LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, June 18, 1992
The
House met at 7 p.m.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
CULTURE, HERITAGE AND CITIZENSHIP
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): Could the committee come to order please. We left off at item 5. Multiculturalism (a) Multiculturalism
Secretariat: (1) Salaries $189,800.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I believe what we were going to do was just to
ask questions on the balance of the
department and then after, in and around between 9:15, 9:30, just pass all of the lines at
that time if it is okay with the
minister.
*
(1905)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): If I can, just before we start, indicate that
I have here copies of the Canadian Arts
Consumer Profile for opposition, Prix
Manitoba Award applications and a grants listing for the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council
for 1990‑91. I will give one to you now and save one for‑‑
Mr. Lamoureux: I wanted to start off by asking some
questions with the Heritage
Federation. It is a major concern that
we have had. Unfortunately we do not have too much time to
deal with it, but I am going to try and
do what I can to try to emphasize how
important this particular issue was to us.
We have asked a number of questions ever
since the budget has been brought down
in terms of what the government's intentions
are with the Heritage Federation.
We had, in fact, introduced a
Matter of Urgent Public Importance because we did not feel that it was being debated, and that it merited and
warranted full debate from within the
Chamber to answer a number of questions.
Maybe I can start off by indicating to the minister that I have had a great deal of correspondence go out
from my office with respect to the
Heritage Federation and actually had solicited
some input, some return mail in the form of petitions, and was very pleased to find out that there was a lot
of support. I know that I have tabled a number of petitions,
unfortunately because a good size of the
majority put their name in the sponsoring box, I was unable to table all of the petitions.
I found there was a lot of support for
what the government was doing was wrong,
that in fact the government could have gone
about the heritage funding in a much better fashion instead of making the decision in the manner in which
they had made it. In fact, I think at last count, in and around 40
petitions were returned to my office.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
Heritage Federation, and I must say I
have had a number, and when I say number, I have had three, maybe at very most four phone calls
regarding the letter that I sent out and
I sent out a few hundred of them at least.
I can honestly say that I have
only had three, four at most, phone
calls and of those phone calls, they were more so in disagreement with the Heritage Federation.
What I had explained to them is that what
we were most concerned about was the
process and felt that the Heritage
Federation was in fact doing a very adequate job. We talked in
terms of what had happened with the MIC and the creation of the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council and the
concern is the direction the government
is going to be taking it? After
explaining that to all three individuals
and one of them was, in fact, a
community newspaper, all three felt that in fact, yes, that I was right in my criticism.
I guess what I am trying to suggest is
that there is no doubt in my mind that
what the government has done to the Heritage
Federation in the treatment of the Heritage Federation is wrong. What the government's intentions are, are
very unclear. The government has talked about having a process
in which they are going to consult and
come back with something‑‑we are not too sure what it is‑‑and there are a
number of questions that come out of
that. The first thing that came to my
mind is, well, if this is the case, why
did they not consult and come back with
something? Why did they not sit
down and negotiate with the Heritage
Federation? Why did they not try to fix
up what they might have believed was
wrong?
So having said what I have just said, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I ask the
minister again as to why it is that the
granting authority was taken away from the Heritage Federation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think I have indicated on several occasions in the House that, indeed, it was a decision
that surrounded the budget. We, the government, over the last five years,
have attempted to run our programs very
efficiently and effectively, streamline
in many ways, the bureaucracy and ensure that the community was the major benefactor of some of
the scarce dollars that have become
available.
We have very little increase in revenue
and major, major increases in
demands. I think it is incumbent upon a
government to use the taxpayers' money
to the best benefit available to go back
into the community to do a lot of the worthwhile things that are done.
*
(1910)
So, in that respect, we have been taking
a look at all of the programs throughout
government, all of the agencies that are
funded, and looking at the way administrative costs have been skyrocketing.
For the Heritage Federation, since its inception in 1985, I think we have a sheet here, and I
can share information with you on how
the administrative costs at the Heritage
Federation have increased since its inception.
I guess 1984‑85 was the first year
the Heritage Federation was
established. The administrative costs at
that time, and granted they were just
getting up and running, were 2.4 percent.
In '85‑86, they went to 8 percent; in '86‑87 to 13.1
percent; '87‑88, 13.2 percent; '88‑89,
17.3 percent; '89‑90, 20.9 percent;
and '90‑91, 26.1 percent.
So we saw over a period of six, seven
years administrative costs going from a low of 2.4 percent of revenue to 26.1 percent.
That is a fairly significant increase in
my mind. That tells me that indeed not all of the money that
should be going to the community is
going to the community, and a bureaucracy was being created that was using money that had been
allocated to the Heritage Federation by
government to distribute to many community
organizations for project grants.
So that was one thing that we
looked at when we looked back at the history of the Heritage Federation.
Now I am not saying that they did not
have money in reserve, but the money
that they had in reserve that they were collecting interest on to pay some of their
administrative costs was indeed money
that had been given to them to distribute to the community.
Obviously, the reason they were able to generate interest was in fact because they were not
allocating all of the money to the
community that should have been going to the
community but, indeed, was being held, and interest was being generated.
Then that gave them a reason to say, well, we are only spending the interest on the money on
administrative costs.
You know, if they reduced their
administrative costs and they had
interest, that interest could be going to worthwhile community projects rather than to
administrative costs. We would have believed when we looked at the program
that we could run a grants program
ensuring that the maximum amount of money got out into the community for considerably less
administrative costs, maybe with one
staff person possibly sharing resources from the department.
Agreed, they had to have some overhead that maybe government might not have to incur because we
already have space and buildings,
government space, that could be utilized for
meetings.
We already have a fairly sophisticated
grants administration within the
Department of Culture that could handle the increased workload of mailing out the cheques, so we
could use resources, would not have to
increase any resources within government to
provide those kinds of things that the Heritage Federation may have had to hire people to do. We know that we can do it within existing resources in the department, so
there might be one staff person, maybe
with a little bit of part‑time secretarial support, that could manage evaluating the grants, and
there could still be a volunteer board
that could make decisions on the grant
applications.
*
(1915)
That was basically the reason. I believe it is incumbent upon us as a government who is trying its
best to maintain or even decrease in
some budgets, personal taxes and, on the other
hand, try to meet some of the increased demands that we are experiencing in many areas of
government. That was basically the reason the decision was made.
Mr. Lamoureux: The more recent agreement that was signed
was back in April of 1990. Did the minister or any of her staff indicate to the Heritage Federation at that
time that their increasing in
administrative costs could put into jeopardy the Heritage Federation from having the
responsibility of giving out the grants?
Mrs. Mitchelson: There was a clause in the agreement with
the Manitoba Heritage Federation that
they were indeed not to exceed $165,000. When we negotiated that agreement, that was a
very contentious point. I guess there was give and take on both sides.
They were informed at the time that their administrative costs were high, and we would have liked to
have seen a lower amount even put into the
agreement, but nonetheless that was the
number that was determined at the time.
They went above that amount in
1990‑91, in the first year of the agreement.
Mr. Lamoureux: Did the minister or the department‑‑I
can understand when you are sitting down
at a negotiating table where figures are
thrown and no doubt everything is talked about, but what I am more concerned with is, is there
any indication given to the Heritage
Federation that they could be in jeopardy of
losing their responsibility of funding heritage grants or allocating the heritage grants because of
increasing administrative costs?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess when you look at the situation that
we found ourselves in when we were
looking at this year's budget process,
we were looking at ways and means of trying to ensure that the dollars that were being allocated
throughout were being allocated in a
very efficient and effective way. They
did go over their allocation and what
they were supposed to be spending on
administrative costs. They were over and
above that.
Now, I know they have come back and said
to us, if only someone had told us. It was stipulated in the agreement; it was a contentious issue when the agreement was
signed. As I said, there was give and take on both sides when we
were trying to negotiate that
agreement. That was the figure that
ultimately was decided upon, but they
did know too that it was not a figure
that we were terribly happy with.
Mr. Lamoureux: Now I am not 100 percent certain, but in some
of the discussions that I have had with
the Heritage Federation, I had
understood that the reason why they had gone over what was agreed upon was because of a particular
individual who was going to be hired to
do a project and that, in fact, the government had some indication of it. Did the government have any indication whatsoever prior to them going over the
agreement level? Did they have any indication of it at all?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that was not the reason that they went over. They were already over what the agreement indicated they could spend, and
they were contemplating at that time
hiring yet another person over and above that.
They did not go ahead with that
process. They never hired that person, but, indeed, they were contemplating
doing that even though they were already
above the amount that was specified in
the agreement that they could spend.
I just want to say, there was a major
volunteer commitment by many, many
people to the Heritage Federation. That
does not mean to say there cannot be a
major volunteer commitment and a broad
cross section of the community still responsible for making the decisions on heritage grants.
*
(1920)
I guess, when you look at it
realistically, probably, space rental is
something that the Heritage Federation will have to spend money on. That is something that we can accommodate
with space that already exists within
government. So we can make reductions to administrative costs in that
way. They need someone to process the cheques and do that
kind of thing. We already have Grants Administration that can
do that.
So, yes, they would need more staff than
we will need to spend money on out of
the lottery allocation for heritage, than
we need within government. That
is the kind of common‑sense, I
suppose, decision that led us to make the ultimate decision, to change the way of delivering grants, not
saying that there will not be a
volunteer component associated with.
There will very definitely be
those in the community who will be part of the
decision‑making process.
So we know that we can do it within
existing resources, and we do not have
to hire extra people. So that ultimately
does bring the administrative costs
down. We know the Heritage Federation could never administer the grants
under $100,000. We believe we can do it for less than $100,000,
maybe considerably less.
First of all, we have mailed out 480
surveys throughout the province to the
community asking for their input. Those
just went out on June 8, and I think we
have already got about 15 or 16 surveys
back. People are wanting to be a part of
the process, helping to affect the
change and what the ultimate result might
be. I will say that all of the
surveys that have come back to date are
positive. They are looking forward to a
new process in place that will ensure
that money comes out to the community.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would
be interested in getting a copy of the
survey if that could be made
available. I wanted to run by
some figures that I was given and ask
for the minister to comment on them.
I understand, in terms of the lottery
funds that were made available for grant
distribution in the '89‑90 year, there was $669,000 of which $630,000 was distributed
through the Heritage Federation. In '90‑91, $712,000 lottery dollars
were given when $673,000 was
distributed. In '91‑92, $712,000
was given and $669,000 was distributed. In terms of percentages, starting from '89‑90, it is 90.5, 94.5, and for the
last year, 94 percent of those monies
were given.
Now the Heritage Federation‑‑and
I know the minister makes reference to
the reserve and will say, well, they would not have been able to achieve that had it not been for
the reserve money‑‑but I
think that the Heritage Federation, especially in the past three years, had indicated to the
government in a very strong way that
they want to get the dollars out into the
community. They did that in the
sense of the monies that they were
receiving through their last three fiscal years, and I would ask the minister if, in fact, this is the
case‑‑and I have no reason
to believe that it is not‑‑why would the minister not sit down with the Heritage Federation and see if
there could be some sort of an
agreement?
Who knows what the agreement might have
been? It might have been to have a staff person from the
department to stick with the Heritage
board making the decisions and so forth.
We do not know that. At least, I do not know that, and I do not
think the Heritage Federation knows
that. I can honestly say that even though I have been the Heritage critic for
the last year, year and a half, the
first time I had contact with the president and
the general manager was shortly after the budget was announced.
So I think, at least as far as I was
concerned, I acted in a very apolitical
manner and deserved at least the opportunity,
given their most recent history, and it seems to be a sincere attempt to get as much of those grant dollars
out as possible.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it was as
a result of the negotiations of the
agreement that we encouraged the
Heritage Federation to spend some of the money that they had in reserve to allocate to community grants.
*
(1925)
I will just go back over the full history
of grants to the community from the
Heritage Federation. Of course, in the
first year they did not spend any
money. In the second year they
spent $504,000. In '86‑87, it was $420,000. In '87‑88, it was $467,000.
In '88‑89, it was $644,000, and then in '89‑90, it went down to $568,000. That was when we negotiated the agreement.
We said:
Look, we are giving you more money to distribute to the community every year, and you are not
distributing that money in grants. We want you to spend more money and allocate
more money to grants.
So, in the two years of the agreement,
they have allocated $630,000 and
$669,000. That was as a result of the
Lotteries Needs Assessment and our
direction that we did not want a lot of
money held in reserve, and we did not want them to be not allocating money to the community that was
given to them for the sole purpose of
distributing to the community.
So those increases in the last couple of
years, that has not been their
traditional level of funding. Indeed, it
has increased as a result of our
direction.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would
suggest that the government was quite
correct in giving direction to the
Heritage Federation in terms of distributing the monies that they are given.
It seems that they were starting to follow that advice of the government.
That is why I can appreciate the concerns
that the minister would have had in its
beginning years when it was not spending
the money towards what it was supposed to be spending the money. But in most recent history it was doing its
job. It was given direction from the government, it was
following that direction.
Now, because it was following that
direction, the minister, for whatever
reasons, did not sit down with the board to say: Yes, you are following our direction, but you
still have your reserve fund; you are
increasing your administrative cost; cut
down the administrative cost.
If they have a problem in cutting down
the administrative costs, sit down with
them and say: Look, we are going to
supply the staff year here, we want your
organization, the Heritage Federation,
to make the decisions. This is the type
of monies that would be made available
so that you can have full participation
from different members and so forth.
I
know, and I am sure that the minister knows, that there is another way of accommodating. She mentions that she has sent out a survey.
If the survey comes back and says, let us create this new organization, and this new organization
is virtually composed of the same
organizations that fall under the umbrella groups of the Manitoba Heritage Federation, then,
really and truly, what we could be
looking at is just a name change, potentially, with the government possibly providing that staff
year.
This is something that should have
occurred with the co‑operation of
the Heritage Federation, unless the minister
knows something that she is not telling us. Were they
unco‑operative? Did she
believe that if she sat down that she
would not have received the co‑operation to achieve the
expected results of cutting back on
administrative costs? Was there something that gave her that opinion?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I will say that if the surveys come back,
and they will come back from a broad cross‑section
because we did send 480 surveys out, and
hopefully we are going to follow up even
with phone calls if we do not receive the surveys back and ask whether‑‑just remind people
that we would like them to participate
in the formation of a new structure. I
guess we can debate back and forth.
*
(1930)
A decision has been made and I am hearing
from the community: Look, the decision has been made; get on with
making the changes and ensure that there
is no lapse in funding or support for
projects in the community as a result.
As I indicated, people are
looking very positively.
I am not saying that there will not be
people who sat on the Heritage
Federation that will not sit on the new granting structure.
All of them have committed many hours of volunteer time, as people within the heritage community
do.
I know that our grant programs to museums
throughout the province are small grants
and they have been small grants that
have been in place and have not changed for many years. We have
got $1,500 for the smallest museums and $3,500 per year that we provide in operating support for those
museums. You know, you do not run a museum with just that little bit of
money, little bit of support, but it all
helps. It is people who volunteer
their time, and basically those museums
throughout our province are run by major
volunteer commitments.
So we know we have got a lot of strength
in volunteerism throughout
So those are the kinds of questions that
are being asked and I can provide a copy
of that survey. I think it is sort of a proposed structure and the only input that I
would have in direct appointment as the
minister would be, that if we got several
nominations from throughout the community, and for demographic reasons, for gender reasons or something,
there might need to be a person or two
appointed to balance out regional or gender
representation; that might be an option if things did not work out.
But other than that, we are asking for
community input. There is a very good
likelihood that people who have sat on the
Heritage Federation will sit on the new grant body.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess I
am somewhat glad to hear that the
minister is looking at a system in which
we see a board that comes from the grassroots, if you will, from the volunteers. I can respect her concerns in terms of
the regions, having input on that board
from different regions, and I look
forward to seeing how she follows up with that as a concept.
But in terms of when she makes reference
to the volunteers, and no doubt there
are literally hundreds of volunteers out there
who will want to participate in whatever form that might be there, but I would suggest that there is also
a significant number of individuals who
will feel hurt by the decision and might
not volunteer for a long time, or again, in that particular area.
I guess what I find tragic about it is
the fact that these consultations or
negotiations did not occur, that the manner in
which it came about, because I would imagine that if the minister sticks true to form in what she just finished
saying, we will see something that
would, to a certain degree, resemble the Heritage Federation, with the possible exception of
having the staff years, because what the
minister earlier tried to point out is
that it is, for obvious reasons, more efficient to run it through her department.
Now I do not necessarily agree with that,
but it is an interesting debate. I think that is something a minister, given the minister of the day or given a different
minister, might want to revisit, and I
think an argument could be brought forward
that, in fact, it might be in the best interest to have the community having that office, especially if
it is a rural office or something of
this nature. It could be a form of that decentralization. There are so many other options that are
out there.
I wanted to confirm a couple of things in
terms of who will be making the granting
decisions in between. Is the minister going to have this granting body established
before the next round? If not, who is going to be making those
granting decisions?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The Heritage Federation in February‑March
made the decisions for the upcoming
year, and that was the $670,000 are for
this fiscal year, and the Heritage Federation has that money presently.
They have paid out some of the first
parts of the grants and the rest of the
money to cover commitment of those allocations
they have, and what they are doing will be transferring it through transition. Any money that has not been paid out in those grants when transition is complete will
be put in a trust account in our
department, and we will finish the final
payments. Some people get some
money up‑front and some money
after the project is completed. I
am not sure exactly what the breakdown
is, but they get progress payments or money up‑front and then money after the completion of the
project.
So sometimes the first grant may have
gone out and the second one then will be
transferred into a trust account so that it can
be paid to the community. If I
can just indicate that over and above
that $670,000 that the Heritage Federation already has in the bank to cover the grants for this year,
there is still about another $500,000
over and above that that was given to them.
They earned interest on it to be distributed to the community. Our legal opinion does say that money also
should go out in grants to the
community.
Mr. Lamoureux: I think that is all the more reason why
the minister would even want to sit down
with the Heritage Federation and see if,
in fact‑‑like, when we start talking about legal opinions and so forth, you are talking about
some fairly uncomfortable sets of
negotiations, because once it has gotten
that serious it is very hard to sit at a table and hope that both sides will co‑operate to the benefit of
all.
The Heritage Federation is covered for
the '92‑93. If I have a museum and I want to make application for
'93‑94, what am I to do?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Normally speaking, what the Heritage
Federation did was send applications out
in the fall for spring approval, and
there was only one application process and all the grants were allocated then. I think what we are hearing in some of
my informal discussions with the
community is that they might like more
than one intake per year.
I do not know what the end result will be
as a result of the surveys. Do they want two or three or four intakes? Are there
certain months that they are more likely to be doing projects than other months, and when are the ideal
times? So we are trying to determine that but we will have a
process in place so that in late fall,
hopefully, applications can go out for a
spring round. It might only be a
partial round in the spring, there might
be spring and fall, depending on what the results of the survey show us, but there will be
something in place and allocations will
be made on time for next year.
Mr. Lamoureux: I mentioned, in terms of how many dollars were allocated out through the Heritage Federation
in the last three years. Can the minister give assurances to the
committee that that level of funding
will be maintained for the next three or
four years at the very least?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can make a commitment that this was not
an exercise to reduce grants to the
heritage community. This, in fact, was a way to streamline administrative
costs so that the maximum amount of
dollars could go out in community grants.
I will say on the record today that I
cannot guarantee that if, you know, sort
of the bottom fell out of the provincial
budget, and we determined that we were going to have to reduce lottery commitments across the board to all
of the umbrella organizations, to
Culture and to Sport and to Heritage and to the
Community Services Council and all of that, there would not be a proportionate reduction. But I will tell you that there is not going to be any reduction to Heritage if
there is no reduction to anyone
else. This is not an exercise to give
less money to Heritage next year.
*
(1940)
Mr. Lamoureux: I received a letter and it was from, I
believe it is a rural newspaper, the
Virden Empire‑Advance, and I can
provide a copy of it to the minister if she likes, but it makes reference to the organization with the
initials SHARE. I will just quote right from the article. It says:
SHARE is to take the place of the
Manitoba Heritage Federation which will disband
on June 30, 1992. SHARE would
like to encompass seven organizations,
archives, archeological history‑‑
She is nodding her head there is no
validity to the article at all. Everyone is nodding their head no. I will not‑‑
Mrs. Mitchelson: You will not waste any time in getting
my answer. It is no.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not going
to waste any time on this and just
proceed on then because I do not have
very much time left in terms of asking some other questions, I did want to again, as a closing‑‑and
I hope the minister will respond to this
particular issue‑‑say that we do feel that the Heritage Federation should be and could be‑‑and
I know that the minister at times can be
very open‑minded. This is
something I would recommend to her in
terms of sitting down with the
chairperson of the Heritage Federation to see if something could be worked out.
At the very least, sit down, talk about
the plans, the surveys and the results,
talk about the administrative costs, the
$500,000 that is still going to be in the reserves and so forth, because I really do believe that this is
something that can be fixed up, that it
is not too late, that even if it means a name
change or something of this nature, I think that we owe it, at the very least, to the volunteers of the
different organizations.
It does not matter what organization is
out there, whether it is MIC or the
Heritage Federation or whatever organization that is out there, there is always going to be
critics. Whatever system the government puts in, there is going
to be critics to it, and I think that is
a given. I also believe that it is
not too late. Having said that, I would recommend to the
minister to sit down. I can honestly say that the organization, as
I pointed out earlier, I sincerely
believe has been extremely apolitical.
As I pointed out, unfortunately because of my own busy schedule, the very first time that I had an opportunity
to meet with them was after the
budget. So I think that it is definitely
worthy of saving, if at all possible,
and I would encourage the minister to do
so.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
The honourable member for Wolseley.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Wolseley will be going back to
the Heritage Federation. I was going to go on to Multiculturalism right now, so as I just start, maybe the
staff could approach or change. This is another major issue that we have
attempted to address in as hard a
fashion as possible. In fact, you
would find, even during my debates, my grievances,
MUPIs we have had on this, numerous
questions and so forth, because there are a number of things that we feel as an opposition
party, that the government is going in
the wrong direction when it comes to
multiculturalism in the
One of those things is‑‑as I
pointed out earlier when we were dealing
with Human Resource Services‑‑in the appointment of the policy analysts, the two positions that are,
in fact, open. But I asked those questions; I am not going to
ask those questions again, because I am
probably going to get the same answer.
But, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what
I would ask the minister now is to tell
us why or what is the role of the
chairperson or the Multiculturalism Secretariat? What
responsibilities‑‑can she give me a typical day, what it is
that the Multiculturalism Secretariat is
supposed to be doing in a typical day?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
would not imagine that within government‑‑and
I am sure that the critic could agree‑‑that
when you are involved in government, in
opposition, I do not know if there is ever a typical day. I am
not quite so sure whether there is a typical day at the Multiculturalism Secretariat either because
there is a diverse group or part of the
community that is dealt with through
Multiculturalism, but maybe I can indicate the kinds of activities that would go on, on a regular
basis, at the secretariat.
There is daily contact with different
groups and individuals. There would be meetings set up with people
who have specific issues that they want
to discuss regarding multiculturalism. There is a need for those who are
working within government in the
Multiculturalism Secretariat to ensure
that they attend community functions, to talk to people, to get feedback on what government should be doing
for communities that have specific
needs.
They do co‑ordination of
intergovernmental activity, and we have
an intergovernmental committee that is held once a month. There are departmental representatives who
attend on a monthly basis to deal with
issues throughout government that might have
an impact on multiculturalism, to ensure that there is some sensitivity in regard to new programs that
are being set up.
Very actively involved
intergovernmentally with the
Multicultural Education Policy that was released by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) during
Multicultural Week‑‑there was
input and co‑operation and consultation with the secretariat.
During the process of our implementation
of one of the Arts Policy Review
recommendations, there was a recommendation that multicultural arts be mainstreamed so that
they were not singled out or ghettoized,
so to speak. They wanted to be a part of
the mainstream arts community, on the
arts side of thing. So there had to be restructuring, by looking at multicultural
grants, looking at the Arts Council and
looking at the department and separating
out what was community arts that the department would be doing, and what would be professional arts
that the Arts Council would be doing,
and what in multicultural grants should
be moved into the Arts Branch or the Arts Council. So those
kinds of things; and the secretariat was the co‑ordinating
body that sort of brought that together.
The Employment Standards Initiative: The Philippine community was the first community that we
used to train a volunteer person to go
back to the community and talk about legal
rights for members of the community.
That was extremely successful in
the Philippine community. I was able,
last week‑‑I guess it was
during Philippine Heritage Week‑‑to go out and listen to a presentation made by the
individual. The second community now that we have gone into is the
Vietnamese community, and we have a
person in that community that is in that process right now.
There are many, many activities that are
ongoing, and I do not know how many
people you meet with on a regular basis from
the community, but I know that I meet with a lot of people and so does the secretariat.
*
(1950)
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, the minister answered the question that
I was really wanting to get at, within
the first minute, actually. That was in
regard to community functions. I know
that Mr. Langtry attends a great deal of
community functions representing the
minister.
I also know that there are other members
of the staff in the secretariat's
office, the policy analyst. I have
seen individuals representing the
government from the Manitoba Grants
Advisory Council at functions. I
have seen, even from the Outreach
Office, going out into the communities and so forth.
I guess, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
normally I think I would encourage
that. I would encourage that the
individuals get out into the communities
and so forth, but I have some concern.
My concern is that these individuals that are civil servants are not used politically. The reason why I say that is that I know when I go to different functions, for
example, quite often the federal
government will be represented through a civil servant. Usually what occurs is that there is
recognition given, that so‑and‑so
is here, who is from such‑and‑such department.
I know that with this particular
minister, what I hear‑‑and I
go to a number of functions as well as she does‑‑time time
after I hear members of the staff going
up and reading letters on behalf of the
minister and on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and so forth.
I have gone to functions where a number of people from these offices are in attendance.
I often wonder in terms of, well, you
know, if they are here, they must work
some pretty peculiar hours. Are we
talking an eight‑to‑five
job? Are we talking eight to twelve
o'clock plus an evening here and an
evening there? What type of commitment are we getting from‑‑as I say,
the Multiculturism Secretariat, I can
somewhat appreciate the government wanting to get the secretariat out, and I can understand, I
really and truly do understand why the
Multiculturism Secretariat goes out.
But I do not understand why it is that we
civil servants, to the degree that we
do, going out to these different events,
because I do not think it goes over as well as maybe the minister is thinking that it is going over. I would ask, what are the hours of these civil servants? Are they obligated, are they instructed to go to these events? Are they going as volunteers? Does anyone that works within the department
represent the minister at a
function? I was hoping the minister
might be able to clarify that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do want
to indicate that the people in the
secretariat and the Outreach Office do
work full eight‑hour days. The
community activities are done on their
own time. They do not get paid overtime,
but they do represent government when
there cannot be a government member of
the Legislature at an event.
We know there are many, many events
within the community, and I know I see
the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) at many, many events.
He spends a lot of time‑‑and I would say this is probably the busiest portfolio within
government as far activities and
events. We both know that it is
extremely busy, and I cannot possibly be
there and do the cultural things, the
women's things, all of those other commitments and be in all places at all times, so we have to depend a
lot on staff. When I cannot attend a cultural activity or a
heritage activity or a women's activity,
staff from the department do go out and bring
greetings on behalf of the minister for government. That is a
normal function within the bureaucracy, and it just so happens that you see so many people, because we do
have so many, many commitments in the
multicultural community. So you would
see people more often maybe in that
community than you would anywhere else.
There are not nearly as many activities
to attend in many other areas or
departments of government, but I have seen federal officials, and we know very often we do not
get a federal minister or member of the
Legislature at a lot of events because
of the distance they have to travel and their being away. I have
at many events seen someone bring greetings on behalf of the federal government on behalf of Minister
Gerry Weiner, on a regular basis at
activities and functions. So that is a
normal part of a government job that
sometimes those are responsibilities
that the bureaucracy has to undertake on behalf
of a minister.
Mr. Lamoureux: Again, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it
is because of the confidence that I have
in civil servants in being ofessionals
that it is important to me that when they attend a function representing a government that that
is the way they are being
perceived. I think that it is somewhat
imperative‑‑there is nothing
wrong with saying I am here on behalf of the minister and then talking in terms of what it is that
they do, especially from the
secretariat's office or the Outreach Office or something of that nature, making it known that this is
an office, this is what we are here for,
feel free to contact, that type of thing.
I think that the minister‑‑and I would be interested in
knowing in terms of why it is that there
is a need to have more than one civil
servant at an event representing the minister.
Mrs. Mitchelson: There would only be one civil servant representing the minister. Any other staff that might be there would be there because of their volunteer
commitment to the community, not asked
to be there, but there as a desire to be
there to network with the multicultural community, which is a very important component of doing a good job
within the bureaucracy. If you know what the needs are in the community, and you can bring those back and try to get
programs implemented as a result of what
you are hearing out in the community, I think
that is a very important part of the job. I will say it is not because they are directed in any way to go,
it is because they desire to go because
of their enjoyment of association with the
communities.
Mr. Lamoureux: I know that it can become very expensive
to attend some of these events, that you
have some that you get free courtesy
tickets at no charge, other events that you are charged to attend.
Fortunately, I have a generous caucus when it comes to buying tickets for me. Now, I would anticipate the civil servants going on your behalf, that in fact
their costs are paid from the government
to attend. In terms of the other individuals, are they expected to pay their
own, I take it then?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: I guess that clarifies that issue well for
me, and I would encourage the minister
that when she sends out people
representing the government, I believe what they should be promoting is in fact what it is that they do,
as opposed to just giving a greeting on
behalf of the minister and talking about
what the government itself is doing, because I think it reflects better on that particular civil servant. It also makes those communities much more aware of it, because
obviously there is more than just one
reason why they should go there on your
behalf. It is also a question of
awareness for those individuals who are
participating in a function. The more
people who know about the secretariat's
office, the Outreach Office, and so
forth, the better utilized they will be.
*
(2000)
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 5.
Are we agreed to take a five‑minute
break? We will recess for five minutes.
* * *
The committee took recess at 8 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 8:07 p.m.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Will the committee come back to order. I understand we are going to be
discussing Multiculturalism. The honourable member for Wolseley.
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): No? The honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). Is that correct?
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): That is correct, and I appreciate the committee's juggling us
around, even though it is not to my
liking that I have to go between Environment and Multicultural Estimates tonight.
An Honourable Member: The clock is ticking.
Ms. Cerilli: Right.
Let us start off dealing with the
secretariat and, I think, three
questions. The minister knows that I
have concerns about the secretariat. I, particularly, was not impressed with
the annual report. I know that the minister says, well, before
the report was developed they were only
operating for a few months. But I had
asked for some specific accomplishments under the Activities section of the department to prove
to me that this office is worth the
money that is going into it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We did go through some of the activities earlier on, but I will go through them again.
There are daily meetings and contact with
community representatives and
organizations. People call in for
meetings to deal with issues that affect
them and things that they would like to
see happen within government. They
hold intergovernmental committee
meetings. There are staff meetings on a monthly basis to discuss issues that
might affect multiculturalism policies,
programs, within different departments.
We talked earlier about the Employment
Standards initiative, where the
Department of Labour and the Multiculturalism
Secretariat have worked together to develop a program to train volunteers from the community to go back out
into the communities and talk about
legal rights of members of the community in all
different areas. It has been very
successful.
