written in
for that purpose.
Ms. Wowchuk: But as I understand it, over the past few
years, we have lost a lot of farmers because of the difficult financial
situation. They have been foreclosed on,
or their debts have been written off, and there are less and less of those
people who are out there. We have fewer
farmers, and that is one of the reasons you see a lesser number of people in
this situation here. There are less
people who are now taking‑‑those people who were in difficulty were
weeded out quite a bit earlier, and there are less of them in difficulty now,
or does the minister anticipate that it is an improved financial situation?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think what
it indicates in the first instance is that there is a considerably more
proactive position taken by the corporation in moving in to provide farm
management advice on the part of, you know, within the department's staff,
using the full facilities of the Farm Mediation Board and a host of support
programs that have reduced the number of loans that fall into the doubtful
category.
Ms. Wowchuk: How many farmers in the last year used the
Farm Mediation Board?
Mr. Enns: I know that the honourable member is
interested in these figures not for simply the figures' sake, but they do
indicate the trend. In the difficult
years, again, '87 particularly, we had as many as 331 applicants before the
Farm Mediation Board. That then
successfully was reduced, 319 in '88 to 309 in '89; 220 in '90; 194 in '91‑92;
161 in '92‑93, and then with the coming of Harry Enns, 87 in '94. It is moving in the right trend.
* (1610)
These are applicants before what we call Part 6 of the
act. In addition, there was another
group under Part 3. Those are the
totals. Those are the combined totals. So what it indicates was that their workload
is reducing. They are still extremely
active, and the corporation is very much engaged, because part of the success
in terms of successfully keeping these farm families that are in difficulty
that have approached the Farm Mediation Board is the loan guarantee program
that is being offered by the corporation.
Very often the kind of deal breaker, if I can use that expression,
between different pressures from different lending agencies and the financial
difficulties the farm family finds itself in is for the corporation to be able
to judiciously move in with the appropriate loan guarantee that gives that farm
family the additional time or years to get itself back on its feet.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have missed
a lot of your questions this afternoon, I had a meeting previously. But going back to the Allowance for Doubtful
Accounts, a lot of figures were given there.
Over the years since '87, you have given figures of allowance. What is the rate of recovery even on the
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts over the periods, let us say, of the last six
years, because there is always a recovery amount that appears no matter what
business you are in in recovery?
Mr. Enns: I suppose in this context the recovery would
be the monies realized by the government in the land sale. You know, when a doubtful account is foreclosed
on it may have an accumulated deficit with us of X number of thousands of
dollars, let us say $300,000. We have to
foreclose on the operator, but in doing so, because we have a mortgage against
land, we take ownership of the land.
That is, the corporation takes ownership of the land. We have borrowed that money from the
consolidated revenue, and that has to be paid back. That is the charge against the corporation,
if you like.
The only recovery would be when we sell the land, which we
do quite often and quite frequently. In
some instances it could be, you know, just about very close to full
recovery. There have been some instances
where in fact there has been a slight profit made because of slight increasing
in land values or some other parties particularly competing for a particular
parcel of land that is important to them and are prepared to pay that price.
In the main that is not the case. In the main there is a significant and
substantial loss because the total indebtedness is not just associated with the
land value. It usually has an operating
component to it, or it may have a cattle component to it that are no longer on
the farm, you know, built‑up machinery costs of which the machinery has
depreciated and is sold for little of its original value at a forced auction
sale, or something like that. So that in
the main, you know, we have too many instances where that write off is
substantial. The staff is giving me a
figure of an actual loss on the property sales.
I am assuming that is property sales that we have appraised
on our books at certain value, and when we tender it out or when we go to sell
it, we still lose $148,000 on a sale, but it is difficult to give the
honourable member the kind of‑‑I appreciate what he is saying. You know, if a business goes bankrupt, the
business sells the remaining assets.
Creditors get paid maybe 10 cents on a dollar, and that would be the
return. Our return essentially would be
from the monies realized on the land sale.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, having been in
the accounting field longer than farming, I thought I would try and get the
minister. [interjection] No, I understand, but usually the recovery is strictly
from the land, and you do not go after the farmer after he has gone bankrupt or
he has forgiven his title to the land.
Mr. Enns: The director of Administration advises me
that we do not pursue that individual after we have made a settlement. There are some instances of settlements where
the terms and conditions of a settlement allow us to continue to pursue.
I would imagine that we would probably also, of course, as
in the case the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) asked about, an
unsettled account, and then the party, that farmer pursued, comes back some
years later to the corporation for some further consideration. Understandably, we would then perhaps want
that initial account paid off prior to accepting him in good credit standing,
him or her.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Net
Interest Cost and Loan Guarantees, is this just interest cost on the loans, or
what is the difference between the net interest cost and loan guarantees?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is a
combination of the cost of the Young Farmer Rebate program. That is a direct interest reduction cost that
we pay. We have probably borrowed the
money again, as I have said several times, at fixed amounts from the
Consolidated Revenue from the Department of Finance. It is also‑‑yes, as I indicated,
that amount constitutes some $3,720,000.
The lending programs account for another $350,000, the
interest portion thereof, and the loan guarantees which we provide to the co‑op
feeder loans and our guaranteed operating loans‑‑we offer a program
of guaranteed operating loans to farmers, and that guarantee costs us some $200,000
in interest.
Mr. Gaudry: This guarantee that you are talking about is
guarantees to the financial institutions?
Mr. Enns: Yes, these are direct guarantees to either
the credit unions or the private banking institutions that are involved.
Mr. Gaudry: Thank you.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to deal with the MACC and leasing of
property again, and I want to talk about a specific case where the client was
leasing. He refinanced his property and,
in fact, it went to court. I am talking
about a Mr. Phil Schwarz. It was my
understanding that MACC foreclosed on him and that he did not agree with the
decision of MACC. The courts twice ruled
in his favour that the property should be sold to MACC, and they were waiting
for an Order‑in‑Council to go through cabinet. That has not happened, and in fact that land
has been sold to someone else at this time.
I know that minister maybe does not know about this case in
detail, but can we have some explanation as to why, when the court said that it
should go in Mr. Schwarz's favour, that the land should be sold to him, in fact
it did sell to another person and the Order‑in‑Council for the
other person has passed already?
Mr. Enns: I am advised that at issue really is simply a
question of an amount of money that has yet to be determined, that constitutes
the difference between what the corporation sold the land for and what Mr.
Schwarz believes he is entitled to.
The land belonged to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit
Corporation. The corporation sold that
land, and I invite Mr. Schwarz to continue in whatever action he chooses to
take in this regard.
* (1620)
Ms. Wowchuk: But the corporation chose to sell the land to
someone else rather than Mr. Schwarz, when the courts had directed them that
they should sell it to Mr. Schwarz for a particular price. The only reason that it did not go, as I
understand it, was that it had to go through Order‑in‑Council, and
that never happened. It never went
through Order‑in‑Council, and then the government corporation chose
to sell it to another individual, and that Order‑in‑Council has
passed.
Mr. Schwarz was leasing the land until last year. In fact, this year the crop had wintered
over, and he had to take that crop off and then found out from a neighbour that
that neighbour was now going to be owning the land. Mr. Schwarz feels that he has not been
treated fairly because the courts had said that that land should go to him, and
a different decision has been made.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know enough
of the details of the case. I do not for
a moment pretend to know them all, but that the corporation had given Mr.
Schwarz every opportunity to avail himself of a number of conditions attached
to this particular piece of land, including in the final analysis an extension
of time to do precisely what the honourable member indicates, to take the
remaining crop off in the spring.
Furthermore, he was further in a position to make whatever arrangements
he wished to make with the new owner in terms of further tenure or use of the
land.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Schwarz was severely
indebted to the corporation. There can
be some question made as to why or what reason the loan portfolio got so
seriously out of order, and he was treated in no way different than regrettably
other persons who find themselves in this position.
The Orders‑in‑Council that the honourable
member refers to are not the automatic rubber stamping procedures. It is obviously within the purview of the
Executive Council to make a decision one way or another and the Executive Council
chose to exercise that prerogative.
I am not a lawyer.
It would be foolish for me to get into a legal discussion as to the
interpretation of the court case that the honourable member refers to, but I am
reasonably assured that the legal advice that the Crown corporation had in
pursuing and dealing with this matter is such that it led them to the opinion,
and the opinion was passed onto myself as minister that the action taken in the
circumstances was correct, appropriate and legal.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to say that from what I have been told
I disagree with the minister. It is my
understanding that on April 13 of 1992 Mr. Schwarz paid over to the solicitors
of MACC the sum of some $89,922, being the full amount due in accordance with
the judgment. The funds were sent over
to the MACC solicitor and trust condition that he provide us with the discharge
of MACC's mortgage interest on the Schwarz property, and that a request was
made for an Order‑in‑Council permitting MACC to transfer the land
back to Mr. Schwarz.
It is my understanding that that money is still being held
by the corporation, and subsequent to that there have been court cases, and the
ruling was in Mr. Schwarz's favour, and that prices were set on the amount that
he was to pay, and he was prepared to do that.
However, the corporation chose instead to sell the land to another
individual, and has not followed the direction given to them by the courts.
I would like to see that followed up on. I would like to know why if it was the direction
of the courts that this land, that it was to go back to Mr. Schwarz, why the
Order‑in‑Council did not pass, why it did not go through cabinet,
why Mr. Schwarz was denied the right to buy that property when the court said
that he should have it?
Mr. Enns: I have tried my very best to be as forthright
and accommodating in all of my discussions with honourable members of the
committee, and I intend to continue. The
honourable member will recognize that it is not possible for me to unravel the
details of an obviously complicated and convoluted land case, but I would be
happy to undertake to provide to the honourable member a summary of the actions
taken by the corporations and by the government insofar as the Order‑in‑Council
was involved that she referred to, and to have this in her hands within a
relatively reasonable period of time.
It may not be for the time line left to us in these
Estimates, but certainly in the next five to 10 days that I would have that in
her hands and then advise Mr. Schwarz accordingly. I have no trouble in documenting and putting
to paper the outline of decisions made in this instance and the reasons why
they were made. If that would suffice, I
give that assurance to the honourable member, and you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
know that I give my assurance only when I am very sure that I can give that
assurance.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will await that information, but I would
want to ask then when the corporation‑‑we talked earlier about when
a person is leasing the land, does the corporation pursue to sell that
particular piece of land quite vigorously, or what was the decision? Was there a lot of pressure to buy that piece
of land that they decided to sell this one?
The reason I ask the question is the particular parcel of
land, as I understand it, is in the middle of a package that Mr. Schwarz owns,
and now that this particular piece of land has been sold, it does impact on his
whole operation. This is the one quarter
of land that is good land; the rest of it is pasture land. If he was leasing it and it made a difference
to his operation, why did the corporation pursue to sell it to someone else?
* (1630)
Mr. Enns: Well, I believe I alluded to the situation
that troubles us from time to time in government. We regrettably have some instances where an
operator, for whatever reason, and I do not wish to attribute any motives, runs
up a substantial indebtedness onto a property, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000,
and then against the land base it is maybe only worth $100,000 in the first
instance. He then gets the corporation
to bail him out of trouble, and then comes in and takes advantage of being able
to buy back his land against which we are paying a $400,000‑$500,000
bill. It is troublesome, quite frankly,
to my government to do this. We do it
with some reluctance, quite frankly. We
do take each case seriously.
Where we think that there is reason that this is, quite
frankly, being to some extent abused, it is always within our right that the
land is legally and totally in the hands of the corporation. They are the owners of the land; they have
the opportunity of selling the land under whatever circumstances their policy
guidelines enable them to pursue, subject to certain specific things.
We do not sell land under the lease, that is under lease to
a lessee. We honour the lessee's option
to purchase land. I believe the
honourable member is again making reference to Mr. Schwarz's land, but Mr.
Schwarz did not have the option to purchase that land. That is a condition that was attached to his
tenure on that land when he lost it or when for reasons of indebtedness it
reverted back to the corporation.
Again, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we can discuss this at some
further length. I would ask that the
honourable member accept my word that we will have a summary of the events with
respect to one Mr. Phil Schwarz and his land dealings with the government and
the corporation in her hands very shortly.
