Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, the House will resolve itself into Committee of Supply. The House will resume in Committee of Supply.
Could I ask the members who want to carry on a conversation to do so quietly. It is a little noisy in here right now.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I just have a couple of quick issues I want to raise with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), and it is related to this government's attempts to deal with its problem with vacancy rates in its MHA properties. I know it has been struggling with this for a number of years. I am waiting for the minister to tell me how much money he is losing per month, because they are still having to pay the taxes and the maintenance and all the costs related to those units, but they are not able to fill them. I know that they have done a few things that I think are not going to be helpful in terms of raising the rents and now this new policy on rent arrears. But I actually want to offer the minister a couple of positive suggestions and to see if he will do a couple of things that I think would be helpful in having him fill his vacancies.
I have met with a few community groups, and one of the things that I want to draw the minister's attention to is I think that if he would take the time to meet with community groups like the International Centre, who can place as many as a hundred new tenants who are new Canadians per month--some months they have more than a hundred new Canadians that they have to find housing for in the province, mostly in Winnipeg--and they have a couple of suggestions that were discussed in meetings that I had with members. I want to see if the minister would seriously consider taking action on these.
The first is that they would provide lists of where the vacant properties are to agencies like the International Centre on a regular basis, at least monthly, so that the staff can assist potential tenants with selecting these potential units and picking the ones that they would like to see.
The second part of it that they are requesting is that the minister would consider changing the policy of Manitoba Housing to only show a potential tenant one unit. If they could look at a couple of units, I think that would also help tenants make a choice and not feel that they are in this take-it-or-leave-it position, and I think again that would help them fill some of their vacancies.
* (1500)
Lastly, if they would also designate one staffperson with Manitoba Housing Authority that would liaise with some of these communities groups like the International Centre, so that they can develop a relationship with one staffperson. I know that the minister has not filled all of the tenant-relations positions that are available through his department, and one of these types of positions, the tenant-relations positions, would be a good kind of contact that could send out the lists of the vacant units, that could take questions from this type of agency, the International Centre, and I really think that an agency like that could place quite a few tenants on a regular basis with Manitoba Housing Authority properties. They often have a situation where they want to place tenants in mid-month, which provides more of a problem I think in private accommodations and the market, and that is another issue that they want to see addressed.
So I would like to hear the minister's response if he thinks these are positive, good suggestions and if he can see his department acting on them.
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairperson, this is indeed a unique situation. I think, as the member is aware, what you have at the International Centre is you have the coming together of two very strong personalities that are more or less the spearhead at the International Centre and that is a Mr. Marty Dolin and a Mr. Tom Denton. Mr. Marty Dolin is known for his involvement over the years with the NDP party, and Mr. Tom Denton has been known over the years to be very involved with the Conservative Party. But they work very well together, and they do excellent work for the International Centre.
I have from time to time been involved with some of their events. I have talked individually with them. I know of their commitment, and I know of their involvement, and it is a sense that their political differences and their backgrounds do not come into their judgments of what is good for the International Centre.
I will say that just as the member for Radisson and myself have different political differences, I think that this is something that we can come together and work together with also. I think the suggestion that she has made is excellent, the idea of providing the lists and the idea of not limiting the showing of units just to one area, and the fact of assigning a staffperson is an excellent idea, and I will certainly work towards those ends, because I believe that is one way that we can try to accommodate some of those people that are in need coming through the International Centre, because they do provide a very excellent service to the community.
If there is a way that you get personalities like Marty Dolin and Tom Denton together, I am sure that there is way that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the member for Niakwa can do the same thing and try to accommodate these people, so I will certainly take those suggestions and work on those.
Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for his openness to those suggestions. I have one other issue I want to raise with him quickly, and that is a letter that he received on February 9, '98, from a Mr. Rudy Blanchette and Bill Peters, Ken Simpson and Alasdair MacGillivray. These people are concerned with the government's legislation passed last session, Bill 60, the amendment to The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act, which allowed for the grandfathering of an exemption on life-lease buildings to not pay their school tax.