The first community that was done was the
Philippine community. Someone has been trained, who has gone back
out now into the community and is
holding community meetings to help
members of the Philippine community know what their rights are under
There was co‑ordination of the
consultation process in the setting up
of meetings for The Multiculturalism Act.
There was dialogue around the
multiculturalism education policy with the
Department of Education, to ensure that what was happening was what we were hearing from the community also,
and that the policy would reflect all of
that.
*
(2010)
What else can I tell you? Those are some specific initiatives.
The one that I talked about before was
the co‑ordination of the Arts
Branch, the Manitoba Arts Council and the Multicultural Grants Council. It was sort of the co‑ordinating
function for determining what was art in
multiculturalism, because one of the
recommendations from the multicultural community in the Arts Policy Review was that they wanted to be
mainstreamed into mainstream arts. They did not want to be segregated into multicultural arts. So there was restructuring done there
and that was one of the functions of the
secretariat.
They were a member of the Working Group
on Immigrant Credentials. They had input into the design and
implementation of the Bridging Cultures
program. They did some co‑ordination for provincial involvement for International
Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination and also Multicultural Week.
Their support staff for the Multicultural
Affairs Committee of Cabinet have met
with deputy ministers to sensitize all
departments that we do indeed want to have input when new programs and policies are being developed. When we do our multicultural tree display at Christmastime
for the community, that is part of their
function.
We will be working on Immigration
Awareness Week, part of the committee to
establish that. Those are a lot of the
things that are ongoing. There are many meetings with communities
based on the Community Calling or
through the Outreach component trying to
reach communities.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the concerns with respect to this
office is that they are doing a lot of
work which is on behalf of the minister,
which sometimes oversteps the boundary of working as a government representative it seems. One of the things is that the staff are appearing at various functions
on behalf of the minister, and I would
like to know if there is a record of the
number of functions that the staff and the secretariat attend on behalf of the minister and what those
functions are. Is a record of that kept?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The process is that a minister gets an invitation to an event or an activity. It is determined whether it can fit into my schedule or whether there
has to be a departmental representative
and that happens right throughout
government. I know I have staff
attending functions for the Advisory
Council on the Status of Women; I have staff attending functions in the arts community and the
heritage community on a regular basis.
We discussed this with the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) too, because I
do not know whether indeed there is another
ministry within government that is as busy socially, and I think the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) could
relate to that very easily, that there
are a lot of activities throughout the
community and many activities that all three parties want to attend and want to have a presence at because
of our commitment.
So I cannot possibly be at
everything. They have asked for a representative to bring greetings for
government, and it is not unusual for a
member of any department to represent government at any number of functions.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I think there is not another department
that has the kind of office that this
minister has that does that kind of
public service for the minister. I am
wondering if there is some kind of
criteria for what staff attend and what staff do not attend.
How are these decisions made?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The decisions are made, in fact, as a
result, in my office. We look at all of the invitations. We see whether it can fit into my schedule, whether I can possibly
attend. If I cannot be there, maybe another MLA could
bring greetings on behalf of
government. If another MLA cannot be
there, then it is a staffperson.
Ms. Cerilli: Would the minister agree that in future and
in reports it would be responsible for
this kind of information to be provided,
some kind of record of what staff have attended, particularly in this department, as the
minister said, because it is so social
and there are a number of events.
I think that it would be responsible for
that to be included in a report, that
the staff would show how they are spending
their time and how much of their time is spent attending events on behalf of the minister.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Staff are only requested to go to
represent government if government is
not going. When you see staff from the secretariat or the Outreach Office or any
area at a function, that is completely
on a volunteer basis unless they have been
specifically asked to go and represent government and bring greetings.
So it is a volunteer commitment on their own time when they attend functions in the community.
Ms. Cerilli: I am to understand that these staff are volunteering?
They are not being paid overtime, they are not being paid for the time that they attend
these events?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely.
Ms. Cerilli: That just makes it even more interesting as
to how this staff is operating, and I
think that the minister can appreciate
that the reason for the raised eyebrows and the
questions is because of the history of the particular staff she has working in the department.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think
the history of someone who was the
president of the Folk Arts Council and
attended many, many, many community activities on his own volunteer time bodes well for someone that
has a major commitment to the community.
Ms. Cerilli: What reports have the policy analysts
completed? What else can we say for how
these staff people are spending time
besides acknowledging that they are going to a lot of social events?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, any
analysis that would be done on
multiculturalism would be analysis and
recommendations to me based on intergovernmental programming. If the
Department of Education was doing a multiculturalism education policy, in fact the analysis would
be done by the secretariat, and
information would be given to me so that when
the policy came around the cabinet table I would have input based on the recommendations that came from my
policy analyst. So it is analysis internal to government that helps
us to develop new programs and policies
that are sensitive to the multicultural
community.
Ms. Cerilli: So that is one example that there has been
some work done on the multicultural
education policy. Are there other policy areas that these two staff have worked
on?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
Immigrant Credentials was one area. The multicultural arts grants, streamlining of that process so that we would
better serve the community needs, the
Employment Standards initiative, the
Bridging Cultures program, The Multiculturalism Act, of course. Those are some examples.
Ms. Cerilli: I did not do the arithmetic, but if we were to
do the arithmetic to add up the amount
of money that is going to pay staff
people working for the secretariat, the Outreach Office and some of the other positions that the minister
has developed in the bureaucracy, and we
were to compare that with the amount of
money going to the community groups, I think that we would see a change in the trend when you look at the cuts
made to Heritage Language, you look at
the cuts made to the Community Places
program, programs like that, there seems to be a trend that is going to developing staff positions that are
working on behalf of the minister as
opposed to having money going in the form of
grants to the communities.
I would like the minister to clarify if
she is aware of this trend, is that
intentional, and what is the impact?
*
(2020)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, indeed it was
a trend that was recommended by the Task
Force on Multiculturalism that was
commissioned by the NDP government before we took over. There was a major undertaking. It was over $100,000 was spent on this task force report that recommended to
government that we did not have enough
people within government dealing with
multiculturalism and they recommended the setting up of a secretariat.
I know that one person that we find
sometimes presents some very
controversial opinions and very often I like to tie his political affiliation to some other party,
and that was in the person of Wade
Williams when he sat on the Manitoba Intercultural Council, and I was meeting with them and
discussing the recommendations that
ultimately came out of that task force
report. He was one of the people,
too, that indicated that, you know,
there really were not enough people serving the community within government.
So it was a decision that was made as a
result of that report when we took over
as government that we would establish a
secretariat. We are at the
completion now of the increases in the
staff, but those were commitments that we made, and we have lived up to those commitments. I believe now that we have got enough resources within government to affect
change to some of the policies and the
programs that will improve government
service to the community.
Ms. Cerilli: I would like to clarify. I do not think that the task force report recommended that you cut
Community Places program grants, that
you cut Heritage Language grants, and there
is a definite feeling out there that there has been a trade‑off, that the community grants are declining. There was stabilization this year, but over the last couple of years
they have declined as money has been
funnelled into the secretariat and Community
Outreach Office.
I would like to ask the minister if the
intention of the secretariat as it was
conceived even in the task force report was
not to be the body that would implement recommendations made to the minister through the Intercultural
Council, and if that was not intended to
be the way that this whole machine would function.
We are moving away from that. We are isolating the Intercultural Council, and you know I have
gone on record a number of times talking
about the way that they have had their
mandate cut back; they have had their funding cut back, their staff.
They have had recommendations ignored.
Like, I understand they
recommended not to have another Outreach Office, and yet we are seeing that they are being
isolated and more and more their role is
being taken up by the secretariat. That
is a concern. Was it not the intention for those two
agencies to work better together, that
the secretariat would be more of the body
that would be implementing recommendations made by the Intercultural Council?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, you know, government has many, many advisory committees
throughout that do make recommendations
to government on an ongoing basis, and
government ultimately has to determine which recommendations they will implement. An advisory body is just that. They do give
advice, but still government has to determine which recommendations they accept and which ones
they implement. That is the role and the function of an advisory
body. We cannot always do everything. Sometimes it is not feasible to do everything or to implement all of the
recommendations that are made, and that
is exactly what the role of an advisory body is.
I believe that the Manitoba Intercultural
Council and the secretariat, yes, can
work fairly closely together, and I know
there is a lot of conversation between the two areas. I guess
the concerns that were raised initially in this question I would like to respond to by saying, yes, indeed,
there has been some concern out there
about the role and the structure of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council and that is clearly why we in fact hired a consultant to look at that, an
independent consultant. I think that all parties could agree that he
has been a friend to everyone. He has never been a person that has had a
political affiliation. I think he has just done some good things for
the multicultural community, and so I am
looking forward to receiving that report
with recommendations on what structure might be the best structure to lead MIC through the
1990s. So I am awaiting that, and when we get those recommendations
we will deal with them.
Ms. Cerilli: I am looking forward to seeing the mandate
for the review. I will ask about that a little later, but I
just want to go back to the minister's
initial comments about picking and
choosing the advice that she gets and reminding her that the Intercultural Council is the legislative body
that is developed to give advice to the
minister, and there is an act which gives
the Intercultural that power. The
minister has used her full legislative
authority in filling as many political appointment positions on that council as she can, so the
likelihood that she is going to get the
kind of advice she wants to get is pretty
good from MIC at this point.
I just find it‑‑oh, I do not
know what the word is‑‑discouraging
that she has the attitude that she can just
ignore MIC in that way. I do not
know who else she consults with. If not MIC, who else is giving the minister
advice? Does she have another ministerial advisory body
that has been created? Is there some other process that she goes
through when she is looking for advice
that she wants to follow? Can the minister clarify that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: No, there is no other formal advisory body
for this government. Indeed, there are many, many people
throughout the community that I meet
with on a request basis, because they
have concerns that they want to bring forward to government. Some communities feel that they can, and they
do come directly to government, not
through an advisory body of any sort. I
mean that is legitimate. I do not refuse to meet with anyone, and
I do not send them off elsewhere. I meet with as many from the community as I can possibly meet with to try
to listen to their concerns and deal
with the issues that they bring forward.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to move to the act that is before
the Legislature and ask the minister one
short question: Why is this legislation so late in the session, so late
before the summer holidays?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I did go through a consultative process
with all of the umbrella groups and
individuals within the community. I was
hoping to be able to deal with everything at once, but I guess I found through the consultative
process that there was no consensus on
the Manitoba Intercultural Council. We
have made a commitment to the
community. Many people wanted to see an
act now and that is the reason the
legislation is here now. The community told us it was time.
Ms. Cerilli: The political footwork with respect to this
whole area is quite an education. I remember going to one meeting with the Intercultural Council where I had tried
to arrange a meeting with them‑‑and
that is another issue‑‑as I have not had letters answered with meetings with them, going
through Mr. Schuler, the chair, going
through his predecessor. The whole issue
of the way that body has been
politicized is of great concern and the fact
that they never used to refuse meetings with critics is an issue.
I want to relate this to the act, and the
whole way that it has been brought in
with this review of MIC and just ask the
question: When was the
Intercultural Council consulted on the
act?
*
(2030)
Mrs. Mitchelson: That was the first organization that was consulted on the legislation.
Ms. Cerilli: When was that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I believe it was in March of this year. I
cannot remember the exact date, I am sorry.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister clarify what were the key
elements that the Intercultural Council
felt were important to put into the
legislation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Of course, the first comment that was made
by the Manitoba Intercultural Council
was that MIC should be included in the
legislation, and then I went around the table
with all of the executive members of the Manitoba Intercultural Council and said, okay, what recommendations
would you make for changes to the
Manitoba Intercultural Council?
I
do just have a list of the comments that were made that I will share.
There was not any general consensus.
Some people said, all of the
members of the Manitoba Intercultural Council
should be elected by the community.
Someone else said, maybe they
should all be appointed by government.
Someone said maybe government
should appoint less. One person who is
on the executive of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council said, I went out
and talked to all the organizations within my community and asked them about the Manitoba Intercultural Council
and they said, we do not need the
Manitoba Intercultural Council because we feel we can go directly to government; we are
sophisticated enough, we do not need to
go through any other organization to get to
government, we can get to them directly.
So she said to her community, are
you saying then you do not need me, and they said, yes.
Those were her comments.
Ms. Cerilli: While the minister is getting a list of
the recommendations for the act from
MIC, I will share with her some of my
experience as a youth activist working with youth‑related issues.
Oh, it has been a lot of years when youth wanted to have a similar body to MIC, and the argument
always becomes, well, if it is an arm's
length body that is funded and is that close, it is never going to work, because they are
never going to be truly able to advocate
on behalf of youth, bring forth their true
feelings and remain autonomous.
There will be some element of
control. Perhaps that is true,
and maybe that is why there has never
been a youth council in Manitoba, I am not sure, but this maybe demonstrates that all of that is true.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Was there a question?
Ms. Cerilli: No, I am waiting for you to respond to my previous question about the recommendations from MIC.
Mrs. Mitchelson: One person said we need to go out more
to organizations, communities, events,
to find out what the community wants. One person said we need to ask the
community what it wants. The act must consider what can be done to
improve MIC. What areas should be implemented? Rural concerns are different from city concerns and there was
some sense that we do not deal
effectively enough with multiculturalism outside the city limits.
There was a question thrown out.
Should all of the people be
elected? Should they all be
appointed? They need to review and improve the election process.
Do we need an MIC at all? Things have changed since MIC was started.
The MIC Act needs to be changed.
There was a concern by one of the
executive members that there was too much
representation on the Manitoba Intercultural Council by white and black people and that there were not enough
people of other ethnic origins
represented on the executive. There was
a comment, we need to look at the role
and the mandate of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council. What are its
goals? Where are we going?
We have been around for a while now; we need to re‑examine it. Is there or is there not a role for MIC to
play? Maybe we should all be
appointed. Maybe we should all be elected.
The perception of multiculturalism as only song and dance continues to lead some to say that we
do not need multiculturalism. We have to examine and re‑examine and
reassess the Manitoba Intercultural
Council.
Those are comments from the executive of
the Manitoba Intercultural Council
through the consultation process.
Ms. Cerilli: I find the comments surprising, and I wonder
what the question was, and I refer back
again to, I was describing earlier a
meeting I went to, I think it was last fall.
I remember it was the same day as
the anti‑apartheid rally, and I
went from there to the MIC meeting, and there was a discussion going on about the role of MIC, and I
understand what has been happening is
they have been bogged down with these discussions.
It surprises me, if they were asked
questions like, what do you want to be
in The Multiculturalism Act, that they would talk about the role of the Intercultural Council,
and I am wondering what was the forum
for that consultation, and how long was it?
Were people given an opportunity to go back? I mean, this is important; this is The Multiculturalism
Act. I do not think that going and having a sit‑down with them
for part of the afternoon is enough kind
of consultation. Did they present any
kind of a brief? I have seen one, but it is dated June 5.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there is
ample opportunity through meetings of
the Manitoba Intercultural Council to
discuss those kinds of things and we have talked about an act now for‑‑well, it was
announced in our throne speech. We talked about it initially when we introduced
the multicultural policy about two years
ago. We talked about it in the
throne speech and said that there was an
act that was going to be brought in this
session.
Now, I would think that, probably, if you
were elected to an advisory body to
government by your community and you knew that
there was going to be an act to be implemented, quite probably you might hold a few meetings with some
community representatives‑‑I
believe some of them did‑‑to ask the community what they felt should happen should there be
changes to the Manitoba Intercultural
Council through this act, and that kind of
thing.
These were the comments. All I can do is indicate to you what the comments were when the question was
asked, what should be in The
Multiculturalism Act? When the first
comment that was made was that there
should be amendments to the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, my question then was, what amendments should we make? These are the comments that I received, so
all I am doing is reiterating the
conversation as a result of that process.
Ms. Cerilli: Yes, it would be interesting to go back and
look at the documentation from the
meeting, knowing somewhat of how the
board works there. I want to
focus on the act a bit more; I only have
a few minutes left.
I raised the issue earlier because a
number of the people involved in the
community are quite disappointed that the policy sections, from the government's policy, that
deal with government responsibility are
not included in the act. I would like
the minister to clarify why we do not
have anything in there about affirmative
action, about reflecting the multicultural nature of our community in boards and commissions and
government services.
Mrs. Mitchelson: When we introduced the policy, there were
three basic principles. They were pride, equality and
partnership. We talked about the principles, that cultural
diversity of
Now I guess I could ask whether there
might be a recommendation or amendment
from the opposition, in fact, to include
the action that government will pursue to follow these policies.
If the community feels that is something that should be included, I might have to seek legal
advice on whether we can put government
action into legislation. I think maybe
we should find that out so I could
clarify that answer.
But these are the steps that government
has taken or is taking to try to reflect
the three policy statements that were
made.
*
(2040)
Ms. Cerilli: I hope to propose that amendment, and I will
take directly from the government policy
to improve my chances of having it
accepted. So if the government can look
into that before, I think it would be
well worth it. We are, as well, looking into that.
I was going to ask, as well: the comments the minister made the other day about not thinking that this
legislation could be directed to all of
government, but that is, in a sense I think,
what she is saying this act is supposed to do. It is not just supposed to enshrine into legislation
existing agencies. It is supposed to give some mandate for all of
government in how to make our community
more sensitive to multicultural realities.
So I would ask the minister to consider;
like I said, I will use the words in the
government policy.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess when we announced the policy,
normally there is an action plan that
would follow and the action plan was
part of the policy document. But I
guess what I will undertake to do over
the next couple of days is, in fact, find out and get a legal interpretation from our legal counsel
on whether in fact actions of this sort
can be included in legislation. I
cannot give you that answer right now,
but we will undertake to find out from
legal counsel and get an opinion from them.
Ms. Cerilli: Will the minister also agree to share that
legal opinion with me, preferably before
we go into the committee that is going
to deal with‑‑I do not know, it is fairly short notice and that is part of the problem with
introducing legislation just before the
break, but we are all working with those kinds of constraints right now. I would just ask the minister if she would consider doing that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can certainly attempt to find out, and,
yes, I would share the intent of the
opinion.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other comments I wanted to ask
the minister about with respect to the
act‑‑there are other things
that I think are lacking in it, but the main thing is what we have just discussed. If we can entertain that kind of
amendment or have that kind of amendment
I would be quite pleased.
The comments that were made by the
minister in the paper when the act was
announced talked about how this is an act that is going to highlight‑‑and I am not
using the exact words I know‑‑but
the intent was that it was going to highlight
similarities and not differences.
I found that surprising to come
from the Minister of Multiculturalism with respect to a multicultural act. This is an act that is supposed to
encourage people, I think, to promote and
practise their culture and to have those
kinds of comments. If I search my pile
of stuff I might find the clipping, but
I know it was in the Free Press.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, indeed, I did say that. This is an act that is attempting to unify our
I will not read right through it all, but
that is the multicultural ideal that we
believe should be, that we are all
members of a multicultural society.
It does not just say I can
practise who I am and what I am in my culture. It is saying
share your cultures. We do have
similarities, all of us. We are all human beings and we have
similarities. It came out very strongly in the consultation process that one
of the words that we needed to talk was
respect for each other and if we talk
respect, that indeed will, hopefully, reflect our actions.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess this is the kind of philosophical
debate we are supposed to get into. We do not have much time, but I also think the essence of multiculturalism is to
celebrate differences, respect
differences, and that we do not have to be
all the same to be unified, that whole idea.
It is interesting the section from the
policy that the minister just read is
the section I think that a lot of
aboriginal leaders have a problem with and one of the reasons that they often do not feel quite comfortable
with the whole concept of
multiculturalism. I would certainly
think that as a society we want to make
sure that we are inclusive of them as
much as possible.
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is exactly why in any of my comments I
say that we are a multicultural society
and we were a multicultural society from
the beginning of time, because our aboriginal
peoples who were here before any of us came were indeed multicultural. They had different languages; they had
different cultures; they came from
different areas. In my mind that is multicultural. They were not all the same; they did not
speak the same language; they did not
share the same customs or
traditions. So when I talk about
Manitoba being a multicultural society,
I am talking from the beginning of time.
Ms. Cerilli: I had hoped to be able to raise more
questions about the review of the
Intercultural Council to get a better
sense of what led up to this review.
What were the events that led up
to the review, particularly‑‑I will even use the word suspicious, because it is‑‑coinciding
with the act being announced?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the reason
the review came up was indeed because I
consulted on the multicultural act, and
it was the Manitoba Intercultural Council
in many instances that indicated there needed to be a review of the role and structure.
Ms. Cerilli: Some of the people I talked to though
were surprised that it was announced
just the Friday before the act was announced. What was the minister's thinking in doing
those two things simultaneously?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we made
a commitment to bring in a piece of
multicultural legislation this session. There is a need to very quickly determine
what the role and mandate and structure
of the Manitoba Intercultural Council
are because in fact we are due for a biannual assembly next year.
If there are amendments to be made to the Manitoba Intercultural Council Act they should be made
in time for the biannual assembly. So that was the rationale for doing the review right now.
Ms. Cerilli: I have tried to do a little bit of
background research into Heritage
Language programs. I want to note for
the minister‑‑I am not sure
if she is aware of the decline in
Winnipeg No. 1 of student enrollment in Heritage Language programs.
I have the numbers; they are down by a full percent. I also want to ask about the amount of money
that this government is currently
spending on Heritage Language programming in the multicultural community. Where would I find that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that would be
in the Department of Education in the K
to 12 system in Winnipeg School Division
No. 1, Heritage Language programs.
Ms. Cerilli: That is the only place currently where there
is Heritage Language programming in the
school system?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Ms. Cerilli: Is there some consideration for developing
more funding for community‑based
programming outside of the education
system and Heritage Language? I
know the minister has included some
rhetoric or description of this in the legislation, in the policy, but in fact we do not see that
translated into any action. The communities‑‑again, this is
another big issue. It is right up there with accreditation, that
fundamental to their culture is their
language, and if we are going to put in the
policy in the act we certainly should have programs that communities can have some ownership of.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there are secondary Heritage Language programs that are
funded through the Multicultural Grants
Advisory Council that are not within the
school system, but I think the question was asked about the declining numbers in Winnipeg School Division
No. 1, and that would be the Department
of Education. But there are programs through the Multicultural Grants Advisory
Council that do support Heritage
Language programming in communities.
* (2050)
That is not to say that more cannot be
done, and I guess because this was an
issue that was raised on a regular basis
through the consultation process we felt it should be included in the act.
We have had meetings with members of different communities, and not only is it important to
preserve and enhance heritage language
but we have come to recognize the value of
heritage languages to
Ms. Cerilli: Other provinces have special funds for
Heritage Language granting
programs. We used to have one in
this province. I would ask if the minister intends to
develop something like that again, not
just relying on the MGAC, which is
pretty limited. I mean, there are
a lot of different kind of programs that
are now seeking to use that fund, and given that there have been cutbacks in some of the other
programs, I would just make the
recommendation that they resume having a granting program to fund community‑based
Heritage Language programs.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess on an ongoing basis we will be
and should be examining the kinds of
programs that are within government that
might need changing. If there are
higher priorities, we are going to have
to refocus our energies and resources in
the appropriate areas‑‑and I am sorry, I am getting a little tongue‑tied, making a few
mistakes‑‑but that is one of
the things that we are going to have to look at. As needs emerge and as priorities change, I think it is the
responsibility of government to look at
different ways and reprioritization of the
dollars that do presently exist to do new and different things.
Ms. Cerilli: I will just wrap up with some comments
about another program that is being
changed that the minister mentioned, and
that is removing the arts grants from
Multiculturalism. I have been
contacted by some people that were not
pleased with the way that this was handled.
That now groups only have until
the end of June to apply for arts grants, and
they used to have until August.
It is even more confusing,
because it is a different program, and they are not quite sure applications have been changed for them. I appreciate the minister said that this was recommended in
the review that was done.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I will look into that. I was not aware that there was that concern. I think we will have to examine that. If there is any more detail or information
that could provided on that, I would
certainly look into it. The process was
a process of consultation and developed
in conjunction with all of the players
involved. If there is a specific
instance or if you are hearing some
things, I would appreciate knowing about them and seeing what the problem might be.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 5.(a) Multiculturalism.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think we had agreed to revert to Heritage for
a few minutes or to the Heritage
Federation, I should say.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Okay, if that is the will of the committee, we will revert to
Heritage.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. There are just a few minutes to discuss this. I was not here unfortunately when the member for Inkster
(Mr. Lamoureux) was speaking, so if I am
repeating some of his questions perhaps the
minister can tell me and I can read them in Hansard.
I wanted to start first of all by, I
guess, repeating some of the things that
we have said in Question Period and that is that we want to reflect, I think, some of the
anger and the anxieties that the
heritage community felt when the minister apparently refused to meet with them on a number of
occasions, did not look or accept in
person or even through her deputy minister the
review that the Heritage Federation themselves had initiated.
There is a general sense in the community
I think that there has been a great loss
of confidence in the minister on this
particular issue and a feeling that the willingness of volunteers and the many hours the volunteers have put
into the Heritage Federation and into
the granting procedures have been let down.
I wanted to ask the minister some
questions based upon that. I know she
said many times that one of the reasons for her
dissatisfaction with the federation was the extremely high proportion of funds going into
administration. This is always a problem, of course, for a group which has a
relatively small amount of funds to
distribute, that the administration costs at a
certain level are somewhat fixed, and then beyond that, obviously, the more money you have to give
away, the lower your fees essentially
decline. I wondered what the
minister's dissatisfactions with the
federation were beyond that? Did
she have any other criticisms of the
federation?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I did go into a fair amount of detail with
the member for
I do know the Heritage Federation was
looking again at hiring another staff
person. They did not go ahead with that;
they did shelve that, but indeed they
were looking at that. So that was the one thing and I guess the main thing,
because when we look at the budget
process and we look at ways of trying to ensure that the maximum number of dollars go to the
community, we have to look at administrative
structures. This is probably the
highest administrative cost of any of
the umbrella organizations that do
distribute funds, so that was basically the way.
If we can get more money to the
community, with less administrative
costs, obviously the community will benefit.
Ms. Friesen: The other way of looking at that, of course,
is if a larger proportion of lottery
monies were going to Heritage, then
their administrative costs would come down pretty rapidly.
So the minister then had no other
dissatisfactions with the federation,
other than administrative costs and perhaps what the minister might perceive as their lack of
recognition of this?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess there were some things that we
had heard from community groups and
organizations, that there was a need to
simplify the application process and maybe one deadline was not quite enough, one round of grant
application processes was not
enough. There were those little things
that we had heard from the community,
but basically it was the decision to try to
streamline the administrative portion.
Ms. Friesen: So does the minister then plan any changes in
the granting program?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We have sent a survey out to some 480
people, organizations throughout the
province and have started to receive
responses back. Those are the
questions that we have asked. We have asked whether they want more than one
application deadline, any suggestions on
how we should streamline the process, so you
can maybe remove a bit of the bureaucratic red tape. We still
want accountability and I think both sides want that.
There has to be accountability for the
funds that are expended, but maybe,
there might be a way that things could be
dealt with in a more streamlined fashion, so that we are not spending as much time filling out grant forms
and doing reports and that kind of
thing. We are trying to find a balance
in between those two, a little less
bureaucracy, while maintaining
accountability.
* (2100)
The other part of the process will be
nominations from the community. I guess we have asked the question on who and
what organization or who should be
making nominations. I think it is important that we have a rotational‑‑people
sit for three years and then other
members of the community have an opportunity
maybe. That was what I
presented. Does that sound like a
good number of years to serve, and
should we stagger them?‑‑so that
you always have more people coming in.
One of the questions that we did ask,
too, was: Would it be important for the granting body on a yearly
basis to meet with the heritage organizations
to see what their priorities are, what
priorities they have set for the upcoming year or two looking into the future, so that when they are making
decisions on the grant applications,
they have the input from the expertise in the
organizations that represent heritage.
Those are the kinds of questions we have
asked for input on. We have asked them,
too, to rank‑‑I can provide a copy of the questionnaire, too. How should grant requests be
prioritized? Should they be on a first‑come,
first‑served basis? Should it
be a percentage of the total requested,
regional balance, quality and that kind
of thing? Those are all questions that
have been asked for input, and the
responses are coming back, and we have
got some good responses back so far.
Ms. Friesen: One of the unusual aspects of the
Heritage Federation was its definition
of six or seven disciplines, including
archives, museums, genealogy, archaeology.
Does the minister intend to
continue that representation? I think it
was a representation which was decided
by the community. It is unusual, and it is different from other
provinces. Is that something you plan to continue to still
reflect?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are not intending to narrow it in any
way, if I can answer it that way.
Ms. Friesen: That does not quite answer it. Are those the
bases, are those the groups which you plan to continue to recognize as granting disciplines?
Mrs. Mitchelson: That is a good question. That is not a
question that we did ask on the survey.
I suppose it maybe could have
been one, and I wonder if we could follow up in any way?
I guess if I could just seek some
clarification on the question. Is it whether the suggestion might be that we
do change the disciplines or is that
something that‑‑
Ms. Friesen: What I am thinking of is that now you have
brought this into the department, it is
not the same way in which the
department, for example, looks at the community. How, for
example, are you going to integrate or examine the overlap or look at the conflicts perhaps between your
museums granting program, your other
publication programs, et cetera?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Ultimately we might do that. I think the first thing we want to do is get a system in place
so that the heritage community still
receives grants next year, and if we can put in
place some guidelines and some criteria that satisfy the majority of those who respond to a consensus of
responses anyway, and get that up and
underway, that does not necessarily mean to say that things will not change, maybe one way then
that we can get at the situation.
You know, we did that with the arts side
of things where you try to do a little
bit of block funding rather than grant project
by project because it does involve a lot of volunteer time and commitment to fill out applications.
I think that would maybe be the next step
in a process whereby we look at and
evaluate and try not to have organizations
applying in too many different places for money, but making it easier to apply and get, based on certain
criteria and guidelines. That may come in the future, but I think the
first priority will be to ensure there
is a grant program in place.
Ms. Friesen: Will you be looking at the review that the
Heritage Federation themselves did and
did not have the opportunity to present
to you? Will you be including that in
your considerations?
Mrs. Mitchelson: We have asked several times of the
Heritage Federation to share that review
with us, and they have to this date
refused.
Ms. Friesen: Were those requests made in writing, in
formal request?
Mrs. Mitchelson: You know, the transitional team that has
been working with the Heritage
Federation has asked on many occasions. I do not recall whether there has ever been
anything in writing. There may not have been, but it has been a
verbal request.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, my last
question is‑‑and you may,
again, have already touched on this with the
member for
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, although I
have not received a response from the
community, I have sent a letter out to
the community. We know the $670,000 that
has been allocated for this year's
grants is available within the Heritage
Federation, and we are going through the transition so that everyone that has applied and finishes their
project will get their grant money. Some of it went from the Heritage
Federation already this fiscal year; the
rest of it will flow from the
department.
But over and above that, there is still a
pot of some $500,000. Our legal interpretation is that it belongs
to the community in the way of community
grants. That is what we want to see happen with the money, and we know
there are needs out there that cannot
always be met, and maybe it is an opportunity
to do some extra things this year or maybe over a period of a couple of years.
I believe the Heritage Federation is
meeting on the weekend with its
membership. They will be discussing that
aspect and the surplus and that kind of
thing. I cannot determine what will come out of that meeting on the weekend, but
I do know that we believe it belongs to
the community.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 5.(a) Multiculturalism Secretariat: (1) Salaries $189,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $61,000‑‑pass.