Ms. Wowchuk: I look forward to that information, because
from the information that I have here and the information that the minister is
alluding to in his comments, there seem to be two different sets of information
as to‑‑
An Honourable Member: There usually is.
Ms. Wowchuk: So I look forward to hearing that information
and some explanation and, in particular, why it was decided to pursue the other
route of selling the land to another individual rather than selling it to Mr.
Schwarz and, if he was not able to buy it, then continue to lease it and
continue to keep his farm operation viable.
It is my understanding that although Mr. Schwarz has additional land,
that operation is no longer viable without this particular quarter of land.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 3. Administration $3,060,600‑‑pass;
Net Interest Cost and Loan Guarantees $4,270,000‑‑pass; Allowance
for Doubtful Accounts $2,000,000‑‑pass; Special Farm Assistance
$500,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$9,830,600 for Agriculture, Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
We will now move on to Resolution 3.4.
4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (a)
Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $121,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $28,400‑‑pass.
4.(b) Animal Industry (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$1,546,400. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: There are several areas that I would like to
cover under this section. As the
minister has indicated and his colleague earlier today indicated, the value of
the Animal Industry is important to the economy of rural Manitoba. There is extensive development of the
industry. Hopefully we can develop it
even further to increase the number of the amount of livestock, the amount of
hogs and other areas of farming to increase, to get the value‑added jobs
and improve the economy of rural Manitoba.
I want to just talk briefly about the hog industry. It is my understanding that the government is
looking at, or the Manitoba Pork Producers and the government are pursuing the
establishment of a processing plant, is that correct, here in Manitoba to
process the hogs? I would like to ask
the minister at what stage those plans are, what kind of plant the government
and Pork Producers are looking at establishing, and just an overview of where
we are with that, and what the minister anticipates in that area.
Mr. Enns: Allow me to add further introductions to my
staff. I am joined by Dr. Jim Neufeld,
who is our co‑ordinator in the Veterinary Services branch. We are currently minus, I suppose, our
director of the Veterinary branch, Dr. Joe Meek, who has left the provincial
service as of May 1, June 1. Dr. Meek
served the province well with distinction and will be missed by the Animal
Industry Branch, and we will be canvassing for a replacement in due course.
The honourable member raises the issue about the hogs and
their further development within the province.
I sincere1y take this opportunity to enjoin members of the committee,
both opposition parties, to seriously take back to their respective caucuses
the importance of this industry.
The honourable members will forgive me if I just spend a
moment on this. It should not be
mistakenly understood that this minister or this government just has a
particular love affair for hogs, and we decided out of the blue that we should
have more hogs produced in this province.
There are a number of factors that have evolved very
significantly and are in the evolutionary stage right now, as we speak, that
make good common public policy sense that we take every opportunity that
expanded hog production, pork production, offers us in the province of
Manitoba. Let me just list several of
them.
I have indicated on several occasions, and I do not pretend
to be a clairvoyant, but the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has often
asked about this matter.
We have enjoyed in Manitoba and Canada, and it is
particularly important in Manitoba, a long, traditional support program called
the Western Grain Transportation program, or more commonly known as the Crow
benefit. That program has been here
since I do not know when, but it is a major farm program that has the federal
Government of Canada spending upwards to $700 million a year to enable prairie
grain producers to move grain into export.
* (1640)
Now, that program has been identified by our major trading
partners as an unfair trading practice.
It has been acknowledged as such, by and large, by our own people,
including our producers. We recognize
that whether we think there are offsetting programs, for instance, in the
American program that are equally unfair trading practices‑‑their
export enhancement program could be quite similarly classed in the same way‑‑nonetheless,
it is academic to argue about it. The
fact of the matter is that it is our considered opinion when we listen to the
federal officials, Mr. Minister Goodale, when we listen to grain officials, we
realize that this program is going to fundamentally change, be altered, or in
fact perhaps even disappear.
Now what that means‑‑and I am looking
particularly to the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)‑‑is that
our producers of barley, which is our principal hog feed, cattle feed, will be
faced with considerably more costs to move that grain. We, in Manitoba, will feel it the worst
because we are the farthest distance from Vancouver or from the Lakehead. In Alberta, they are a little more ambiguous
about it. They are within trucking range
or a closer range anyway to Prince George, Prince Rupert or Vancouver. Saskatchewan has a serious problem with it as
well, but Manitoba is the most vulnerable. Now, if we do not look seriously at
offering our primary producers an alternative to moving that feed barley, feed
wheat and feed grains, then we are being extremely negligent in our
responsibility.
Now, I say to some a fortuitous good by coming
together. Our country has obligated
itself‑‑and it does not matter what political observations we have
about the rightness or wrongness of it‑‑but we have obligated
ourselves under some fundamental changes in our trading patterns; firstly, with
our major trading partner the United States, and with countries around the
world through such additional trading agreements as NAFTA and the recently
concluded GATT agreement, which, by the way, was always supported by the
Liberal Party and I believe by the New Democratic Party as well.
The GATT program means, and allow me to say that under the
NAFTA program alone, American trade officials, the American Department of
Agriculture officials‑‑not Harry Enns or the Manitoba Department of
Agriculture economists‑‑are predicting, for instance, that as the
pork tariffs drop in the Mexican market, and they are dropping to zero by the
year 2000, 5 percent a year.
It is estimated that upwards to 400,000 tonnes of pork will
be required to fill that market. Now,
you have to put that in relationship to what the entire massive U.S. hog
industry today exports. Today, the
entire U.S. hog industry exports some 153,000 tonnes of pork to 62 countries of
the world. They are projecting 400,000
tonnes will be required in Mexico alone by the year 2000.
So that gives some confidence. I am not suggesting for a moment, nor would I
advocate, that we by incentives, certainly not financial incentives,
artificially inflate or push producers into the hog production, not at all. It has to be market driven. If the markets are there, this production
increase can and should take place. I am
simply suggesting to honourable members of the committee, these are some of the
reasons why hog production looks so attractive to Manitoba.
Let me say another word.
The 2.3 million hogs‑‑and let us understand, it was a
visionary Minister of Agriculture that I had the great and lasting privilege to
serve with, none other than the Honourable James Downey, the member for Arthur,
who in 1977‑1978 said we ought to double the hog production in the
province of Manitoba. We were then
producing some 939,000, 940,000 hogs.
Well, we have done just that. We
are now producing 2.3 million to 2.4 million hogs in Manitoba.
Now, we have not created any insurmountable environmental
problems for us. We have not abused our
water supply system. There is not a
single water course that has been supplied.
But what we have done, we have provided in the order of 11,000 to 12,000
jobs, permanent jobs, in the feed industry, in the access for farmers to haul
their grain that they otherwise have trouble marketing sometimes, particularly
in some of our off‑quality wheats like we have had in the last harvest
years.
We have a developing feed industry that is set to
boom. We have the processing plants of
Schneiders, Forgans, Burns; 11,000 to 12,000 jobs are currently being employed.
Well, I will tell you whom I am trying to convince, because
politics and politics alone will deny Manitobans 9,000 jobs, and what we are
talking about is the opportunity of providing the kind of economic base to
maintain the very services that you spend 99 percent of your time in opposition
to better health care, better education, better family services.
We have a member who may well be a future minister in a
Liberal administration this weekend telling the hog producers, in the presence
of my senior staff, saying: and can you
imagine the worst of this is that you are never going to be able to eat these
additional two million hogs that we want to produce, it is all going to be
exported to Pacific rim countries. God
forbid, the people in Japan are going to eat some of our pork‑‑Harold
Taylor, who is running for the Liberal Party, who some say are going to be the
government. So let us get real about
this.
Your colleagues are not much better. They are saying that there will be no
swimming in Lake Winnipeg next year because of the hog pollution. The City of Winnipeg dumps its raw sewage
into the river and has been doing that for the last 100 years, and no
complaints, and our ag industry, our hog producers are taking this kind of a
bum rap. I look to some support. I look to some support from responsible
members of the opposition that will help us together provide the support.
So I am extremely serious about this because this is a
golden opportunity for us to provide the kinds of jobs. I mean, let me put it into context. If we were talking about two Incos, the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) would understand. If we were talking about 10 Louisiana‑Pacifics,
in terms of job creation‑‑we are talking 9,000 jobs is what we are
talking about, if we can achieve a doubling of the hog production in Manitoba
by the year 2000.
For those who say that that cannot be done, then I ask you
to look at some of the jurisdictions that are doing it. We have challenged our staff. We have worked diligently in bringing about
the kind of guidelines and hard regulations that will take into consideration
environmental concerns. They may not be
perfect to date, but they are there, they are in place, and they are law, and
they will, I am sure, undergo further modifications.
I wonder if the honourable, pardon me, my colleague, Mr.
Lee, could pass me these books, and I will pass these out. These are no longer guidelines. These are attached to appendix B. They are hard and fast regulations that say
when the hog farmer can spread manure, how he can spread it, where and how
often. I know the colour is attractive
to the honourable member, but that shows my bipartisanship in this matter.
* (1650)
Point of Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Just a
small point of order. The minister
indicated that 9,000 jobs was about two Incos.
In fact, that is the jobs in four and one‑half Incos, four and a
half Thompsons.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Enns: I invite a most serious discussion on this
aspect of our Estimates because it is of critical importance. It is of importance to the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). Regrettably, yes,
regrettably we have lost to a large measure thousands of jobs that we used to
have in his constituency in the beef processing industry when Canada Packers
were there, Swifts and the other beef processors.
Time is too short to go into why, and it serves no purpose,
but the point is, we are determined. I
would like to think that the member for St. Boniface would support any
initiative that ensures that those processing jobs that are, again, largely in
his constituency, well, in the St. Boniface area, that we would not only ensure
that they are maintained but that they would be enhanced, and they would be
further secured.
So it is important that we take the politics out of this
issue of hog expansion, recognize it for the job creation effort that it really
is, and recognize that it is. It may
well serve to be of tremendous benefit to the barley and feed producers of
Manitoba should, in fact, the Crow benefit be fundamentally and drastically
altered. Thank you, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
Ms. Wowchuk: I did not know the minister could get so
excited about a question that I had asked in all sincerity about the processing
of pork in this province and what direction the government was going in
pursuing the processing plant, along with the pork producers, but since the
minister has taken the opportunity to put so many comments on the record about
the pork industry, I would like to put on a few comments as well.
Certainly he has implied that our caucus does not recognize
the importance of the hog industry to Manitoba, and that is absolutely false
information. We recognize that it is an
important industry. I would hope that
the minister, when questioned about certain aspects of the industry when we get
into the Chamber, would not always take that as negative.
Our job as opposition members is to pursue information for
our constituents, to pursue what direction the government is going in, and to
ask questions about where plants are going to be built or whether regulations
are being put in place to protect water.
The minister has indicated that there are guidelines in
place, but certainly he should not imply or put on the record that the New
Democrats are against economic development in rural Manitoba or against the hog
industry. Certainly, that is absolutely
false.
We very much support the growth of rural Manitoba and the growth
of industries in rural Manitoba that will help to stimulate the growth of rural
communities, rural communities that have suffered greatly in the last few years
and have seen a decline in population, a reduction in services. It is our hope that by having the various
industries grow in rural Manitoba, we will have some of those services enhanced
in our health care, in our education, many of the services that have
deteriorated under this government's leadership. So we want to see that.
But, certainly, in any area you have to look for a
balance. That is the question, when we
ask the questions, that is what we are looking at. There has to be a balance between jobs and
the environment, but we do not believe that one should be played off against
the other as we see in many cases. There
has to be a lot of common sense taken, and I believe that this minister uses a
lot of common sense when he is addressing the concerns of rural Manitobans and
the same common sense that we try to use when we are trying to balance economic
growth and protection of the environment.
Certainly, there have been questions asked about the size
of operations, and, certainly, one of the areas that we question is whether it
is necessary for the operations to be of such magnitude. We question what the impacts of these large
operations will be on the family farms.
Nobody I am sure expects that we will see the hog‑‑that we
could meet the demands that the minister implies will be out there for
thousands and thousands of tonnes of pork through the system where hogs were
raised many years ago on the farm where they were very small operations.
Certainly, I think that there could be a consideration
given. I asked the minister about that
the other day, whether there could be consideration given to limiting the size
of these operations. As soon as we asked
those questions, the minister and other members of his government immediately
jumped on the bandwagon as if this is opposition to the industry.