I guess this is one of the times when here in the opposition we are saying we told you so. We told you that this bill was a problem. We recommended you hoist it and you consult more with seniors, with the community, with a lot of the other groups that are developing housing. Now we have a petition that is attached to this letter of a number of seniors that are saying this is not fair, that their condos they are purchasing are of equal value or sometimes even less than the properties that have been grandfathered under this legislation, so I just want to ask the minister how he is going to respond to this letter and to these petitioners.
I know that he met with them last week. I know that there was staff there from his department that were very concerned about the issues that were raised. They have itemized seven very specific questions they want answers to, and I think that some of the comments that we made when we debated this bill was that the minister is opening a big can of worms with this one, so I would like to hear how they are going to deal with this.
Mr. Reimer: The member is alluding to the legislation that was introduced last session in which there were limitations placed on the size of units that are classified under The EIPH Act. The reason for the introduction of that legislation was the fact that what we have seen in the proliferation of housing in the last little while is what we call life-lease units that are being built.
The original intent of The EIPH Act was to address the availability of people in need in seniors living within a fixed income to an extent where they could not afford accommodations, so The EIPH Act would give them the relief for school taxes. There was criteria that was set up under that act which goes back, I believe, into the 1950s when it was first brought forth.
What it indicated was that it was based on square-footage size. It was also based on income and rental as a percentage of their income. At that time, I believe it was 20 percent of their income plus the square footage. As units have increased in size now through the life-lease program, where you have units that are upwards of 1,400, 1,600, 1,800 square feet, they are not necessarily classified as--and their pricing can run up to anywhere between $100,000 to almost $200,000, $175,000 for some of these units.
This is not really what you might call units for people in dire straits that are in for seniors housing. To not make any movement on that, what we are doing is we are encouraging people to get into these life-lease units under The EIPH Act and not pay any school tax which is disproportionate to the income and the amount of monies that everybody else is paying on their school tax.
So what the amendment brought forth last year, it restricted the sizes of new construction only. Under the existing legislation that was passed last year--pardon me. Existing units under the legislation that was passed last year would be still grandfathered or would stay within The EIPH Act, so there should be no apprehension for people that are currently covered under The EIPH Act, that we are going to rescind that classification for them. It will only apply to new buildings, new units that are being built, that they have to comply within those square-footage guidelines if they want to apply for an EIPH Act. So there should be no--
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I just want you to call the minister to order, so he will deal with the specifics of the question I raised. He is going into a lot of detail about extraneous matters on this topic.
I am wanting to know when are you going to respond to the letter that was sent to you on February 9 of this year. You met with this group last week. Let us not revisit your debate on the bill last session.
Mr. Chairperson: The minister, on the same point of order?
Mr. Reimer: No, no point of order, just a reply.
Mr. Chairperson: In that case, I will rule the honourable member did have a point of order. I would like the honourable minister to be a little bit more relevant to the answers.
Mr. Reimer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. I will respond to that as soon as I have contacted my office and find out--it must be, for lack of a better word, in the system, and I have not seen a reply that has come forth, so it will be as soon as possible.
* (1510)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I have a few questions for the Minister of Housing.
I have had calls and letters, and I have written to the Minister of Housing with respect to side-by-side properties in my constituency of Transcona. I have listed for the minister information, and, in fact, I have gone out to see these homes personally. There are basement windows that are missing, basement walls that are leaking water into the inside of the building, causing deterioration of the property of the residents that are living there. The siding on the outside of the house has shifted and fallen down in one particular case. In another case, the doors are falling off the building. The building has not been painted in a dozen years. The fences are, well, you might as well say they are nonexistent.
So it appears to me from what I am seeing in my own community--I am not sure about other communities, but in my community, your Department of Housing has not undertaken a repair program to keep these buildings in good shape, and when I say good shape, in the sense of just general maintenance practices.