5.(b) Community Access Office: (1) Salaries $68,500; (2) Other Expenditures $10,000‑‑pass.
5.(c) Manitoba Intercultural Council
$220,700‑‑pass.
Item 6. Expenditures Related to Capital
$190,300‑‑pass.
*
(2110)
Resolution 23: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $550,000 for
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Multiculturalism, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 7. Lotteries Funded Programs (a)
Grants to Cultural Organizations: (1) Grant Assistance $4,806,300‑‑pass;
(2) Grant Assistance ‑ Capital
$7,032,000‑‑pass.
7.(b) Arts Grant Assistance $4,307,500‑‑pass.
7.(c) Public Library Services Grant
Assistance $1,951,200‑‑pass.
7.(d) Historic Resources: (1) Grant Assistance $827,600‑‑pass; (2) Grant Assistance
‑ Capital $400,000‑‑pass.
7.(e) Recreation Grant Assistance
$923,000‑‑pass.
7.(f) Regional Services Grant Assistance
$39,000‑‑pass.
7.(g) Provincial Archives Grant
Assistance $54,300‑‑pass.
7.(h) Community Places Program: (1) Salaries $197,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $73,100‑‑pass;
(3) Grant Assistance ‑ Capital
$4,000,000‑‑pass.
I have to go back to one other
resolution, with your permission.
Resolution 24: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $190,300 for Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship, Expenditures
Related to Capital, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
7.(j) Manitoba Arts Council $5,345,200‑‑pass.
7.(k) Multicultural Grants Advisory
Council $900,600‑‑pass.
7.(m) Manitoba Heritage Federation
$400,300‑‑pass.
7.(n) Manitoba Community Services Council
$3,643,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 25: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $34,900,900
for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
The last item to be considered for the
Estimates of the Department of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship is the item of
the Minister's Salary of $20,600, and at this point I would like to ask the minister's staff to leave the
table for consideration of this
item. Shall the item of $20,600 pass?
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to
ask the minister about the Queen's
Printer. I gather there are some policy changes in store for the Queen's
Printer, and I wonder if the minister could
give us a quick summary of what she is
anticipating and what she expects the benefits to be.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not
have staff here to give any detail, but
I can indicate that we looked at running
the Queen's Printer as a special operating agency last year.
That process has not taken place, and there is a review ongoing right now within the Queen's Printer
and the results of that review I guess
will be known after the review is completed.
It is not as yet completed.
Ms. Friesen: So the decision is not yet made?
Mrs. Mitchelson: No, it is not.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I just want to
put some closing remarks on the record,
just a couple of minutes.
I think it should be duly noted that I
did not move a motion to delete the
funds from MGAC this time. It goes to
show that I can learn, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, and no doubt‑‑[interjection!
I see a number of people recall that
particular motion, even though I still sincerely believe that it was a valid and good motion, and had it
received the support it deserved, in
fact, we might have MIC distributing funds today.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did want
to in closing make some brief comments
on the piece of legislation that we have
before us in the sense that there are some positive things that are in the legislation, some things that we
would like to see out of the
legislation. There are some things that
we would like to see in the legislation,
and the biggest thing that we want to see
in the legislation that I did not really get an opportunity, because of the time to question the minister
on during the Estimates was in fact
Manitoba Intercultural Council. I want
to assure her that it is not because there
was a lack of interest, just a lack of
time, in dealing with that particular issue in the Estimates this time round and, no doubt, next
year, because we will also have a report
from her group indicating what they
believe MIC should be doing or what type of a future it holds. No doubt it will lead to a very interesting
debate during the Estimates next year.
I did want to comment once again in terms
of the Heritage Federation and again
express to the minister that it is
unfortunate that it has happened in the manner in which it has, but being an eternal optimist, as I am, I do
think that there is some chance that, if
the minister herself chose to sit down with
the representatives, they would be able to work something out, no doubt, at least in terms of co‑operating
in finding out what it is that the
government wants to be able to achieve.
We highlighted a number of areas, both in
the Culture, Heritage and Citizenship
areas. Unfortunately, again because of the time, we did not get to ask as many
questions that I would have liked to
have asked in some of the areas that are still
somewhat unknown to myself.
Hopefully next year, we will get
Culture and Heritage closer to the top of the Estimates so that we can have a good number more hours, so we
can have a bit more debate.
An Honourable Member: We cannot trust you, Kevin. You will move
another vote.
Mr. Lamoureux: The NDP Leader‑‑he can trust me.
[interjection! It will not be more than
30 hours, but I think 20 to 25 hours of
equal, split time might be kind of a nice thing. We probably
would not be in the negotiations so I would be able to participate in a very full fashion. Unfortunately, I was not able to this year.
With those very few words, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, we are prepared to
pass the Minister's Salary.
Ms. Friesen: I had a few closing remarks, too. I would like to thank the minister's staff. Even though they are not here, she could convey our thanks to them for coming
back and forth to the table and
accommodating the different needs that we had during the Estimates process.
I also want to make the point to them and
to you that we did not discuss some
things, at length or even at all, that I would
very much have liked to have done, particularly Heritage, the Archives, the Information Services,
recreation policy. I think we passed over all of those very, very
quickly. Film policy, as well.
I think in both of those areas‑‑the last two areas, Recreation and Film Policy‑‑that
there are some things that the minister
probably would have wanted to put on the record and some questions that we would have had too.
What we did concentrate on, at least from
our perspective, was Arts and was also
the policy and research aspects of the
arts. My own perspective is that
what is happening here in this
department is an increasingly narrow focus. I very much regret the absence of any kind of policy research
that I talked about at the beginning.
I think that some of the monies that were
cut from policy research about two years
ago are now beginning to show. It
shows particularly, I think, in the absence
of innovation and in the absence of a
sense of developing audiences and developing a
broader access, not to consumption of cultural activities, per se, but to participation and to the broader
education of the population and, indeed,
of people who will go on to become
professional artists as well. It
is that area that I see shrinking, and I
do not see a departmental focus on that.
Some of the things, I think, were
included in the DeFehr Report‑‑not
all of which I would accept but some of which I still see the department not making very great
strides in. The obvious one, of course, is the increasing dependence,
in a shrinking budget, upon Lotteries
funds, something that the DeFehr Report
and just about every other report across Canada would have said was not the direction that culture should be
going.
* (2120)
I am surprised in some areas of absence
of policy in the department, one of
which is, particularly, the absence of
research in sponsorship, the amount of corporate and private donors that are available in Manitoba for
culture. For a government which is so clearly dedicated to
dependence upon the market, that
surprised me. I wanted to stress to the
minister again that it seems to me, even
for a government which is so oriented to
the market, there are things only government or only independent public policy institutes can be
doing.
There are some things which the market
does reasonably well, as I said before,
and not necessarily equitably, but it does
distribute some goods. There are
some goods which cannot be distributed
by the market, particularly in cultural terms.
I would like to direct the
minister's attention to that as one of
the focuses even for a Conservative government in this period.
I do think there are areas of
relationship between tourism and
heritage, between heritage and education, and between the arts and education, and between the arts and
tourism which are not being developed by
this government, and I think there is a
very direct economic impact that is having. I would like to see much more effort made by the department in
that area. Again, I know some departments are not responsive to
it and have not been in the past.
So I wish the minister well in that, and
that is certainly one area that I would
look for some changes next time, perhaps
even to getting the Winnipeg Art Gallery onto the tourist map that the province publishes.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will be
quite brief in my closing remarks and
indicate that I want to thank both of
the critics for their co‑operation‑‑well, actually three critics, the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) also, who has been hopping from
committee to committee tonight, trying to get
through dealing with all of her responsibilities.
I think we have had some good debate, and
philosophically, in some areas, we may
disagree. Some of our directions may not
be the directions necessarily that other
political parties would take. Nonetheless, we are government, and we are
here to make decisions, and we are here
to try to do the best thing for all
Manitobans.
In the area of culture and the arts, I
indicated that our focus was on
empowering the community and community organizations to look at the needs. I do not believe we should be taking a
big brother or big sister approach to
directing to a community what kinds of
activities should be happening, that they have the resources and the energy and the enthusiasm. We are there to support community initiative and, yes,
provide some leadership. But I think
they know what audiences they may attract and the kinds of activities that should be
undertaken. So we are there to provide some leadership, but we also are
there to support community initiative.
Just to briefly talk about Lotteries
dollars and funding for the arts, and we
do go through this debate. It is too bad
the former member from Crescentwood was
not here this year to add his comments
on that subject. If you look at
Lotteries dollars and what is happening
with Lotteries dollars, how government across
the country are looking for ways and means of increasing Lotteries revenues, it is probably a more
stable source of income generation than
the tax dollar is.
So we have been able to maintain a lot of
our Lotteries programs throughout government
and maintain funding for the arts and
heritage through those Lotteries sources.
We will be placing more of a
focus on tourism and culture and heritage over the next year.
As far as The Multiculturalism Act goes, I would like to see smooth passage of that through the
Legislature this session so all three
parties can show a commitment to the multicultural community through this legislation.
I will wrap it up by saying, thank you
very much to the staff of the Department
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship for their
hard work, their dedication and their commitment. We have had
four good years, and each year the relationships get better, and we tend to be able to move ahead with policy
and programming to reflect the needs of
Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I too just
wanted to thank the staff, even Mr.
Langtry, for all the work that they have
done. Thank you.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 19: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,695,100
for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
I would like to, before we end, thank the
minister, her staff, all members of the
committee for the professional way in
which they have conducted the consideration of the department. Thank you very much.
This completes the Estimates of the
Department of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship. The next set of Estimates
that will be considered by this section
of the Committee of Supply are the
Estimates of the Legislative Assembly.
What is the will of the committee? Do you want to recess for a few minutes before you go on?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there had been agreement to deal with Justice
and Aboriginal Justice before. We are quite prepared to deal with it
now. I
can indicate that we will be passing Justice, including the minister's salary, but we will be keeping
Aboriginal Justice open, and we may get
into Aboriginal Justice later, Monday.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): The indication that I have received is that there should be a consideration
of the Legislative Assembly before we
deal with Justice and the AJI, and other
miscellaneous matters.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): We will then start the consideration of the Legislative
Assembly which starts on page 8 of your
main Estimates book.
Does the minister responsible have an
opening statement?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House
Leader): None, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Does the critic of the opposition have an opening statement?
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
How about the critic for the second opposition?
An Honourable Member: None.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, I just have one question under this area, and the Estimates
are obviously reviewed by members of the
Legislature in the committee, but one of
the matters that has been raised in a public way recently deals with an item under Elections Manitoba,
and that is the whole issue of a
referendum.
There have been proposals and specific
pieces of legislation that have not yet
been dealt with in this province, dealing with
a referendum. I know that elections
cost a considerable amount of money, and
I know that not all that money would be required for a referendum, insofar as you would not
have, obviously, rebates for election
expenses, but I would like to know is there
an approximate estimate for a provincial referendum, which has been proposed publicly in the Legislature by
some members.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): I am advised, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
that the cost of the last election in
Manitoba was $3.2 million to run the election,
and that is to say nothing of the cost of reimbursement of political parties and candidates. I do not know that number offhand‑‑another $2.2 million, I
am told, so that sounds like a total of
about $5.4 million, $5.5 million which you could expect to be the cost of a referendum if you had to
carry out the same enumeration process
and rent the same number of balloting places
and so on, so those are the numbers I have been given.
*
(2130)
Mr. Doer: So roughly over $5 million. A second question, there have been questions to the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) a couple of weeks ago in
the House where he stated that he was, quote:
open to the idea, he did not close the door, he did not open the door.
Does Elections Manitoba have a
contingency plan? I understand it would not have any control of a
federal referendum which has been costed
at $100 million; but is there a contingency
plan in the province itself for one?
Mr. McCrae: Other than the basic machinery that is always
there at Elections Manitoba to cover an
election which so often seems to happen
in this province, I cannot say that there is anything. In fact, I know there not to be anything
because there is no legislation in place
that would mandate such a thing.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. McCrae: There has been no study conducted in
Mr. Lamoureux: Is the government considering it at all?
Mr. McCrae: I am told by Elections Manitoba that the
government has given it no instructions
or raised the issue.
Mr. Lamoureux: I would suggest to the minister that it
is something that is worthy of, at the
very least, the government to look
into. In fact, a list of this nature
does not just ask to be provided for a
general Manitoba election, but also could be
provided for civic elections, could be provided for things such as by‑elections and so forth.
There are many different uses that one
could have, with the overriding concern,
one of confidentiality of course; but the
province should not be ruling it out.
I know the Leader of the Liberal Party
(Mrs. Carstairs) had introduced a
resolution in the Chamber dealing with this, and I believe it was the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) or someone from the
government benches had indicated that this is
something that should be pursued.
I would encourage the minister, that it
is definitely worthy of looking in terms
of what the costs would be and to see if
there would be some sort of an interest where you could actually provide these lists, maybe not just for
provincial general elections‑‑again
of course, with the confidentiality being one of the most important aspects.
Mr. McCrae: I have been involved in one way or another
in legislative processes since 1975, and
at least since then this discussion has
been had from time to time. The comments
of the honourable member are worthy of
note and may indeed arise in Manitoba
some day, but I do not have any immediate machinery in place to put such a system in place.
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister says that these discussions
have happened for a long time, since
'75. That might be the case, and we can sit around a table, whether it is
here, whether it is through LAMC or
whatever committee you might want, or in formal
conversation; but unless, of course, the province makes a minor commitment to at least look into the
possibilities of having something of
this nature, because of today's technology, I would imagine that it is not going to be as costly
as the government might think,
especially if you look at the resources.
We have one of the best data
banks that are here through our health
services, and the medical information is something that would not be needed, but in terms of the name and
address and so forth, there might be a
way in which, given today's technology,
something of this nature could be accomplished.
The only way the government would be able
to find out for sure one way or the
other is, in fact, to at least look into the
matter. I would suggest on that,
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we could
go ahead and pass this section, but at least the government should look into it.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Since there is no line dealing with administrative salaries, we
will begin with line 1. Indemnities
(Statutory) (a) Members $2,464,600‑‑pass; (b) Speaker's, Deputy Speaker's and Deputy Chairman's
additional Indemnity and Speaker's
Intersessional Payment $21,500‑‑pass; (c) Opposition House Leader, Party Whips $7,500‑‑pass.
2. Retirement Allowances (Statutory) (a)
Allowances and Refunds $1,288,200‑‑pass.
3. Members' Allowances (Statutory)
$2,782,900 (a) Access and Constituency
Allowance $1,500,100‑‑pass; (b) Living Allowance $441,600‑‑pass; (c) Committee
Allowance $33,800‑‑pass; (d)
Mileage Allowance $219,600‑‑pass; (e) Special Supplies
and Operating Allowance $108,900‑‑pass;
(f) Members' Printing Allowance $223,400‑‑pass;
(g) Speaker's Expenses $3,000‑‑pass; (h) Deputy Speaker's Expenses $500‑‑pass;
(j) Car Allowance $252,000‑‑pass.
4. Other Assembly Expenditures (a) Leader
of the Official Opposition Party $165,600‑‑pass;
(b) Leader of the Second Opposition
Party $15,600‑‑pass; (c) Salaries $1,997,300‑‑pass; (d) Other Expenditures $902,600‑‑pass;
Hansard $673,400 (1) Salaries $429,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $243,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,754,500
for Legislative Assembly, Other Assembly
Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
5. Provincial Auditor's Office (a)
Salaries $2,734,000‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $176,600‑‑pass.
* (2140)
Resolution 2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,910,600
for Legislative Assembly, Provincial
Auditor's Office, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
6. Ombudsman (1) Salaries $650,100‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $83,700‑‑pass.
Resolution 3: Resolved that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $733,800 for
Legislative Assembly, Ombudsman, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
7. Elections Manitoba (1) Salaries
$298,100‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $38,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $336,300 for
Legislative Assembly, Elections
Manitoba, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
We can now pay Elections Manitoba. That completes the resolutions dealing with the Legislative
Assembly. We can now continue the operations of the Legislative
Assembly.
JUSTICE
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): As previously agreed by unanimous consent in the House
today, the Department of Justice and
Aboriginal Justice Initiatives were transferred to this section of the Committee of Supply
meeting in Room 255.
The only line remaining for Justice is
1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 95: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,735,700 for Justice,
Administration and Finance, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1993‑‑(pass). [interjection!
Your salary.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): My salary?
You guys had me going there for a while, you know.
ABORIGINAL JUSTICE
INITIATIVES
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): The committee will now consider the line and resolution
dealing with the AJI on page 153 of the
main Estimates book.
Item 1. Aboriginal Justice Initiatives
$1,000,000‑‑
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there is an agreement to hold
that item until Monday.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Is there agreement that we hold this item till Monday?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): That is agreed,
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Okay. That is
agreed, and we will hold that item till Monday.
CANADA‑MANITOBA
ENABLING VOTE
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): The committee will now be considering the lines and
resolutions dealing with the Canada‑Manitoba
Enabling Vote on page 150 and 151 of your
main Estimates book.
Item 1.(a) Partnership Agreement in
Tourism (1) Operating $54,000‑‑pass
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,807,800
for Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I did not hear the Chair.
Which item were you proposing?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
I am proposing the resolution of the Canada‑Manitoba Enabling
Vote.
Mr. Doer: The total vote?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
$5,807,800.
Mr. Doer: Okay.
I have some questions on it.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Just hold the
line a minute.
Mr. Doer: Yes, I will ask three or four questions and
then if the minister can take those
under notice and give it to the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) who is usually responsible for this issue.
What is the $1 million for Urban
Development Agreement for Winnipeg
for? Does it have any specific
purpose? What specific function does it have? Through which department will it flow, and what are the objectives for that amount
of money? It is a new sum.
Secondly, I notice the Core Area
Agreement, the majority of it is for
capital. I would just like some
explanation as to the specifics of the
capital expenditures.
Three, the Partnership Agreement in
Telecommunications: What component of that is for the aboriginal
communication program, please?
Four, the specific item for Promotion of
Official Languages: What specifically is
that for? It is 50‑50 cost‑shared
recovered from Canada, and which
department will administer it?
Those are some of the basic
questions. I have some other questions, but I will just leave those as the
basis at this point.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I shall ask
the appropriate members of Executive
Council to review Hansard, which records
the honourable Leader of the Opposition's questions, and ensure that the answers are provided to the
honourable member.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I also have a question. Perhaps if
the minister would take it as notice, in regards to an item that does not appear because it has fallen by the
wayside: in terms of the Northern Development Agreement,
whether there are any discussions
ongoing at the present time in regards to a future federal‑provincial agreement that will
impact on northern development and the
specific reference to the components for the
previous Northern Development Agreement, including economic development, including ACCESS programs,
including infrastructure; any
information the government could provide us on the status of any agreement that might also affect the
Conawapa development‑‑a
federal‑provincial agreement under the Northern Development Agreement umbrella or a separate agreement.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will make
the same response with respect to the
question put by the honourable member
for Thompson.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 1. Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote (a)
Partnership Agreement in Tourism
$140,000‑‑pass.
1.(b) Urban Development Agreement for Winnipeg $1,000,000‑‑pass.
1.(c) Winnipeg Core Area Renewed
Agreement $320,000‑‑pass.
1.(d) Soil Conservation Agreement
$438,000‑‑pass.
1.(e) Drought Proofing $328,700‑‑pass.
1.(f) Partnership Agreement on Municipal
Water Infrastructure $1,012,800‑‑pass.
1.(g) Program for Older Worker Adjustment
$1,000,000‑‑pass.
1.(h) Partnership Agreement in
Telecommunications $375,000‑‑pass.
1.(j) Partnership Agreement in Forestry
$693,300‑‑pass.
1.(k) Mineral Development Agreement
$200,000‑‑pass.
1.(m) General Agreement on the Promotion
of Official Languages $300,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 128: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,807,800 for
Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1993‑‑pass.
I will repeat: The committee will be considering the
line and resolution dealing with
Allowance for Losses on page 154 of the
main Estimates book.
ALLOWANCE FOR LOSSES AND
EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
AND OTHER PROVINCIAL
ENTITIES
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): Item 1. Allowance for Losses and Expenditures
$5,400,000. Shall the item pass?
*
(2150)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Just one general question to the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness).
A couple of years ago he, through an
untendered contract, hired an auditing
firm that wrote off some $30 million to $40
million from one of the Crown corporations, the Public Insurance Corporation.
This year he has since found that the write‑off, which is against the previous deficit, was in
fact inaccurate, and he has now since
put that money back into his‑‑this year's deficit.
It seems to me, where I come from, that is very misleading accounting. It misleads the public in terms of the true picture of the deficit. It makes the deficit this year or the current deficit look better, previous
deficits look worse. Can the minister
explain how this happens, why it happens and why it was not just transferred back to previous
year's deficit, instead of the minister
using it this year?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is good to
be back.
The way the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) portrays the event and its hard
circumstances is factual, but he leaves it, of
course, in a steamy light, as if it is creative accounting at work.
I am here to say it is not.
When we hired the outside firm, the best
knowledge that we had at the time,
dealing with the MPIC, was indeed that all of
the general insurance, that the liability was understated, the allowance for losses was understated, and
given that there were still a number of
files with respect to re‑insurance that were open, the best advice from our outside
auditor that came in, in consultation
with MPIC auditors, was that there would be a call on the government and the tune, I think, was
around $34 million. I cannot quite
remember.
That is the case now for three
years. Unbeknownst to us, about six or seven months ago, MPIC said that
no, the liability, we had over‑provided
for losses and now that was not required as
a cash transfer. We looked up the
existing or the traditional accounting
practices, and although the Provincial Auditor‑‑it will be very interesting what the Provincial
Auditor does on this, because we asked
him the question: Do you want to take it back to the year from which it came or how do
we handle this? I am led to believe that our inclusion in it in
the terms of '91‑92 was acceptable
accounting practice.
Now, I can tell the member, there are a
lot of other horror stories that have
come to bear. My colleagues on Treasury
Board will tell you, for instance, that
we did not provide enough for allowances
and losses in a number of other areas. I
can go on on MACC; I could go on on CEDF
or the Fisherman's Loan Program, which
was part of MACC. Now we have put it
under CEDF. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) is here, and
he could tell you how much we probably
did not, when we came into government,
commit to additional allowances in the Housing portfolio.
If we want to go back, if the member
wants to go back and open the books when
we took over government, I can tell him I
would love to do it. The very
same people that did it for us, and I
was talking to the Finance minister from British Columbia, Glen Clark, today. I asked him about Ron Hykle, and I asked
him who did their analysis and, of
course, there was a billion dollars
found wanting in improper‑‑set aside for allowances, and a whole host of other areas. I do not call into question the legitimacy there.
All I am saying is that the very same
firm that did that for British Columbia
used the very same methodology for our
government when we took over from the preceding government. By the
way, I do not think there were that many horror stories laid at the door of the former government. I will say that for the record and I think the numbers show
that. There was a slight increase, but I would have to think the
member would take some considerable pride
in being a member of the former government,
that the books were not that far out of whack.
Mr. Doer: I guess I am getting a little concerned about
finances and government, and it goes
beyond partisan politics. We all have some pride. When you lose a lot of seats because you
have taken some painful decisions, you
want to get a little bit of credit for
the painful decisions, even if you do not have a lot of your colleagues around you to share that
pleasure.
There were a couple of items that the
minister wrote off. One of them was
Manfor and now there is an item in the Fiscal
Stabilization Fund. We have had
that debate, and we will have it again
the next time the auditor's report is out.
The other one was the insurance. What I was so curious about at the time
of the insurance issue was that there
was so much money set aside based on an
actuarial report before that dealing with
re‑insurance, that an expert on actuarial calculations on re‑insurance, who was supposed to be
the expert in the country, was second
guessed by an auditing company that put more money aside than two or three years later proved
not to be the case.
I thought to myself when I got your press
release indicating that perhaps the
expert in this area has set aside on actuarial
basis for reinsurance was more accurate than the person who, quite frankly, did not have that
expertise. I guess what I am concerned about‑‑and I watched in
British Columbia what has happened, and
we have all watched what has happened in
Saskatchewan.
When governments change hands, I believe
an auditor's statement should be able to
be the test, not hiring an outside audit
firm to sort of load up the previous government's‑‑I am not saying the minister did this. I guess we have not got time to go into this debate, but I really think that
this is becoming an important
issue. You have got all kinds of
permutations and all kinds of ways of
putting various assets against various operating situations.
For example, you sold the Data Services,
an agency that accumulated assets over a
number of years, and then you set it
aside into your fiscal stabilization for the future rather than against the previous year's debt. Someday, I think we should have some discussions on these issues,
because I would like to see in Manitoba
that there are some common practices of
accounting on these things, so that there is not the temptation to hire companies that will give you‑‑because
there is latitude "under normal
accounting procedures" that allow you to move debt from one year to the other and I think will
tend to mislead the public, generally,
about the situation. I think it could
lead to bad management in the future.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
right, and I would welcome that, but the
best scrutiny is still the opposition. When they are in the Estimates of the
Department of Housing and the Estimates
of the Department of Agriculture and the
Estimates of Industry, Trade and Tourism, particularly in those three areas, when you are putting out
funds and advancing funds in support of
either public housing, in support of loans to
farmers and/or support to businesses, ask the ministers about what allowances are being set aside given
that those loans are not paid back and
ask very specific questions.
I can tell you, since we have been in government,
our Treasury Board in setting budgets
has been very vigilant in that area for
a number of reasons. I mean, you do not
have to believe the fact that this
government wants to reflect very honestly and
openly the books, but beyond that, the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) is a practising accountant, was very
demanding in that area. I can tell you now, the new member of the
Treasury Board, the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), who understands proper allowances, is very
insistent that they be set up.
As a matter of fact, we are the only
province‑‑the member for
Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) will help me here‑‑in Canada that
has set up allowance for the GRIP
program. Because, quite frankly,
after five years, we think that will not
be actuarially sound, that there is
going to be a call in government. We are
the only province in Canada that has set
up already the allowances for the
expected loss.
Now, will we be blamed five years from
now‑‑indeed, if ag prices
improve, actuarial soundness of that program comes around and there is not a call on those allowances
and we bring in in that year $50 million
of allowances that we have not needed.
This is why it is not a perfect science,
but I would have to think you would
demand consistency, and you would demand to know the rationale when we set up our
allowances. Because this is the area‑‑you are right‑‑where
governments can fudge the bottom line
quicker than anywhere.
Mr. Doer: You would think, therefore, under this
scenario, does it not make sense that if
you write off something against a
particular year, notwithstanding who was in office and who was not, and at a later point it is determined
that write‑off was not proper,
does it not make sense to move that money back to the previous year and have it go against the
accumulated debt, rather than have it
show as a financial benefit to the fiscal year under which any government is always under a lot of
pressure?
Mr. Manness: Whatever practice you have, it has to be
consistent with the opposite
happening. So, all of a sudden, if we go
now and evaluate the public housing stock,
and we find that we are‑‑I
mean, I would love to do it today‑‑$500 million short on
the public housing stock, then we also
be allowed to prorate it in a
significant fashion through the '80s and the '70s. That is what
the member is saying, because I can tell you if we did that, we would help our bottom line significantly.
*
(2200)
Mr. Doer: First, with the public housing stock, you
would also have to show the assets.
Mr. Manness: We found another way, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson‑‑
Mr. Doer: So it will not show assets in government.
Mr. Manness: Not the way we show assets in government today, no. We
do not put the value on the assets.
Mr. Doer: I understand that, but the minister
understands there is a difference
between a loss in an operating way, say, at a
public insurance corporation, and an asset which has different values over years. I mean there is a difference between a
house that you can sell and is an asset,
or it is owned by the public, and
something that is an operating loss that is gone forever, but this is a debate that I should not be
engaging in.
I am glad that the minister has
acknowledged the concern I had. It is an important item, I think, because
governments now are getting horrible
reputations from accountants, from auditors,
et cetera. You look at what
happened in Saskatchewan with the latest
situation; you look at what happened in British Columbia. It is something we have to come to grips with
as legislators.
Otherwise, the budgets are going to get
more and more‑‑bottom lines
are going to become political. I think
that the debate and the policy should be
political. The disagreements should
be political, but the numbers should be
absolutely constant. [interjection! I understand that, but you also print them.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I appreciate the discussion around the table. I also appreciate the suggestions that have been made that there be future
discussions on this item. I would encourage that. I would, in fact, want to be part of those discussions. We will, however, move in.
Item 1. Allowance for Losses and
Expenditures $5,400,000‑‑pass.
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,400,000
for the Allowance for Losses and
Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): The committee will now be considering the line and
resolution dealing with the Emergency Expenditures
on page 156 of your main Estimates.
Shall item 1. Emergency Expenditures
$10,000,000 be passed?
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): One question that the minister is expecting; this is a recorded
announcement. How is the forest fire situation in terms of the
money end? Is it consistent with the answer the minister gave
me when the Order‑in‑Council
was signed, dealing with the crop insurance
reconciliation and the emergency money, or is the cheque in the mail?
How are we doing on that?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): I am not going to try and recite again in detail the complex
arrangement we had. Maybe the member for
Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) remembers the
detail, but the cheque has been received. As a matter of fact, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) brought home the
cheque from Ottawa, it seems to me, one
month ago. He was hand‑delivered
it by Mr. Epp. It was put in his hands, and that whole
sordid event came to an end. It is bizarre.
I cannot quite remember how all the
balances took place, but I can tell you
we honoured our $38 million debt with respect to the '88 drought, which flowed in '89 and the
federal government has honoured its $30
million liability with respect to the forest
fires of '89.
An Honourable Member: The fires of '88.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Shall the
$10,000,000 item pass‑‑pass.
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,000,000
for Emergency Expenditures for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
PROGRAMS
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): The committee will now be considering the line and
resolution dealing with the Community
Support Programs on page 22 of your main Estimates.
Shall item 1. Lotteries Funded Programs
$4,812,000 pass?
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The page, again, this is?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Page 22.
Mr. Doer: Okay, that is the Community Support
Programs. I have a question on this.
Yes, there are some grants that have been
reduced. For example, the Festival du Voyageur has been
reduced; the Folk Arts Council of
Winnipeg has been reduced. The United Way
has been slightly increased. The Winnipeg Football Club‑‑I am
a past member of the board of directors,
so I am not under conflict anymore‑‑
An Honourable Member: Only when it was losing money.
Mr. Doer: Well, it was doing a lot better than it is
right now; in fact, it had a
surplus. It has had its grants
reduced. Can the minister give us the reasons for those,
please?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it upsets me because Bob Swain,
I just saw him five minutes ago, and he
would have the answers to these.
Somewhat by agreement, when we
entered into agreement with some of the
special groups, there was a schedule and some of them had agreed to reductions. Subsequent to the difficulties that we
found ourselves in, we approached these
groups and some of them voluntarily
offered to take less.
Some of them, we made the decision just
to provide less. If the member wants that detail, we can make it
all part of the public record, I can assure
him. There is an explanation for each and every one.
Mr. Doer: Can we have an explanation for the reductions
and the increases just so that we know,
and whether, as the minister indicated,
it was by agreement or whether it was by unilateral government decision?
Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly
we will provide that information.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): Item 1.(a)(1) Salaries $99,100‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $30,000‑‑pass; (3)
Grants $457,000‑‑pass.