No, it is not opposition to the industry. It is looking for a balance, a distribution
of the jobs and the development of the industry throughout the provinces, and
looking at a way that we could have more people participate in more ways that
there will be less negative impact on the family farm operations. So that is the direction we go.
The minister talked about the transportation assistance
program, that is certainly a very important program. It was put in place many years ago because it
was recognized that there was unfair advantage for people who were closer to
ports. I am disappointed that the
federal Conservative government reduced the amount of money in the
transportation assistance package. When
the Liberals came into power in Ottawa, we saw a further reduction of the funds
there.
The minister knows full well, and he indicated in his
comments that Manitoba is the most vulnerable with the change to the
transportation assistance. I wish that
the minister would pursue more vigorously having that program stay in place,
but we have seen quite clearly from this government that is not the direction
they are prepared to move in. Under this
administration, we will not see very much opposition to changing the method of
payment to pay the producer and retaining the system that is there.
However, in light of that, we do have to make
adjustments. The pork industry is one of
the areas where I also agree that we can see a tremendous amount of growth in
this province. Again, I only hope that
growth will be distributed across the province, and it will not become
concentrated in the hands of a few large corporate farms; that there will be
opportunity for many people to participate in the industry; and that these
guidelines that had been introduced by this government will be enforced very
carefully to ensure that the water tables are protected, because that is
another resource that we certainly have to protect.
Getting back to the original question that we started on, I
want to ask the minister, it is my understanding that the Manitoba pork producers
and the government are looking at establishing a processing plant here in
Manitoba. I would like to ask what stage
those plans are at at this point.
Mr. Enns: Specifically to the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk), yes, she is correct.
There has been a feasibility proposal that is currently being worked on
by consultants. They include the
Manitoba pork organization, and for processing firms, I believe, they are
Schneider's, Forgan's, Burns and the Springhill plant in Neepawa. This is being supported jointly with some
federal program as well as a modest grant from the province through the REDI
program. That is underway.
We are hoping that some results can be established
relatively soon, perhaps one or two months.
I do not want to overstate the case, but there is, I sense, in people
within the Animal Industry Branch and others within the pork industry, some
urgency to the question because of the recognition that this part of the world
is a desirable place, in terms of feed efficiencies, feed availability, space,
land, all the necessary attributes to expansion of the hog industry, to have
this expansion occur.
Our neighbours to the west are extremely aggressive. The New Democratic government in Saskatchewan
is every bit as determined to diversify their agricultural base. Of course, they have the same concerns a la
the Crow as we have, maybe to a somewhat lesser extent but much the same. The Department of Agriculture in
Saskatchewan, under the very, very powerful push by Premier Romanow and the administration,
is aggressively pursuing expansion in the hog industry.
There is a consolidation of packing and processing
facilities coming together in Alberta that concern us. Why I mention that is, the concern is that we
lose our processing capacity. I do not
particularly want to just grow the hogs.
I want the jobs in the processing plants here, and that is‑‑
* (1700)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
JUSTICE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Justice. We are on item 2.(a) Public Prosecutions,
page 110 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Madam Chairperson, when we left off last
night, we were dealing with the nine‑point plan regarding youth crime,
and I was at point No. 8.
Point No. 8 deals with Youth Justice Committees, and the
plan states that local antiviolence action plans and community‑based
crime prevention efforts will be developed by expanding the mandate of the
Youth Justice Committees.
* (1430)
Would the minister advise what she meant by expanding the
mandate of the Youth Justice Committees?
In what way would their mandate be expanded?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Chair, when I met with the chairs of the
Youth Justice Committees for the city of Winnipeg, a number of the
representatives that evening said they would like to do some additional work in
the community. They would like to make
themselves available to assist in schools, and they would like to add community
kinds of work to the work that they were doing as a Youth Justice Committee.
So based on the discussions I had that evening and with the
information I received from the summit of the desire of the community to be
involved in a positive way, I made the commitment that where Youth Justice
Committees wished to expand their mandate‑‑and, again, it is always
prefaced by their willingness to do so and their ability to do so in terms of
what may be required of them‑‑I would look at expanding mandates
and certainly intend to do so.
Mr. Mackintosh: So is my understanding correct that the
mandate would be expanded where the particular Youth Justice Committee would
seek that out?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, yes, that was the intention
where the Youth Justice Committee expressed the desire.
I would say to the member, because I have a feeling the
next part of the question is will we do anything to encourage them to expand
the mandate, that the council which we have not yet spoken about will be
available to Youth Justice Committees, will be able to speak to Youth Justice
Committees about kinds of projects which are being undertaken and so there will
be available to them also ideas of how they may wish to expand. However, the original idea came from the
Youth Justice chairs who expressed an interest in expansion.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister give examples of the kinds
of expansion that are envisioned here?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the kinds of things on that evening
that people spoke about were the opportunities to perhaps work with young
people in schools, and that would have to be explored‑‑the details
of a kind of proposal that the Youth Justice Committees‑‑would have
to be explored and explored carefully, would have to find out if that is in
fact possible to do and to make sure that it protects the concerns of the young
person involved, but the committee themselves raised that as a particular
example.
On that evening, the representatives who were there were
really full of energy and ideas and
people with a strong commitment to the community. Again, it was based on their initiative that
that particular plan took shape.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am just wondering if the committees will be
given any resources to either do what they are doing now or fulfill an expanded
mandate.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, as the member knows, under the
Young Offenders Act these people must be volunteers, so there would not be a
request for resources in terms of time put in or commitment. The kinds of proposals that had been put
forward were proposals to use their time in ways on behalf of the
community. That was certainly what had
been envisioned. That is what I had
understood also came from discussions on the day of the summit, that there
would be activities within the community that the Youth Justice Committee
members would become involved in.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering about the minister's plans for
enhancing administrative support to the Youth Justice Committees. These committees, by and large, have a
relatively heavy administrative load to follow up, particularly depending on
the kind of consequences that the committee decides on for an offender. I am wondering if there are any plans in that
regard.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, again in my personal meetings
with the Youth Justice Committees that was not a request that came from
them. However, the matter may be
explored more fully when we get to the Corrections line, because as the member
knows it is the Corrections division that has the ongoing contact and support
of the Youth Justice Committees.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister taking any action to increase
the number of Youth Justice Committees in the province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, again I do not want to try and
make it difficult, but when the Corrections staff are here, line 4.(c), we will
be able to speak about any initiatives or work done by the department to look
at increasing the number of Youth Justice Committees.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): I think I have spoken in the House ad nauseam
about my involvement with Youth Justice Committees over the past four years,
first in the north Winnipeg Youth Justice Committees and then forming a new
justice committee in The Maples. Most of
my comments about Youth Justice Committees I will save for the line when we are
dealing with community and youth corrections.
Just as part of the conversation for the benefit of the
member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), when we formed The Maples Youth Justice
Committee at the same time we formed The Maples Youth Justice Association,
whose mandate was not only to operate the Youth Justice Committee but to do a
number of crime prevention, community involvement activities. I think the opportunities for community Youth
Justice Committees to expand their mandate is there now. I think Tracy Sumka, who is the chairperson
of The Maples Youth Justice Committee, any of those ideas that the minister
talked about was shared by Tracy.
My experience with Youth Justice Committees‑‑and
I ran for two years training programs for all the Youth Justice Committees in
Winnipeg when we used to have liaison committee meetings every month, which
have been curtailed lately‑‑the performance of the justice
committee was not so much dependent upon the program but the quality and the
commitment of the candidates and the people involved from the community.
Some justice committees, and I have heard this within the
youth division, that when they see certain charges referred to some justice
committees, they are very happy to see it because they feel the disposition
will be beneficial to both the youth and the community and prevent further involvement
with the police. It is accepted that
some justice committees operate a barely, then, beneficial level of
performance.
As I said, I will save most of my comments about Youth
Justice Committees until we deal with Community Corrections.
* (1440)
I would like to go one step back in dealing with the nine‑point
plan, dealing with point No. 7, input from young Manitobans and the youth
council. A trend that I see developing,
and I hope the minister will not be too sensitive to this, is there has been a
number of different forums where youth are called in, the idea that they
represent the youth of Manitoba. The
mayor has had a youth task force. The
Justice minister has had a number of meetings with different groups of youth.
I had a youth workshop where I had youth from throughout
Winnipeg and from reserves. On April 9,
I believe, was my workshop here in the Legislature, where we had 60 or more
young people by inviting the schools, mostly high schools and junior highs,
reserves, native friendship centres to send representatives. Although it was sponsored by our caucus, we
went out of our way to not be partisan, and as a result of that conference, we
received some feedback.
It is interesting, I also attended the mayor's youth task
force. I attended the youth summit, and
depending on the facilitator of the different workshops, the outcome is
interpreted to having a different emphasis.
I hope we do not get to the point where the young people become a tool
to give credibility to any actions by any group, that their comments and their
input is delivered without too much interpretation, without too much filtering
of philosophies. The action that is
taken as a result of that message can be different, the same as, if I ask my
five‑year‑old what they want for supper, they might say candy. They will not get candy, the same as the
young people we are dealing with. We
have to listen to them. We have to give
them a fair hearing and understand the sentiments but not everything that each
group will say we will be able to implement.
Some of them are young adults.
Some of them are immature adolescents who do not have a full
understanding of the whole system.
I guess the question in brief to the minister is, how can
we be assured that any representation of any youth group will be not filtered
through any biases?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the answer is we will have
to do the best we can. That has been the
case with each undertaking, the undertaking for the summit, the undertaking of
the members' workshop day, the undertaking by the mayor. We have to work with those people who are
willing to do the work, in the case of a youth council, because there will be
work involved. Working as a part of the
youth council will not simply be an opportunity to kind of sit as an oracle and
say ideas. There will be work that will
be attached to it. So we will have to
work with those young people who are willing to do the work and also are
willing to put their ideas forward. That
takes courage, too. I understand
that. It is not always easy for a young
person, particularly in those adolescent years, to put their ideas on the line,
because they feel concerned that it somehow makes them vulnerable in front of
their peers.
I can only offer the assurance to the member that we will
do the best that we can. We will attempt
to work with young people. This is not
the only way to work with young people.
The youth council is an important part, because this government
recognizes and believes that young people are important. I hope that that youth council will have lots
of ways to relate to activities of young people around the province so that
when there are forums in schools, when there are activities at community
centres which involved young people, that our youth council may be able to get
those ideas or talk to young people who are participants in those particular
forums.
Again, I have to stress that one of the questions that has
been asked is, how can you also get the views of those young people who are
involved in youth gangs and criminal activities? How can you get the views of those young
people who are involved in other positive kinds of activities? How do you get the in‑between
kids? You just have to work at it. I think we both come from backgrounds where
we have had a lot of experience working with young people, and we just have to
put that to the test and keep doing it.
Mr. Kowalski: Going back to Youth Justice Committees,
although once we get to Corrections I will have more detailed questions, but as
a broad overview, where I could see a need for more support to these volunteers
who work in Youth Justice Committees, because their work is so important. As we want them to represent the committees
that they come from, they may not all have the training or the background to do
the work that they are willing to do.
Where I could see the Justice department increasing the role and the
mandate for justice committees and because of the large savings they cause to
this government by the work they do, it is financially responsible to put
resources into training, assessing and monitoring these volunteers.
It is my firm belief that members of Youth Justice
Committees should be assessed. If they
are not performing well, I believe volunteers can be fired, because there are
lots of people in some communities willing to do this work. I think the department, if they are going to
increase the number of justice committees in the province, resources should be
put into training, assessing and monitoring these justice committees.
The one suggestion I will put forward today that I have had
is that I believe MLAs in this province could play a leading role in leadership
in this area. I do not know if all MLAs,
the members of this House, have the same understanding or knowledge of justice
committees and whether the Justice minister would consider putting on a
workshop, a training session or whatever to make sure that every MLA
understands the Youth Justice Committee process, their mandate, the legislation
that facilitates them so that MLAs could go into their communities as I have,
as my colleague Kevin Lamoureux did in Inkster, look and see if there is room
for expansion in their constituencies and play leadership roles in all
constituencies in Manitoba.