I want to ask the Minister of Housing what plans you have for this year to rejuvenate some of those properties to make sure that they are put back into what I would consider to be habitable conditions.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member for Transcona, he has alluded that he has written to me on this particular piece of property. I do not have the correspondence in front of me, but if he is willing to give me the address of those units, I will see that they have been looked at, because in all our normal course of action, we try to get back to the member within a very reasonable time as to the course of action and the follow-up that is implemented by the department.
If nothing has happened, I am very surprised, because I have a fair amount of confidence in and a great amount of respect for my department in the following up of any type of inquiry, whether it is for conditions of units, problems with tenants or problems with trying to get people into our units, because we are a service-orientated department and we try to service our clients and the people in the most efficient and most expedient way.
If there is a problem, I am glad that the member has pointed it out to me, because I will certainly follow up on that on his behalf.
Mr. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I have written to the minister, I believe, three times on this one particular property on the corner of Dowling and Wayoata in Transcona. Mrs. Jackson is the resident in that particular building, and she has graciously let me into her home on her invitation to see the condition of the property, and the information I put on the record here a few moments ago are my observations of that particular property. That is why I wrote to the minister, and to this point not much has happened to improve the condition of that property. The siding on the outside which is stucco siding around the door entrance to the side-by-side property has shifted downward, and I am afraid for the safety of anybody walking along the sidewalk for that particular property. The basement windows, you might as well say they are nonexistent. They are letting water into the basement area which is causing the deterioration of the inside of the structure itself, and there are other problems internal to that particular building.
I have drawn that to the minister's attention. Outside of the residents doing some minor repairs themselves for which the department has reimbursed the residents, not much else has happened by way of maintenance from his department. So I have drawn it to your attention in a letter before.
At the other end of that same block on Dowling, there are also properties that I believe are the property holdings of the Department of Housing in similar condition, fences falling apart, snow-covered doors in the house, in the kitchen area, and there is just a general state of disrepair of these buildings, no paint on them for at least a decade. At least a decade these buildings have not been painted, so it is just deplorable conditions for the properties for which your department is responsible, and I draw it to your attention.
I have raised it in the past with previous ministers of Housing, but I hope that this Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) will take a look at it, because the asset itself is depreciating in value by lack of maintenance on those properties, and whatever you plan for the future of those properties, your maintenance will have an impact on the decisions that you are going to make, and if you are not going to repair them, then, of course, you are going to have substandard housing conditions for the people who are living there, and at the same time whatever other plans you might have for those housings, of course the value of them will drop; so it is living conditions for the people and also the value of the asset itself.
I want to ask the Minister of Housing with respect to another property in the constituency of Transcona. I believe it is 30 Wynford Drive, and it is my understanding that the residents there have just received their renewal notices for their lease. I want to ask the minister why, under this particular new arrangement, his department is now having a surcharge of $5 for every resident who is living in that particular facility who has a balcony when that charge has never been there in the past.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the information that the member for Transcona has brought forth to me regarding a balcony, I am not familiar with that, whether that is a difference or a change in policy, but I will certainly follow up with that on his behalf and try to get back to him in a very short time on that.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I hope he will respond in a short time because the residents of that particular facility have called my office and have indicated to me that some of them have been there for a number of years and they have never seen it in their lease agreements before, that your Department of Housing would be charging for a balcony.
If you take a look at the building structure itself, every suite on the outside of that building has a balcony, so every one of them is getting the $5 surcharge added to them when it has never been added before, so I do not know if your department is trying to nickel and dime these particular individuals and their families. Many of them are single moms living there with their children, and you are taking another $5 a month out of their pocket to charge them for the balcony.
So I do not understand why the department is making that decision, but that is the information that has been related to me by the residents of the structure, and I hope the minister, when he goes back to his department, will check into that decision, and if you are indeed doing that, that you will rescind that policy decision because the residents have said that if that is the case, find me a suite internal to the building where you do not have a balcony and I will be glad to move in there and you can charge somebody else the five bucks, but they are not willing to pay that extra five considering that in all those cases they are on what we would consider a fixed income, many of them on social assistance.