1.(b) Festival du Voyageur $340,000‑‑pass.
1.(c) Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg
$320,000‑‑pass.
1.(d) Friends of Winnipeg Pro Soccer
$50,000‑‑pass.
1.(e) United Way of Winnipeg $2,356,500‑‑pass.
1.(f) Valley Agricultural Society
$195,000‑‑pass.
1.(g) Winnipeg Football Club $350,000‑‑pass.
1.(h) Capital Grants ‑ Keystone
Centre $505,000‑‑pass.
1.(j) Capital Grants ‑ Agricultural
Societies $110,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 15: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,812,600
for Community Support Programs,
Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
INTERNAL REFORM,
WORKFORCE ADJUSTMENT AND GENERAL SALARY INCREASES
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Penner): The committee will now be considering the line and
resolution dealing with the Internal
Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary
Increases on page 158 of your main Estimates book‑‑line 1.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the minister:
The government has talked a lot about reorganization and reform and workplace adjustments, et
cetera. I have noted that in the 1988 Civil Service Superannuation
Annual Report and the most recent one,
there is absolutely no change in the size of
the public service. So we have
been reforming and we have been cutting
and we have been reducing in certain areas, community colleges, Highways, Natural Resources, yet the
net number of public employees is still
the same in the provincial public
sector.
Where are these people being hired? We know where the people are being cut. Where are these people being hired in
these so‑called internal
reforms? Is it in the mid‑management
areas, where are all these people?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not have exact figures
before me, but I will give you some
approximate numbers. I understand that
over the last two years we have
eliminated in government somewhere between
1,300 and 1,400 positions. I am
talking about the provincial Civil
Service. That returned us to employment
levels approximately for 1986.
Mr. Doer: Well, our indication is, if you read the
other annual‑‑first of all,
positions, as you know, governments create
positions in budgets and then get rid of them in the next budget and say that they have reduced things, so we
know‑‑the minister shakes
his head. We know that there were some vacant
positions, but the fact of the matter is
that our critic identified, there was
basically the same number from '88 to '91; it went up and then it went down.
An Honourable Member: Since '90.
Mr. Doer: Yes, since '90 it has gone down, I do not
disagree.
*
(2210)
We know you have cut line Highway
employees, we know you have cut line
Natural Resources employees, a lot of people outside of the city of Winnipeg, I might add. We know you have cut a lot of employees out of the community colleges; it
was one of the largest areas of
reduction. Where have you been hiring to
get the same comparable numbers to '88?
Mr. Praznik: I say to the member, when he identified
reductions in positions in Natural
Resources and Highways, there were
reductions in terms of full‑time position equivalents, staff years, but many of those were made up by the
seasonal reductions, so that where you
had someone who was working a year is now
working eight months‑‑that would be an equivalent of one‑third SY. So
those people are still employed with the province but for a smaller part of the year.
On the vacancy management which the
member identified, we have been trying
to run about 5 percent vacancy management, 5
percent vacant positions in departments for the last number of years.
That accounted for, of those 1,300 to 1,400 positions‑‑would be inclusive of
the totals of the partial staff years as
well as the vacant positions that we have managed over those two or three years, so the consequences,
that we have managed to spread those out
and did not have, as the member has
identified, a lot of filled positions being eliminated.
Mr. Doer: Okay, I will ask, have you any more reforms
that you are planning next year in terms
of the public service, in terms of major
reductions and reprioritizations, et cetera?
Do you feel you are on track now? Have you reached your‑‑I mean,
you have gone up and then you have gone
down. You went up before the election, you went down. I seem to recall a similar pattern between '77 and '81 where it went down and
then it went up again, 15 percent, 20
percent spending in '80‑81‑‑[interjection!
But the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard),
that was the year he was sworn into
cabinet, I recall.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can assure the member we have
developed five budgets, and every one of
those years we took out positions.
I can tell him we added in
through the course of the year very‑‑I think we can count them on one hand, the
number of add‑back‑ins in
staff positions.
Now, he may say he has looked at the
annual report of the Superannuation
Fund. It looks like there are a lot of
active files there. I think what he is saying, or what I know to
be the case, is that there is an awful
lot more of work‑sharing. I
do know that there still may be
individuals through a course of a
period, or some small portion of the year that draw a pay cheque from the government, but I can tell him that
global funds directed to salaries on the
government payroll have dropped many,
many millions of dollars. I would
say $40 million or more over the course
of the last four years, and that is the real
indication. So the staff years
are there; we have not added them back
in.
On his direct question, what are we going
to do in '93, '94, I can tell him that
we are beginning the '93‑94 budgeting process right now, and I can indicate we are still
out to hunt to remove duplication and
overlap within government, and we are still going to try and do things more efficiently
administratively. Yes, we have some additional further plans. They are not yet at this point fully developed, but they will be over
the course of the next number of months.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): In Civil Service Estimates I asked a question of the minister, and he undertook
to provide the information as to the
exact number of either SYs, Civil Service
positions in rural areas versus the city of Winnipeg, historically over the last 10 years, actual
numbers of positions, in particular,
immediately before and after decentralization, and I am just wondering when the minister can
indicate whether he will be able to
provide those figures. We had hoped to
have them for Decentralization, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, but‑‑
Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik) will certainly
provide that information, but I want to
point out, like I have said anywhere I have gone and been asked that question, particularly by
leaders of rural communities who would
like to point out that there seems to be
some contradiction, we are decentralizing on the one hand, and yet it seems like we are taking away
government jobs on the other through
budgetary decisions. I will say the same
thing to the member that I have said
everywhere I have gone. The highest order here is government efficiency and the
government budget. That will take
precedent over the decentralization. I
have said that everywhere and that is
the way we have approached it from Day
One. So what might appear to be conflict
in some areas‑‑I mean, we
made the decisions to decentralize, we made that in isolation, and almost all the cases, I think
we have moved now some 530 positions.
In a few instances, decisions that came
further in the budgetary decisions, of
course, have superseded that and there
have been some reductions. That
is the higher order.
Mr. Ashton: I am just asking for the information. We can get
into that debate, we can talk about the $10 million that was spent to decentralize, well, $2.5 million to
go and create more jobs and cut, you
know, to add one job and take back two.
I just asked for the numbers in
Civil Service, and I would appreciate it
if we could get that information hopefully before the end of the Session.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 1. $5,000,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 134: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,000,000 for
Internal Reform Workforce Adjustment and
General Salary Increases for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
The time being after ten o'clock, and as
previously agreed by the unanimous
consent in the House this afternoon, we will be
waiving subrule 659 to permit the Estimates of a new department to be introduced after 10 p.m.
Also, as agreed in the House, the
Estimates for the Department of
Government Services have been transferred to this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in
Room 255.
Mr. Doer: Excuse me.
Did we do Employee Benefits, page 46?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
I have not got that on my agenda.
Mr. Doer: It is on the agenda, I believe, page 46. Can I have
leave to make one point here, just before we move off of these subitems.
We actually have done this out of order
before, I guess, because we had that as
a separate item.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
I understand that this item was passed with the Department of
Labour.
Mr. Doer: Yes. I
do not know why it was. But having said
that, I just think that if the
government is going to delineate part of
the benefits and as part of a budget exercise, it seems to me to be a very abstract concept: a) to not have all costs of the benefits‑‑the private sector,
quite frankly, has benefits in the 26 to
30 percent range for any given employee; and b) have it in a specific department so there is a clear,
budgetary recognition of those benefits
rather than just a large amount of money, that
is, quite frankly, less than what the real costs are to begin with and not attributed to the departments.
For example, if you had certain benefits
in some departments higher than other
departments, for example, LTD plan, in say,
areas where there is more long‑term disability, if you are
going to have this as a new item and you
have put it in the budget in the last
couple of years, I think a) it should be fully costed, and this is not, and the minister said that
last year; and b) he should work towards
a system where that is in the department
budget, so it is accurate.
I think this is just a partial measure,
and if the government wants to achieve
full accounting of these benefits and in most
public or private enterprises that would happen, then I think the government should look at reform in moving
that right into the department. I will just leave that with the minister, the
head of Treasury Board.
* (2220)
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Thank you.
This concludes the consideration
for this section. Could we then move to Government Services? Is the minister prepared? Is he in the
room?
I understand he will be here
momentarily. Could we recess for five minutes? Agreed?
We will recess for five minutes.
* * *
The committee took recess at 10:21 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 10:24 p.m.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack
Penner): We will now be commencing consideration for the Estimates of
Government Services. Does the minister responsible have an
opening statement?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of
Government Services): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, very quickly
tonight, and I will present my
Supplementary Estimates '92‑93. I
have to apologize, they were proposed to
be out a lot earlier.
First of all, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
I am pleased to have this opportunity to
present the '92‑93 fiscal year spending
Estimates for the Department of Government Services. I will take
a minute to give you a little bit of information. Because of the time restraint I will not go through the full
spiel. As a service‑orientated department,
Government Services is faced with the
challenge of providing cost efficient and quality service to other areas of the government. The recessionary cycle which has slowed growth in our nation and province has
made efficiencies in government even
more important over the past few years.
Our department has been and will
continue to be making sure every bit of
every tax dollar is wisely spent.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
Department of Government Services will
enter into negotiations of bulk postal rates and a standardization use of envelopes. They will continue the expansion of building cleaning to 30,000
square feet per employee per shift. The Workshop/Renovations branch reconstruction
will reduce overhead costs to allow for
a more efficient operation. Also,
savings of $500,000 per year are anticipated with the department's entry into the direct purchase
agreement of natural gas.
The Remand Centre‑‑as known
to many‑‑project will be
completed in the latter part of July, '92 at a total cost of $26.7 million. It will be finished in July but probably not occupied till sometime early‑‑an
official opening in September. We will
do a preliminary dry‑run for probably a month, a month and a half.
This is a state of art facility with secure links to the Law Courts complex. Anyone who has not been there or any of the critics who would like to tour the
building‑‑I have been going
there approximately every month‑‑anyone who would like to tour it, I would be glad to take you over
there before we have the official
opening. You will see the first‑class
operation it is. I would be glad to take you over there.
Finally, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
Fleet‑‑the other important
article. Just to briefly‑‑of
what is going on and not to elaborate on
many of our functions is, the Fleet Vehicles
branch will be converted to an SOA status effective with the approval of the necessary legislation that is
before the House at the present
time. This change will allow the branch
greater management flexibility in order
to achieve very specific performance
goals and objectives.
I know we have a short time today. I will not go through it all, and I am going to hear from the critics
and then we will get to my department.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening
statement?
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): No, I do not.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): Does the critic for the second opposition have an opening
statement?
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not have an opening statement as such. I just would like to ask the minister, given the time available to us‑‑I
have been pleased in the past with this
minister's willingness to work with the
critics on specific issues and share information outside of this process.
So I am not so concerned about going line‑by‑line. There are a few specific areas that I would
like to talk about, particularly the
SOAs. If the minister was in agreement,
and if the critic for the New Democratic
Party was in agreement perhaps we could
consider the minister's Estimates as a package and zero in on those areas where we have specific
concerns and then just pass the whole
works in one shot, given that there is an
agreement to pass this before we leave tonight.
Mr. Ducharme: I have no problem with that. If you want to do it all bulk and pass the Minister's Salary, because,
I mean, I would be very frustrated if
you did not pass the salary too. No,
that is the way we handled it before,
and I can understand the department is a
service department, and there are a few small
areas that we would like to cover.
If we cannot get all the
information I will get back to you with the information in writing like we did before.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
I think we all know the normal procedures of the Estimates
debate, that we consider the Estimates on
a line‑by‑line basis or at least
section‑by‑section basis, and I just want to indicate to
the committee that is normally the way
things are done. If we can agree to consider the whole report at this
time, I have no problem with that. So if that is the agreement then I would
ask the minister to call his staff and
we will proceed with the consideration.
Mr. Ducharme: Maybe I will bring forward‑‑here
are the people to keep it rolling.
*
(2230)
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I just want to remind the committee again that under the
normal practices of debate, the
Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item for consideration of the Estimates of a
department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now
proceed with consideration of the next
line.
Are we agreed to that?
Mr. Ducharme: Just to introduce the staff: Hugh Eliasson, my Deputy Minister. It will be his first time as Deputy
Minister going through the Estimates of
Government Services, Gerry Berezuk, Stu
Ursel, Mr. Le Clare and Paul Rochon.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Are there any
questions?
Mr. Dewar: Yes, I was wondering if the minister could
give us an update of the investigation
of the Government Services Leasing
department?
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, if you are referring to the one in
regard to‑‑I might as well
put the name forward now‑‑Mr. Sterling Desmond, the investigation is still being
investigated by the RCMP. The Civil Service Commission has made a
recommendation of releasing the
individual, and he has been released as an
employee. However, he has decided
to aggrieve and the grievance will be
heard before the end of June.
I have always been up‑front on any
other information. The same information stands that I have given in
the House on questions I have received
in the House.
Mr. Dewar: Well, will the minister be releasing the
internal audit that led to the RCMP
investigation?
Mr. Ducharme: The internal audit would be‑‑because
the individual is still grieving and the
Civil Service Commission is still
dealing with that and also because the RCMP is still investigating, there will be no release of
the internal audit at this time.
Generally, when it is dealing with a personnel
matter, a lot of times it has been the
policy of this government not to release
this information dealing with personnel.
Mr. Dewar: Are there any other buildings that are
under investigation by the RCMP?
Mr. Ducharme: Specifically, this was the only one that
was investigated. They did go through files, of course, because
the individual was responsible for most
of our leasing. He was our leasing manager. Our own department went through files
along with the RCMP, but what we found in
the investigation and what the RCMP is
mainly targeting on was the one specific file.
Mr. Dewar: He made some comments earlier about the
Remand Centre. What was the cost again?
Mr. Ducharme: $26.7 million.
Mr. Dewar: What was the original estimated cost of the
centre?
Mr. Ducharme: The original estimated cost was $25 million,
and as you probably appreciate, I was
not involved in the original $25
million. The extra would be as a result
of doing the clearing of the soil
underneath, putting in the new filtration
system for the gases to make sure that at some time at a later date you could always go back and check
them. Also, we did add on the recreation facility. There is an outside court that was originally pulled away from the original
project. Now that has been included also.
Mr. Dewar: I would like to ask some questions about the
Human Resources Opportunity Centre in
Selkirk. When I was asking the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) in Family Services Estimates,
he was saying that it falls under your jurisdiction, the building.
Is that building currently being dismantled by the department?
Mr. Ducharme: I am advised no.
Mr. Dewar: Have you been approached by the groups there
in Selkirk who are looking at
alternatives to the closure?
Mr. Ducharme: I am advised no.
Mr. Dewar: So what is going to happen to that facility
then, once it closes down in a matter of
weeks?
Mr. Ducharme: We will go through the normal channels. As you
know, if there is a government building that does become available, we consult all departments first
and we will go through that
process. All departments are offered the
building first. If some other department or the government
wishes to use a building, then they have
the first option.
Mr. Dewar: Have you been approached by any other
department of government interested in
that facility?
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, we have had preliminary discussions apparently with another department. It is very preliminary right now.
This is the option that is available.
Mr. Dewar: I guess the minister is aware of the
current situation in Selkirk, that some
of the current provincial buildings are
rather overcrowded. Could this facility
be used to ease some of that
overcrowding of the current facility?
Mr. Ducharme: I was out to Selkirk. I have been out there, and as you probably appreciate, when departments
come forward, they use Government
Services as a facility provider. They
come to us and then we make a proposal
to Treasury Board if they require and
they request more space. Then we
make a submission to Treasury, and then
Treasury decides whether they should have the extra square footage or not. Each one is based on each application to Treasury Board.
Mr. Dewar: Your predecessor gave us some information on
February 1, 1991, and in it, it states
there that it is under the subject,
capital construction projects, a detailed list. It says, Selkirk leased new space for Highways‑Ag
building. The Selkirk provincial office is extremely overcrowded,
and so on. It says, Highways received Treasury Board approval to
include this item in the 1990‑91
Estimates. Do you know if that was?
Mr. Ducharme: I am advised that the whole office situation
in Selkirk is being reviewed once again,
so when we finish that review, then we
will decide and make a presentation to Treasury. If the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) wishes,
I will, after we have gone through that
presentation or that process, advise him.
Mr. Dewar: I noticed in the local Selkirk paper you had
a tender for office space. What was that for?
Mr. Ducharme: I am advised that was Decentralization. That
would be put out by the Decentralization group, not by our department.
We have no record of that on ours.
Mr. Dewar: Speaking of Decentralization, has any
Government Services employees been
decentralized to Selkirk, and if so, how
many?
Mr. Ducharme: Five to Selkirk.
Mr. Dewar: Where would those five be sent to?
Mr. Ducharme: We are advised that they are in the
Government Services building on the
Selkirk hospital site. I did visit that one; it is a District 2 office.
Mr. Dewar: Do you know if there are any further
employees who are going to be
decentralized to Selkirk, and if so, how many?
Mr. Ducharme: If you are asking from our department, we are
not aware of any at this present
time. But, of course, as you know, Mr. Reimer, who is in charge of
Decentralization, will be going around
and does visit, go around the province, then advises and corresponds with the different departments to
find out who can be decentralized. He is going through that process, but we do
not have any out of our department.
Mr. Dewar: How about some of the other rural areas? How many
other employees have been decentralized and to where?
Mr. Ducharme: Land Acquisition, which is part of our
department, will move 34 employees as of
March 1993 to
Mr. Dewar: And that would be the extent of your
decentralized employees?
Mr. Ducharme: So far.
Mr. Dewar: I would like to talk a bit about some of
the contracting out of the Government
Services department. I guess we could talk about contracting out in
general. Have you increased contracting out in the past year?
Mr. Ducharme: What we are doing and what we do in our
department is probably consistent in
looking at cost ways to do business
because that is our job. We have
contracted out, for instance, postal
services, the trucks, but on the other hand, we have also increased and decided to do our own
computerization, maintenance. So if it is efficient to hire our own
employees, we have done that. We have done that through‑‑as you
know, computer repair is probably so
costly, we have brought in our own
maintenance people because of the expense, where in postal we have contracted out some trucks that we had. Now we have
people. So wherever it is most
efficient we will do it. We have done it both ways. We have hired our own staff to do our
own work and we have contracted out and
will continue to look at various means
to save the government and the servicing business.
*
(2240)
Mr. Dewar: I would like to ask some questions about
the government purchasing policy. Has the government's department purchased any items from the United States
recently?
Mr. Ducharme: Not since Christmas, but, to be honest with
you, the Christmas trees were bought
from the same place as the previous
government had bought. I was only
kidding, of course. To give you an idea,
total purchases by our Purchasing Branch
during the '91‑92 year was $109 million. Of this amount, approximately $600,000 or one half of 1
percent represented purchases made,
remember, from U.S. suppliers. The
greater portion of these purchases
covered medical, aircraft and other
specialty products not available in Canada. Usually with the system that we have through the purchasing
system set up in western Canada, WPIN
and that, we have been able to purchase from
B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and also our suppliers have been able to sell to these. So we actually have a good purchasing arrangement that is probably going to be
nationally‑‑within, I would
say, a year it will be right across Canada.
Mr. Dewar: Just a few more questions. I wonder if the minister could tell us about the Fort Osborne complex
and what are his department's plans for
that complex.
Mr. Ducharme: Preliminary plans now are to continue to look
at it.
We will be making some recommendations probably along the way to cabinet or Treasury Board, but you
have to remember that if you do anything
with that site, you are probably going to have
to‑‑you have probably heard it before, there were not
enough options given and what we are
doing now is studying the different
options on the site, and probably it is the same as anything else.
There are times that you do offer land for sale, but you have to wait for the right type of market
conditions, and what was proposed there
before is not, no one is really building any
large condominiums or building any large purchases right now for rental.
Mr. Dewar: Is the property for sale now?
Mr. Ducharme: Our property is for sale if we get the right
price.
Mr. Dewar: Are there any plans for the government to
revitalize the complex in any way?
Mr. Ducharme: As you know, there are buildings there that
are on the Heritage list and they will
be revitalized. That is a very important key in that whole site.
Mr. Dewar: I will let the member for Osborne‑‑
Mr. Alcock: I should probably preface my remarks by saying
that in my experience in government,
Government Services is probably the one
department that suffers the severest sort of constraints in government, and probably get the greatest
amount of criticism internally, and yet
when you get to work with them, probably does
one of the best jobs. I am a
little interested in this move to SOAs,
and that is really an area that I would like to talk about in some detail today.
As I understand the rationale for it, it
is that certain functions in this
department‑‑and from the bill that is before the House, I suspect, and others‑‑have
been identified as potentially
benefitting from moving to a different form of
management, some ability to establish a cost level, some ability to operate on a cost recovery or in some way
define the relationship between the
services being provided and the cost at
which it could be built, to put it more on a private sector sort of system.
I would like to understand, what are the
specific constraints within the
department that have led the minister and the
government to feel that they have to move to this form of operating structure rather than to simply
free the department to operate by a
change in overall policy?
Mr. Ducharme: I know that the member asked me a couple
of questions earlier this year in regard
to it. Maybe I could go back and mention that. I will give you just the general information I had when I first looked at it.
As you can probably appreciate, when you
are servicing a government with 2,500
automobiles and you are at the needs of
these different departments, most people always feel that it is government, period. In other words, it is all the same
people dealing.
However, if you make people more
accountable, and they know that they
have to give you the cost they must obtain from the different departments, and your people who
are running that agency have a capital
investment that they get into that
mandate‑‑right now, the way it is set up, as you know, is
that they are given their bottom
line. They are given an allowance, for instance, a capital allowance to start
with, and then they are told to come back
the next year. In between that
period, they can run it probably‑‑they
do not have to come back, for instance,
to Treasury Board at every whim of that particular‑‑say they want to go out and buy a new computer
system to update their vehicles or keep their
repair costs. They do not have to go
back to Treasury Board. They can go out and purchase that and figure it over their lifestyle. As long as they come back at the end of the year and show the bottom line. It allows a little more flexibility in their operating.
Mr. Alcock: If the minister could just clarify, when you
are using the term "they" and
you are talking about the "thems" who
have these budgets that they can manage, you are really talking about the operating departments that may have
a need of vehicles, for example, who
would have the capital budget within their lines now.
They would purchase, and they would then purchase services from the SOA?
Mr. Ducharme: No, it is the fleet that has it, when I am
talking about the SOA. In other words‑‑I will give you
an example. We can set a part, we can set a goal over, say,
four or five years and not have, for
instance‑‑as long as we come back with the bottom line each year our course cannot be
changed by Treasury Board, you know, and
say to us two years down the road, I am
sorry but you no longer can capitalize your fleet over four years; you must do it over five years. If you understand what I am saying.
Mr. Alcock: Well, I am not certain that I do. If I understood what you said, you said that you would not be
affected by Treasury Board. I presume that means that you would, by establishing this sort of mini arm's length
arrangement that I see inherent in, I
think it is, Bill 96, is it not, to establish
the SOAs, that you would have some capacity to operate independent of the constraints of central
management. I am unclear yet as to what‑‑I mean,
other than what you have said so far is
that you will have an ability to budget over, say, a five‑year period, and I presume then
carry some money between years. That may be one aspect of it that is not
currently available to operating
departments. I am just wondering,
though, why it is necessary to go the
route of setting up another form of
organizational structure within government, why simply that policy decision could not be made and offered
to Government Services without the
additional organizational changes.
*
(2250)
Mr. Ducharme: I was trying to get an example to try to go
back to what I gave you the answer to
before. Right now, if I bought an automobile, I have to expense it this year
under the system. Under the SOA, if I
buy an automobile, I can expense it over the
five years.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I understood that part of the example,
and from the remarks of the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) in introducing the
bill for establishing these things, he spoke
about things like moving accountability for decision making closer to managers and allowing people
greater ability to make decisions within
their operating branch and then they would be
held accountable for those decisions.
Terrific. It sounds really good.
Why do you need this structure? Why could you simply not give to the department or give to the branch
the authority to budget over five
years? Why do you have to go the extra
step of setting up the SOAs? If it is good to do this, if it is good
to give this kind of accountability to
line managers and allow them to accrue
or to save some money and carry it over because they can manage their expenses a little better‑‑this
has been talked about in government for
a long, long time; I appreciate the
direction you are going‑‑I just do not understand why you
have to create yet another form of
organizational structure to do it. Why
can you not just change your central manual of administration?
Mr. Ducharme: We went through this when we set up the
SOA. I
looked at a lot of the other aspects of it about maintenance, et cetera, and what we are doing now, and I am
advised that The Financial
Administration Act does not allow me to do that now under the system, where under an SOA then I
can do it.
Mr. Alcock: That takes us to the heart of this
discussion. That is true.
The Financial Administration Act does not allow us, so we have a choice. We create yet another management structure
for government that avoids the
constraints of The Financial
Administration Act, or we amend The Financial Administration Act.
They both take a piece of legislation.
They both take some action from
government.
The government, instead of tackling what
I think is the larger problem, which is
an unwieldy form of central management
that robs managers of any kind of ability to be managers, and dealing with that‑‑and I admit it
is a big job‑‑you avoided all
of that by setting up something else.
So now we have more complex
government, and we have another piece of organizational administrivia to get through instead of
simply dealing with the real problem,
which is The Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Ducharme: Well, generally, I have to say to you that
when I am looking at my department and I
see 2,500 automobiles, I am to suggest
ways and means of doing that. However,
as you know and you have just hit it,
the complexity that is out there, I cannot
start going to the other ones.
What I can do is advise Treasury
Board that here is a route to go, that we can probably provide a better service and maintenance and
administration by going to this
particular one, one that we know of and that was the automobiles.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I certainly do not mean to hold this
minister or this department accountable
for the failures of the Finance minister
and The Financial Administration Act, but it just strikes me as passing strange, to quote
another member of this Chamber, that you
have not tackled that particular problem.
I shall not belabour this. [interjection!
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
I am sorry. The minister can talk as long as he wants. Until I recognize him, his mike will not go on and his comments will
not be on record. Therefore, I will
recognize the member for Osborne and ask him to
finish his question.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate
your intervening to defend my interests.
Rather than continue the discussion about
whether it should or should not be, you
moved in this direction, and certainly I am
in full agreement with the stated goal of this, which is to allow managers to manage.
You mentioned vehicles. Now there seems to be a bit of a change from the discussion we had in the
House a little while ago. I just may have misunderstood you the last
time. I had understood, originally, that an operating
manager in another department who had an
allowance for vehicles‑‑you know, if I am manager of X branch somewhere and I have
three cars at my disposal that I have
requested and money has been included to
provide those to me, can then choose‑‑will now be
purchasing services, if you like, from
this SOA, which is now the provincial
garage, and this will be a competitive service to others that I might purchase privately.
Now to do that, it seems to me that I
have to have, within my budget, the
capital to purchase the vehicle and some operating allowance to purchase not just gas but also
repairs. From the answer that was given earlier, it seemed to
me, if I understood it correctly, that
the capital is going to be retained within the
provincial garage, so I could not go elsewhere to purchase a car.
What about the operating? Will I
be able to go elsewhere to buy a new
axle or a tire or whatever?
Mr. Ducharme: I guess what we did not say in the House
before was that there was the three‑year
trial period. We have to have a‑‑after the three years,
definitely, yes. You will be able
to do that, after we have reported back
with our annual, and we will be reporting
back to Treasury Board, but the anticipation is
three years.
The member did mention many, many other
departments. I cannot speak for them, but I am saying that
out of my department this was probably
the best one to try it out, because it is
probably one of the things that is most abused because people take it for granted that we supply the
automobiles at whatever, and not cost
them out to their true form, and this is one way of doing it.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, and not
take advantage of some economies that
they might otherwise if they had some
incentive to do so. I concur with that.
Now you are talking about an SOA for‑‑I
suppose the other thing, too, in
Government Services, you have a series of services that can be costed, and there is some sort of
competitive measure to cost against,
unlike police services or court services or
whatever, it might be a little more difficult to establish such a regime in.
You mentioned a change, too, where
internally you had established a
computer repair service. I just became
aware of this actually two days
ago. I would like to know: Are you
intending to move to an SOA with this particular unit?
Mr. Ducharme: Well, there has been no anticipation of that
at this time. What we have primarily gone to is found that
the costs of servicing computers, we
could do them much cheaper the majority
of the time. The reason for that is, as
you know, a secretary can call someone
in and he only spends five minutes
there. He finds out that she
maybe forgot to put the right plug in
the right place, and it was only a five‑minute call, whereas, you know‑‑and you have been
involved in computers‑‑somebody else will charge two hours to get there and maybe
we had somebody on site at the time.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like
just to pursue this one more step,
because when I say I just became aware
of this the other day, it was because I have two of my boxes apart changing boards right now, and it was
suggested to me that one of the things I
might do was seek repair services through
Government Services and that they would then supply the service and then they would bill me in some fashion
for the service supplied.
If they are not functioning as an SOA or
not intending to move to begin
functioning as an SOA, how are they establishing the pricing for that?
Mr. Ducharme: I guess it would be the same as if we had to
do a chair for you and reupholster a
chair in our factory and stuff like
that. We do it at our cost. We book you out at our cost, just being nice people to you, that is all.
Mr. Alcock: I am tempted to talk about my $96,000 bunk
beds, but I shall not because I would
not want to use up the time of this
committee doing that. That is a
10‑year‑old example‑‑or actually an 11‑year‑old example.
*
(2300)
There is some difficulty‑‑and
I assume that ultimately what you are
headed to in the SOA simply charging out at your cost may not be at the competitive rate.
Mr. Ducharme: What we do now, same as probably the City
of
Mr. Alcock:
I think I will simply close any questioning I have with just a couple of remarks right now. I note that we are at eleven o'clock. I note that there was an agreement to try
to deal with this issue area within that
time, and I am not certain whether the
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has additional
questions. Maybe I will just
bring my questioning to a close now with
the following remarks.
I am going to be discussing at some
length with the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) the concept of SOAs. I would
be interested if the minister were
available for that debate on that bill
in committee, because I want to better understand the concept and this problem of not dealing with
what I believe to be the fundamental
issue, The Financial Administration Act.
Having said that, and assuming
that the Finance minister is going to be
no more receptive to my suggestions in that area than he is in any other area, you are going to get launched
on this new path, and I wish the
department well.
I really think that failing a more
appropriate change of the management
structures of government, this is as good a way as any, and I think this is a good department to
start it in and to give people an opportunity
to show what they can do, because my
underlying faith is that the department can do an awful lot and can do a lot to turn around perhaps some of
the less than complimentary reputation
it has had internally. I have great faith in both the minister and the management
of the department to do exactly that.
With that, I will pass it back to member
for Selkirk.
Mr. Ducharme: I guess just to re‑emphasize why I went
to SOA on the vehicles is that when you
look at, you can do a better cost‑‑and
try to figure out when you have 2,600 vehicles and they are roughly doing in the vicinity of 59
million kilometres‑‑and that
is probably why this particular one out of our department was the one that we suggested at this
time. To the same member, I hope it is successful, because if it can
give us service and keep the employees
happy the way they have come along on this
one, we have gone a long way.
Mr. Alcock: I am sorry, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
there was just one final‑‑the
minister did say in the presentation on the
SOAs too that there had been extensive discussions with both management and the bargaining unit and all of
that, and that there was, as I
understood, a working together on the part of all parties to implement this process.