Would the Justice minister consider putting on such a
workshop?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I certainly agree that
MLAs are the leaders in their community areas.
I would hope that MLAs might look at this as a possible activity that
they would like to undertake. As the
member knows, some people are very comfortable doing this kind of work and
others are not necessarily so comfortable or it is not an area of their
particular interest or expertise. We
certainly will make available to MLAs, as to all other citizens who are
interested who might be leaders in their communities and not MLAs, the
information that would assist in the formation of the Youth Justice
Committees. So I would in a broader
sense say that, yes, we certainly will make the information available.
But, I come back to the point that I made yesterday. People have to want to do this. They have to want to be involved and they
have to want to make the commitment. It
cannot be because on one day I or the member for The Maples or the member for
St. Johns has been able to fire people up in one day and then there is not a
lasting commitment or a lasting intention to take part in this particular
activity.
So we will certainly attempt to provide support and do, and
I believe MLAs are leaders, but it must be undertaken by those people who
really want to do it.
Mr. Kowalski: Just from my experience there are people out
there now who are willing to do it, and they are just looking for someone to
show leadership, to facilitate it. I
would like to see either a survey or correspondence go out to the MLAs to find
out if there is interest by other MLAs to have such a workshop. I think it could show that in this House it
is a nonpartisan issue, youth crime and violence. We are all interested. All three parties have indicated their
support for the concept of Youth Justice Committees. I believe it is something positive that we
could do. I have often said that Youth
Justice Committees are one of the best kept secrets in Manitoba, and by having
such a training session and going out into the community I think it would give
it the profile that is needed.
* (1450)
I do not see it as a one‑day event. I believe there are people out there now who
want something done about youth justice, about youth crime and violence. To give them the vehicle in which to do it by
showing leadership, I believe we could take some of the concern that the public
has about youth crime and violence and we could do something positive with that
concern and something constructive.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I see the member's point about
MLAs not necessarily being the ones who have to carry the formation themselves,
but rather they have the knowledge and the understanding of how to go about
this and can then provide it, either themselves they can do it, or other
community members might do it with the MLA having provided the information,
because they know their communities very well.
It is certainly an interesting idea.
I see the point, and I will have a look at it.
I will say to the member that I will consider a method of
doing that. It might be that it is done
as a seminar or it might, in fact, be done by a different route by providing
the information.
Mr. Kowalski: I will just go back and ask directly to the
minister, in a broad general way, about Youth Justice Committees, the need for
training, assessment, especially in all volunteer activities. I think with restrictions because of the
deficit to government spending and more and more reliance on volunteers, the
assessing of volunteers the same way we assess our employees in government
yearly, and if there are‑‑some people who volunteer do so in order
to develop their skills to develop a record of employment and also to do the
job. A more stringent policy of assessment
of volunteers, I think, is required in these Youth Justice Committees.
Would the minister support that view that there is a need
or that she would consider looking at the assessment of volunteers serving on
Youth Justice Committees?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in terms of the specific
of what is currently done in that regard, we will have to discuss that under
4.(d) when the Corrections people are here, but I can say to the member that I
come from a volunteer background. I
think that volunteers are important, and I think it is important to keep track
of volunteers and to measure their sense of usefulness that they believe they
are having the impact, that they believe that they are having as well. Is it a worthwhile way for them to spend their
time? So when we get to that line in the
Estimates, we can have a look at what is being done now, and perhaps any
suggestions the member has at that time we could talk about.
Mr. Mackintosh: I look forward to the discussion under
4.(d). As the minister knows, I
certainly believe that Youth Justice Committees must form the cornerstone of a
new generation of justice in Manitoba. I
know that the minister's words in the nine‑point plan are rather vague,
and we will explore further what the government is doing about Youth Justice
Committees at that time.
Looking at point No. 9 of the nine‑point plan‑‑it
is entitled Provincial Council on Youth Crime‑‑it talks about a
committee of experts to be established as a resource to Youth Justice
Committees or other community organizations.
I ask the minister whether that council has been established.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, at the moment we have just
named the chair of that council. That
individual has been meeting with Youth Justice Committees within the city of
Winnipeg. He will begin meetings with
Youth Justice Committees outside of the city of Winnipeg, and he is at the
moment speaking to the committees to gather the kind of expertise assistance
that they would like to see available.
So it is when he has completed his visits and discussions with the Youth
Justice Committees that then we will begin to examine what the committees
themselves have said that they need as experts on this council.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is Mr. Tyrrell the chair, I would like to ask
the minister?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, he is the chair.
Mr. Mackintosh: When does the minister expect that the
council will be up and running?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the outside consultations
will be beginning the beginning of June; the ones in the city of Winnipeg have
been completed. So it is my intention to
have this available by no later than the fall, but we will have to see what Mr.
Tyrrell brings back to us from the Youth Justice Committees and look at the
availability of people then to serve in those particular capacities on council.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister has the terms of
reference available to table in the committee.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, we do not have the mandate in
its complete form. We have been working
on draft form and adding to and continuing to look at what can be accomplished
as Mr. Tyrrell undertakes his consultations, but when we do have the mandate in
its complete form, I certainly will see that both critics receive a copy.
Mr. Mackintosh: When the minister talks about it being a
resource to Youth Justice Committees, what does she envision?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have a vision, but I will have to see if it
is the same kind of vision that the Youth Justice Committee have for themselves
and I think this will be important.
The work of Youth Justice Committees in the community may
require that they find certain information relating to work that they might
do. I think, particularly, of work in
the area of recreation, that they would have the opportunity to have access to
an expert police officer who might be able then on their behalf to get certain
information for them in terms of‑‑I do not mean police work
information but information that would be of interest and of help to the
committee.
In terms of the range or kinds of people, it was my view
that it would be helpful to have experts from certain fields available, experts
in areas of child welfare. We may need
to have experts in certain cultural backgrounds. I would like to see an expert in the area of
recreation, but I have not heard back yet what the committees themselves want
as their resource. I see it as a place
that the Youth Justice Committee members can then access expertise or can ask
this particular committee to look at certain issues and investigate if methods
of dealing with certain problems have been tried elsewhere, so that it does not
tie up our volunteers who are the direct service to people part and does allow for
a mechanism to do the other kinds of work which may involve some research work
or some work of expertise.
* (1500)
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister allocating any funding to the
council or to any of the members that will serve on it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, Mr. Tyrrell is acting in this
capacity as a volunteer, and it is my intention to form a committee which will
be a volunteer committee. Where there
are out‑of‑pocket expenses, we will certainly undertake to cover
those, and we will do that internally, from within the department.
Mr. Kowalski: How was Mr. Tyrrell selected?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, Mr. Tyrrell was an award winner
of the Minister of Justice awards which were presented in early fall, I
believe. His project at that time was
noted as a model, his project at Unicity Mall.
He was noted at that time as a community member who had taken a special
interest in trying to find a positive solution to youth activity in his area. He received that award in the fall. He expressed an interest in taking part in
the summit as well, and he did attend the summit.
I was looking for someone who had demonstrated leadership
in terms of working with a community. In
that way, I then looked to someone of his qualifications. He had an expressed interest, and he had a
demonstrated project, so Mr. Tyrrell was chosen.
Mr. Kowalski: You mentioned his qualifications. What are his qualifications other than the
project that he did in Unicity Mall?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, his qualification is that he is a
citizen who has undertaken a project and made it work. We are asking citizens‑‑we have
understood this problem not just to be a problem to be solved by experts,
because we have a lot of experts in this area.
We have understood this problem.
What I gathered from the summit is that this was a community issue; this
was to be solved by the community as a whole, not just experts. Mr. Tyrrell's qualifications were not as an
expert in the area of child welfare or recreation, they were in the area of a
community person who had undertaken a project, had made it work, had brought
community members behind him.
Because of the advertisement of his success in his program,
he has gone across Canada speaking. His
project has become a model. So he
embodied really some of the qualities that we were looking for in terms of
community action.
Mr. Kowalski: Had he been on a justice committee, served on
a justice committee as a member of a justice committee prior to being appointed
to this position? If so, how long had he
been involved with justice committees?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not believe that Mr. Tyrrell is a member
of a Youth Justice Committee.
Mr. Kowalski: I do not want to denigrate Mr. Tyrrell's
accomplishments or his qualifications or the quality of the project at Unicity
Mall. The justice committees have been
going since I believe it is 1986. There
are many people who have been volunteers on justice committees right from their
inception who have a lot of experience and a lot of background.
I am interested why someone who had been involved with
justice committees over a long period of time, justice committees we have all
said have done wonderful work‑‑we have all applauded the concept
and the work they have done‑‑I know there is sensitivity out there
amongst the members of justice committees who have worked for a number of years
on these that someone from outside who had not been involved in justice committees
was picked to head this project.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, first of all let me start by
saying, I am glad to hear the member is not in any way denigrating a citizen of
Manitoba who has taken a very lead responsibility. I will only hope that the member will
continue to offer his support to this individual, because this becomes the
problem. People then say to those people
who do accept responsibility, well, you do not have the right qualifications,
you do not have what we want, or you do not have this, and you do not have
that. Then we do not have people willing
to come forward and put themselves on the line and take a responsibility.
I take this very seriously in that the member can ask, why
was the chair not a member of the Youth Justice Committee? Someone else may say, why was he not a police
officer? Someone else may say, well, why
was he not a child welfare worker, and why was he not a psychologist?
We have one person to chair who has agreed to take the
responsibility to chair. That person
will have a committee, and it may well be that Youth Justice Committees, as the
member said, if there is some sensitivity then Youth Justice Committee members
may say, make sure you have a Youth Justice Committee representative. That is certainly possible to do, but it came
to a point of saying, we had to choose a citizen who had a demonstrated
interest and a willingness‑‑willing to put his name on the line as
well‑‑as a volunteer, to head a project. I think this citizen certainly deserves the
support of the community and also the support of the member.
Mr. Kowalski: That is why I based my comments by saying
that. I do not want to denigrate this
person in any way, but I know for two years the justice committees of greater
Winnipeg met on a regular basis, all volunteers, all people who put in a lot of
time during those two years. They
planned training sessions where they put in lots of time, one at the Garden
City Inn where they had Crown attorneys.
They had Judge Cramer. They had
Cindy Willette from Victim Services, and a number of other speakers, a full day
event that was all done by volunteers, people who had established a
relationship of working together as justice committee chairs.
There was a committee that would meet on a regular basis
sharing their views, sharing their experiences, in addition to their planned
workshops where they took hypothetical cases and compared how one justice
committee did with the other. And I do
not want to be used in a way that is saying that I am discounting this person's
volunteerism or his efforts or his project, but what I am saying is there were
already a number of volunteers who had committed themselves to this process
over a long number of years, and had worked together, who had the connections,
who had the experience. I hope that the
minister will meet with these committee chairs again, and the question
originally was, why was not one of those people chosen? I still have not found a rationale behind why
one of the committee chairs or someone with experience in justice committees
had not been picked. Their efforts,
since 1986, are appreciated just as much as this project, and that was the
original question.
* (1510)
On the last point about this council, one concern that when
our justice committees in Greater Winnipeg used to meet on a regular basis,
there was always a pull and tug when we met and talked about standardization of
practices versus individual practices to fit the different communities. There was much conversation that I am sure
will be repeated by this chairperson. Is
there any direction from the minister or any direction that she will give this
committee about the view of standardization of practices versus individual
practices of committees to suit the different communities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, again, I think this
particular question would best be discussed when the Corrections staff are
available so we can look at it in detail with them.
Mr. Mackintosh: Before leaving the nine‑point plan, I
just wanted to go back to one item under the Young Offenders Act and that was
the issue of parental responsibility, either in a legal or a financial way.
I think the issue of parental responsibility and how to
ensure that the parents provide a nurturing role for their children and provide
a good basis for the kids and pass on the values, show where the limits are,
provide guidance, is critical. How one
does that is, I think, one of the most difficult questions that one deals with
when looking at the issue of rising youth crime and antisocial behaviour in
general.
I was interested in the minister's press release and her
comments from time to time when she said that there should be a consideration
of parental responsibility. I wonder if
the minister has obtained any legal opinion or analysis as to what kinds of
legal responsibilities can be visited on parents for the offences of their
children.
Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly agree that the whole parenting
issue is an important one, a complex one.
The whole issue of how families put structure within their own homes,
how families determine rules and are able to carry out those rules within their
own home with adequate consequences is a very complex one, and at the moment
the member knows that we try to support families in a number of ways. Now, ministers responsible in those areas
will be able to speak more fully than I can, but I certainly can speak with
some knowledge about supports offered and available in schools and support
through health, through the mental health programming.
Justice has a piece though.
Justice has a part, and as the member knows through his training and
also the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), under the old juvenile
delinquents act, where the behaviour of parents and children could be linked
together to the child's behaviour, whether it was a failure to supervise or an
actual encouragement, then parents could be fixed with some penal
responsibility. My view‑‑you
know, the question has been is it an old‑fashioned one that parents do
need to exercise responsibility, do need to take responsibility on behalf of
their young person. I have asked and
have represented on behalf of Manitoba that the federal minister, in relation
to the Young Offenders Act, look again at whether we could bring that provision
back into the Young Offenders Act, one which was in the previous act but did
not make it into the Young Offenders Act.
I have not necessarily suggested that this responsibility
has to be a financial responsibility, but I have said it has to be the
responsibility of parenting. It may be
the responsibility of the relationship to accompany the child to hearings, to
probation. I understand the reasons why
there were some changes in this area. I
think that it remains very important that parents are a part of their child's
life and that where parents are not a part of their child's life and there is
not some very good reason, then we have a right to expect that they will accept
that responsibility.
Other ministers in this government may discuss at another
time what their views are in terms of how they may incorporate parental
responsibility into their departments.
So I am not going to speak about the possibilities there‑‑although
it is a concept that I can tell the member is wholly supported by this
government, it is a concept that has been wholly supported‑‑that
members are particularly interested in reviewing how this responsibility can
take place.
As Minister of Justice I look to the Young Offenders
Act. Other ministers in government may
look to other areas of their responsibility to see how this parental
responsibility can be put back.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to clarify then, when the minister talks
about increased parental legal responsibility is she talking about changes to
the Young Offenders Act in particular?
Mrs. Vodrey: Very much, Madam Chair, and certainly that is
one of the options. That is why I
presented to the federal minister, but I recognize that I may not be successful
in having that change made in the Young Offenders Act. I hope that I will be. We as a government hope so. We support very strongly that particular
concept.
If we are not successful in having that change made, then
we will look at ways to have parents become responsible within areas of our own
jurisdiction. I am not able to tell the
member exactly what those might be today because ministers are examining them,
but because we believe in that issue so strongly and that concept so strongly,
yes, Young Offenders is one option.
Mr. Mackintosh: If we can be more particular, when we are
dealing with this topic, is the minister saying that she is specifically
looking for an enhanced role for parents in proceedings under the Young
Offenders Act?
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I just want to clarify with the
member his question. Is he suggesting
that we are asking for a greater role of parents at each stage of the
proceeding, that they will have input, or that in the disposition?
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I am merely asking the minister, I am
looking for her definition of increased parental legal responsibility. What in fact does that mean? Does it simply mean that the parents should
be more involved in the procedures under the Young Offenders Act up until
sentencing, or indeed does that include more parental involvement post‑sentence?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the answer is both. The answer is that we did look at the
previous juvenile delinquents act, and we saw that there was opportunity both
in the process and in the consequences area, so this is what we are asking the
federal government to examine.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister specifically asked the
federal minister to examine whether there can be charges laid against parents
as a result of an offender being found guilty?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I can tell the member that my
officials certainly have been‑‑in the working group, my officials
have carried that message and are examining possibilities in detail.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have any legal opinions or
information available today about what the government sees as a new area of
criminal law?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am best to describe the
process by saying that my officials meet as part of the co‑ordinating
committee of senior officials across Canada, and what their role is as
officials is to work on the development of positions. Those positions are then passed to deputy
ministers and ultimately on to ministers.
So my officials from Manitoba have carried our particular interest in
the area of looking at both process and consequence. These are being worked on now in terms of
their possibilities, but they will have to go through deputies and then finally
ministers provincially looking at them as well as the federal minister to see
if there is agreement. So we are not
sure what the federal minister's view is at this time or when he may take these
into consideration.
Mr. Mackintosh: I want to look at the issue of car
thefts. We have had a radical, just
horrendous, increase in car thefts over the last two years particularly in the
city of Winnipeg. I wonder if the
minister has had any meetings with the Minister responsible for Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation (Mr. Cummings) and any other affected ministers to
determine what incentives can be put in place to ensure greater security for
vehicles in Manitoba and provide a deterrent to car thieves and vandals.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the Minister responsible for Highways
(Mr. Findlay), also the Minister responsible for MPIC and I have met, and we
have met and discussed our concern around the issue of auto thefts and auto
vandalism. The Minister for MPIC will be
available to discuss with the member what initiatives he may have decided to
put into place following that.
In the throne speech, the government announced that it had
an intention to deal with amendments under The Highway Traffic Act. As I said yesterday, that bill has not been
introduced, so I am not able to discuss what is within that act; however, I can
tell the member again that the conversations have occurred and that we
certainly treat it as a very serious issue.
Mr. Kowalski: Just going back to line 2.(a) of the budget,
under Professional/Technical, the staff years, 59.26. Does that include cases where people from
outside the Attorney General are brought in to prosecute cases, such as Randy
McNicol? Does that come out of that line
in the budget?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, no, that line strictly
deals with those individuals who are employed by the Department of Justice
within Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Kowalski: The following question would be, what line do
fees for outside counsel for prosecutions come out of?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the line which would
incorporate funding for outside counsel is under Other Expenditures.
Mr. Kowalski: I will be more specific. In that case, what were the fees that were
paid to that outside counsel, and what would have been the cost if someone
within the Attorney General's department had prosecuted that case?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, all of the expenses in
regard to that outside counsel are not in yet, but I am informed that we expect
that the expenses will be in the range of $300,000. The member asks that in comparison to, should
someone within the Department of Justice have acted as a prosecutor? I am told that the expenditure would have
been very close to the same because there would have been obviously the
overhead support staff necessary and so on for us within the Department of
Justice, not just the expenses for the, it would have been at least two Crown
attorneys, but the other overhead expenses.
* (1530)
But I would just like to say to the member in regard to the
choosing of outside counsel at that time that there would have been
allegations, we believe, of Crown complicity had we not gone to outside
counsel. To have brought outside counsel
from another jurisdiction would have involved living expenses as well to have
had that person here. So we chose
outside counsel because we believed that that would be the best decision in
terms of the carriage of the case.
Mr. Kowalski: So that will come out of the '94‑95
budget, that $300,000, or is it split between '93‑94 and '94‑95?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that it is
split between the two years.
Mr. Kowalski: I wonder if the minister could refresh my
memory. Were there any other cases in
the past year, or are there any impending cases where outside counsel was used?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I would just like to clarify the
decision to go with outside counsel from this area. This is just relating back to the previous
question because I do not want to leave anything on the record which may not
have been clear, in that to have chosen counsel from another jurisdiction for
that particular case that Mr. McNicol conducted would have required almost a
relocation of the individual because of the length of time. So that is why we dealt with outside counsel,
within Manitoba.
However, I am informed that other cases in which we have
had outside counsel conduct a case, in virtually every other case where there
is a conflict we have had outside counsel from another jurisdiction. With that, it is a reciprocal arrangement.
Mr. Kowalski: The charges in that investigation, was there
a Crown opinion on that prior to the charges being laid?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the answer is yes. Once potential conflict was noted the
investigating officers were asked to report to the special prosecutor.
Mr. Kowalski: In another investigation of Winnipeg police
officers in an allegation of assault at Alexander Dock, was outside counsel
used there?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told in that case the prosecutor was a
departmental prosecutor, but he was from Dauphin, and in that case again it was
important to avoid any perception of conflict.
So by going to Dauphin, there had been no prior relationship.
Mr. Kowalski: In that second case of the police officer
from Alexander Dock alleged to have been in an assault, was that submitted for
a Crown opinion?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the answer to that question is
also yes, and that in the case the member is talking about the legal opinion is
routed through the Director of Regional Prosecutions who is originally from
Alberta and practising in the Brandon area.
It goes to one of his staff.
Mr. Kowalski: As a result of these two investigations, both
having gone through Crown opinion, both resulting in acquittal in all but one
of the charges, with, in one case, counsel from private practice being used; in
the other case someone from the Attorney General's branch being used for
prosecution, I am wondering if the minister has looked at, or maybe there
already is a directive or a policy‑‑hopefully it will not be required‑‑for
allegations of criminal charges against police officers, a standard
practice. Because there are differences
and maybe it is not wise to have a standard‑‑I will give that‑‑but
have they looked at whether there should be a policy, a standard of practice, a
procedure, or is it better to be considered on a case‑by‑case
basis?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I think the answer the member is
looking for through the range of questions he has brought is that, yes, there
is a universal standard used, but in cases where there may be a possible
conflict, we switch to an outside counsel, so we switch the person applying the
standard, but there is the universal standard.
Mr. Kowalski: This question may not belong in this line,
but I have looked through it, and I am not too sure what line it would‑‑as
a result of the investigation and prosecution and acquittal of the officers who
were in involved with an informant, a written policy was placed in the Winnipeg
police procedure manual. Does the
Attorney General's department look at the procedure manuals of the Winnipeg
police force, the commissioner's standing orders, the Brandon police force to
ascertain whether there are other practices that are either omitted or are in
their procedures that the Attorney General would have a problem with? Does it review the procedures of the police
forces of Manitoba?
Point
of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, I am just wondering if
that would be more appropriately done when we talk about Law Enforcement later
on. Law Enforcement Administration under
Provincial Policing 2.(c) and 2.(d).
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr.
Mackintosh) has raised a point of order relative to the line of questioning
being appropriate at 2.(c).
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, we can certainly discuss the
issues relating to policing and administration when we get to those lines, but
I certainly will attempt to answer this question and then perhaps we could look
at others when we have staff available in that area.
Madam Chairperson: Relative to the honourable member for St.
Johns' (Mr. Mackintosh) point of order, the minister has agreed to respond at
this section, and we would suggest that the honourable member for The Maples
(Mr. Kowalski) defer all other comparable questions to the appropriate section.
*
* *
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the short answer is yes,
we do have access to the policy books.
The policy development, I am told, particularly for Brandon and
Winnipeg, was developed as part of their accreditation and that they did
consult with the Department of Justice in the development of that policy. So we certainly were available. We are available to assist and to guide, I
would gather, in the development of the policies to make recommendations in
areas of concern, but I would remind the member, as I know that he knows, it is
the policy of that particular police service.
Mr. Mackintosh: What is the status of the Ann Justice
case. Where is it at in terms of its
proceeding?
Mrs. Vodrey: We understand that the case documents have
been filed in the Supreme Court of Canada, so we cannot say anything further.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the Prosecutions Branch has any
statistics or if the minister has any information about charges being laid
under what is commonly known as the antisniff bill enacted last year.
Mrs. Vodrey: I can say to the member that we cannot
provide any statistics at this time. We
can undertake to find out those statistics for the member.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether there have been
any charges laid under that act?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have that information at the
moment, but we can undertake to find out for the member.
Mr. Mackintosh: Last night when we were discussing the
problem of proceeding to trial in a case where the subpoena had not been
served, it also raised the question of the procedures used by the Crown in
preparing for cases.
I am just wondering what procedures are in place to require
the Crown attorneys to prepare the cases and, more importantly, to prepare the
witnesses, not just for the trial itself but to ensure that the witnesses feel
comfortable. I am thinking particularly
of family violence court.
Mrs. Vodrey: I think I said in answer to an earlier
question last evening perhaps, how we had really made an attempt within our
department to make sure that information is available, that certainly the
victim receives the notification that is required.
But just to enlarge on the answer that I gave previously,
the member asks about Crown attorneys and what they do to prepare cases and
witnesses. I am sure the member knows
this, but I think important to state that Crown attorneys do have a code of
conduct for dealing with witnesses and victims.
It is a very detailed code. It
speaks about phone calls and information and so on. So that is one in terms of what deals with
the way that Crown attorneys will behave.