So I leave that with the minister for his investigation, and, hopefully, he will forward along some background on his research to me, so that I might provide an answer to my constituents.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I will, thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I do have a number of questions that I could be asking, and I would go to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) and maybe ask him in two parts. I know he is the minister responsible for Housing and Urban Affairs. I do have questions in both areas.
First, I would acknowledge the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) for putting in excellent efforts at assisting me and the tenants association over at Gilbert Park, trying to make tenant management work. With all modesty, I do believe that there has been a considerable amount of success, and I would acknowledge that that success would not be possible had it not been for the co-operation of the minister. On behalf of the tenants over at Gilbert Park, I would acknowledge that, and even his predecessor who put in a considerable amount of effort also.
Having said that, I am going to stay away from that aspect of asking questions. What I want to focus some attention on is, a couple of years ago the government came up with a program for trying to get more construction brought into Manitoba in home improvements. I studied at one time urban affairs at the University of Winnipeg, and one of the things that was really important to me was to recognize the negatives of urban decay. A major part of urban decay has been one's housing stock. I have always believed that the government has to pay special attention to housing stock in the province of Manitoba, and I have always believed that there is a role for government to ensure that at least there is something that is always happening in that whole area.
One of the reasons why I had gotten involved in the residents association a number of years back was to try to get an older community, in this case it was Weston, to try to get people to invest more of their private dollars tapping into programs like the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. At one time it used to be a fairly healthy program. You will find if we went through the records that Weston benefited tremendously by a program like that.
* (1520)
Mr. Chairperson, the reason why I bring that up right now is that I do believe that we need to be more progressive in coming up with construction, revitalization type of programs in the housing area. I am not as convinced that we need to have programs like NIP from many years ago, Neighbourhood Improvement Programs. I am more concerned, especially when the economy is doing relatively well, that we concentrate the efforts on programs that will get some of the areas in which maybe one is on a fixed income, or it is a lower end, in terms of the wage scale, these individuals will have some sort of an incentive or some sort of assistance in upgrading the housing stock in the community in which they live.
I am interested in just hearing the minister's comments as to how he believes, let us say, renovations of homes in older areas fit into his plans.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member for Inkster, when he first started his line of questioning brought up the matter of Gilbert Park Residents Association. He is being a little bit modest in his accolades to our government, because a lot of it was initiated by himself in his role as the MLA who represents Inkster. It was through a lot of his dedication and hard work--not only with me but also with the former minister--that he persisted in trying to set up a program at Gilbert Park. So he has been involved, and now the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) has also indicated that possibly we should be doing the same thing at Lord Selkirk Park.
I think there is a lot of room for this type of initiative. These are the types of things that can grow in the community as positive aspects for the betterment of a safe and friendly community. Gilbert Park has certainly turned out to be an ongoing adventure, if you want to call it, because as we delegate more and more authority to them, there is more and more of a maturity and a sense of community that is taking place in that particular area of the riding of Inkster. I thank the member for his comments.
The member has mentioned about neighbourhood revitalization, and I think that is something that this government has taken to heart quite seriously in the city of Winnipeg, because there is a recognition that the more a neighbourhood is made safe and more compatible to the living standards that we expect from our community that it is safer not only for the families, but it is safer for the neighbourhood, and it fosters a sense of accomplishment that the people can take pride in.
That is one of the reasons why we have continually supported the City of Winnipeg financially with what we call the MWCRP program, which is the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program. I cannot off the top of my head say exactly how much money we have spent in the last while, but I believe the number is somewhere around $6 million that has been put into various areas of the city of Winnipeg.