Mr. Ducharme: Yes, as a matter of fact, we were able to put
an employee on the advisory board and he
will participate and they elected that
person as select, and the employees seem to be very, very keen on what is going on. They feel like a little family out there that really is keen to keep this
going. We have a very good person running it and we have kept that
person, who will continue to run it, by
the name of Dennis Ducharme, no relation.
Most people who have dealt with Dennis know he does a superb job.
Mr. Dewar: I have no questions. I want to thank the minister and his staff this evening.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 1. Administration (b) Executive Support: (1) Salaries
$335,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $41,600‑‑pass.
1.(c) Finance: (1) Salaries $799,700‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures, $144,600‑‑pass.
1.(d) Human Resource Services: (1) Salaries $547,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $72,900‑‑pass.
1.(e) Systems: (1) Salaries $343,000‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $63,100‑‑pass.
1.(f) Lieutenant Governor's Office: (1) Salaries
$85,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $66,500‑‑pass.
Item 2. Property Management (a) Executive
Administration: (1) Salaries $137,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $16,300‑‑pass.
2.(b) Physical Plant: (1) Salaries $19,238,700‑‑pass;
(c) Other Expenditures $13,825,900‑‑pass;
(3) Preventative Maintenance $169,500‑‑pass;
(4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $1,886,000‑‑pass.
2.(c) Workshop/Renovations: (1) Salaries and Wages $2,436,300‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $252,100‑‑pass; (3)
Workshop Projects $3,283,300‑‑pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $5,072,800‑‑pass.
2.(d) Leased Properties: (1) Salaries $45,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $83,574,400‑‑pass.
2.(e) Property Services: (1) Salaries $350,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $248,100‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $244,300‑‑pass.
2.(f) Security and Parking: (1) Salaries $2,720,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $660,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 59: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $119,754,800
for Government Services, Property
Management, the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 3. Supply and Services (a) Executive
Administration: (1) Salaries $145,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $8,300‑‑pass.
3.(b) Fleet Vehicles: (1) Salaries $0‑‑pass.
3.(c) Office Equipment Services: (1) Salaries
$499,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,337,500‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$1,741,200‑‑pass.
3.(d) Purchasing: (1) Salaries $1,398,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $284,000‑‑pass.
3.(e) Material Distribution: (1) Salaries $739,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,327,700‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $5,566,400‑‑pass.
3.(f) Telecommunications: (1) Salaries $614,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,097,600‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $1,756,800‑‑pass.
3.(g) Postal Services: (1) Salaries $696,500.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry, do
not call the staff back for this one,
but I would be remiss if I did not say
one thing about this particular line.
I am delighted with the Postal
Services. I just want to say one very simple thing: I am delighted with the changes in the Postal Services, the folks down there have
been absolutely superb in the service
that they have offered us recently. It
has just been a really wonderful change. They have been really helpful.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Penner):
Item 3.(g)(1) Salaries $696,500‑‑pass; 3.(g)(2)
Other Expenditures $232,400‑‑pass;
(3) Postage $5,344,200‑‑pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$5,172,500‑‑pass.
3.(h) Land Acquisition: (1) Salaries $1,468,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $267,800‑‑pass.
Resolution 60: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,770,000
for Government Services, Supply and
Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
* (2310)
Item 4. Accommodation Development: (a) Salaries
$2,032,200‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $646,000‑‑pass;
(c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$500,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 61: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,178,200
for Government Services, Accommodation
Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 5. Land Value Appraisal Commission
(a) Salaries $86,300‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $45,700‑‑pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $69,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 62: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $62,400 for
Government Services for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
6. Disaster Assistance (a) Emergency
Measures Organization: (1) Salaries
$523,300‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $187,200‑‑pass.
6.(b) Disaster Assistance Board: (1) Salaries
$135,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $15,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 63: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $860,900 for
Government Services for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
7. Expenditures Related to Capital
(a) Acquisition/Construction of Physical
Assets‑‑Government Related
$13,271,300‑‑pass, Recoverable from Canada $1,117,900‑‑pass;
(b) Vehicle Replacement; (c)
Departmental Capital $249,900‑‑pass.
Resolution 64: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $13,521,200
for Government Services, Expenditures
Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Since the minister's staff is not here,
1. Administration (a) Minister's Salary
$20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 58: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,520,400
for Government Services, Administration,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
The time being after 11 p.m., committee
rise.
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS
FUND
*
(1900)
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Would the Committee of Supply
please come to order. This section of
the Committee of Supply will be dealing
with Estimates for the Environmental
Innovations Fund, page 157 in the Estimates book. Does the honourable minister wish to make an
opening statement?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): I presume, with the agreement of my critics, that we will
sort of roll the Innovations Fund in
with the Department of Environment Estimates
and keep moving through it if that is‑‑Is it the desire to
start with the Innovations Fund? I can give my opening remarks and then we will go to the Innovations Fund
immediately? That is what the Chairperson called.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Just to clarify that the Estimates for Citizenship and
multiculturalism are going on in the
other committee and that I want to, within the hour, that we would break here, Natural Resources is going
to come in and then I would go for an
hour to the other committee and then return.
Mr. Cummings: It is my intention to abbreviate my
opening remarks. What I would want to point out is the fact
that the Department of Environment has
been playing a critical role and
contributing to our government's commitment to sustainable development.
There have been a number of areas that we have included in our Estimates for this year that
I think will help to substantiate that
claim.
The department put together, as part of
their planning process, a mission
statement which they revised to read:
to ensure a high level of
environmental quality for present and
future generations of Manitoba to acknowledge the department's regulatory role in defining environmental
quality targets and targeting
compliance, but also recognizes the importance of promoting activities carried out by the
department and others that we meet those
targets.
The department identifies four areas of
commitment as the basis for carrying out
our mission.
First of all, a commitment to pollution
prevention, importance of expanding our
focus on pollution control to pollution
prevention. It will intensify the
development of ways to go beyond our
regulatory mandate and build effective ways for
anticipating and preventing potential problems.
A commitment to service. The department does provide a range of services to ensure a high level of
environmental quality, and the
department is committed to emphasizing a service‑oriented and consultative approach in carrying out its
mission. We believe that this was enhanced through our
decentralization commitment that was
made some three years ago.
A commitment to accountability. Given the complexity of environmental challenges currently facing the
department, it is impossible to address
these all in the same way and to the same
degree. The department will
provide ongoing reporting of its
priorities and strategies.
There is a commitment to quality,
delivering quality service and knowing
that our customer, i.e. the public, what their needs are in pursuing excellence in providing those
needs. The objectives of the department are to deal with
water quality, to ensure that there is
an environmentally safe disposal of waste
including solid, hazardous and liquid; to ensure high level of air quality; to maintain our scientific
knowledge base and their capacity in
regard to both global issues and point and area
sources of emissions; to ensure protection and rehabilitation of soil vegetation and wildlife; to ensure that
effective and efficient support for
public health programs is established.
Part of our strategic plan. The department has been developing long‑term plans through a
series of workshops. The department, when that is completed, will have
an internal review of this plan to
identify implementation opportunities and how it can be integrated into day‑to‑day
operations.
Several programs under waste reduction
and prevention will come into effect in
fiscal year '92 to support The WRAP Act and
our goal of 50 percent reduction in solid waste.
The fiscal support funding program such
as the Innovations Fund will be made
available to projects in support of the WRAP
program objectives. Beverage
container and packaging regulations are
now coming into effect. This regulation
will be to ensure that container
recovery meets or exceeds levels achieved in other provinces.
This will be done by filing of waste reduction plans by distributors, licensing the distribution
of beverages, establishing target
recovery rates, establishing a program to
monitor the recovery, establishing penalties for not meeting those targets, retailers to either install
recycling bins or inform customers of
closest recycling depot, container processors
to provide recovery information.
An information management system is being
established to ensure that data are
collected and evaluated.
Newspaper recycling. We have made a commitment of $200,000 towards the improvement of newspaper recycling
capacity in this province. Of that, $100,000 has been earmarked and has
been expended in rural Manitoba, and the
balance is available for use within the
city of Winnipeg. There obviously will
be some further opportunity to discuss
that.
Tire recycling and recovery. As we talk, there sits on my desk a paper for a request for proposal that
we will be dealing with in the public
sector in the next short number of weeks to
start the capacity building and the ability to recycle tires out of the waste stream.
Oil recycling. We are developing regulations that will
lay out the standards to be met for
recovery and recycling, and the
petroleum products industry has pledged its support with collection and recycling to take place later
this year.
Regional recycling networks have seen a
wide acceptance. There has been an
expansion in the level of recycling and waste
reduction activities carried out across the province. The
priority up till now has been establishment of regional recycling networks through some support from the
Innovations Fund to support technical
and practical assistance to communities.
The time has come to strengthen
this co‑ordination among regions so
that the information may be shared.
I can talk about that later on in
my Estimates.
Regional waste management: In the fiscal year '91‑92, the department organized a program to promote
regional waste management solutions as a
very effective way to reduce the sheer
numbers of waste disposal grounds that we have across rural Manitoba.
That has been supported by the Association of Urban Municipalities and the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities, and I am very pleased
with the relationship that we have been able to
develop with them. The challenge
of achieving sustainable development
means we must rely on new and effective ways to
ensure our environment is protected.
Regulatory strategies provide a
critical set of tools, but the department is actively exploring ways to apply policy approaches that
are based on the efficiency of marketing
mechanisms in allocating costs.
One of the areas that has taken a
considerable amount of time from a very
small section of my department, I suppose, is the Ozone Depleting Substances program. The regulation will come into effect July 1. The act has been proclaimed, and this
action is consistent with efforts being
developed across the country and around
the world.
*
(1910)
Our program is being viewed by a number
of jurisdictions across the country as
one from which they can pick up ideas and,
to some degree, follow along. In
fact, we are very much in line with the
national standards and protocol. Very
briefly, it requires mandatory recovery
and recycling of designated CFCs, proof
of training prior to servicing equipment, record‑keeping requirements, record‑keeping for
wholesalers as well‑‑servicing
of refrigeration and air conditioning and fire extinguishers is prohibited unless recovering is available‑‑and
labelling to identify ozone‑depleting
substances, removal of certain hand‑held
Halon‑based fire extinguishers and the use of ozone‑depleting substances for flushing or leak testing is
now prohibited in most
circumstances. The use of a
designated ozone‑depleting substance
as a solvent will be prohibited in the future, and the use of designated ozone‑depleting substances
for sterilants will be eliminated by
1994.
All of these steps are not without some
difficulties, but I would point out that
we have been able to second a person from
the private sector to provide training.
The numbers that have been
trained are quite significant. I will
have to get the details of the numbers
shortly, but we actually have other
jurisdictions coming to pick up on our training program so they can implement it within their own
responsibilities. We have found that private sector has virtually paid
its own way in making sure that they are
now trained.
The Innovations Fund: Through the fund, we have provided support to 37 projects, which include
recycling, collection, composting,
education and awareness, support for regional waste management incentives, Environmental Youth
Corps, conferences, CFC training, Earth
Day and network support involving the
commitment of some $737,000. We
expect to substantially expand the scope
of this type of funding consistent with the initiatives that were announced in the provincial budget.
The Youth Corps was a program that was
designed for participation by Manitoba's
youth. We were able to, with a very minimal amount of investment, I have to
state, impact with some 65 projects that
were funded under this program. A total
of 6,510 youths were involved in the
Environmental Youth Corps project. Including administrative costs, we were able
to get that many people involved in
community activities for $200,000 in
total.
We paid for supervision, which created a
total of 264 weeks of employment. The projects that were carried out were of
this general nature: rehabilitation of natural environment and
local parks; tree planting; recycling;
community enhancement; riverbank, lake
shore restoration and rehabilitation; composting; fish habitat restoration; wildlife habitat
restoration and rehabilitation or
protection; flora and fauna protection; and
wildlife conservation.
Manitoba and the Department of
Environment have been quite active in
the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. A number of key activities that were
accomplished over the past year‑‑The
Canadian National Packaging Protocol, where the
Canadian Code of Preferred Practice was produced by a multistakeholder task force, I believe, is a
good example of industry voluntarily
becoming involved in a process that it is
much better that they lead rather than be regulated into.
The criteria for risk management and
cleanup of contaminated sites were
produced in '91 to allow a nationally consistent approach to contaminated site
management. Interjurisdictional agreements were developed to cost‑share
the clean up of high‑risk orphan
sites and to demonstrate new cleanup technologies.
In '91 steps were taken to develop a
comprehensive national approach to air
quality management. These steps included
a strong commitment toward the goals
outlined in the Strategy on Global
Warming. This will commit all
jurisdictions in Canada to co‑operate
on improving air quality.
Co‑operative principles for the
harmonization of environmental
assessment have been developed, and improvements were made in the strategic planning process
to ensure that speedy action is taken on
key environmental issues.
CCME has been the organizing centre for
developing a national action plan for
recovery, recycling and reclamation of CFCs.
We have been involved in federal‑provincial
joint panels and the establishment of
those panels and co‑operating with the
federal government on two panels that are presently underway in this province, obviously the Conawapa and the
North Central Transmission Line. In both cases, the panels will undertake extensive public consultations. The joint panel currently carrying out scoping meetings for Conawapa,
participant assistance was to the total
of $250,400, up to this point, for
eligible interveners. In scoping,
the panel consults with the public to
identify and prioritize the issues and to assess these issues.
Information from scoping meetings is used to develop guidelines for the proponent.
Following the conclusion of the scoping
phase, the Participant Assistance
Committee will reconvene to consider
participant assistance to review the environmental impact assessment and provide input into the
hearing.
The North Central Transmission Line,
which will serve several aboriginal communities
in the North, is also subject to a panel
review. This joint panel is
preparing its community meetings and is
currently confirming them for June and July.
With increasing concern for the
environment, the department receives a
growing number of requests for information.
Our public outreach this year has
continued to be expanded, particularly
through the department's regional offices and will include materials such as the Be a Friend of
the Environment series that we initiated
last year and, of course, through the
Environmental Youth Corps.
The objectives will be to improve
knowledge and understanding of the
issues, to increase public participation in departmental programs, to improve the department's
capability to respond to information
needs and to ensure that communication is a two‑way communication with the public.
Targets of the outreach strategy will be
schools, businesses, organizations,
environmental and public, staff of municipalities and departments and as wide a range of the
public as possible.
Shoal Lake has been one of the ongoing
issues which I am sure the members will
want to question me on later. The Manitoba‑Canada Water Quality
Monitoring Agreement is in place now and
helped to collect data from approximately 50 locations. Souris River water quality monitoring is
ongoing to protect our interests
regarding any impacts from Rafferty‑Alameda to make sure that we receive our proper quality and
quantity of water.
Legislative amendments, the members are
fully aware of. The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation
Act, Sections 8 and 10 are proclaimed
effective the end of this month.
Private sewage disposal system regulation
is in a consultation process with
various municipalities seeking their
input on what its best structure should be. Some joint research is being done, particularly in the area north
of the city of Winnipeg along the Red
River. We are working on our next
State of the Environment Report. The Clean Environment Commission's report on the Assiniboine and Red Rivers will
be out very shortly.
We are very much involved with Natural
Resources and the zebra mussel program,
which is taking some considerable amount of
time of some of the departmental staff and is causing a great deal of concern, because it is virtually
impossible, in the eyes of many people,
to totally guarantee that zebra mussels will
never arrive in this province.
Their arrival is probably
imminent.
Hazardous Waste Management: We all know that the corporation has successfully found a site, has gone
through what I believe were successful
hearings and will help us to have safe
collection, storage and treatment of hazardous waste.
The Clean Environment Commission expects
to be involved in a number of public
hearings, the Pembina Valley water supply
project being one of them. They
have now completed the Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation's review. They
will be publishing a hearing process
called A Process Guidelines and a Citizen's Guide to the Public Hearing Process later on this
year.
*
(1920)
Sorry, that took so long, Madam
Chairperson, I prefer to answer
questions.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official
opposition wish to make an opening
statement?
Ms. Cerilli: No, Madam Chairperson, I will just move right
into questions.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the Liberal Party wish
to make an opening statement?
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Yes, Madam Chairperson. Very
briefly, I want to get into the details as soon as possible, but I do think it is important to reflect on the
past year for this department, and the
coming year.
This department spends not a lot of money
when compared to other departments,
compared to the government at large.
The truth is, Madam Chairperson,
that its legislative and social utility
as a department is far beyond what the dollars would suggest.
Its primary role, in my view, is to act
as an enforcer. Part of enforcing, of course, is leading; you do
not just enforce with the stick, you can
enforce with the carrot. The department
is called upon to put into place
legislation and then to enforce that
legislation. We can sit here and the
minister can discuss all the wonderful
things that should happen with respect to the
environment, but if it is not enforced, it does not really mean a lot.
It must not only be the law, but it must
in fact be enforced as the law
throughout the province. My concern stems
not just from lack of enforcement in the
community at large, but I sense a lack
of willingness on the part of the government itself to live within the standards it purports to set for
the outside community.
Madam Chairperson, that has become a great
disappointment to me in the past
year. This minister's response to the
Clean Environment Commission report on
Abitibi‑Price's logging in
Nopiming Park, was an enormous disappointment to me and, I believe, to the community at large.
This government's inability to deal
effectively with the recycling issue and
to capture, I think, sufficiently the public
willingness to participate in these programs is a source of disappointment. Madam Chairperson, there are a whole host
of issues on which I think this
minister, while I do not doubt or
question his integrity on these issues and his desire to do what is right in the area of the environment and
environmental regulation, I really
question the sustainable development
rhetoric which comes consistently from many ministers in the government.
I question it because I have not seen it put into practice in the world outside this Legislature.
Truckloads of contaminated soil were
dumped at the corner of Inkster and the
Perimeter Highway some months ago.
Madam Chairperson, that is surely
not leading. That is surely not sending a signal to the community that we
want to deal responsibly with
contaminated waste.
The Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation
said at the CEC hearings that 80 percent
of the adverse effects of the
contaminated substances it was dealing with would come from the contaminated soil operation‑‑83
percent to be exact. The department sanctioned dumping 10,000 cubic
yards of this soil on a public highway
with no signage, no posting, no nothing,
certainly no treatment.
Enforcement was stated at the CEC
hearings recently into the Hazardous Waste Corporation. It was a
statement from the officer of the department that enforcement was less than aggressive‑‑I believe
were the terms used. That I think is an interesting statement, because I
think it belies that there are problems
with enforcement.
I would suggest that is a gross
understatement, but it is an indication
that even within the department there are real
concerns that enforcement is just not being done to the same level that other jurisdictions around the
world and even on this continent are
doing, and they are doing far more than we are in Manitoba.
So, Madam Chairperson, I sense a fear and
I sense a foreboding in the department
about the future and about, gee, if we
let the environmentalists get their way too much, too often, we are going to be in deep trouble, even
though we know that in time, of course,
what they see now as necessary will seem like
foolishness that it was not in place at this point. Ten years
from now, we will be sitting here, I speculate, saying that things that the department is nervous about
today are ridiculous and should have
been in place years ago. I sense a
desire to restrict and constrict the
effectiveness and the power and
authority of outside groups like the CEC and like the joint environmental panels that are going to be
reviewing Conawapa, Repap, North Central
Transmission Line and Bipole III.
So, Madam Chairperson, I have an uneasy
feeling about the department's real
commitment to the environmental needs and
desires of the community at large and that is no less so with the federal government, but I sense a general restrictiveness,
a general approach towards these issues
which is to try to contain them and to
contain the need for the department to act.
That is a concern.
In closing, I want to highlight for
members here that when we come to the
appropriation under the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation, I will at that time‑‑but
I will indicate now‑‑that I
will be declaring a conflict of interest due to my employment, and I will not be in the Chamber for
consideration of that appropriation. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, perhaps while staff is coming in, maybe
I could usefully use a few minutes to
again remind my colleague from St. James
that the soil that he is so concerned about that was removed from the site where the Remand
Centre is being constructed was of a low
enough level of contamination that it did
not fall into hazardous waste category.
That does not mean that is a
practice that we will be using on an ongoing basis, but it does mean that we did not check our brains
at the door when we went into the
minister's office. Some sanity and
common sense has to be used as well in
dealing with these issues.
I think Marianne wants to talk about
Innovations Fund before she leaves.
Ms. Cerilli: While the staff is being seated, I had sent a
note over about the appropriation for
the staff for the Innovations Fund,
which I understand is a Sustainable Development unit which is in the Department of Natural Resources,
and I do not have the book for that
department. I am just wondering if there
is a way that I can just get that page
from the Department of Natural Resources
Estimates' book copy as we are proceeding.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, the Sustainable
Development unit is composed of a number
of people. It is lodged with Natural Resources. We are talking about the staff numbers. There is not a significant designation of
staff for that unit in terms of handling
the Innovations Fund. Each department
that has been responsible for
applications to the fund is required to do
the paperwork and the administration or the management of the paperwork in terms of applying to the
fund. The Planning & Innovation branch of my department handles the
majority of the work because, primarily,
most of the applications come through my
department, through the Department of Environment.
The initial screening on requests that
come in from the general public may very
well start with Sustainable Development
unit. They also co‑ordinate
the applications that are brought
forward to the Sustainable Development Committee for a final approval after they have provided evaluation
before they go on to Treasury Board and
cabinet.
*
(1930)
To see whatever that figure is, and
Natural Resources might be able to
supply it, you would not gain any insight in terms of what happens with the Innovations Fund. I understood your question more about whether Natural Resources‑‑or
for that matter Agriculture or I, T, and
T‑‑used funds out of the Innovations Fund.
They would sponsor certain applications.
I, T, and T has specific
allocations for industrial environmental innovations, a specific $300,000 amount that is assigned to
I, T and T to specifically apply to
projects that may come up through their
department, but if they accept those projects they then follow the same flow as all the rest. They come forward to the same cabinet committee and on to Treasury Board as
all the rest, but there is a specific
chunk that is provided there so that they
know that they can apply that or encourage activities related to projects that they are dealing with.
Madam Chairperson: Does the honourable Minister of
Environment wish to introduce his staff?
Mr. Cummings: Certainly.
Norm Brandson, Deputy Minister; Jerry
Spiegel, Policy; Wilf Boehm, Financial Manager; Larry Strachan, responsible for Licensing; and up in the
gallery is Carl Orcutt.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I am interested in
some of the comments made by the member
for St. James and I, too, am concerned
that the government is not doing near enough in areas related to the Innovations Fund. I have with me materials from other provinces which talk about what is
going on in other regions with respect
to developing fees for emissions and taxes
on waste material and all other sorts of economic instruments that can be used to generate money to create
such a fund as we are dealing with
today. It seems to me that the small
amount that we are doing in Manitoba is
just the tip of the iceberg.
I have a number of concerns with regard
to the management of the fund. The comments the minister made were news to
me, because the brochure that advertises
the fund indicates that the Sustainable
Development Co‑ordination Unit is the organization that does some screening. Maybe that is where I can start off and ask the minister to clarify what kind of
committee is it that is reviewing these
applications. I have heard concerns from applicants and those who are involved with
the fund that there seems to have been
some problems with the screening.
So let us just start off with
clarifying. What is the structure for how this is administered? Is there representatives from the departments that the minister has
listed? Can he clarify that?
Mr.
Cummings: I have no problem in answering
the question about whether or not there
is an ample screening process for the
Innovations Fund. It is so ample
that, in many respects, I find it seems
to have perhaps more screenings than I might initially apply myself.
The fact is that the member may be
hearing some frustration from groups
that would consider themselves lobby groups, who feel that they should receive ongoing operating
funding out of the program. That is definitely a nonstarter. There may be other ways that they can acquire support from the
public, but it will not be through this
process.
Secondly, in establishing the fund, we
made a very fundamental decision as a
government that we were not going to
provide hidden taxes, or cream off in ways that would not be very obvious to the public, resources which would
then end up being discretionary spending
in this department or in other
departments. Philosophically, I
think we have to view that as something
that was not an easy decision. It is
always nice to have sources of money,
and certainly the options that I am
referring to were examined.
I can point to other jurisdictions where
there is an environmental levy on
disposable containers, for example.
Saskatchewan just doubled theirs.
The dollars that they are taking
out of the beverage container industry and the support of environmental projects is quite
enormous. Those, in fact, we believe are viewed, when you look at them
critically, as hidden taxes. If you view beverage containers as a
percentage of the waste disposal
problem, they are about 1 percent. Yet
in a lot of these jurisdictions they are
probably contributing 50 percent of the
cost towards remediating problems where there is discretionary spending allowed, in some cases
more than that.
I think the figure in B.C.‑‑and
I invite staff to correct me if I am
wrong here. It seems to me the figure
that B.C. will be taking out of the
beverage container industry this coming year is
$76 million worth of discretionary spending. You could argue that it would be nice to have that
discretionary spending, but there has to
be some principles applied on how we raise tax
dollars as well.
We made the decision that dollars would
be raised and they would be designated
for programs that were identifiable, so there
was no guessing about where we were getting the dollars or where they were going.
The other thing that happens is that‑‑and
we were criticized to some extent a year
ago‑‑they felt that there were some
programs that were justifiably departmental programs that were getting funded out of the Innovations
Fund. We have limited that to a very large degree. But in other jurisdictions there is a very wide latitude on a lot of things that
have, in fact, been considered
departmental responsibilities that have been funded through these types of environmental levies.
The approach that we were taking, and I
referred to it in my opening comments,
about the fact that there were two
announcements in the throne speech.
One was that there would be a tax
on diapers and that there would be a tax against used tires.
Both of those announcements will be in place this summer.
Those dollars will be allocated to the Environmental Innovations Fund. At the same time, we will probably re‑examine and review the criteria for this fund,
because as you will see the figures that
are in front of you, the dollars in the fund are somewhat reduced from the original
dollars. That is a straight result of the Manitoba Liquor Commission
increasing the amount of money that they
are paying out for the bottles that are being
returned and pay more dollars to Manitoba Soft Drink Recycling to handle that increase to volume. The money that is available to the Innovations Fund is whatever is leftover
after the five‑and‑ten cent
environment levy that was imposed on liquor
bottles.
As their costs rise, the amount of money
available in the Innovations Fund has
reduced, and we intend to deal with it in
the way that I just talked about.
But we have rejected the idea of
imposing environmental levies at random, or imposing deposit fees and then scooping the unreturned
deposits or activities of that
nature. Because the same principle could
apply for a tire system, where one could
apply a $5 tax on tires, find that it
only costs $4 to run the system and scoop the profits out of it. That would be nothing more than a hidden tax,
and probably not really acceptable to
the public as a whole.
*
(1940)
Ms. Cerilli: The minister, I think, alluded to one of the
issues I wanted to raise, and that was
the fact that in the two different
budget documents, the one on revenue, the environment protection tax generation is $1,800,000. Then, when we look at the line in the budget document for the
Environment Innovations Fund, it is
somewhat less, $1,171,000. Can the
minister explain why there is less money
in the fund than is being generated under
the tax on the liquor bottles?
Mr. Cummings: The difference is that the dollars that are
sent to the fund are the dollars that
are left over after the Liquor
Commission runs its return program.
The alcohol beverage container
recycling program is expected to take $600,000, so that would account for just about the difference
of $600,000.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, that is going back to the Manitoba
Liquor Control Commission to cover the
cost of the program. What kind of costs is it covering?
Mr. Cummings: The cost per pound or the cost per bottle
of container that they are returning
plus they have a contractual arrangement
with MSDR which, I am guessing, but I think it runs in the neighbourhood of 6 cents a pound.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
how much of the Environmental
Innovations Fund was paid out in the
last year to other departments of government?
Mr. Cummings: I gave the critic from the New Democratic
Party a breakdown of the list of
materials. I should perhaps get
another copy of that and give it to the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) as
well. Direct payments to other
departments would be zero, but there are
programs that did involve other departments,
and that is why I pointed out the $300,000, for example, that is a direct allocation to I, T and T, which they
then have to account for back through
the fund.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, how much went to the
Department of Natural Resources or
programs administered by the Department
of Natural Resources?
Mr. Cummings: I wonder if the member would wait for a couple
of minutes, and I will try and compile
what that might have been. I think it is a little difficult to pull it
together in terms of the precise
dollars. I can say that if you are
asking the question, did we fund
anything that Natural Resources is doing
that would replace what was a normal program line for them, the answer is no.
The same thing is true of the Department of Environment.
We did fund some educational material, but it was a function of‑‑we just would not
have published that material if we had
not been allocated that money out of the Innovations Fund.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I recall that last year,
when we went through this, some monies
had been taken out of the Innovations
Fund, I believe, to pay for some part of the Dutch Elm Disease program. Did anything like that happen this year?
Mr. Cummings: Not that I can immediately call to mind. We are
looking at the list of projects, and there is nothing that falls into that range. I do not have a copy just in front of
me. I am
looking over Wolf's shoulder here.
But the fact is, a moment ago, I
referenced the Department of Environment.
The figure that we used to
publish some materials was $700, so it was not that we were pillaging the fund in any way.
Mr. Edwards: No, I am not going to get exercised about
$700 for pamphlets, but Madam
Chairperson, last year this fund funded
things which could hardly be called innovations. They were
essentially funding programs which had been funded previously by the government but that the government had
decided for one reason or another not to
fund to quite the same degree, and the
Environmental Innovations Fund was tapped to make up for some of the shortfall. One of them was the Dutch Elm Disease
program, a very worthy program, but what
I questioned was the appropriateness of
taking funds from the Environmental
Innovations Fund to cover it. I
do not have the benefit of the list the
minister has provided to the member of the New
Democratic Party. What I am
asking is: Was any funding given this year for the Dutch Elm Disease program
through the Department of Natural
Resources?
Mr. Cummings: The answer is no, there is nothing. I will
provide the list. There is
nothing of that nature. I should take the opportunity to point out on the
record the nature of the projects that
were involved. The member could, if he
were in a mischievous mood, characterize
the Regional Waste Management Fund as
something that is not necessarily an innovation, but that is the type of projects or program initiative
across the province that we
involved. What that was was an offer to
municipalities which were prepared to
regionalize their waste disposal; in other
words, close down a number of smaller waste disposal sites and put in a well‑engineered central site
or regional site.
We provided grants, up to a maximum of
$20,000, to help with that. The fund was established as $120,000 to
attract the interest and see what
interest was there. It was paid out to
the Solid Waste Area Management, Eastman
regional development, The Pas, Virden,
Gladstone, Neepawa, Interlake Development
Corporation. All those areas are
working on regional waste concepts.
The general projects envisaged, as I had
said earlier, the Environmental Youth
Corps, Elm Creek recycling, Killarney
composting‑‑St. Vital School Division had a special project‑‑Residents Against Waste,
Winnipeg Packaging, Mine Tailings
Research Centre, which was to try to get some additional technology available here in the province,
oil recycling. Earth Day received a small grant as well‑‑primarily,
though, directed at increasing recycling
capacity.
I would have to indicate that having done
this now for two and a half years, we
are getting a building network across the
province. Probably, there will
not be such a draw on this fund for
recycling projects in the future; it will be reduced somewhat.
Ms. Cerilli: The list that the minister was just referring
to, how many of those projects that are
listed were actually done by another
body than the group that is listed, they hired a consultant or another organization?