In addition to that we have tried to support the victim through
the services of Victims Assistance, through Women's Advocacy, and as the member
knows, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Brandon Police Service, the RCMP all
have Victims Assistance programs too. So
it is through these Victims Assistance programs that the Crown attorneys will
very vigorously seek to find the victim, so that victims can be given the
information required and certainly can make their appearance, provided that is
the route that they would like to take.
So when the member references a specific case, I would like
to take him back to that previous answer in which I said to him that we have
certainly looked at making efforts to improve that flow of information.
* (1550)
Mr. Mackintosh: I am sure the minister will have to
acknowledge my concern given that, in that particular case, the witness was not
even subpoenaed, let alone prepared.
Just moving on to a couple of final questions on the actual
items here. First of all, under Other
Expenditures, Communication, we have a reduction there of $13,000, and I am
just wondering why there was a reduction on that line to that extent.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that that
has to do with the new long distance charges offered through MTS, the Preferred
Advantage plan.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Justice‑‑sorry,
the honourable member for St. Johns.
Mr. Mackintosh: Not yet, just wait, just wait. Be patient.
Under Programs and Grants, would the minister explain what
those programs and grants relate to? I understand
those are Witness Programs included there.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that the
Programs and Grants that the member has referred to are, first of all, for the
language bank which provides translation and then for witness‑related
costs, expert witnesses, protected witnesses and out‑of‑pocket
expenses for witnesses.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have no further questions under this
appropriation.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $5,771,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$1,056,800‑‑pass; (3) Witness Programs $582,000‑‑pass.
2.(b) Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that the minister has
conducted a preliminary review of concerns on the Chief Medical Examiner's
Office, and I asked the minister if today she would provide copies of any
information she has in writing, and if not, provide that information orally.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am prepared to certainly speak
about the investigation that I had asked my department to do, and to clarify
issues surrounding a practice that occurred with the Chief Medical Examiner.
I can tell the member at this time that the Chief Medical
Examiner has explained that he did presign approximately six blank examiner's
reports with the expectation that his original and comprehensive report would
then become the précis or short form report placed on this presigned report
form. The information in the form was,
through arrangements in his office, a reflection or a précis of the original
investigation done, and his original would have been signed by Dr. Markesteyn.
As I said, six forms were at issue, and this occurred at a
time when Dr. Markesteyn was required to be away for a significant amount of
time, and he had, in fact, done and completed the investigation, except for the
transfer of his original report onto the short form report. There is no evidence that anyone has been
misled by this occurrence. There is
certainly no evidence of any fraud or any illegal activity. The steps were taken by Dr. Markesteyn, the
Medical Examiner, with the full expectation that the final product, that final
report would reflect his own larger investigative report.
* (1600)
So I would like to begin by stressing that there has been,
from a legal point of view, no evidence of anything illegal or any fraudulent
practice or illegal activity. The issue
then is the wisdom of the practice, and I would like to tell the member and the
committee that arrangements have been made to refer this issue to the Civil
Service Commission to assess the practice undertaken by Dr. Markesteyn and to
provide us with any comments or advice on steps that should now be taken. I would like to stress that I have asked the
Civil Service to look at this practice within the context of practice in other
similar offices, both within Manitoba and across Canada.
I think it is important now to say that I have also
directed that this practice stop, that this no longer be permitted within the
Office of the Medical Examiner. The
approach is a two‑pronged one.
First of all, it involves the discontinuation or the stopping of this
existing practice, and this decision was taken because it certainly has been
questioned publicly.
The second step that will be taken is that there will be a
small working group established which will examine this presigning issue as a
whole. The group will consist of Dr.
Markesteyn, or his designate, and representatives from Prosecutions and Justice
Division.
I have asked them to examine a number of issues in terms of
the practice, the forms utilized. I
would like to know if those forms utilized, if that is where the difficulty is
or was at that time, whether or not acting appointments are perhaps required,
and if in fact this is the recommended way, are there any potential legislative
changes which would be required. So I
have asked then for two parts, Civil Service referral and that we look very
carefully at this practice, which has now stopped, and to look at then what
might be done for the future.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister advise when the six blank
examination reports were presigned? What
is the period of time here?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the time referred to was the
time that Dr. Markesteyn was away, and it would have been in and around
November, 1990.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee who
conducted the investigation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the investigation was
conducted by the ADM of Prosecutions and the process was a discussion with the
staff of the Chief Medical Examiner and then with the Chief Medical Examiner
himself.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was there any questioning done of former
staff of the Chief Medical Examiner's office?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed the answer is no.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister advise what staff were
interviewed by the ADM of Prosecutions at least in terms of their job
descriptions or their position descriptions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we will undertake to
provide the member with the individuals by position.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister says that the matter has been
referred to the Civil Service Commission for an assessment of the
practices. What expertise in particular
has she sought out at the Civil Service Commission?
* (1610)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we have referred this to
the Civil Service Commission to assess the practice in relation to other
similar types of offices and practices within other offices. We have referred this to the Civil Service
Commission for advice, but as the member knows, they have the ability to
broaden this if they wish.
Mr. Mackintosh: I question why the Civil Service Commission
would be involved in this. What factors
did the minister consider in making that reference?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I would say to the member
that it is quite routine with personnel matters, and this is one of a personnel
matter, to refer this to the Civil Service Commission, and we also are looking
to develop options for times when the Chief Medical Examiner may be away at a
future time.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I would suggest to the minister that it
is not a personnel matter. It is a
justice issue. It is a fundamental
justice issue.
I also would like to understand the relationship between
the Civil Service Commission assessment and the small working group
assessment. Is there not some overlap
there or are they going to work together on this issue?
Mrs. Vodrey: The commission will provide an objective
assessment of the practice. The working
group will provide the forward‑looking options.
Mr. Mackintosh: As part of the investigation, did the ADM of
Prosecutions talk to any of the individuals involved in the labour arbitration
or the grievance from which the information came about this practice?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the answer is no.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that part of the
evidence that came out during that grievance regarded the presigning of
documents, but as well, I understand that there was evidence regarding
improprieties or alleged improprieties about ordering autopsy reports. I was wondering if the ordering of autopsy
reports and the related procedures were reviewed as well by the ADM of
Prosecutions.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, in the matter of ordering
autopsies, the Chief Medical Examiner has issued what are called standing
orders, that is, in certain types of deaths an autopsy is always called upon, for
example, things like an institutional death.
That is one standing practice.
The allegations around the issue of autopsies did not arise
as a matter of a concerned citizen or a complaint about practices, they arose
in a partisan labour relations dispute.
That is why we have asked the Civil Service to look at this matter and
that is why we look for their advice.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I think the minister has answered the
question then, that the issue of autopsy permissions has not been the focus of
the investigation, but that will be looked at presumably by the Civil Service
Commission.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson,
Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
I certainly want to put my concerns on the record about the
lack of the inclusion of that in the investigation. As well, to suggest that somehow the evidence
that came out at the grievance simply because it was a labour arbitration was
unreliable, I have to take issue with.
It is often through these kinds of events, procedures‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it is very important
to clear up the use of the member's word "unreliable." I at no time suggested or used the word
"unreliable."
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): The honourable minister does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister said that appeared to not
put reliance on the allegation from that proceeding, and I have some concern
about that.
As well, I understand that there have been staff changes in
the managerial or professional and technical end of it at the Chief Medical
Examiner's office to the extent where I understand that five of six of those
positions have changed and one secretary has left in the last six years. I mean a tremendous turnover. I have some concern about that.
I wonder if that turnover was as well the subject of the
investigation by the ADM of Prosecutions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Chair, I can tell the member that
the investigation which I asked my department to conduct, which the ADM of
Prosecutions did conduct, focused on the practice of presigning the
reports. That was what was at issue.
It is that issue and that practice and those concerns that
we have now referred to the Civil Service Commission, but I will remind the
member that, should the Civil Service Commission wish to broaden their inquiry,
that is certainly within their right to do.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I think it is incumbent on the minister
to direct the Civil Service Commission as to the scope of the further
assessment. There are many outstanding
questions here. There have been
allegations raised from time to time about both autopsy permissions and
presigning of reports, and quite frankly, I do not think Manitobans are going
to rest easy with this internal investigation.
* (1620)
The point that I have been making is that when there are
issues of the administration of justice within the department, it is
inappropriate that the department investigate that. The Department of Justice should not be
investigating the Department of Justice, and there is long‑standing
precedence in this province where independent investigators are called in so
that Manitobans can be assured that justice is going to be maintained or
enhanced.
I ask the minister, will she now reconsider the type of
investigation that should take place with regard to the Chief Medical
Examiner's office?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the review that was
undertaken was an administrative review, and in that administrative review,
there was nothing to suggest a breach of a statute in any way, and it was not a
criminal investigation. It was a review
of practice, an administrative review.
As a result of what was found at that time, I have now
taken a step to refer this matter to the Civil Service for their independent
assessment, and I would stress that referral, and when I receive a report from
the Civil Service, and I hope to receive a preliminary report as well as a
final report, I will then be in a position to broaden the investigation, to
recommend a broadening of the investigation, as will the Civil Service. That is the important part about the
independent investigation which is being conducted.
Mr. Mackintosh: The investigation has been conducted. It is hardly independent. We have concerns about practices of the Chief
Medical Examiner. What happened was, one
of the senior officials in the minister's department went and talked to the
Chief Medical Examiner and went and talked to the Chief Medical Examiner's
current staff, who report to the Chief Medical Examiner and are responsible to
the Chief Medical Examiner for their daily income and for just functioning on a
daily basis in that office. That is
hardly an independent review. There are
former staff who, there are many, too many, I would suggest, former staff
available to speak to, and I would suggest to the minister that there has been
no independent analysis whatsoever of this issue.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Chairperson, let me take a moment
to explain again to the member exactly what has happened so he understands,
because he seems to be not understanding.
This concerns me a great deal in terms of his characterization.
So let me tell you again from the beginning that the past
staff who made their concerns known during the grievance hearing, during the
labour grievance hearing, we had no quarrel with. It was at that hearing that this practice,
this administrative practice was questioned.
At that hearing also, there was no attempt to deny this practice by the
Chief Medical Examiner. The Chief
Medical Examiner admitted to the practice.
So we had no quarrel there.
What we did as a result of that was then to look into that
practice because there was a suggestion, I am told, that perhaps this was in
breach of a statute. We then looked back
to the materials which were in question and to the practice, and we found that
there was not a breach of the statute or any illegality. However, I continue to be concerned about any
concerns raised by Manitobans around this issue and, therefore, I have referred
this matter to the Civil Service for their independent assessment. It is their independent assessment that I
will wait for.
As I have said to the member as I have gone through these
several steps, the Civil Service has the ability to broaden my referral. Should they have concerns that develop in the
course of their independent investigation, they have the opportunity to broaden. I, too, have the opportunity to direct a
broadening investigation when I receive a preliminary report or a final
report. I, too, have the opportunity to
request a broadening.
* (1630)
I would like to clarify for the member exactly the process
where the independence occurs and also to clarify to him that it is not the
information that arose from the labour arbitration hearing. It is not those people that we have a quarrel
with. In fact, it is a result of that
and Dr. Markesteyn's admission that we proceeded on the investigation.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister assure the committee that
there are no inquests that should have been held that were not as a result of
any autopsy permissions or reviews or presigning of reports in the Office of
the Chief Medical Examiner?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Chair, let me say to the member
that there is no linkage between these forms and autopsies in that these forms
are used for, I am told, by and large, insurance firms, and these forms were
used where the Chief Medical Examiner had in fact done the investigation, had a
report. It is the précis or a shortened
version of this report which is then transferred to this form, signed and
forwarded to insurance companies by way of example.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have a question. In the last four or five years, has the
department conducted any review of procedures in the Chief Medical Examiner's
office other than the review that we are currently discussing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am informed that
there have been changes in procedures to call inquests within the last five
years, and that there are two multidisciplinary committees‑‑an
inquest review committee and a child death committee‑‑and both of
these committees offer the Chief Medical Examiner advice. It is his routine practice to consult with
these committees rather than to call an inquest completely on his own.
Mr. Mackintosh: Who is on the committees?
(Madam Chairperson in
the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: On the child death committee, I am informed
the representation is by AMC, the RCMP, Winnipeg Police Service, Child and
Family Services, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Child Protection
Centre and the Justice department.