One of the thrusts of that program has been for neighbourhood revitalization and the enhancement of community structures and community involvement areas, where there is positive growth, positive results, by getting the community involved, by working with the local communities, giving them the ability to make decisions and being a catalyst in the sense of providing some funding through our government to enhance these communities. Some of the communities that have benefited from that has been, I believe, the area of Fort Rouge, the area of Elmwood. Some of the other areas that have also benefited have also shown some positive upgrading, and a lot of it has to do with the community getting involved. So there is a program, to an extent, that has proven to be quite beneficial in the city of Winnipeg.
The idea of upgrading housing on an individual basis is something that we were involved with the Home Renovation Program, which generated spinoffs of almost $80-million worth of investment on reconstruction, if you want to call it, of housing through the program. That program was discontinued; I believe it was just over a year ago. Whether it will be reinstated is a matter of further consideration of budget limitations, so we do not have that program available right now.
But we do have a program under Manitoba Housing called the HELP program which is the home renovation program for seniors and people on fixed income, where there are loans available for up to $3,000. It is a 10-year loan, it is interest-free, and we have made that program available for seniors and for people of low income to renovate their homes. It is something that we can work towards.
We have the Winnipeg Development Agreement that we can look at housing for high-risk groups. We have an allocation of funding that is available through that. We are presently looking at applications and the processing of applications for housing assistance along those lines, so there is the availability of funding through that.
The member is aware of a program that the City of Winnipeg just extended. In fact, I believe it was just yesterday that they extended the program for another year, the home improvement tax incentive grant which has an incentive for infill housing in the core area, of a greater need and in a greater proportion of funding, tax credit availability from it. So the City of Winnipeg has seen that there is the availability of trying to get infill housing in the city of Winnipeg.
I believe there are still other areas that should and could be explored through inner city housing. One of the things that possibly the City of Winnipeg--my correspondence and conversations with them has been to try to look at some of the existing wonderful heritage buildings we have in the city of Winnipeg and try to utilize them for some sort of housing component for further utilization. I know that they have just recently announced the heritage tax credit program for heritage buildings, and that was legislation that we introduced and passed two years ago at the city's request and they finally implemented it.
So that is an excellent program that I think can be utilized for not only some of the heritage buildings but also for the fact of bringing in additional housing in the loft units or on the second floors or third floors of some of these wonderful old buildings that are downtown, because there is niche marketing and there is niche availability of housing that people look for in certain areas, who want to be downtown. It is the attractiveness, it is the affordability, primarily, of trying to use these buildings and these facilities, that we can get better utilization for housing downtown.
I continually work with the city and encourage them to look at innovative ways they can use these, and these are some of the things that I think are positive aspects that we can work at. It is not an end solution yet, but I think it is going down the road to something that is a lot better for Winnipeg and a lot better for the core area of the city.
I encourage the member for Inkster just as he said that he had taken urban studies a while ago. I believe the instructor at that time was a Mr. Axworthy, and I believe that his continual contact with that gentleman would help, actually benefit Winnipeg and Manitoba because of his close relationship with the individual, that he could possibly look at federal intervention and federal funding that we can also utilize for some of the funding in Winnipeg.
* (1530)
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, indeed, it would be nice to see a sense of co-operation in the sense of a program that would be all-encompassing, not only, let us say, for the city of Winnipeg but for many of the rural communities that are in Manitoba. I say that knowing the minister across the way is also very interested in rural areas. [interjection] Well, actually I have a little bit of rural Manitoba in my riding too, a couple of farms. I do have a couple of farms. [interjection] I am very proud of the area I represent. Let us just leave it at that.
Mr. Chairperson, the type of a program that I think would be beneficial would be one that could, in fact, be implemented province-wide, one that would see benefits for smaller rural communities that have older housing stock, to urban areas, not only the core of Winnipeg, if you like.