Mr. Cummings: There would be half a dozen. Some of the regional waste disposal ground applications, that was
to support engineering and conceptual
justification, a waste oil study that
the Brandon Economic Development Board was involved in‑‑and
there is background to that, too, that
the member might be interested in,
because Brandon has long hoped to bring a rerefining capacity into the province.
*
(1950)
There is an obvious association with the
fact that there is already a major oil
company involved in Minnedosa producing
ethanol, so it would seem like a logical extension of that possibility to continue to work. They have looked at a number of things through their study, of course, not
just that. I cannot think of too many other examples where there
would be anything that would fit in the
category you described.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister then go through the list and
point out for me specifically which
projects were done by a third party and
what the name of that third party was?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think I could go through and point
out the name of the third party. I can tell you that on the regionalization of waste management there was
one company that did maybe three of
them, so they would have received a benefit
more than once out of it. But the
money did not go to them; it went to the
community to assist them with funding of whoever won the contract to do the work for them. It happened that there was one company that won more than one contract.
Community recycling outreach workers,
Waste Stream Management has received a
grant, educational materials. None of
these are fitting into the Westman
Recycling Council. I am not sure that
I can properly answer the member's
question without going back and producing
a detailed analysis, which we have further back
somewhere in the department, of who is physically going to put the shovel in the ground. If the member thinks it is worth knowing, I could provide that, but you might
fall asleep before you got through it
all. It is quite weighty.
Ms. Cerilli: It is an issue that has been dealt with
before. I do not know if it was this session, or it
must have been the last session, where
we had Moore Consultants, Jim Moore, who received a grant, and there was some concern about
that. I think that one was an example of a consultant. But I am interested, if not right now, to get the information of what
third parties were receiving money under
this program to do work on behalf of a
community organization. I would
ask the minister, at some point after we
have finished the process, to provide that one for me.
Mr. Cummings: That is not a problem; we will provide
it. But
you probably will not get it for a few days, if the member can wait.
The issue, however, of the variety of things that are involved here‑‑for example, the
putting together of the ICASE
proceedings, that has gone to the United Nations conference as required reading, and has allowed Manitoba
teachers to contribute on a global scale
what information they were able to bring
together during that conference.
That is an example of where you
are not going to‑‑something you will never see happen again.
If you want to question the innovation,
it has certainly brought together new
information and a unique group of people.
That is one large one where ultimately they had to pay to have an editor pull things together. A lot of these other ones, I do not think there was any third party that really
received any benefit out of this. When you look at the community‑based
organizations that received the funds,
they undoubtedly paid someone, but not
as a result of that person soliciting more because they had work that they wanted done.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, having looked at the list
that the minister has provided, I do not
have many more questions in this area,
but I would like to know what the grants to the Town of The Pas, Town of Virden and Town of
Gladstone were about.
Mr. Cummings: They were paid out under the Regional
Waste Management Fund, which is the
heading that they are listed under. That would be to deal with their regional
waste management process, bringing
together either more than one
jurisdiction, closing at least more than a couple of disposal grounds or amalgamating them were mainly the
criteria that the committee applied to
this. This was not a hard program to get involved in, but it required matching dollars
from the communities that applied. I think perhaps that is the missing link that the member is looking for when he
questions whether those grants were
useful or not. They are met by
matching dollars on the other side,
which requires them to have some
commitment to the project.
Mr. Edwards: I was not questioning the usefulness. I was just
questioning what they were about.
Well, just on that issue of
regional waste management, I notice from a recent resolution of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, which
they passed recently, a resolution of
their board of directors, saying‑‑and this April 23, 1992, very recently‑‑that
current legislation does not provide for
the formation of a multimunicipal incorporated
regional waste management authority and they resolve to request the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) to review the pertinent
provincial acts and propose amendments if necessary. Now, they say the Minister of Rural
Development‑‑it is obviously
an environmental issue though that this minister is very involved in, very interested in. Is there a move to put into place the legislation that the UMM speaks about to
provide for the multimunicipal
incorporated regional waste management authorities?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, there is a willingness to deal with
this. I
am told that there are other tools available to the various municipalities that would allow them to run
joint ventures. They find them cumbersome and unattractive, and
they would like to see a revision of the
act. I am not unfamiliar with the
problems of The Municipal Act.
It is an older act that needs a lot of
overhaul, but it is an enormous
undertaking. Whether it was myself when
I was in Municipal Affairs or any of the
subsequent ministers, it is not a task
that anyone would relish. It would
consume ministry for the better part of
a year to get the job done. So minor
tinkering with it has been avoided
because it is an old bill that needs to
be redone.
I think there are ways that we can deal
with the problems, and I am not unaware
of them, because I have got it right in my
own back door. The R.M. that I
live in and the Town of Neepawa have
identified this is a problem as well.
So, yes, we hope to be able to
work our way through it.
Ms. Cerilli: As I look through the list I notice that the
Fort Whyte Centre is not on here. I seem to recall seeing Fort Whyte Centre getting money in the Order‑in‑Council. Is that not from this fund?
Mr. Cummings: Their application for this year, I believe,
was deferred. They have Composting Caravan, that Fort Whyte
ran last year, was the fund that was the
dollars that they would have
received. I am not sure if that
is listed this year or a previous year
allocation. I think it was the previous
year allocation.
Ms. Cerilli: If we do the calculations for the amount‑‑
Madam
Chairperson: Excuse me. Order, please. The hour being 8 p.m., it is my understanding we are supposed
to change departments now.
Shall we recess and call the other
department in? Agreed.
* * *
The committee took recess at 8 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 8:03 p.m.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. The
Committee of Supply with reconvene.
This section of the Committee of
Supply will now be dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Natural Resources. We are on page 128.
Item 3. Resource Programs, (c)(2) Crown
Lands Administration (a) Salaries. Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): They are coming, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(c)(2)(a) Salaries $549,900‑‑pass; (2)(b) Other Expenditures $151,800‑‑pass.
(3) Crown Lands Registry (a) Salaries
$300,700‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $196,900‑‑pass.
Item 3. (d) Forestry: (1) Administration (a) Salaries.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Chairperson, I will wait till the staff take their seats.
An Honourable Member: Paul, do you realize we have one hour?
Mr. Edwards: Yes, we have one hour. I know that.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
I believe the honourable Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) wishes to introduce new staff.
Mr. Enns: Just to introduce additional staff. Mr. Dave Rannard, Director of Forestry Branch, has joined
us. He has a bit more spare time this time. We are not burning quite as much of our forests up this year as we have in other
years.
Mr. Edwards: The Clean Environment Commission issued a
report a couple of months ago commenting
on Abitibi‑Price in Nopiming Park
clearly indicating that they felt the direction of the government logging and parks had been wrong. Can the minister indicate‑‑I am sure his department has had a chance to
review the recommendations in that
report‑‑which, if any, of the
recommendations with respect to forestry and forest management the department does not agree with?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, it is not a question of
the department taking a position with
respect to a specific recommendation of
the Clean Environment Commission. This department has had the responsibility of
managing the forests of Manitoba for
some 60 years now, since the transfer of resources from the federal government was made to the
provinces back in the '30s.
We believe it is not a question of
defending departmental turf, if you
like, it is simply a question of recognizing the mandate of this department. We have a Forestry Branch that has had the responsibility for many years to make
the management decisions vis‑a‑vis
the forests within Manitoba. It is from
that general point of view that we will
continue to make those management
decisions.
We certainly recognize, and we are not
oblivious to the fact that there has
been concern expressed from different sources
within the province with respect to not only logging activity, but any kind of activity within some of our
parklands. I think it is important for the record to simply
understand how it is that we have the
conflict that the Clean Environment Commission
with this recommendation tends to focus on.
The Forestry Branch was there first. The forestry reserves were there first. We had substantial lands set aside that
came under forestry management. It was laterally in the '60s and in the '70s.
For instance, it was my pleasure to be part of the government in 1979 that decided to create
Nopiming Park largely on what was
already and always had been for many years a forestry reserve.
Similar comments can be made for the area
that my friend the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk) represents. When Parks people came to government at that time and
said, look, we want to create an
additional provincial park, the Forestry people said, fine, we do not mind you overlaying a park on
top of an existing forest reserve. They did so because (a) the area was
defined, (b) there was some access‑‑forestry
resources roads had been built through
these areas, which made it attractive to Parks
planners to look at these designated lands. There was a common understanding and a commitment that there
would be multiple use of that piece of
land.
That is how many of our provincial parks
came into being. Indeed, it should be
noted that in Manitoba we have a much higher
number of acreage set aside in our provincial park system than do some of our sister jurisdictions, by that co‑management,
if you like, or that co‑operative
agreement between the Forestry Branch
and the Parks Branch. What we are
faced with now and what the Forestry
Branch is faced with now, who, on the one hand, had the responsibility of assuring that available
timber would be available to those
10,000 Manitobans who make their living from
extraction of our forestry resources, logging and so forth, that we now find the goal posts moving on us with
the suggestion being made that we ought
not to be doing any logging in parks.
That is a fundamental and major policy question
that not only this department but indeed
the government is being challenged with,
and we are accepting that challenge. We
are doing so, we think, in a responsible
way by, in the first instance, allowing
Manitobans, ordinary Manitobans, many of them who live in the regions affected, to express their opinion
about how we go about to try to resolve
that conflict that has arisen and has been
focused on by the Clean Environment Commission's recommendations that, ergo, we should cease and desist from
all further logging in provincial parks.
*
(2010)
Mr. Edwards: It is just a bizarre concept to me that you
would have a provincial park and allow
logging in the provincial park. I do not
understand what a provincial park designation means, if it means that the government can go ahead and
grant timber licences and mining permits
and everything else, to just go on as if
the park did not exist. I mean, that is
what we do in the rest of the province.
So what is the point of making it a
park? What protection exactly is afforded to the flora and fauna of
an area designated as a provincial park?
Mr. Enns: I suppose the most demonstrable way that I
can bring that home to the honourable
member, and indeed to the Val Weriers of
this world, is to suggest to them that the area that this government, my department, is now being hard‑pressed
to stop all that unacceptable logging
activity in Nopiming Park, for instance,
to be specific‑‑that is the specific park that is under question, I assume because it is viewed by
the honourable member and others as
being a desirable forested area, lending itself to park purposes and worth protecting.
I say that, I point that out to him,
because that area has been logged for
the last 60 years. If that area has been
logged for the last 60 years, it tells
you‑‑with the kind of management
that our Forestry Branch has exercised in that specific area, it should give you some confidence as to the
sensitivity with which one of our major
firms, Abitibi‑Price, has logged in that area. The very area that I am being pressed to put
immediately under protection or else it
will be lost forever, has been logged for
the last 60 years.
I say to myself and I say to members
opposite that speaks reams of the kind
of responsible management that not this
minister, my predecessors, other governments before me for the last 40, 50, 60 years, that they have
exercised a great deal of prudence, a
great deal of caution, in applying responsibly a multi‑use approach to parks. If the honourable member, on the other hand, says, let us just do away with
it, he says that 10,000 jobs are not important,
that if that results in a substantial
decline in the Manitoba economy, then that is another issue.
I
am simply saying that if Nopiming Park is being held up, if the Whiteshell is being held up, if it is
being suggested‑‑and I think
it is being suggested‑‑that we have beautiful parks in Manitoba, that we have a wonderful
environment in our parks in Manitoba,
well, I am saying to you that the policy that
heretofore has been in effect has obviously not damaged them or else there would not be this sudden onrush
for protection. I think, Madam Chairperson, my Forestry
director, my Parks director, myself as
minister should be cautioned, should be told
to be prudent about how we continue to manage those areas, that we do not allow forestry activity to take
place right to the banks of a particular
river, that we do not allow forestry
activity to take place in selective portions of the park.
I remind the honourable member, fully 80,
85 percent of the park is not logged,
but it has been told to us, and we have
worked with these people over these last number of years, that information was also made available to the
commissioners of the Clean Environment,
that certain percentages, 5 or 10 percent, are
extremely important to the ongoing viability of that particular forestry operation in the northeast part of
the province. I have certainly received many hundreds, if not
several thousands, of letters from
individuals across this province indicating that we should exercise a great deal of caution
before we move arbitrarily in changing
the goal posts, in changing the rules.
Madam Chairperson, that is precisely what
this department intends to do. We attach a great deal of importance to
the up‑and‑coming hearings
that will take place throughout the length
and breadth of this province, including the city of Winnipeg, commencing some time in mid‑September. We have not set a specific date, but the commitment is there
for these hearings to commence this
fall.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, similarly the company,
the environmentalists and I know this
department took a keen interest in the
Department of Environment, through its appointments to the Clean Environment Commission and its
representation to those hearings, took a
keen interest in the public hearings which took
place leading up to the decision of the Clean Environment Commission on Nopiming Park and Abitibi‑Price. That was a full and frank public discussion, and it was not
on the many natural resource issues that
the minister intends to have his discussions
about. It was specific to that
situation, on Nopiming Park and Abitibi‑Price,
and the decision happened to be against the
government's interest.
They gave the CEC the back of their hand
as a result, very, very definitively and
very clearly. The fact is that the government has been called to account for
what this minister terms multi‑use,
and what is in a sense, in essence, the same
management practices inside a provincial park as anywhere else in the province.
The question remains: What
protection exactly does being in a
provincial park afford in terms of the wilderness and the flora and fauna in the area?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, the honourable member needs
to be corrected on two counts: No. 1, it is not the same business with respect to resource or logging in our
provincial parks as anywhere else in the
province. There are much stricter
rules, zoning rules, supervision that
apply to any of the logging that is done
in our provincial park system. They are
quite different.
It should also be noted that after the
ruling, some of the very environmental
groups that the honourable member refers to
came to Abitibi, came to government, met with my colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) and
suggested different ways of resolving
this issue, and the honourable member raised
issues here in this Chamber, among them‑‑I do not wish
to indicate something that he may not
have said, but I can certainly refer to
Hansard. I believe the honourable member
also suggested, as did some of the
environmental groups that were concerned
about this area that consultation should take place, perhaps a redefinition of park boundaries
should take place that would clarify and
could separate the questions of where logging
could take place and where it ought not to take place.
If a decision is that it ought not to
take place, period, in our parks,
simple. Then, obviously there is a
challenge to the government to look very
hard at the current boundaries of the
parks system and see whether or not we cannot acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the many hundreds if
not thousands of people that are
involved that gain their livelihood from this
activity.
Madam Chairperson, that is precisely what
we intend to do. You know, I do not
think we are that far apart. I appreciate, and it is a challenge within the different
disciplines, within my department. That is what makes the Department of Natural Resources the interesting department that it
is. Certainly, my Parks director is not unaware and brings
forward in our internal discussions
about today's concept of what should or should not take place in parks.
On the other hand, my Forestry director
speaks, and has to speak forcibly for
the responsibilities attached to his
particular branch, in this case Forestry. So that makes for interesting professional, disciplined
discussion within the department. That mirrors, quite frankly, what is taking
place in the general public.
Because our current parks land
legislation allows for multiple use,
allows for resource extraction, for that reason, we get a failing grade from the park watchers,
particularly from our more militant
environmental friends, because that presumes that every acre of parkland is available for some
form of development or forestry extraction.
Now, I am not happy with that as a Parks
minister. That is why I want a new parks act drawn up, because
I recognize that today is the
1990s. What seemed like a very good,
common sense arrangement in the '60s
and, indeed, in the '70s that facilitated
both forestry industry and Parks interests is not necessarily flying today.
On top of that, we have, of course, the further commitment that this government and my
Premier (Mr. Filmon) has made to the
Endangered Spaces Program.
We envisage, at least I envisage, that
existing provincial parks along with the
current federal park that we have at Riding
Mountain along with the proposed parks such as Churchill and, perhaps, at Hecla, that they will be part of
the Endangered Spaces areas that will be
designated in Manitoba.
*
(2020)
To do that, of course, we have to resolve
the issue with respect to logging and
other resource extraction which is the
criteria by which Endangered Spaces will be designated. So those
are the issues that I look forward to having a full and frank discussion with many Manitobans during the
course of these hearings that have been
alluded to on several occasions now.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, our time is very short so
I am not going to pursue the issue
except to comment that the negotiation
process which was entered to, and I think was so productive for so long between the
environmentalists and Abitibi‑Price
actually led to an agreement which fell apart
because of unfortunate circumstances having nothing to do with the substance of their arrangement. Both parties were agreeable to the appointment of the mediator.
Unfortunately, the Minister of the
Environment (Mr. Cummings) saw fit not
to take them up on that, which I see as an issue of control, in which the
Minister of the Environment was not wishing
to relinquish control to parties that had come to an agreement on their own.
It was very unfortunate in my view, but there is no question that the arrangement, as I saw it,
and I did not see the fine print, but it did include changing park boundaries
to accommodate some of the logging
desires of Abitibi‑Price.
I have no desire to see job losses
anywhere in Manitoba, least of all in
the forestry industry. However, the
balance does have to be struck and I am
glad the minister indicates that he
recognizes that a park must mean something, wherever the park is.
This minister set up Nopiming Park, or his government did in 1979; that is good, I am glad about that. That should mean something.
The park should mean something other than
the land outside the park in terms of
protection. He says it means stricter regulations and zoning requirements. I would like to see what those are, and maybe he can provide them to
me in due course. I would like to see exactly what distinguishes,
in terms of the department's review of a
logging application, a park today from
nonparkland areas.
Let me move on briefly on the issue of
Dutch Elm Disease and refer to the March
19, 1992, memorandum tabled in this House by
the minister which was to Mr. Rannard, the director of Forestry Branch, from Richard Westwood, chief of
Forest Protection. It was tabled in this House by the minister on
April 10, during Question Period.
It indicated in the conclusion of that
memorandum that the province was just
maintaining the acceptable 2 percent level.
They had to reduce the overall geographical extent of the program, cut out communities and buffer zones
due to budget constraints. This is the final sentence:
At this time it is difficult to predict
if the reduction in the program over
levels established in the 1987 to 1990 period
will cause an eventual resurgence of the disease and escape our 2 percent goal.
Essentially concluding that, budget
constraints were calling into question
this government's ability to maintain the 2 percent target.
Is that still the case?
Mr.
Enns: Madam Chairperson, we have confidence that the
2 percent level of disease or dead trees
and their removal will be maintained
with resources that are currently being applied by the city and ourselves. The fact that a forestry biologist
within the branch raises the question,
as he legitimately should, and raises
the caution that we ought to monitor the situation closely, that we ought to be prepared if,
indeed, that the mortality rate of 2
percent or less would be increased if
additional funds were not made available in the future, is something that we will do precisely as
suggested by Mr. Westwood.
I might say to the honourable member that
we have been fighting Dutch Elm Disease
since the early '70s or mid‑'70s, '74,
'75. It was contributed to at the
provincial level, recognizing at all
times that it is essentially in the city of Winnipeg, of course first, an immediate responsibility for
the City of Winnipeg. But we recognize as a government, as have
previous governments recognized, the
importance of maintaining the beautiful
elm shade trees that we have in our capital city and, since we have started fighting Dutch Elm
Disease, have made a direct contribution
to the city's efforts. That level
of contribution I might say in the '70s
was in the order of $150,000,
$160,000. I say this not to appear
immodest, but when I became Minister of
Natural Resources in '78‑79 or '79‑80, I doubled that amount to $350,000 under my
stewardship at that time, and I put on
the record that amount was not changed.
It did the job of by and large
working towards these guidelines of
keeping it at the 2‑percent level.
The 2‑percent level, by the way, is
not just an arbitrary level. Experts have said that is the optimum use of
public money in controlling the spread
of Dutch Elm Disease and, obviously, I
cannot fault that decision. The
fact of the matter is that here in
Manitoba and in Winnipeg we have done an exceptional job of restraining and restricting the spread of
Dutch Elm Disease. Many jurisdictions
who have not, you know, acted as we have acted
have lost their trees in a very few decades. That level, by the way, of funding of $350,000 a year was deemed
to be appropriate throughout the seven
years of the Howard Pawley administration.
Dutch Elm Disease was there as it is today, and I had no citizen's committee, least of all heavy‑duty
Tories leaning on me suggesting that
$350,000 was not an appropriate level.
That remained unchanged for the
first two years of the Filmon
administration until it was my turn to come back in the ministry.
I was persuaded that partly, although I
do not state this as empirical fact, but
we did recognize, and certainly as a farm boy
myself, that we had come through a four‑ or five‑year, six‑year period of drought. These were just gut feelings, if you
like, and good advice from my foresters
who said that when you have a disease
present, as with anything, any added stress could increase the odds.
*
(2030)
I was persuaded that to ensure that we
maintained the 2 percent or did a bit of
catch‑up that we doubled that to
$700,000. I was also persuaded
when faced with some serious budgetary
questions when I had to examine when every $100,000 spent in the department meant, in some
instances, jobs for people. When I had to ask my manager in the
department to lay people off, I examined
every program as to whether or not the
proper allocation of resources was being made. I was told that we could bring back‑‑and I
refused to accept the word "cutback."
It was an accelerated program for four years.
We are now back to the same level that
nobody criticized my predecessor
government for for seven years during the '80s when they were fighting Dutch Elm Disease, and
they were not under the same budget
restraints that my managers had to work under in the spring of '90‑91. So for those reasons, I am satisfied that
the program that we are engaged in is an
effective one.
I was further moved to, nonetheless, put
some additional monies into it because,
you know, although we can congratulate
ourselves with maintaining it at the 2 percent level, the truth of the matter is if you do simple arithmetic,
in 36 years we have lost half our elm
trees.
I was not satisfied that although the
City of Winnipeg was involved in a
reforestation program, they were doing that solely on public property. I do not fault them for that. Their
immediate responsibility was on their boulevards, on their land where they were cutting down elm trees and
replacing it with their reforestation
program, but we were losing more trees than
we were reforesting.
That is why I decided to put the
additional $200,000 that we have added
on top of the $350,000 on a plantation program.
Madam Chairperson, that
plantation program is not just a matter of
going around planting trees. We
have a registry of homeowners who have
lost beautiful elm trees, who have registered with us, who have registered with the city, and where
they have lost elm trees. These are the people who, in a systematic
way, are being offered and provided with
a replacement tree.
I believe that is sustainable
development. Just making sure that we cut down and remove the dead and
diseased trees at the rate of 2 percent
a year is not sustainable in itself. In
a generation, in 30, 40 years, we will
have lost a very substantial amount of
our beautiful tree cover in this city. I
take some pride in seeing that is not
happening.
Mr. Edwards: Question on this area, Madam
Chairperson. I appreciate the minister. It has grown, the budget has grown. It was
under his administration that it grew. I
accept all of that. The point is that costs do increase; the
point is that the cost of not doing this
is horrendous, not just in terms of the
effect on the community of losing the trees, but when one takes into account the cost of removal which is
horrendous. There are various estimates that have been given, but
one of them suggests, and this is again
by the chief of the Forest Protection, Forestry
Branch, Mr. Westwood, that during the next decade Manitobans would be faced with a $25‑million tree
removal bill, and a $28‑million
bill for replacement of trees if the rate of 2
percent were even doubled to 4 percent.
Now those are horrendous figures
which come from the chief of the Forest Protection, Forestry Branch, Mr. Westwood.
Madam Chairperson, what I would like the
minister to comment on is whether or not
he takes any issue with Mr. Westwood's
statement that, as at prior funding rates, that is the $700,000 per year:
We can manage the program with a 2‑percent annual loss rate in terms of tree replacement and tree
removal.
That is his statement that is the second
last paragraph of the memo that the
minister tabled. Under present budgets,
that is the $700,000.
He goes on to say: In our opinion our program sits on the bubble.
We are just maintaining that 2‑percent level with the $700,000 again.
Then he goes on to say: If we lose another $350,000 we have to cut out communities in buffer zones, and
at this time it is difficult to predict
if the reduction in the program over levels
established in the '87 to '90 period will cause an eventual resurgence of the disease.
Does the minister dispute that the
reduction back to $350,000 has thrown
the 2 percent level into doubt as an achievable goal, given Mr. Westwood's clear indication that it
has thrown it into doubt?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I am going to see whether
we cannot reach some agreement with my
critic, because I did appreciate that
sometimes when we have our differences they are compounded if we argue about fundamental facts. It seems to me, and certainly as expressed by the honourable
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) who
often raised this matter on behalf of the official opposition, that there is a general
acceptance both by city officials and by
those who are elm tree watchers‑‑and I would like to include the honourable member for St.
James‑‑that the 2‑percent
figure is acceptable as being the optimal management figure that we should strive for. At issue is‑‑and that is the question that Mr. Westwood raises‑‑whether
or not that level can be sustained.
I refer the honourable member then to
page 96 of his Supplementary Information
for Legislative Review book where the
statement is at the bottom of page 96, where we make a very understandable and firm commitment with
respect to our policy: Dutch Elm Disease
control through reducing tree mortality to 2
percent or less in urban centres and communities and through reduction of hazard and disease on trees.
That is our stated objective. We will carry that out. We are
doing it now, and I have no quarrel with an official of my department that raises the question as to
whether or not we will be able to
continue that. We can certainly raise
this next year or even if we have
evidence mounting that in the fall cleanup we
ought to raise it, then that will be done.
A commitment that I am making and I have
made to the city and I make to the
honourable member that that is the optimal
management level that we ought to strive for and the department is committed to it. Now, I go on to say, because Dutch Elm Disease is not unique to the city of
Winnipeg, we are engaged in some 40, 44,
I believe, municipalities and communities throughout the province of Manitoba who have also
suffered from the onslaught of Dutch Elm
Disease.
In fact, when taken in total, our
expenditures on controlling Dutch Elm
Disease is in excess of a million dollars.
It is in the order of $1.5
million, I am told by my Forestry
director‑‑$1.5 million.
Now, I ask my honourable critics, when
you are overviewing the overall responsibilities of this department as to the maintenance of our parks
system, to the maintenance of our water
control systems‑‑this morning the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) was advised that our total capital spending on water drainage
projects is $1.7 million‑‑well,
we are spending $1.5 million in fighting a disease that we cannot beat, but we are doing it
because we believe, aesthetically, it is
worthwhile doing it, because citizens of the
province want us to do it, and because we are doing it relatively successfully.
You know, I am coming to the opinion that
if we had any trees left in the city of
Winnipeg, I would still be asked to spend
$700,000 to control Dutch Elm Disease when there was nothing to do anymore with it. I would ask you, if I were quarreling,
if the department was taking issue with
my critics on this program, if we were
taking issue that, no, 2 percent is not an acceptable figure, 5 percent is acceptable to us, then
you have got something to fight with.
But we all agree, the city foresters, our
foresters, Dr. Westwood agree that 2
percent is the optimal management level in
terms of trying to control this disease.
So you are challenging me, and
Dr. Westwood has raised the concern whether or not we can maintain at that level. I have to rely on the information that I have from professional staff that we can.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(d) Forestry: (1) Administration (a) Salaries $604,100‑‑pass; (b)
Other Expenditures $84,900‑‑pass;
(c) Grant Assistance $26,000.
3.(d)(2) Forest Management: (a) Salaries $732,700‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $145,500‑‑pass.
3.(d)(3) Silviculture (a) Salaries
$733,100.
*
(2040)
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Chairperson, one question on this line.
I notice in Other Expenditures, and the importance I feel of Silviculture and the minister has
indicated how reforestry and such and
maintaining our forests is so important‑‑in
his explanation he says, a reduction of $555,000 reflecting a reduced requirement for seedling
production. Can he explain that, and can he explain the cut in
this portion of the department?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, the entire reduction is as
a result of the reduced demand from
those obligations that we had principally
with Repap and to some extent with Abitibi, but I understand principally with Repap for
considerably less seedlings, numbering
upwards to three million. That has
forced us to make the policy decision to
operate the Clearwater Nursery up at The
Pas on a summer basis only. We do that
because it is obviously less expensive
to operate during that period of time,
and we have essentially not planned for, and that is reflected in this reduction for operation during the
winter months. We have been able to provide the necessary seedling
amounts that we are under contract and
otherwise obligated to provide through the
nursery facility at Hadashville, as well as with the contract that is operable with the Sioux‑McDonald
Native people just south of Portage who
grow about a million seedlings or 900,000
seedlings for us.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(d)(3) Silviculture (a) Salaries $733,100‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $2,481,500‑‑pass.
3.(d)(4) Forest Protection (a) Salaries
$694,700.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, just a quick question
here. Going back to the Dutch Elm
Disease issue, I would just like to ask
the minister, when municipalities and villages contract the pesticide control of Dutch Elm Disease
through the Natural Resources
department, the contractors who are involved in the actual work, are they under control of the
Natural Resources department? Whose control are they under when they do
apply the pesticide and whose
responsibility is it at the time of the
application, and how are the people who do the spraying monitored as to per the regulations and policy of the
spraying itself?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that the responsibility resides solely with the
municipal authorities, just as it does
here in the city of
In addition to that, I am advised that we
do accept, as our responsibility, to
control in some instances the buffer areas, if
there is tree growth in around a community or municipality where it is applicable. The incidence of elm trees is not
everywhere in the province. They are site specific, usually along
river banks, communities that are in
around rivers and streams that have a
Dutch Elm population in the first instance.
But the responsibility, whether it is
spraying, whether it is the work that is
being carried out, is, in fact, directly that of the municipality. They hire contractors‑‑or do if
they have their own public works people
or wish to employ their own municipal
staff to do that‑‑to remove and cut trees. They have
guidelines that are available.
The honourable member is aware that
we are concerned about not widely distributing the diseased woods, that the disease is spread in that
manner.
We have fairly specific and restrictive
guidelines as to how the cleanup is to
be done. But that is the responsibility
of the municipalities, and for the
honourable member's information, some
621 over $1,000, in excess of $.5 million, is provided for this work, along with a sanitation crew who
inspects the sites to see that the
removal of the dead and diseased trees is done in accordance to the regulations the department
has.
Mr. Clif Evans: I am talking specifically about spraying‑‑not cutting down, spraying. There are regulations and a pamphlet as to how they are to go about, when they do the spraying‑‑conditions,
criteria. I am asking the minister: Who is
responsible to monitor that, the actual spraying?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I am advised that the same
answer applies, that it is the
responsibility of the municipality.
Indeed, it varies with respect to different by‑laws and regulations that municipalities have. As you know, in the city of Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg will not
spray if individuals make that decision‑‑in
writing, I think; it is a procedure that
they have to follow.
We are not directly involved in the
operation, but again, we do monitor the
operation and to that extent provide some
direction. There are regulations
and guidelines that have been
established for the spraying operation by the Forestry Branch. But we do not have the jurisdiction in a
municipality or in the City of Winnipeg,
necessarily, to enforce them. We provide supervision, if you like, or monitoring,
because we, over the years, have
garnered some of the best information that we have in terms of how to most effectively control this
disease, and we passed that on in the
form of guidelines and regulations to the
municipalities.
*
(2050)
I should add that the applicator, the
actual contractor or the person doing
the spraying, does have to have an appropriate
licence from the Department of Environment. I would suspect, knowing those fellows, those fellows and gals‑‑gals
and fellows, those women and boys‑‑that
they will put them through a pretty
significant process before they get their licence. I like to be
gender correct here, Madam Chairperson.
I am having some difficulty here
in learning the new rules.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 3.(d)(4)(a) Salaries
$694,700‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $1,293,300‑‑pass.
3.(d)(5) Canada‑Manitoba
Partnership Agreement in Forestry
$2,773,100‑‑pass.