On the inquest review committee, there are representatives
from Court Services, the Justice department and the administrative staff of the
Chief Medical Examiner.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand there was a review done I think
last year by Dr. Hawrylshyn of Ontario of procedures within the Chief Medical
Examiner's office. I am wondering if the
minister or the ADM of Prosecutions has made reference to the findings and the
interviews that were conducted in that investigation.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we will certainly
undertake to see if that report was shared with our Chief Medical Examiner.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister assure the committee that
there has been no presigning of reports after 1990?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that the
signing was confined to the six reports.
However, I can tell the member that direction has been given to make
sure that this practice is completely discontinued.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister prepared to table the report
provided by the ADM of Prosecutions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, there is certainly no
attempt to be difficult, but I am reviewing this. I am viewing this as a personnel matter. I have made the referral to the Civil Service
Commission and at this point I would like to follow that process.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(b) Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $379,600‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $840,500‑‑pass.
2.(c) Provincial Policing.
* (1640)
Mr. Kowalski: My background on policing outside the
Perimeter is limited, but looking at this expenditure, I have noticed a large
increase here in the refundable allowances.
Is it totally attributable to the Dakota Ojiway Tribal Council Police
force, increased cost that will be attributed to them?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that in the
area of refundable allowances, these refundable allowances are cost incurred by
Canada, for which the province must repay 100 percent of the costs. The major costs incurred by this province are
for transportation, maintenance and prisoner escort costs for persons required
as witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings and proceedings under provincial
laws.
Mr. Kowalski: The increase from last year is fairly
substantial, almost double. What is that
attributed to?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that the
$140,000 difference was previously absorbed by the RCMP within their
budget. They have identified that now
that is not a policing function, and they have handed it to the province to
repay 100 percent.
Mr. Kowalski: Under Expected Results, one of the expected
results mentioned in this document is increased emphasis on community‑based
policing through proactive efforts, involvement of citizens' advisory
committees. I was not aware of these
committees until now. How many
committees are there in Manitoba? Is it
pretty well in every community or just in certain areas? How prevalent are these advisory committees?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that there
are, at last count, 111 committees operating throughout the province. They are located within the 78 rural RCMP
detachments. They are formed by various
community representatives. I gather
there is wide‑ranging representation, including youth, and they provide
direction in terms of the type of police service required in that
community. It is actually a root of
community‑based policing.
Mr. Kowalski: The other area I would like to discuss is the
Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council Police.
When that police force withdrew its services, for reasons I do not think
we would be profited in discussing because I do not think there would be any
agreement here, but when they did it, the responsibility for policing those
reserves, whose responsibility was it once the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council
Police withdrew? Whose responsibility
was it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, it continued to be the
RCMP.
Mr. Kowalski: When the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council Police
force withdrew their services, were there any additional officers assigned to
any of the detachments that were required to police those reserves, those
communities?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said in my earlier answer, the RCMP
continued to do the policing. I was
assured by the commanding officer that policing services would continue and
that citizens would be protected. The
RCMP did not choose however to redeploy any members.
Mr. Kowalski: Were those 12 communities, prior to the DOTC
Police coming into force‑‑on the detachments that police those 12
communities, what was the staffing complement?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, let me just correct the
member: The number of communities is
eight, not 12. When the DOTC policing
began, the RCMP never at any time reduced their complement as a result of DOTC
policing.
Mr. Kowalski: That is information contrary to my
understanding, my understanding that I think it was Moose Lake detachment that
was staffed as a result of transferring of complement from I forget which of
those eight communities, but transferring, and there were new detachments
staffed as a result. So I will have to
check into that information.
I see that one of the activities under this budget line is
for the director to recommend to the Minister of Justice required levels of
RCMP staff years dedicated to each RCMP detachment. When the DOTC Police withdrew their services,
was there assessment done on the staffing years required to police those communities?
* (1650)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the RCMP provided some
advice on their resourcing formula if they were to assume policing for the DOTC
communities for the long‑range plan.
Mr. Kowalski: Whether it is long range or short range, the
needs assessment is done. The amount of
police officers required to police a community, I do not understand long range
or short term. If it requires a certain
number of officers in a community, what difference it makes if it is for long
range or short range during that time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I would say to the member there
certainly is a difference between the long‑range planning in terms of
whether people actually have to be moved in, whether there is a requirement for
relocation costs. We would not pay
relocation costs for a very short‑term project but could handle a short‑term
plan through extra accommodation and meals and so on of officers. So there certainly is a difference.
Mr. Kowalski: I understand the difference in the form of
cost, but I cannot understand the difference whether it is long term or short
term as far as response time, delineation of duties, that would be required to
be performed in a community. I do not
understand.
My next question is in regard to delineation of duties. While the DOTC police were police in those
communities, there was an agreement as to what police services they would
perform and what police services the RCMP would continue to perform in the
community with the staffing they had in the neighbouring communities. What services while the DOTC police were
still existing did the RCMP still perform?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can say that during the time of the DOTC
police force, before the agreement that we have now, the RCMP had the capacity
and the jurisdiction to investigate all matters, and that was never given
up. The DOTC police did investigate
certain areas, but the RCMP did not ever give up their jurisdiction to also
investigate.
Mr. Kowalski: During the time of the DOTC police withdrawal
of service, what steps were taken to monitor the response times and incidents
that could have put residents of those communities in danger?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, this was a time frame in which I
expressed great concern and in which I made a great effort to work with the
policing services to provide public safety to these communities, and the calls,
as they were brought in from the communities, were brought in to the RCMP, they
were evaluated and they were assigned a priority by the RCMP. The RCMP assured me of that practice.
I certainly understand that during the process there were
concerns that certain matters which in fact were matters of long standing, not
just matters that arose as a result of the DOTC police force collapsing itself,
but certain matters of concern of long standing in those areas were raised as
matters of concern again.
I would like to stress to the member that some of the issues
raised, I will remind him, were issues that were there during the time of the
DOTC policing. They were, all of those
matters, of concern to me, and because of that I did make an offer to the
communities for additional RCMP services.
I think it is important to know that the communities were at that time
engaged in a discussion for the interim agreement which we have now reached,
and the communities felt that it was very important to continue on in their
negotiation for the interim agreement and to not accept that offer.
So though I firmly believe and it is our position that the
RCMP did not ever at any time give up their jurisdiction and their authority to
investigate in areas of DOTC communities‑‑they retained that‑‑that
the calls came in and were evaluated and were assigned a priority, and based on
that the RCMP responded. I will say
again that I did make an offer of enhancement which was not accepted by the
communities. The communities raised
issues of concern to them, but many of these issues were issues of long
standing. I would never want to minimize
the concern shown by this government to those communities. We did work in good faith in the way the
communities wanted to proceed, and that was by working toward the interim
agreement, and now we have the interim agreement signed.
* (1700)
We are pleased that there has been a change in the
policing, and concurrently we will be working on the long‑term
agreement. At the time of the signing of
the DOTC interim agreement, there was a continued commitment that we will work
towards the long‑term agreement.
What will be contained in that long‑term agreement will be
determined by the discussions which are now ongoing.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
Second Readings, are we to proceed with Second
Readings? No? Okay.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 14‑‑Heritage River Designation
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that
WHEREAS both the Shamattawa First Nation and the Norway
House First Nation have called for the designation of the Hayes River and its
tributaries as heritage rivers; and
WHEREAS these rivers are the lifeblood of a number of
communities, and the protection of these wilderness waters is important; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board showed
considerable interest in the designation of these rivers as heritage rivers;
and
WHEREAS a province‑wide review of rivers with
potential for Canadian heritage river status is currently underway; and
WHEREAS the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources has
indicated that it will not proceed with formal nominations of the river without
the support of the First Nations associated with the river, support which has
been expressed.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba urge the Minister of Natural Resources to consider nomination of the
Hayes River and its tributaries for heritage river designation.
Motion presented.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few
words about the proposed private member's resolution concerning the Hayes River
and its tributaries. As the member of
the Legislature representing the community of Shamattawa, I can tell the House
first hand that this resolution has wide support in the community of Shamattawa
and comes directly from the request of community elders and the chief and
council that this river be considered a heritage river.
Anyone who has visited the community of Shamattawa or knows
the history of the fur trade in northern Manitoba will recognize how important
the Hayes River is to Shamattawa and other northern communities. The Hayes River flows into the Hudson Bay
near York Factory.
Hunters from Shamattawa have travelled to York Factory for
hundreds of years and continue to this day.
Just prior to this current session beginning, along with some of my
colleagues, I had the privilege of visiting Shamattawa once again to discuss a
number of important issues, including this matter that I am introducing this
afternoon.
We met with some trappers at Shamattawa who still regularly
hunt near York Factory. In fact, each
year from Shamattawa many school children travel along the Hayes River to York
Factory with their parents and with their family members and revisit some of
the history that perhaps has been lost among First Nations' people. The Hayes River has a lot of spiritual
significance and has always played a vital role in the lives of people from
Shamattawa and the people that originally lived in a place we know as York
Factory, and they do not want any changes to it.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to talk briefly in the language that
I am more accustomed to. For the purpose of the people at Hansard,
what I will be talking about is basically what I have said in my introductory
remarks.
Cree Spoken.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that I use my own
language in trying to be able to convey the sacredness of the river and the
role it plays in the future of our children.
Our children, the ones ahead of us and the ones that are now born, are
looking towards and looking at us as legislators to make appropriate and proper
decisions for their future. I am indeed
happy that I can participate in this introduction of this private members'
resolution.
I would like to tell the House, or for those members that
never had an opportunity to travel to northern Manitoba and particularly
Shamattawa, that there are many positive developments happening in Shamattawa.
Many members here will recall in media reports about some
of the problems that have occurred there over the past several years with
respect to solvent abuse and the negative reporting that has gone on about the
community. In spite of that, there are
positive developments happening in that community. The chief of the community, the Shamattawa
First Nation, William Miles, along with his council members Kerry Miles, Nelson
Miles, Maryanne Miles, Tommy McKay and Stanley Redhead, along with community
elders, are dedicated and hardworking individuals who are committed to seeing
progress occur at that community and have taken every effort to ensure that
there is something there for the future generations, that we ensure, by working
with the First Nation of Shamattawa, that there is something there for the
children to learn of the traditional livelihood of the Cree people along the
river systems of northern Manitoba and most particularly Shamattawa.
I would like to talk a little bit about a few developments
that have occurred in Shamattawa. They
have a new band hall that the entire community is very proud of. The complex is very impressive, and there are
many local initiatives that deserve support.
This resolution is a direct consequence of their request, and it will
assist their efforts to maintain their traditional lifestyle in this remote
community.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
I need not remind members of this House that the cost of
living and unemployment rate in Shamattawa remain unacceptable. It is both unfortunate that infrastructure
funds have been concentrated in other areas of Manitoba instead of high
unemployment areas such as Shamattawa.
This resolution is very modest in its intent. It is presented in a most humble way for the
benefit of the people of Shamattawa and the ongoing life of the Cree people of
Shamattawa. It is really a sign of good
faith, something that the community needs from this government and this
Legislature.
* (1710)
The community of Norway House First Nation also approached
our caucus, and I believe also the other two parties in this Legislature
concerning this request, and I would assume that both parties will support this
resolution in good faith.
The chief and council of Cross Lake have also written to
express their support for this resolution.
Northern Manitoba will feel the effects of the cuts that have occurred
recently in unemployment insurance benefits, social assistance, foster care
cuts, more than any other region of this province.
I said in the house prior that the cost of living in
northern Manitoba is sometimes two or three times greater than that of southern
Manitoba communities.
These issues have been raised with our caucus repeatedly by
concerned community leaders and residents.
I am sure that the government and the third party have also received
calls on these cuts.
As I said, early passage of this resolution would be a sign
of good faith, and I would urge both parties to allow this resolution to pass
today so that the communities affected will realize that all parties support
their efforts to protect this river for now and all time forward, and taking
into consideration again, we must look inward to see what we will leave for the
generations that will come after us.
Cree spoken.
I do want to thank you for the opportunity of presenting
this resolution in this House today. I
would like to thank my colleagues on this side of the House as well. I would urge all members of this House to
support this resolution. Thank you, Mr.