I would use the area, for example, of Mynarski, Shaughnessy Park, Northwood, the Westons, the Brooklands, the oldest parts of St. Vital, Crescentwood, all over, where we have housing stock that--for example, maybe it is windows, and if the government was to provide a program and provide incentives for individuals to tap into so that they can get windows replaced, much more energy--and I am not talking computers here--that you would see by having these older neighbourhoods invest in programs of this nature or look at programs of this nature and take advantage of programs of this nature, you will see very quickly that people in the communities will, in fact, be that much better off, and that, in itself, adds to the community life. That brings more people participating, gives a higher sense of pride.
I can recall, for example, at one time I used to live on Logan Avenue, and on Alexander, we had about four or five completely dilapidated houses. A couple of them were completely levelled. We had a couple of infill houses come up. Some residential rehabilitation assistance program applications were processed, and now that particular block looks quite nice whereas before, it was perceived as an area in which no one would want to even walk down the back lane because of the dangers. You know, there was a tarp for a roof.
Well, Mr. Chairperson, that is one of the extremes, I guess. What I am looking for is that we do not necessarily need to wait for more and more communities to look like that, that, in fact, what we should be doing is much like we have annual programs like SAFER and SAFFR as assistance for those individuals on low income that they can tap into, so that they can have only a certain portion of their income going towards rent.
Well, I would suggest what we need, Mr. Chairperson, is, in fact, a program that is put into place that is there. It is not brought in and about for a special throne speech debate or because we might be getting closer to an election or anything of that nature. It should be a permanent part of the Department of Housing in which incentives and programs are developed to try to encourage individuals to invest in their homes in older areas. By doing that, I would ultimately argue that we will be saving communities into the future. By doing that, I believe in long-term costs, we will see some benefits.
That is very easily said, I recognize that, but I think that if we had some study--one of the professors I had was Professor Carter over at the institute and Professor Leo. They very clearly demonstrated, at least in my mind, the benefits of having revitalization occurring on an ongoing basis in our older communities, that the cost, if we want to try to change that community, once it has hit a certain point, is much, much greater. I think that we can prevent that, and the only way we can prevent that is if, in fact, we see a more progressive way of dealing with issues such as revitalization.
I just wanted to more so get on the record with that. I did want to venture into the other area that the minister is responsible for, and that is Urban Affairs. I did have other questions for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Health (Mr. Praznik) or Education (Mrs. McIntosh), if any of them are, in fact, available. I know the government Whip is there, and I say it, so hopefully he heard that.
But, Mr. Chairperson, having said that, with respect to the Capital Region, I, once again, have thought, you know, the structure on paper looks wonderful. In reality, I do not think that it has been successful. I would challenge to see something that has come out of the Capital Region that shows that there is a very strong focus for the development of the entire region. I know we have had some plans, but I really have not, in my opinion--and a great example of that, and the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) would be aware of this one, was the landfill. I really believe that the Capital Region could have and should have played a leading role in that, but because it did not do that, in my opinion, we have a situation where we had three landfill sites servicing a population of less than 700,000 people.
Mr. Chairperson, I think that in the future we should be relying more on the Capital Region. When we hear about Winnport, for example, and the potential at Winnport, municipalities like Rosser and the city of Winnipeg and other municipalities, it is critical that we have a plan that takes into consideration what is going to be happening, because the entire Capital Region benefits. In fact, the entire province benefits with something like Winnport, but there needs to be that co-ordinated approach.
We have seen the city try to address the whole issue of people leaving the city to build out in rural Manitoba, and I had an interesting phrase--and I do not know if I have mentioned this before inside the Chamber or if the minister has ever heard of it before. I was out in rural Manitoba when someone coined the phrase of "urbanite," and "urbanite" is someone who enjoys both living in the rural area and the urban area and works or spends a good portion of the time in the city of Winnipeg, but has that family time, if you like, out in rural Manitoba where they have their home and so forth. So they see the benefits of both lifestyles.