3.(e) Fisheries: (1) Administration (a) Salaries
$431,700. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Clif Evans: I know we are short in time here, Madam Chairperson.
I have some specific questions in Fisheries that I am not going to go line by line on this, but
just go to different areas.
Firstly, I had indicated in my opening
that there had been applications or
requests for hatcheries within my region.
I would just like to know what
the minister's department is going to do
about and what he has been doing and how he has been negotiating or discussing the issue with the
Dauphin River Reserve as well as the
request by Fairford Reserve for hatcheries
in their areas.
What has the minister's department done
about these two issues?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I have to acknowledge that
we have certainly had discussions with
these people. There are ongoing requests from different sources with respect
to further activity on the part of this
branch, particularly in the business of
operation of hatcheries. I was
pleased that early on, on my return to
the ministry, that we were able to revitalize a
hatchery that had been closed for a number of years up at Grand Rapids.
That hatchery operation is running, and we will be entertaining additional hatchery operations
in the future. Again, it is a question
of available resources. But I do
not quarrel with the honourable member,
there is a great deal of interest, particularly
on behalf of those who watch the fishing
industry, that this aspect of the department ought not to be neglected.
Madam Chairperson, perhaps you will allow
me to introduce Mr. Joe O'Connor who has
joined us, who is currently the acting
director of Fisheries. As I
indicated earlier, Mr. Worth Hayden, a
long‑time director of Fisheries, is being transferred or is in the midst of being transferred to accept the
responsibilities as regional director in
Gimli.
I am doing that because he expressed a
particular desire to be closer to the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans), and I am sure he will get along very fine.
Mr.
Clif Evans: I want to deal with one specific before
some closing remarks. The minister is aware and had met and
was lobbied by fishermen representing
two areas: the Grand Rapids area and Area 6. The indications after that meeting‑‑and
the minister had indicated to me that at
that time that he was in fact going to
allow three and three‑quarter inch mesh in the Grand Rapids area, and also indicated that he
would not allow three and three‑quarter
inch mesh to the request of the Area 6
fishermen.
Also, I felt by his indication that at
the time the three and three‑quarter
inch mesh in Grand Rapids was going to be on a
trial basis. I would like to ask
the minister why the people in north
basin are under the assumption the three and three‑quarter inch nets are allowed to be used by the
whitefish fisheries? Is that true then? Has that come from the minister?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, the honourable member is
correct on some of the information that
he and I have chattered about. He is certainly aware of the request from the
Grand Rapids people to, on an
experimental basis, try the three and three‑quarter inch mesh.
Subsequently to my discussions with them and subject to the biological advice that I have received
from my Fisheries people, we have met
and agreed to extend the use of the three and
three‑quarter mesh to the Area 6 fishermen in Sturgeon Bay,
as well as the Grand Rapids area.
It should be noted this is for the summer
fisheries only. This is not the
whitefish fisheries and that process will be
carefully monitored. It is not an
extension of the reduced mesh size to
the white fisheries, but it is the belief and the best judgment on the part of our Fisheries
biologist that we can do a trial
run. That has been made very clear to
the fishermen with whom we have met in
the past little while, that they will co‑operate
with us, they will do some more intensive checking as to the results of the three and three‑quarter
inch mesh fishery at the end of the
season and make future decisions.
This is an experimental run at the
smaller mesh size in these areas for the
summer fisheries only.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would just like to get something
definitely clear then. Only in these two areas has three and three‑quarter inch mesh been allowed from the minister's
department. Just in these two areas, not the north channel, not
Bloodvein‑‑I forget what
area‑‑Area 5, not in Area 3, not in any other areas for summer fishing has this been allowed by the
minister. Two areas.
Mr. Enns: The use of the smaller mesh specifically to
the two areas as defined by Area 6 for
summer and fall only, which in essence
precludes the whitefish.
Mr. Clif Evans: In other words, any whitefish fisheries that
do fish in Area 6 or Grand Rapids, then
they are allowed also to use three and
three‑quarter?
Mr. Enns: I am advised that there are boundaries, as
the honourable member is aware, that
signify different areas and the white
fisheries are not allowed to fish in these areas.
Mr. Clif Evans: Just before my closing, I would appreciate
and put on record that I would like to,
at the minister's earliest convenience,
speak with him on this matter, perhaps tomorrow
even, on the allegations, hearsay, fact or whatever that I have had over the past four or five days on this
issue. I think it is important enough that the minister and I meet
along with Mr. O'Connor and the deputy
minister to this, so that I can get what
I am hearing straight because it seems to have created quite a stir.
I do not know if the minister is aware.
Mr. Enns: Sure, I am willing to do just that. I appreciate that there have been‑‑as always is the
case, we have received representation
not to make any changes, we have received
representation to make the changes.
We have not made final decisions,
I repeat. It is a trial run, if you
like, in these restricted areas for the
smaller mesh size, but I will be happy
to give the honourable member an opportunity to visit with myself and staff directly on this matter and afford
him an opportunity to get a full
understanding of what it is that the department is doing.
*
(2100)
Mr. Clif Evans: I do appreciate that. It has been in the last three or four days a hectic time for me in my
constituency, and I have stories coming
from every which way, and I would like it
clarified by the minister's office as soon as possible. Thank
you.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 3.(e)(1)(a) Salaries
$431,700‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $89,200. Shall the item
pass?
Mr. Clif Evans: If the minister would also, because we are
also out of time, we go page by page up
to‑‑[interjection! No, cannot
do?
Madam Chairperson: Regrettably, we have to have on the
record each item, each line passed.
Item 3.(e)(1)(c) Grant Assistance $6,000‑‑pass.
3.(e)(2) Fish Culture (a) Salaries
$635,400‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $249,600‑‑pass.
3.(e)(3) Fisheries Habitat Management (a)
Salaries $305,100‑‑pass; (b)
Other Expenditures $75,400‑‑pass.
3.(e)(4) Sport and Commercial Fishing
Management (a) Salaries $277,000‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $80,300‑‑pass.
3.(e)(5) Northern Fishermen's Freight
Assistance $250,000‑‑pass.
3.(f) Wildlife: (1) Administration $558,400‑‑pass.
3.(f)(2) Game Management $395,900‑‑pass.
3.(f)(3) Habitat Management $1,456,300‑‑pass.
Well, I just want to confirm that Hansard
indeed can hear me over the roar of the
members in the House.
3.(f)(4) Endangered Species and Nongame
Management (a) Salaries $410,600‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $121,600‑‑pass.
3.(f)(5) Fur and Commercial Wildlife
Management (a) Salaries $559,000‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $313,200‑‑pass; Grant Assistance $89,900‑‑pass.
3.(f)(6) Canada‑Manitoba Waterfowl
Damage Prevention Agreement $474,500‑‑pass.
3.(g) Policy Co‑ordination: (1) Salaries $574,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $35,300‑‑pass;
Grant Assistance $5,000‑‑pass.
3.(h) Surveys and Mapping: (1) Administration (a) Salaries $330,500‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $48,100‑‑pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $20,000‑‑pass.
3.(h)(2) Field Surveys (a) Salaries
$692,400‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $239,100‑‑pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $350,000‑‑pass.
3.(h)(3) Mapping (a) Salaries $466,100‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $104,200‑‑pass;
(c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $60,600‑‑pass.
3.(h)(4) Map Distribution and Remote
Sensing (a) Salaries $481,600‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $371,400‑‑pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$185,000‑‑pass.
3.(h)(5) Data Management (a) Salaries
$421,900‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $143,100‑‑pass.
3.(j) Sustainable Development Co‑ordination
Unit $177,100‑‑pass.
3.(k) Habitat Enhancement Fund $50,000‑‑pass.
3.(m) Natural Resources Institute Grant
$20,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 106: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $43,553,200 for
Natural Resources, Resource Programs,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1993‑‑pass.
4. Expenditures Related to Capital
$5,639,300‑‑pass.
Resolution 107: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,639,300 for
Natural Resources, Expenditures Related
to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the
31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
5.
Lotteries Funded Programs (a) Special Conservation Fund $250,000‑‑pass; (b) Endangered
Species Fund $250,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 108: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $500,000 for
Natural Resources, Lotteries Funded
Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I just want to put on
record that because of the situation
with the time element that we have with
these Estimates this year, there are issues that we here on this side and myself in particular, did want
to raise with the minister during the
Estimates. We passed on certain things,
like through the Wildlife section, more
on the Fisheries I feel was tremendously
important, there were lots of questions to ask.
More on Forestry, game ranching, questions that if we had the time, I am sure we would have asked and the
minister would have answered.
Hopefully, we will get the opportunity to
ask the minister, in concurrence, a few
more questions that we may have. I
hope the minister will, in fact, be
supportive and helpful in his
answers. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 104: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,107,100 for
Natural Resources, Administration and
Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Natural Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS
FUND
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): The committee of Environmental Innovations Fund will
reconvene. We are on Item 1. page 157, $1,171,000.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): One of the other questions I want to raise here is with respect to‑‑I
have here‑‑the other hit
list, the list of other products that would become revenue‑generating for the Innovations
Fund.
I have here, besides liquor bottles, we
could be considering diapers, disposable
products, Safeway bags and newsprint‑‑is it oil?‑‑tires. What are the other items that are going to
be brought in and how much revenue is
expected to be generated from those?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Again, while the two that I
indicated, diapers and tires would provide some
revenue for the Innovations Fund, if you look at the long‑range projections for the tire revenues, they are
designed to self‑destruct. In other words, when a process is up and running, when a system is in place with a recycling
cycle complete, the dollars would be
contained at arm's length, separate and apart
from government. It would not
continue as a tax. Present plans are that it would change to a WRAP levy which
would be managed by a combination of
industry and government officials, strictly to
deal with cradle‑to‑grave management of tires, speaking of
that specific item.
There always remains the possibility that
some small unidentified amount might
remain as a tax, but primarily we
believe that the public looks to these types of levies to deal with the particular material that is
involved. In other words, the cost of handling beverage containers or
tires should reflect the cost of
handling them, not the cost of handling them plus 20 other products in the waste stream. We have the flexibility under the WRAP Act to levy in a number of
different areas.
*
(2110)
Newspaper, I am presently reopening‑‑I
am not sure, if they have not received
the letter, they will get it within the next 24
hours‑‑the publishers, we are reinitiating discussions with
them to initiate a WRAP levy which would
provide some additional revenue for
newspaper recycling.
If I could just expand on that a little
bit, I believe that the market for old
newsprint is growing. The capability
of collecting it is growing, and
initiatives that the city is considering
at this point when all of those factors come
together, I believe, now is the time, between now and fall, that we will see rapid development in that area as
well.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
To address the tax issue, primarily yes,
those are all candidates, but I should
warn the member that it is not our
intention to simply make them candidates for revenue. They are
candidates to generate revenue, a large portion of which will be used to deal with that material in the waste
stream. Oil would be another example where we need to have a
regulatory capacity, and a capability
within the province to deal with the material
for recycling. All of that will
require some revenue but not choosing to
use that product to price it through taxation at a level that might make it uncompetitive with
other jurisdictions.
Ms. Cerilli: Is it too early to get some idea of the
anticipated revenues?
Mr. Cummings: Well, yes.
I would suggest the projected revenues
of the two identified areas could be as much as $3 million annually, given that we are already partway
into the fiscal year and no tax has been
imposed. That could be somewhat reduced
for the first year.
I also indicate that in the long term the
tire tax is not expected to be a
continuous source of revenue. Those
dollars will flow into dealing with the
tire itself and closing the loop.
The other items, it would only be
speculation. Again, we are not attempting to skim from recycling
programs just to be able to produce
additional revenue for the government.
That is about the best I can
answer at this point.
Ms. Cerilli: It is interesting what is going on in
some jurisdictions. I have a report from British Columbia of a
waste discharge permit fee system, which
has a number of fees and all sorts of
waste streams and emissions.
One of the other interesting things that
they are doing in B.C., and I do not
know which city, if it is Vancouver or
Victoria, where they have vehicle emission inspection stations throughout the city, and you have a computer
printout and it tells you the carbon monoxide
emissions of your car. Apparently, this is generating revenue which is
supplementing a fuel tax.
Are there any considerations for things
like that in the province in conjunction
with the municipal governments?
Mr. Cummings: Any of those suggestions I suppose are
possible. We have looked at a possible
emission testing regime. The fact is that Manitoba does not have an emissions
problem. That does not mean that we could not start doing more
to regulate what is occurring in the
province.
Interestingly enough, one of the positive
aspects of emission control on vehicles
is that, very quickly, operators who wish to
haul into other regulated jurisdictions have to make sure that their equipment is capable of meeting
standards. There may well be economic opportunity in the next few years
for people who wish to assist with
testing and certifying. That is not yet
available to us.
Emissions trading is always a
possibility, but it is not a really
popular idea. It certainly has its
downsides. I can tell you that in terms of water quality we have
said it is either suitable to be
discharged or it is not, based on the receiving
waters.
It should be indicated that Manitoba,
through CCME, is sponsoring a national
workshop on economic instruments later this
month, which addresses and tries to address in some uniform way the questions that you are raising about
whether taxation or economic instruments
of another nature can be used to impact on
what is happening in the environment.
Also, I think it is useful to
have some standardization across the province in that respect, or across the country, pardon me.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister must be aware through the
environment committee nationally that
B.C. is going to implement an entire
emissions scheme starting July 1, I think. I just want to press a little bit the position, the policy that
the government is undertaking, of not
considering these to be appropriate for
generating revenue. I do not
understand it. This is not something new.
I think I was reading in here that France
has been doing this since 1969 and there
are jurisdictions in the U.S. that have
these similar programs. This, to
me, is sustainable development. You may talk about some of the other
small initiatives that go on in the
province, but this to me would be the
kinds of steps that we need to be taking, getting a little more bold perhaps. I appreciate what the minister said
earlier about trying to weigh the
percentage of emissions between
industries and make sure that you are not unduly taxing one kind of industry more than the kind and the amount
of pollution or waste that they are
generating just because they are easier to
tax.
I would hope before too long we are going
to see these kinds of economic
instruments as something that will be considered just part of doing business, and that is the way
it is. I would maybe like to have the minister comment just to see
what has happened with our Manitoba
booklet, Harnessing Market Forces to Support
the Environment. When I was
reading the back, the back is fairly
limited when it talks about the action plan, even though it went through a lot of the measures that are being
used in other provinces. Maybe just ask the minister to describe more
of the reasons for the position that he
has given regarding these kinds of
programs.
Mr. Cummings: First of all, we have the capability to deal
with the issues that the member
raises. The question is whether or not choosing those types of instruments to
deal with our environmental concerns is
the best approach. B.C. has a high density traffic problem in the lower mainland
and prone to inversions, as I understand
it, and has to deal with its emissions
problem because that is there every day and a very obvious concern. They also impose a tax on downtown gasoline
as opposed to suburban gasoline to pay
for their monorail and other
transportation innovations.
*
(2120)
That may well work in their community, but
I think there would be hell to pay if we
imposed a tax on gas sold within the
Perimeter in Winnipeg and not on the outside in order to encourage people to use mass transit here in
Manitoba. All that would happen is that Winnipeggers would buy
their gas outside the Perimeter. So that, in itself, does not indicate that
what works in one jurisdiction is
necessarily a suitable economic instrument
in others.
We have also seen the national taxation
that occurred of gasoline a few years
ago which was to impose conservation on us.
To some extent it worked because vehicles are more efficient today, but there are also more vehicles on
the road. So there are a number of different ways that you can
use economic instruments. I believe the principle that should be behind
those that are problems is that the cost
that is imposed against them be the cost
of dealing with them in the waste stream if they, in fact, produce waste, or to direct people
towards less polluting and more
efficient sources of fuel for energy.
Those are the kinds of discussions that
will have to come out of a long‑term
discussion and plan for the use of economic
instruments. I suppose you could
also look at taxes on gas versus natural
gas. We have a very obvious problem at
the national level in dealing with that
because Alberta's emissions are up as a
result of production of natural gas and propane. If
you, across the board, impose penalties related to that, Alberta will be penalized for producing cleaner burning
fuel, but Ontario and Manitoba, to some
extent, and Quebec and some of the American
states will ultimately use in order to keep their emissions down.
So it is not just a simple formula that
can be applied when you get into those
types of taxation issues. The market
forces have to be combined with the
environmental problems that are out
there in order to achieve the ends that we both believe need to occur, but you cannot make blanket statements
on what will work. Emissions trading,
for example, Manitoba has two of the spot
sources for sulfur emissions, and we are reducing our emissions within the global requirements, and yet, we
are probably not helping the areas where
they are having trouble with acid rain
very much, because tests do show that probably where our sulphur is falling is not creating the problems that
are evident in other parts of the
continent. So there are also reasons to
reduce emissions just so you do not have
the overloading in a particular air
shed, as they refer to it, as opposed to just doing across‑the‑board removal.
You can even look at a global argument,
whereby, if you want to, overnight,
reduce the amount of emissions and global loading in the air, the most efficient use you could
make of that opportunity would be to go
into some of the Third World countries
and spend the same amount of money that you would spend here in increasing what are already some fairly high‑efficiency operations.
The last 20 percent of those are very costly. The
argument can be made very soundly that foreign aid to countries that have emission problems‑‑and
help them with the first 50 percent,
rather than the last 50 percent we are trying to get out of ours, will do more to reduce the emission
of global warming gases than any other
thing that can be done. That is one of
the major topics of discussion at Rio.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 1. Environmental Innovations Fund $1,171,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 133: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,171,000 for
Environmental Innovations Fund for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1993‑‑pass.
ENVIRONMENT
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose): It is my understanding
we are moving into Current Operating
Expenditures for Environment, page
53. Is that correct?
Item 1. Administration and Finance (b)
Executive Support: (1) Salaries $291,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $84,100‑‑pass.
1.(c) Planning and Innovation: (1) Salaries $475,400.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am sure the minister will appreciate that we may ask
questions outside of the particular
scope of the line we are asking, but we are trying to get through this with as little disruption
as possible.
I have received a number of pieces of
correspondence from people who would
like this government to participate in the
Pitch‑in week, in the Pitch‑in program, which the
government, heretofore, has not joined
in. I see the minister and his
staff smiling. I assume they have heard this question
before.
I wonder if they can indicate what is
holding them back from joining with this
group, which seems to have garnered support in
other provinces. I am not an expert
on it, but I would appreciate the
minister's comments.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): One of our concerns about the‑‑first of all,
let me preface my remarks by saying I do
not wish to degrade or speak against the Pitch‑in process or the Pitch‑in program, but we
made a decision, after some considerable
thought, that we would not see that as the best
use of our dollars, even though there was some leveraged activity.
Primarily what we saw ourselves buying was a very good promotion package, and there is nothing wrong
with that, but we made the decision that
our dollars would provide more net benefit
if they were used in another manner.
We do not have a lot of discretionary
dollars. There are dollars in the Innovations Fund for certain
one‑ or two‑time
opportunities, but we did not choose to go that route. Winnipeg
has a‑‑I cannot remember the name‑‑what I am
trying to remember to answer the
member's question is about the same time as
Pitch‑in was approaching us with the project, the City of Winnipeg implemented its own antilitter
program and that more or less finalized
our thinking that perhaps there were other ways we could put our dollars to
work without putting it in that program.
As I said at the start, I am not out to
denigrate the program, but it was a
promotion program and we have a lot of
people out there promoting today.
We have a lot of local recycling
organizations, a lot of schools, and we made the decision by prioritizing that this is where
we would spend our money and focus it
through the community organizations and the
Environmental Youth Corps would be another example of where we have had a lot of action.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, how much money were
they asking for?
Mr. Cummings: It has been quite a while since I dealt with
this issue. I am going strictly by memory, $50,000, in
that range, or $35,000 to $50,000,
something like that. That is strictly
by memory.
Mr. Edwards: Yes, I appreciate that it is not an exact
figure, but the minister indicates there
is some other kind of antilitter program
he mentioned in his first response. What
is he replacing this Pitch‑in
program with, if anything, in terms of provincial initiatives to do the same type of work?‑‑which
is important to get people involved in
an organized way in cleaning up litter
wherever it be outdoors.
If I can say by way of comment, I think
the minister is right. It is probably a very good promotional
campaign, but he is also right when he
says that is important, and if it is
structured in terms of time, a week, or a month, and it gets every Girl Guides group and every Boy Scouts
group and school kids and everybody else
involved in cleaning up outdoors, that is
worthwhile.
Is
there a similar program that the minister is envisaging putting into place, or supporting as a more
effective use of those dollars or,
indeed, less dollars?
*
(2130)
Mr. Cummings: I do not think it was a matter of
either/or. It was a matter of allocating dollars that were
somewhat scarce. Frankly, I think at the
time this decision was made, we were
talking about sponsoring a major ICASE conference here in Winnipeg, where we were in‑servicing,
hopefully, hundreds of different
teachers.
Not exactly a trade‑off of litter
cleanup, but in terms of a trade‑off
of having access to influence the future generation, it probably was equally as valuable a direction
for dollars. Again, it is not a direct trade‑off, but those
are the kinds of decisions that we have
to make when there are not a lot of
dollars floating around. I do not
regret making them; I just do not think
I can characterize this as a direct trade‑off.
The community organizations‑‑and
perhaps there is a difference between
city and rural. As I indicated earlier,
the city had instigated its own litter
cleanup program through City Council‑‑quite
successful; local BIZ is involved as well.
Across rural Manitoba we have had a real
upsurge of volunteer and workshop‑based
recycling and cleanup programs that we have
supported by other means. I think
they have been very successful on a year‑round
basis.
It simply was a decision of priority.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the Department
of Environment recently advised the
Manitoba Water and Waste Association
that they were going to further reduce their role in organizing and administering the Annual Water
and
I see, again, the minister probably has
had this question before. He seems to find‑‑
Mr. Cummings: About 50 times.
Mr. Edwards: About 50 times, he says. Well, maybe he can put on the record here today what was wrong with the
Waste Water School that merited
withdrawing the funds.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, when I say 50 times, I think I probably
had that many different plant operators
who contacted their council all saying,
well, we are going to lose our school.
All of which is wrong, all of
which was based on the premise that we indicated to them that yearly the Department of
Environment has to apply quite a bit of
staff time, albeit probably one person, but quite a significant chunk of their workload for
preparation of this school.
We are quite prepared to support it with
resources, with training personnel, and
so on. We asked them, through their organization, to accept more responsibility
for their own technical improvement in
terms of planning the program. Now,
we were talking about planning the
meeting rooms and organizing the general
approach to the school.
We also indicated, but it apparently fell
on deaf ears or someone out there has an
agenda that they simply want things to
stay the way they were and are either unwilling or reluctant to look at change. We are also seriously interested in looking
at standardizing some kind of training,
perhaps some kind of a certificate
course through one of the community colleges,
something that an operator could nail on the wall and point to if somebody questioned the way he was operating
the plant or if he went looking for a
job. That is the kind of approach that
we were taking. It may be a misunderstanding. Certainly, they have had letters from us indicating that we are
not withdrawing support for them, but we
are looking to reorganize it, that there
will be a Waste Water School this year, a similar format as there was before.
But as all professional groups evolve, I
think it is time that they have a little
bit more independence and they will still
have the support of the Department of Environment, albeit we are the regulators and we will eventually come
around to see how well they are
operating in the end. So it is not a
lack of support or commitment, but we
are looking at some changes.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 1.(c) Planning and Innovation:
(1) Salaries.
Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that we are going to be able to
ask questions throughout the department,
we are not going to have go line by
line. I just want to ask one question
about WRAP and then I would like to go
on to some other sort of local concerns.
Is that what we are doing?
There was some concern expressed to me
that when the regulations came in for
the beverage containers that the target
reduction for 65 percent was somewhat lower than what people had hoped for and I think which was even proposed
in some of the government's own
documents. If we are trying to achieve
a 50‑percent reduction in total
waste by the year 2000, we are not going
to do it by having that kind of a target on one of the waste stream items that is probably one of
the most easy to collect. To have the minister explain what happened,
why are we only shooting for 65 percent?
Mr. Cummings: Well, to begin with, the industry thinks it
is unachievable, given the time frame
that was imposed. It is a definitive one‑year time frame, and
industry is very concerned that they
will not be able to make it. I believe
the number was arrived at after a considerable
amount of discussion and looking at what
was happening in other jurisdictions. I
am reminded that I actually added 5
percent onto what the industry thought was
possible. They felt they could
only achieve 60 percent. I arbitrarily added five, and that is in fact
higher than the target rates in Ontario
right now, believe it or not. I
find that‑‑the head of my
policy section is nodding his head. I
am taking his word for it. That is higher than what they are achieving, I am told, in Ontario today with
their blue box program and everything
else
*
(2140)
So I agree that when you look at beer
bottles, for example, where they are
getting 95 percent return, that it appears low,
but it is within the realm of reasonableness when you look at what is happening in areas where you
supposedly have a good return
system. If I am not mistaken,
Saskatchewan has not hit 70 percent yet,
even with their Sarcan program. I stand
to be corrected on that one, but I know
they are not really high. They might be around the 70 percent range.
It was not a sop to the industry, nor was
it intended to let them off the hook
because there are deadlines behind it. I
have to say though, if you want to put
it into the context of 50 percent
reduction by the year 2000, you could leave‑‑your beverage containers are a small portion. You want to hit the big numbers, that is in newspaper, cardboard,
tires. I agree that we have to get the beverage containers away,
because they are a litter and waste
problem and there is valuable material in the
aluminum, but the big numbers are in the other materials, as I mentioned.
Ms. Cerilli: Just to stay with this then, what are
the negotiations going with the major
newspaper companies with respect to
having them develop some program for taking some responsibility in this area?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): The WRAP program envisages distributor responsibility,
which means that there would be a levy
that they would pay towards a fund that
would ultimately go to encourage reduction at some part of the system.
One of the things that has always been a problem is availability in markets. We have seen a low over the last year, starting to see a stronger market again now,
as I understand it. So there is
availability to move the material. The
collection system today is not totally
paying for itself. I would envisage that they would consider some sort of a levy
on a per‑tonne basis that could
then aid either the collection or the ultimate
shipping to a suitable recycling process. Abitibi‑Price Pine Falls operation hopefully will be a part of a
provincial system.
Our regional recycling programs in rural
Manitoba, some of them are shipping into
Saskatchewan on the west side of the
province. It is going for pulping
into egg cartons, that sort of
material. There are a number of
markets locally opening up here in
Winnipeg, plus there are brokerages that are brokering it into de‑inking facilities further away, and
as the price has risen they have been
able to demand more paper. I am hoping
that the newspaper publishers in this
province plus the flyer components will
contribute towards the cost.
I am deliberately not talking about a
figure, because there have been figures
talked about before, but as I reopen
discussions with the publishers I want to leave that an open book until we have a fair discussion with them.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister says that he is hoping. I am hoping
for a little bit more specific indication of what is happening in this area, what kind of commitment is there
from the paper publishers to get
involved in this kind of initiative.
Mr. Cummings: I guess I probably did not choose my
words correctly. I have the ability to regulate it, and I
will, but I intend to sit down with the
publishing community and hear their
input. I do not think they are
reluctant to enter into that discussion.
They are voluntarily paying $10 a tonne
to the Pembina Valley Recycling
Corporation to assist them with their paper, the amount of ends off the rolls of the unsold
newsprint. All of those things that have come to the attention of the
publishers in the last couple of years
as a result of our WRAP program. Those
are all actively being recycled, and
they were not before.
So there has been some small movement,
and I do not anticipate that we will
have too many editorials condemning the
government for increasing newspaper recycling through whatever means we ultimately settle on.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to raise a few local issues. One has to do
with cottage development in Lac du Bonnet. I have been told that there are approximately 1,000 cottages
approved for this area on both sides of
the river. [interjection! Yes, the Lee River.
There are sewage problems for both the Winnipeg and Lee Rivers. There has been no environment study done.
One of the questions I have with respect
to this, is there a policy that limits
the number of cottage developments that can be
zoned, given an area like this?
Mr. Cummings: I would ask you to repeat the last part of
that question.
Ms. Cerilli: There are a number of issues surrounding
this. There are the sewage issues, the
septic field issues, but there is also
the density, and I am concerned, and residents around there are concerned about the density of the
development in what should be a cottage
area, and it is being developed like a
subdivision, or even more densely I think. I have not been there, but this is what has been described to
me. So one of the policy issues that arises from this is, are
there are limits to the way that these
kinds of areas can be zoned for cottage
development?
Mr. Cummings: Well, part of the question is a land‑use
issue as much as it is an environment
issue. Obviously, any activity that occurs there will not be allowed to violate
our act, discharges as an example. But density of development‑‑albeit
it might alienate some of the local
cottagers who were there before and do
not want company, it is the responsibility of the local authority to decide what location they are prepared to
allow development in and then justify
that development through the regulatory bodies;
if it is Crown land, getting the original permits for land use and then all of the appropriate zoning and
regulatory permits that they would
require for any kind of development.
If you are talking about taking pristine
wilderness‑‑and I do not
think you are, because part of the area that I have been in has been populated for years, albeit not very
heavily. So, to some extent, the land owners in the area, if
they object, have to deal with their local
councils in terms of what is planned for
that area. Some of the
subdivisions that I have been aware of
there are well‑planned and contain all of the elements of protection from the environmental point of
view.
I can well appreciate that if‑‑and
I know there are people who have had
cottages there for two generations now, and all of a sudden see a subdivision of 50 cottages going
in somewhere not very far away from
them, that they could be upset. But I do
not think this department, in and of
itself, would stop it nor necessarily
should it.
Ms. Cerilli: I realize it is a zoning issue and currently that is held by the local council. What I am wondering though is, if this is not an issue of sustainable
development and of developing policies
in consultation with those agencies that are going to deal with density in these kinds of regions.
I would think that some of the problems
that they are having with respect to the
impact of sewage are going to be compounded
by the big increase of development.
If there were not as many
cottages there, that does not excuse improper storage of sewage.
Does the minister see room to develop
some policy, from an environmental point
of view, to ensure that there is a
sustainable use of land in areas such as along the Winnipeg River?
I do not know how close this is to the Seven Sisters area, let us say, an area that I am familiar
with, but does the minister agree that
there is not a role from an environmental
point of view in trying to develop zoning policies that are going to reflect sustainable density in these kinds
of areas?
*
(2150)
Mr. Cummings: We are represented at all aspects of
decision making on these types of
situations, as I suggested, through
provincial land‑use appeals, interdepartmental discussions
where there are subdivisions that are
brought to our attention.
I am told by the department that there
has been some improvement in the
planning of the subdivisions, and that, in
fact, there has been an attempt to have some of the cottagers‑‑this may be the area
you are referring to, I am not sure‑‑moved
to lower density locations in order to not overstress the facilities.
This has been going on for, I am told,
more than a decade, and we have not
identified any, from the environmental control
side, problems that we cannot deal with.
I do not disagree, however, from a broad
policy issue, with people wanting to
have the opportunity to cottage or to have a
second residence if they wish, or to camp and get out and enjoy what is one of the greatest aspects of this
province. It has to be done with some delicacy so that you do not
have an environment problem.
You only need to look at this province on
a map. We are one million people in one of the larger provinces
in this country. It is certainly above‑average
size, and if we cannot have cottaging
under these circumstances, then our world has gone crazy, frankly.