Acting Speaker.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I suppose I am almost in a position where I am prepared to
congratulate the member for bringing forward this resolution. I have no great difficulty with the
resolution as such, except that I would like to clarify for the record exactly
what is happening at the present time and where we are at in my department and
the designation of the Hayes River and other rivers, by and large.
Maybe just as some background information, the Canadian
heritage river system was established jointly by federal, provincial and
territorial governments for the purpose of recognizing the outstanding rivers
of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians.
To date, 15 rivers across Canada have been designated as
Canadian heritage rivers, including two in Manitoba: the Bloodvein and Seal Rivers. The Department of Natural Resources is
currently assessing a number of Manitoba rivers, including the Hayes River, for
their potential for inclusion in the Canadian heritage river system.
To qualify for inclusion within this system, a river, a
section of a river must be of outstanding significance for its natural,
cultural or recreational values. This
assessment involves review of existing information respecting the natural, cultural
and recreational values of the rivers.
A more thorough study of the values of the Hayes River has
been completed. Recommendations on the
potential for a heritage river status for the Hayes and other rivers will be
advanced in the form of a system plan of Canadian heritage rivers in Manitoba.
It is expected that within this system plan the Hayes River
will be one of the top ranked rivers for potential for nomination to the
heritage river system. Upon
identification of Manitoba rivers with the most potential for nomination to the
Canadian heritage river system, area First Nations and local communities will
be advised, and the department will enter into discussions respecting the
possible implementation of nomination and designation and co‑ordinate the
necessary public consultation which is part of the process.
The communities of Norway House, York Landing, Cross Lake
and Shamattawa First Nations have indicated support for potential heritage
river designation for the Hayes River.
To date, however, Oxford House First Nation, a primary stakeholder on
the Hayes River has not commented on the status.
The department is in the process, I repeat again, of
contacting these Native communities that recently expressed an interest in the
designation of the Hayes as a Canadian heritage river to fully advise these
First Nations of all aspects of the Canadian Heritage River Program, because
there are certain things once you designate that basically give protection
within a certain distance of the river in terms of mining interests, forestry
interests, et cetera, et cetera.
I think the objective of my department is to take and make
everybody know the full implications of this kind of a designation, so there is
no misunderstanding later as to what it involves.
We are supportive of the Canadian Heritage River Program
and view it as a tremendous opportunity to maintain the heritage and cultural
values of Manitoba rivers and to enhance provincial and regional tourism.
The department is in the early stages of establishing a
system plan for Canadian heritage rivers in Manitoba, and welcome First Nation
and local community interest in the assessment of the provincial waterways for
heritage river potential in the future.
As an aside, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have just responded
recently to Chief Alan Ross of Norway House First Nation and written to him
explaining that exactly what has happened, because they were one of the
communities that also basically requested government consideration for this.
The individual who is working on this case with my
department is Don Cook, who is regional director of the Department of Natural
Resources in Thompson, and has been involved with the Canadian Heritage River
Program. We are able to advise the
communities involved of the nominating process and have asked him to contact
the various communities.
Further to that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I just want to make a
few comments on the two rivers that are heritage rivers that have been
designated in Manitoba, one being the Bloodvein, which happened some time ago,
and the most recent one, which basically is the Seal River, which was
designated two years ago. Ironically, my
colleague the now‑Minister of Agriculture in 1991, together with 13 other
people, did a canoe excursion up the Hayes River right up to the York Factory
to the mouth of the bay. They did a fair
amount of‑‑they took video shots, and my colleague has that tape
that he played for me at various times, talking excitedly about the impact of
what they had seen and how they enjoyed it.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
It was because of those kinds of videotapes that they
showed on it that got me enthused about it, and the next thing, you know, not
being a canoeist, in 1992 when Cubby Barrett and the Hayes gang basically had
an opening and I was sort of excited about being involved in their next
excursion, which basically was the Seal River.
What we did then, together with my colleague the now‑Minister of
Agriculture, and myself, together with 12 other individuals, in seven canoes,
flew down to Nejanilini Lodge, and from there we paddled down the Wolverine
River into the Seal and down the Seal into Hudson Bay and then 10 miles up the
bay to a former whale‑watching cabin that the federal government has
there. That was the plan, and the way it
was sold to me at that time ended up being, this is going to be seven days of
the best fishing in the world, floating down river, easy, a little bit of white
water, and it is just going to be a great, great experience.
When we landed out there, at Nejanilini Lodge, the lake was
still half frozen, a lot of ice around at the time, it was cold, snow, and that
is how we started off at six in the morning, the voyageurs, everybody wishing
us well, the people who were fishing out there.
We started off down the Wolverine River.
I have referred to that at times, especially after we came back after 13
days. It was not a seven‑day trip;
it ended up being a 13‑day trip of sheer, stark terror at times, because
the Seal River is a white‑water river, and, as you came out of one set of
rapids, you already saw the next one.
* (1720)
What happened is, there was ice and snow along most of the
shores yet, and this was at the end of June, beginning of July, when we did
this. I said I had never been so cold
and wet since I was born. You crawl into
the sleeping bag at night and see whether you could warm up. But it was a great experience.
We got to the point, even an inexperienced canoeist, and I
was definitely inexperienced‑‑they say an experienced canoeist can
shoot a No. 3 rapid. Well, after
portaging time and time again, carrying all this stuff along the slippery
stones and rocks, we started getting more courageous. Ultimately, even the No. 4s, we just took a
look‑‑and some of these rapids were three miles long‑‑and
you did not know what was at the other end.
You would go down the pike, and away you would go. You had no chance to get to shore because it
was rock and stone and snow and ice.
So that was actually quite an experience. I was probably the most grateful man in my
life when I came back from that trip. I
even was very supportive of my loving wife and said that I would have a
different approach to life after that.
It was quite an experience.
Ironically, it was later that year when the then‑Minister of
Natural Resources, the member for Lakeside, Harry Enns, did the official
designation together with the federal government because it involves the
federal and provincial governments.
So that is, from my perspective, having been on that river,
truly a river that warrants that kind of designation. Now that the Hayes River, which is mentioned
here in the resolution, is part of this consideration, I will refer to my
colleague possibly, the Honourable Harry Enns, the then‑Minister of
Natural Resources, who has paddled the Hayes River as well, and I can relate to
the member that brought forward the resolution the beauty and the impact of
some of these wilderness rivers that we have out there.
It is truly a grand experience when you consider that the
people initially, the fur traders, paddled up those rivers, not
downstream. I just wonder how they did
that. I know they must have been in much
better shape than we were, certainly than I was. The tremendous undertaking of portaging, moving
along these rivers upstream in the fur‑trade days‑‑when you
look at the placid Red that we have here, that is not much of a challenge, but
you get up there and see some of the water conditions that those rivers have‑‑grand,
grand experience doing that.
Aptly named, the Seal River was. For example, it was a fact that as we finally
hit the Seal River within, I think, half an hour, we started seeing seals
appearing, way inland. It took us a heck
of a long time to finally hit the bay and, being experienced seagoing people,
of course, somebody had forgotten to check the fact that there is a tide coming
in and out of Hudson Bay. So we were
getting out towards the mouth of the bay; we were all wet. We had swamped a few canoes. We were getting towards the end of the trip
and we were looking for salvation.
As we were paddling into the bay‑‑and you have
to really experience this‑‑you look out into that bay, and you see
the icebergs in the back‑‑ice floes‑‑and we were
paddling like crazy and hitting more rocks and the water was disappearing. All of a sudden we were in the middle of
nowhere and there is no more water. We
were stranded on a sandbar, 14 of us up to our knees in mud, cold, wet and no
more water, and this is six o'clock in the evening. We then realized the tide had gone out, but
we did not know when the tide was coming back in. We set foot and were huddled in one little
tent, and it was cold because the wind was blowing off the ice floes, and we
sat there and shivered. When the tide
came in, it came in so fast that we barely got time to jump into canoes and
then started paddling against the flow, against the wind, with the ice moving
in and a thunderstorm overhead, and I maintain I lost 10 pounds in the two
hours that we paddled out of fright, to try and make the point.
I say that only as some of the experiences that many of the
people who have travelled all these rivers over the years must have
experienced, and so I have no difficulty basically supporting this, other than
to say that we are already on track in doing it. We will be working with the communities to
establish the impact of it. We certainly
want the support of the communities that are along there in terms of doing this
and look forward to developing our plan and bringing it forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, just
very briefly, because I sense that there is a common consensus to pass this
resolution with some dispatch. My
colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) has already related
to some of the experiences that I have had the privilege of sharing, both with
him and on the Hayes earlier. What is
extremely laudatory about this resolution‑‑and I particularly
applaud the member for Rupertsland for bringing this resolution forward. In his resolution he states that with the
First Nations associated with river, the support has been expressed.
My understanding within Natural Resources and the Parks
Branch that is responsible is that then there might just be a communications
problem and that that ought to be addressed.
My understanding of, my knowledge of the heritage rivers designation is
that it in no way interferes with the traditional use of that waterway, and
that should provide a kind of comfort and assurances to the First Nations
people whose communities border on the river. Trapping, fishing, other kinds of traditional
uses are in no way impeded by this designation.
It is, I think, a tremendous plus to our overall commitment
to our natural environment to formally designate these waterways in this
way. Mr. Speaker, the Hayes River, of
course, unlike the Seal River, which in its physical characteristics is a more
exciting river, is truly a river of international standing with respect to
those professional canoeists. What we
were doing on the river is still open to question, but we made it, because it
is a very senior river with very senior rapids.
There are logs being kept in the one or two‑‑there
is one little bit of a cabin left over, a cabin that the federal department of
water resources uses from time to time to measure water flows in the
river. In that cabin we note for
instance, in a little notebook, past visitors from Sweden, from Germany. International canoeists from around the world
come up to the Seal to experience that particular waterway. I am told that there are only about four or
five canoeing parties a year that have the courage and the expertise to
challenge that river, so it is, quite frankly, remarkable that my colleague and
I survived and made that passage.
The Hayes River has, of course, a much longer and deeper
history associated with it. It was in
the mouth of the Hayes as early as the year 1642 Radisson and Des Groseilliers,
then in the employ of the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Hudson's Bay.
Mr. Enns: No, of the French government, made their
first visit to what is now referred to as Ten Shilling Creek, which is just
four or five miles into the mouth of the Hayes River. I am always surprised by the date, 1642. We consider 1608, Quebec, that early was the
first European touching on the interior of the continent and, of course, the
first contact with our aboriginal brothers and sisters for all the consequences
that flowed thereof.
They then changed sides and joined the English and were
instrumental in developing, with the charter that was granted to the
adventurers, trading into the area of Hudson Bay, and repeated forts were
established at what is now the York Factory site.
Mr. Speaker, let me just in conclusion say that York
Factory, the site itself is a jewel. If
that were in an American or European setting, it would be one of our priceless
treasures that we would be showing off to the tourist industry coming to this
part of North America. It is still in
relatively good shape, maintained by Parks Canada. It would be an automatic destination point
with the designation of the Hayes River and the potential development, of
course, of Manitoba's second national park along that area in the Cape
Churchill area, where the largest area of land was designated just a short year
ago for a potential national park siting, again calling on and requiring the
full co‑operation of First Nations' people involved in that area.
Let me simply encourage the honourable member to make this
kind of a personal achievement. He will
get all the support he requires from the ranks of government ministers. On a personal level, I would consider that a
notable achievement if, during the course of our next little period of time, we
could formally designate the Hayes River as joining that growing list of
heritage rivers that we can be extremely proud of not just in Manitoba but in
Canada. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I, too, will be very brief on
this particular resolution. On behalf of
the Liberal caucus, I would like to indicate our support of this
resolution. I think the Canadian
Heritage River Program is a program that has gained wide acceptance throughout
the province of Manitoba.
I do not believe I can comment quite as extensively as the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) has done in terms of a personal
experience, nor the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) in that his
background with this particular river no doubt is fairly extensive also.
Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, what we heard in the first
half hour is all the wonderful reasons as to why it is that we look at what we
can do for this particular designation of the Hayes River. Having said those very few words, we are
quite prepared to see it pass.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
resolution? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: The resolution is accordingly carried.
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).