It is more a planning issue, and planning
has to have an environmental component
to it. We believe we have a handle on that, but complaints that you were raising
about density, we are aware of some
density problems and there has been some work done on that, as I understand it. But, again, I think it is probably the old versus the new in some respects as
well.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess what I am suggesting is that there is
a role for the provincial government to
play in these areas with respect to
having some kind of assurance that there is going to be policy considerations in all the
municipalities, but I want to ask if
there has been an investigation of septic fields running into the river, or the sewage in this
development on the Lee and the Winnipeg
Rivers area.
Mr.
Cummings: We can ask if there has been
any contact made with us. No one at the moment recognizes that area as
a problem. I do not recognize the name of that
development, frankly. We will look at it if that is your request.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 1.(c) Planning and Innovation:
(1) Salaries $475,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $105,900‑‑pass.
Item 1.(d) Financial and Administrative
Services: (1) Salaries $757,200‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $198,400‑‑pass.
Item 2. Environmental Management (a)
Environmental Operations: (a) Salaries.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, for the minister,
part of the job of this Environmental
Management area is enforcement in some
way or other of the environmental laws and regulations that we put into place in the province. As I referenced in my opening comments, I have a lot of concerns about this
department's enforcement and its
vigilance and aggressiveness when it comes to
enforcement of the regulations and laws we have put in place.
I also referenced some comments which
were interesting at the CEC hearings in
Letellier last week. Under questioning
from Mr. Pannell, a representative of
the department at those hearings made
what I do not think was an untoward admission but rather reflected his feeling, which I think, if
anything, underestimates the lack of
aggressiveness with which the department pursues enforcement.
Does the minister share those views that there is a lot more that could be done in terms of
aggressively enforcing the laws and
regulations for which this department is responsible?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I suppose that the
member could continue asking me until I
put something on the record that somehow
says that we could do a better job of enforcement. I am
sure there is not a policeman in the country who would not say that he could do a better job of enforcement
given additional resources, given
additional equipment, given additional time, et
cetera.
We can always do more. I will not shy away from that, but I do not think that there is a situation
developing where we have an out‑of‑control
industrial scene out there that we are not
properly following up on or regulating.
The City of Winnipeg, through its
own enforcement of The Environment Act or its own regulations that fall under The Environment
Act, has done an increasingly good
job. A number of their people are, I
guess, former Department of Environment
employees that they have upped the ante
on in terms of salary and hired them away from the province.
I do not know if we have a number, but it is not insignificant that that has occurred.
If
you were to ask me as minister, or ask the department, I am sure that we would say that if we could
have more personnel, we could do
more. Almost every department in every
province would say that, but I am not
apologizing for the system that we have
in place. If Sections 8 and 10 are
proclaimed in The Dangerous Goods
Handling and Transportation Act, I would a lot
sooner be in the position to know that we have the regulatory authority and the act behind us so we can
move when we have to, than to be in the
other position which is that you have lots of
personnel but you do not have the regulatory regime with which they can work.
*
(2200)
So, from the positive perspective rather
than the negative, I believe that we are
positioned so that we can move toward the
type of regime that is envisaged, for example, by the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation to
make sure that we are able to identify
and make sure that they are handled properly,
the wastes in this province.
I
do not view our problem as having a large act of underground sector that is dealing with
hazardous waste. Some people feel there is activity out there that
is illegal and unlicensed. If they are prepared to provide us with
evidence, we are prepared to deal with
it.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I guess I would feel
more secure if in fact we had a more
aggressive enforcement and there were no
charges. Then I think we could say, we
have checked, we have looked, and there
is not a breach of the laws and
regulations. My concern is if
there are problems, we will not know
about them. I had just asked the
minister in the last year how many
prosecutions have there been under The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act or The Environment
Act, and I believe there is also some
provision for provincial offences under
The High Level Radioactive Waste Act. I
am not sure of that, but how many
prosecutions were laid in acts under the
responsibility of the Department of Environment in the last year?
Mr. Cummings: I guess this total figure here, 431, is the
total number of warnings, common offence
notices.
Mr. Edwards: Well, the member mentions 431 warnings or
Crown offence notices. I am confused. Is that 431 offence notices that were taken to court or can he break that
figure down?
Mr. Cummings: Okay, there were five prosecutions, there
were 49 fines and 431 warnings. I did not total the other 54 in, so that would be a total of 485.
Mr. Edwards: Is it five prosecutions?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. Edwards: Of the five prosecutions, were any carried
through in the course of the year to a
trial, to a conviction?
Mr. Cummings: Five.
Mr. Edwards: What were the fines in those cases?
Mr. Cummings: The department says, their view of them was
that they were small. I do not think I have the figure here, but
I think one of the aspects that this
reflects is the severity of the
violation and the way that the courts viewed it. I might
differ with that, but I guess, as the member well knows, that might be my opinion, but the courts have
ruled.
Mr. Edwards: The way around that, if the minister
disagrees, to my knowledge, is just to
put in a minimum fine which judges then
have to respect. Just so I am
clear, there were five prosecutions last
year. Is that up from the year before or
down?
Mr. Cummings: I am told, roughly the same. There is a subnote on this note that says that there are a
number of charges pending that would
probably impact on this total if you were to refer them all back to the period in which they
were laid. But I am not aware of what that number is.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to the proclamation of
Sections 8 and 10 of The Dangerous Goods
Handling and Transportation Act.
There is a section in that act
that talks about the Crown being bound;
there is a section that requires, in Sections 8 or 10, those who were transporting dangerous goods have a
certain period of time to apply for the
licence and receive the necessary licence from
the department. Will government
departments who are transporting
dangerous goods be required to apply under the act for licences just like other people in the private sector?
Mr. Cummings: Any transportation of goods always was covered even without proclamation of 8 and 10. So nothing changes in that respect except that we will have a
better invoice manifest system for all
the products that we can enforce under 8 and 10.
Mr. Edwards: Will the government departments have to comply
with Sections 8 and 10 within that
specified period of time that is set
out, I believe in Section 10? I do not
have it in front of me, but there is a
grace period, as I recall.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not think
that government departments will be
getting any grace period even. We expect them to comply.
Mr. Edwards: With respect to my earlier comment, with
respect to the soil for the Remand
Centre north of
I would have a hard time understanding
how that soil could have been saturated
to a point that it did not require a
licence. Is he saying that the
entire soil that was put at those
locations was tested and was found not to be contaminated sufficient for a licence? Maybe he can explain at what levels it would have been and what level it was at.
Mr. Cummings: It was tested and it was not contaminated at
a level that would cause it to be
classified as a hazardous waste. As I
indicated, I believe in the House a couple of weeks ago or a week ago, we proceeded with some caution to
check the soil, to contact the
municipality and to do a few other things that
indicated that we wanted it treated with caution at least.
What you probably would have here is a
situation that I think would not be
uncommon in a number of cases. You might
have found a hot spot that could be
classified as hazardous material, but
you would not find very much of it.
That is probably where the
separation of material will ultimately break down in the way this waste is handled in the future. The more heavily contaminated sites or portions of sites will be identified
and probably treated much more carefully
in the manner in which the Hazardous
Waste Corporation is prescribing, but some of the more likely contaminated materials may be suitable for
some sort of a soil farming process.
If you would just wait a minute, I think
I have a note coming.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, if I can just
finish the answer on that. This will be a situation‑‑and I
should have thought of this earlier‑‑I
believe that there needs to be some review of
waste regulation, that we can designate materials that are sort of in this gray area more clearly, so that
there is a definite description, whether
it will be classified as a special waste or
whatever. It is the same
argument, only in reverse, that we had
over pesticide containers, where if it was a fraction over, we considered it a hazardous waste, and yet when
the pail was full‑‑the empty
container is considered a hazardous waste but the full container was not. That type of regulatory regime does not lend itself to easy management in my opinion.
*
(2210)
I believe that management of these
varying types of contamination that you
will find in excavating contaminated sites
is also‑‑an example would be if you took a hundred
truckloads of dirt, which might well be
what we are talking about here, out of a
site, you are going to get extreme variations within the site itself as to what is contaminated. If those hundred truckloads are in Thompson or Flin Flon or Brandon you
are going to haul them all to one site
to be treated when they are a very, very low
level of contamination. In my
view, what you need to be able to do‑‑and
some kind of practical application, and I am virtually blue‑skying here, so I hope the member
realizes that‑‑but in
viewing this material, are you going to truck that hundred truckloads of very lightly contaminated
material? You will burn more diesel fuel in the trucks, and spew it
out into the air than what will come out
of that soil, hauling it 200 miles to have it
treated.
But if there are a half a dozen or a
dozen of those truckloads that could be
identified as the heavily contaminated
part of the site, they can be hauled to an area where they can be more specifically treated for the type of
remediation that they require. Then some of the lightly contaminated materials
can maybe be treated in another way.
I do not have the answers. There are people out there who are suggesting some very good answers, from
the Hazardous Waste Corp., from the
petroleum industry, from the department.
Ultimately we will have to make a decision on what is the best way, and we will put a regulatory regime in
place, but we do not have the facility
even to deal with it today. We are on
the way to getting one, so I think that
is only appropriate that we answer those
questions as we move in that direction.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, was the quote in the
local paper correct with respect to the
volumes that someone indicated was
quoted from the department as saying a hundred times the 10,000 cubic tons which were dumped at that
site comes out of the city of
Mr. Cummings: I think the member has put his finger on
the enormity of the problem that we have
with petroleum‑contaminated soils,
and why there has to be some sensibility in how we deal with it.
I am told that figure could conceivably be correct. There is no way of confirming it, that is for
sure. It also indicates why there are people out there who
are promoting remediation onsite by
putting ventilation and forced air
circulation into contaminated sites and vaporizing the material right onsite without having to take it away.
Now, there are a lot of locations where
you cannot do that. We know that. You would not want to do that next to a residential area, not likely‑‑that
sort of thing. When you start talking about volumes, that is the kind of
problem we have to deal with as a
department.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in this case,
where admittedly the minister indicates
or appears to indicate that there may
have been some portions of the soil which were more heavily contaminated than others, of that we
are really clear, although overall I
gather the impression was that it was not that
heavily contaminated to necessitate a licence.
But would it not have been prudent to, at
least, have posted some warning to the
public, put some sort of barrier around it,
whether that be a simple rope or some way of identifying this as contaminated soil, albeit perhaps minimally
contaminated? I mean, it is rather shocking, and it was to
the R.M., I might add, that this was
dumped and there was no indication at all that it was anything but pure soil that the
Department of Highways was going to be
using.
In fact, it was contaminated soil. It strikes me that, while the minister may make a claim that it did not
necessitate a licence, to go the second
step and say it required no warning, no
identification at all. There was
essentially for the public's view a
complete denial that this was contaminated at all. There
was no indication that it was, and it was publicly accessible property.
It was at the Perimeter and Inkster
Boulevard, not at Portage and Main, but
that property was publicly accessible.
There was no barrier around
it. Would the minister not consider
that environmentally prudent to have at
least given some indication to the
public that this was contaminated soil?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose it is like safety for school
buses. You can never say that anything is perfectly safe
or that you have done everything
imaginable to protect the public or, in the case of school buses, students.
Certainly, you could argue that perhaps
we should have put up some signs. I am not sure what you would put on the
signs.
Mr. Edwards: Contaminated soil.
Mr. Cummings: Well, true.
But then do you put down the level of
contamination? Do we say, it is
not hazardous, but this soil‑‑you
get into a description then of it being contaminated. The reason that I put it in that sense is
that we had a number of dumpsters full
of contaminated soil, I believe, a lot more
heavily contaminated than this, in south Winnipeg, covered with tarps, a ventilation system under, presumably
safely handled, protected from the
public, but ultimately not accepted by the
community.
Yet the gas station that was there
previously probably emitted a whole lot
more gas through its vent pipes into the
atmosphere than that contaminated soil did sitting there in the dumpsters under a tarp, but it was the
impression that was created that this
was somehow going to blow up or burn. I
guess that is the concern that I have.
The member is correct. We could have put up a sign. Perhaps
I could even acknowledge it would have been the right thing to do, but at what point do you have an obligation
to inform the public, and how do you
inform them so that you do not create
panic or undue concern? This
material was not a hazard to the
environment. By and large, if you
walked in it‑‑who would have a
reason to walk in it?‑‑the most important sign would be
"keep out."
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) wish to yield to
the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli)?
Mr. Edwards: I think that what might have been a good start
would just to have been to put
"contaminated soil, keep out."
Because you cannot figure out what to put on the sign is hardly a reason not to put up a sign.
I appreciate the minister's
acknowledgement that these things could
perhaps be rethought in hindsight, but I certainly encourage him to not do nothing because it is
not perfectly clear what should be
done. What was clear was, I think, that
something should have been done.
It is true. You can question, well, if somebody had
walked through it, would there have been
any risk? But, you know, for all the department knew, there were kids
playing in that soil. I mean, it certainly could have happened. It was publicly accessible land. The public deserved to have some
notification and some warning
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
I do not intend to pursue this area
beyond that, but I certainly leave that
with the minister that standards are
increasing. This stuff should be
treated. It will be treated when we get a treatment facility. I acknowledge it is a developing field, but I do not believe that
was a particularly wise choice in that
sense.
Finally, if the minister maybe could
clear up the misunderstanding with the
R.M., because I have spoken to them
recently; they have spoken to me.
They deny having
notification. I am not here to
say who is right and who is wrong,
because there are two different stories.
Is there a letter that the minister can
table around about when the soil was
taken out there? Is there any
correspondence to the R.M. which might
indicate, might conclusively show that
they received notice?‑‑because they say they got no notice.
Mr. Cummings:
There may well be a letter. I am
not sure whether I can produce a letter,
but the information we received from my
department was that they had consulted with the R.M. Perhaps it
was the local councillor that they talked to rather than the reeve or the secretary‑treasurer, or
maybe it was the secretary‑treasurer
and not the councillor.
I guess I take some umbrage at this line
of questioning, because it seems to
imply that there was some sort of
environmental or physical hazard that was associated with this. This is not very highly contaminated material.
To create the aura around something like
this seems to me to be a little bit
unreasonable. The member has every right
to kick me around a little bit if we
have done things less than meticulously
every time, and I understand that, but I look at the myriad of materials that we deal with in
everyday life, and I will bet you there
are not too many back‑yard garages in this town that you can go into that do not have a
container of pesticide or perhaps a
couple of gallons of gasoline for running the lawnmower, and it ain't labelled.
*
(2220)
One of the things that concerns me about
all of these debates are that we tend to
view things with a doomsday scenario‑type
approach. The member has been
quite gentle about this, so I am not going
to harangue him in return, but I do believe we have some obligation to the public to act
reasonably in the face of the problems
that we are dealing with. I have
acknowledged that some kind of signage
would have been an increased level of
safety, if that is what it takes.
I do think, in all of these things, we
have to acknowledge what the degree of
risk is. Believe me, it was my opinion,
on the advice of the department, that
that was not a high risk that we were
undertaking, that the greater risk was to have left it underneath the building and potentially have,
at some point in the future, fume
accumulation that could have either caused
sickness or whatever else.
Ms. Cerilli: I would like to deal with a couple of
local issues. One of them:
I would like to start off by asking the
minister if there has ever been a review of the city's transportation systems in Winnipeg, an
environmental review.
Mr. Cummings: Not specifically.
Ms. Cerilli: If there were going to be a review of a
highway, would it be a Class 3
development and would that mean that there
would be some involvement by the provincial government? If there
were a major four‑lane boulevarded highway that was being constructed, would there be a review of that
within the city?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Ms. Cerilli: Even if the road were going to be constructed
in pieces, sections at a time, at the
beginning it may not be a complete, full‑lane
boulevarded highway, but eventually the
15‑year plan was to have that kind of access route?
Mr. Cummings: I believe, first of all, you would have
to appreciate that a review of a major
thoroughfare is done, first of all, in
the context of the planning and the environmental impacts that flow from that planning or are identified
as a result of that planning. If the member is talking about replacing or upgrading an existing roadway,
it might get a different kind of review
than if you are talking about a new
development into a new section where there was previously no traffic.
That would be, obviously, a different approach.
Ms. Cerilli: I am referring specifically to the highway
that is on the books with the city that
is going to join the new
The concern that I have is that it is
going to be put in in stages, and that
there should be an environmental review of the
entire plan before they start constructing the initial stage, which would be the part that would affect the
grassland. So, can we get some confirmation that there would
have to be a complete environmental
review as per a Class 3 development and this would have to be done on the entire plan that is on
the books for the highway?
Mr. Cummings: In that specific issue we have already
notified the city that they will have to
file for a licence. In terms of the member's question about does there have
to be a review of the whole as opposed
to a review of the part, it depends what they
bring forward as their plan for development. Certainly, I
suppose that if the city said they were going to build part of it that would be what they would put in a
proposal for. They might well choose to take a different route at some
point in the future and therefore might
not apply for the second part. The
line becomes drawn where the city and
the province or the regulators agree on
what is classified as the development.
Ms. Cerilli: It has been confirmed at some point that this
is going to be the thoroughfare which
connects the bridge and the Trans‑Canada
Highway, and the concern is we would get down the road, so to speak, and the important part of
changing the plan which for a lot of
other environmental reasons, or a lot of
environmental reasons is not the best city planning for this area, that there should be a complete review
of the entire proposal, which as I said
is on the city books, before they can
construct any part of it.
Mr. Cummings: Well, again, there is always this disagreement between those who are proponents and those
who are opponents, in some cases, about
whether or not planning or environment has the
best plan of stopping a project.
Many people approach The
Environment Act with the view of using it to stop a project, without talking about this one specifically,
rather than deal with the planning issue
which says, first of all, do you even
want it? Then if you decide you
want it, under what conditions can you
build it, and where? That is where the
environmental concerns become considered
as part of the overall approach.
Yes, environmental concerns could stop
the project, but first of all there has
to be a planning decision so that you then deal
with the environmental aspects of the development as it is put forward and designated as a development. That term is used very specifically because that is a term in the
act that requires them to have a
licence.
*
(2230)
Geographically, every time you build a
road‑‑in fact, we frustrate
the Department of Highways in many cases, asking them to prepare environmental statements and
acquire licences in some cases for a lot
of things that they do across the province.
Ultimately, the planning decision and the environmental decisions have to be integrated, and that is exactly
what you are talking about in this
project. If the plan is that they want
to build in that general area, and then
bring forward the specifics of it under
their development plan, then the environmental concerns have to be dealt with at that point. I suspect that we are overreaching a little bit if we say we want
to know what you are doing with the next
five miles before we give you a licence on
the first four.
I cannot answer the specifics of your
question beyond the fact that the city
has been notified it must acquire a licence to
start that construction.
Ms. Cerilli: Another concern is that part of the review
would be the kind of access roads that
region requires and that there would be
some environmental consideration of all the different options.
I have a copy of the map here which has all the proposed developments to surround the thoroughfare
in the area that is most concerned about
this right now, and even the style of
that development all predisposes the development of this highway and so everything has been
constructed with that in mind. The options are being presented as being very
limited. My concern is that we are starting from square
one using an integrated approach, as you
have suggested, and we are not going by
proposals that have been sketched out from the '60s, which is where this has come from, as I understand it.
I think that there is a difference
between suggesting that we should be not
just allowing the additional assessment of five
miles of road at a time, but to do a comprehensive environmental review of different options for highway
construction or road access construction
in a new area. Would you agree? Am I being
clear at all?
Mr. Cummings: First of all, commenting on the specifics of
this one, I could get myself hung until
I have seen the specific proposal, but I
have to go back to the original responsibility
which is, first of all, there is a planning decision that has to be made.
I suspect maybe it has been made, but the amount of development that is going into an area is
going to produce a specific amount of
traffic.
If they are producing a thoroughfare to
handle that amount of traffic, that in
itself was not an environment issue. That
is a planning and management issue. Where they start to have an impact on whether there is endangered space
or whether there is a river or whether
there is prairie, they then have to deal with
the‑‑when they have that demand there, they have to then
look to the Environment department for a
licence.
An example, I guess, is that I do not
view it as strictly an environment
problem to study a whole transportation sector in that corner of the city. That is a planning responsibility. You could
use the word "environment" and say that if there are twice as many cars going down the street, they are
spoiling your environment. It is not the Environment department that is
going to offer the citizens on that
street very much protection. They will have to look to their city councillors
as to the planning that funnels those
cars onto that street on them.
The Environment department might well
become involved if there becomes a noise
level that exceeds certain concerns in that
sort of issue, but again the planning has to be done so that you can then address what impact it will have on
the environment. Our basic
responsibility, as I mentioned them in my opening comments, can be boiled down to dealing with
emissions to soil, water and air.
The Environment Act does have other
aspects where it talks about when you
are doing studies to look at social and economic aspects of them. So I really think the important part is that
if the city or any other jurisdiction is
doing planning, that before they start
moving they have to deal with the environmental
aspects of that.
We are moving some considerable distance
in that respect. The city and the
province have had a long‑standing disagreement over the Charleswood bridge, as an
example. I have always maintained that at the start if the city
planners had addressed the questions
that were expected to be addressed, that issue
would be long forgotten.
Ms. Cerilli: I wonder if we do not have the same case
here, where the issues are the proximity
of this kind of highway being planned to
be put through a major, new residential development, and the consequence with safety and noise and
the implications for transportation,
transit. Those are all the kinds of
things that I would hope would be
considered in an environmental review of
this kind of highway.
By the comments you just made, I am
wondering if the need for the licence is
more dependent on those factors or if it is
dependent on the prairie being there, or if it is both?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think I will venture to answer
that question, because again we have not
seen the specifics of their development. I do not intend to wade into a dispute
between, perhaps, the city planners and
the local residents until I have seen
the parameters that they are concerned about.
Ms. Cerilli: So that was one of the other questions I was
going to ask, if they have asked, if
they have filed any kind of application
yet for the licence, and it is pretty obvious they have not.
Mr. Cummings: No.
Ms. Cerilli: This is very difficult because we know, and I
have in front of me maps that show what
the proposed development is, so I would
hope that when the application is made we will be able to compare it to the entire construction of
what is on the books. City officials have confirmed that it would
hook on to Fermor. As I said earlier, what started out with a
small access road through the Regent
prairie has turned into much more concern
about the other problems with safety and noise and vibration so close to these residents.
Maybe we just could ask if the minister
would consider keeping me up‑to‑date
on this issue if he gets information as
things proceed, if he would let me know.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, I have no problem with that. I also would
ask the member, therefore, to talk to those citizens who are concerned to remember that their first avenue
to look to for redress is the planning.
Ms. Cerilli: I also want to deal with another local issue,
and that is the Domtar hazardous waste
near
Mr. Cummings: We still expect it will go. There is no problem in completing the shipment, but we have not
been able to do it yet.
*
(2240)
Ms. Cerilli: I am sorry.
Did you say there has not been an
agreement?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think we have an agreement in
hand. It
is not because we do not think we will have one shortly or be able to do it. We do not anticipate a problem, but the
shipment has not been cleared to go at
this point.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the agreement just waiting for the passage
of Bill 53 or is there something else?
Mr. Cummings: As I am sure the member knows, the gentleman
who is dealing directly with it is not
here this evening, so I am going to have
to do a little digging here.
We expect it to go late June so that is
where we are right now. That is the anticipated date of
shipment. Alberta environmental approvals have been somewhat
delayed, but the anticipated shipment is
very shortly. I suppose if it does
not happen in the next ten days it will
be the first week of July, but I and my
deputy have certainly not had any indication that it is likely to be a problem in the end.
Alberta does have good opportunity‑‑perhaps
if the member will allow for me to be a
little bit philosophical‑‑and as much as Alberta does have a situation, whether it
is this material or others where they
simply do not want the importation of any
hazardous waste, that is one of the concerns that gets run up a flagpole out there. The opposition questions the government every time they think there is anything that
even resembles hazardous materials
coming across the Alberta border.
One does not want to be a repository for
hazardous materials, but there are a lot
of advantages to regional management of these
types of materials. That was the
original concept 10, 12 years ago that
western Canada would deal with its hazardous materials and other materials on a regional basis. That has never come to fruition, and we are probably reaping a
little bit of the results of not having
a regional concept in place.
Ms. Cerilli: I understand that the air monitoring in that
site has been set up. Have there been any results from samples
taken, and can you share that with me?
Mr. Cummings: The sampling was and I believe has begun, but
we do not have any results with us here
tonight. I suspect that if you have activity on a site you are not going
to have a problem. Now I think there is
some activity that has started there so that
we should have some results, but I do not have them with me tonight.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister saying that there has not
been enough activity on the site,
because the last time I was there there
was an awful lot more concrete that had been churned up. [interjection! Oh, there has been.
Mr. Cummings: The local committee, I understand, is working
with the sampling and literally helping
with the input as to what sampling is
being done and helping in the choice of locations, I suppose.
So the advisory committee is quite closely involved and we intend to keep it that way.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister have a revised time
schedule that they are aiming for at
this point?
Mr. Cummings: We do not have a time schedule other than
the original time objectives that were
laid out, and we know that we have not
been able to maintain them. Bill 49,
however, will give us some of the
leverage that will strengthen any orders, or give us the authority we have been looking for,
for orders. I have to indicate that Domtar still accepts their
responsibility. Part of the delay in getting these soil tests
approved is what is holding up taking
direct action on putting the equipment in place until they have at least run a few samples. It would be a little bit foolhardy to start moving the equipment, but
yes, we are behind schedule.
Ms. Cerilli: Have the other work orders all been complied
with?
Mr. Cummings: I believe so.
I am not aware of any that are
outstanding.
Ms. Cerilli: I think I had questioned before if there is
any more certainty about the success of
what they are going to try to do with
the soil. I am quite concerned that if
the tests are not successful, then there
is going to be another long time before we
know what is going to happen next, and people have gotten quite excited about what is going to take place and
they are prepared to have the structure
there. I am concerned that if this
does not work, then we are going to be
going through another year of just
trying to figure out what to do. Is that
something that is a possibility, or are
there other alternative plans that could be
looked at right away?
Mr.
Cummings: We are not convinced that they
would not be able to use other
technologies if they decide against this one.
There are other possibilities. I have at least once or twice mentioned that there are processes in the
States that might be adapted. In fairness to the community, the task force
or the advisory group, at least
unofficially, some of them had indicated
that if worst came to worst that they would not be opposed to a mobile incinerator if they knew it was only
going to be there for a short period of
time.
I am not advocating that at this
juncture, but what the company has
indicated is that they are not advocating it either because they do not think they could satisfy
the community. Wherever they have tried
to site an incinerator before near a
community, it has been rejected.
That is why I mention it, in
fact, as a compliment to the local residents that they are saying, we are prepared to tolerate some of
the work that might have to be
undertaken as long as it is going to result in the conclusion of these cleanup sites. I think we will stand behind the TACIUK process until it is proven that it
will not work.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to raise a different issue with
respect to legislation that is before
the House, The Farm Practices Protection
and Consequential Amendments Act. There
is an indication that this legislation
should only be brought in with a review
of livestock regulations under the Environment Act, and there has been concern, as we have seen in
the number of issues that have been
discussed in the House, that we know that these
regulations with respect to the siting of lagoons, procedures dealing with effluent are quite weak.
I am wondering if we can expect that
these things are going to be dealt with
soon after this bill passes the House, and why
it is that those things are not happening at the same time when the government's own preliminary review of
the agricultural bill was developed and
circulated that indicated that?
*
(2250)
Mr. Cummings: The issue that the member raises is
legitimate. There is a committee
reviewing livestock regulations. As
a member of the agricultural community,
I know I concur wholeheartedly with
something the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) said not very long ago, and that is that the agricultural producers have come a long way
in recognizing what impacts they are
having and in wanting to deal with them, whether it is through pesticide use or agricultural
practices or conservation practices.
The problem is that today municipalities
could set their own standards and
require livestock operations to live by them.
They are reluctant to do so. They could do that with the support of our department and the advice of the
Agriculture department but they would
probably incur some significant problems.
They would get some willing compliance;
where they had unwilling compliance it
would create some difficulty for them.
Their leverage is through the planning
act. They could agree to developments, subject to certain
conditions, that we could help them
develop if they chose to, or with the combined
knowledge of ourselves and consultants in the Department of Agriculture, they could very easily establish
base‑line requirements, but then
require the proponent to do all of the
monitoring and produce the results, knowing that they would have the strength of The Environment Act to follow
it up if the operation ended up being in
violation of the act.
I have no indication at this point that
that is likely going to happen. Some municipalities have indicated that they
want The Environment Act implemented on
agricultural activities. I am not anxious to move wholeheartedly in that
direction. That is why I am looking at what advice may come from a
committee of cross‑sectoral
responsibilities.
I think we need to recognize that
compounding the regulatory regime in
rural Manitoba is not very conducive to the expansion of livestock, which, in many parts of
Manitoba right now, are seen to be one
of the bright lights in the agricultural scene.
We had a misfortune this past summer to have three or four livestock operations that found themselves in
violation of The Environment Act. They were dealt with appropriately.
We have seen the industry, particularly
the hog industry, voluntarily moving to
inform their members and to encourage their
members to meet or exceed all relative standards. Given the
volume of hogs that is produced in this province, I am not unhappy with the changes that are occurring
out there. But this government will only move after we have had
considerable consultation and try and
make it so that it is a situation that
benefits everyone.
The agricultural community is trying to
work with rural residential situations
today that they did not anticipate 10
years ago. So the mood of the
agricultural community is much different
in recognizing their own responsibilities.
But you have got a lot of
existing situations out there that are going to
be very difficult to change. It
is the new ones that we need to be
working with, first of all.
Ms. Cerilli: I fail to see the advantages from an
environmental point of view‑‑and
maybe there are not any; maybe these are
regional considerations‑‑but to see the advantage of having
this dealt with at a municipal level, I
would think that this is an issue for
development of provincial standards. Can
the minister explain what would be the
advantage of going to the municipal
approach?
Mr. Cummings: Frankly, we have a problem very similar in
rural
The same thing is true in a number of
other situations that I could, I
suppose, enumerate across the province.
We always hear about the bad
things that happen. We do not hear about
the success stories, but we also do not
hear about the properly planned rural
communities that say: Once you are two
miles out of the local town, you are
going to have to live with the country
air. It is not zoned conditional
for feedlots or hog operations. It is zoned agricultural first, livestock
operations permitted, and I was shocked
when I found that there are some R.M.s
in this province who darn near have the whole R.M. listed as agricultural conditional. It shows the change in our society where agriculture is in the minority and,
while everybody wants green, it is all
right if it is somebody else's green, but then
it does not smell.
So I am being somewhat defensive inasmuch
as I do not want to see environmental
regulators moving into rural Manitoba, deal
with a problem that is not only an environment problem, it is a rural residential and an agricultural
planning problem that needs to be dealt
with at that level as well. If we only
have The Environment Act to depend on in
terms of where we might locate hog barns
or chicken facilities, which can be even more obnoxious in some cases, if The Environment Act is the
only protection that the public thinks
is good for them, they may very well find that
they can meet The Environment Act, it is The Planning Act or the fact that they just do not want them for
neighbours that will be the
problem. I recognize the issue of prior
approval versus violation after the
fact, and I think that is one of the
questions that we need to deal with in terms of standards for construction of new facilities.
*
(2300)
Madam Chairperson: As previously agreed, the hour being 11
p.m., what is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: Committee rise.
Madam Chairperson: Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour being past 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands
adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow
(Friday).