But, in my opinion--and I do not discredit all the benefits of living in rural Manitoba or the benefits of living in an urban centre--but what I do emphasize is that there is a problem that the city of Winnipeg has been having with respect to the whole property tax issue, with respect to competing in some of those rural satellite communities, and as opposed to maybe seeing more co-operation in some of that development. Mr. Chairperson, again, I would think that the Capital Region should be playing more of a role in how that is happening, so that we are all playing on somewhat of an equal playing field.
So I am interested in hearing the minister's comments with respect to the Capital Region board and what he feels the future role of that particular board should be, and he can feel free to comment, as I have, on how effective he believes that board has been in past years.
* (1540)
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member alludes to a fair amount of different scenarios and questions in his comments there. The Capital Region Strategy, the Capital Region commission, the Capital Region itself, I believe is a very useful and a very positive initiative to come to resolve of problems and situations in the resolving between the City of Winnipeg and the surrounding municipalities and also between the municipalities that are surrounding the city of Winnipeg.
The Capital Region Committee is structured so that it provides for a forum. I am of the opinion, and I believe it is conducive to thinking that the best way to try to solve problems is to have a forum or a playing field where individuals can get together and discuss and recognize where there is a common front, where there is a common need, where there is a common area of solution within themselves to come to new directions and solutions of a problem. I would rather work within a sense of co-operation and consensus building without coming to conflict or working on criticisms between the various communities as they look for solutions. The Capital Region Strategy is that vehicle, and it is there to be used.
The member has alluded to its inaction or its nondirection, as he may have alluded to, but we have to remember that the Capital Region Committee is relatively young in its existence. It has only become a part of government philosophy and policy in the last three years. In 1996, when it first started to meet on a regular basis, there was a direction and there was a recognition that a lot of things could be accomplished by the Capital Region Strategy. One of the things that was alluded to by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was the fact that there was a land management waste study conducted within the Capital Region. It came out with some very positive and some very knowledgeable recommendations and observations that a lot of the municipalities were not aware of until there was this land management study that was done. There were a lot of municipalities that were looking at possibly redeveloping their landfill sites. There were municipalities that were talking about establishing new landfill sites.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair
The study provided an overview and an exposure to what was in the region, where there was the possibility of other municipalities sharing the landfills or not even getting involved with landfills and having someone else look after the use of their facilities. So that was a very positive initiative and that was within the first year of the formation of the Capital Region Strategy.
Last year, granted, the Capital Region did not meet, but last year, I guess, as we all know was a very, very exceptional year with the flood. It affected every municipality in the Capital Region, some very, very drastically and some to an extent that it was not that severe. So the idea of getting together during 1997--during the flood or before or after--and that year proved to be near impossible because of the fact that the municipalities were just so busy that they just could not get together.
Since that time, in 1998, we recognized that we now have a chance to build upon that sense of co-operation and consensus building with the Capital Region that we have had three meetings, two on the task force side and one with the Capital Region with all the members. The meetings at that time were to form a new direction, if you want to call it, a new raison d'être for the Capital Region, and that was under strong leadership by the provincial government to try to find out how we can start to implement a lot of the strategies that are recommended in the Capital Region Strategy.
The recommendation which was passed unanimously at the meeting just over a week ago was that a five-member panel be appointed which would go out into the communities, talk to the elected officials, get their views, their concerns, their directions, their problems, their solutions, talk to the people in the city of Winnipeg, the elected officials, work with the elected officials to find out where there is this commonality of purpose and this direction that the Capital Region should be going, also at the same time, talking to the public to get the public feedback into the scenario of coming back with a report or direction for consideration.
I think that is a very positive initiative, because we have seen that there is an uncertainty to a degree that there is a wanting by the municipalities and the city of Winnipeg to come to an understanding that we as a Capital Region have a tremendous strength of working together in trying to make Manitoba and Winnipeg one of the best places to live, to work and to raise a family. To work in co-operation and to work towards a common goal of working as a region can only enhance Manitoba, can only enhance Winnipeg. If you have a strong Manitoba, you have a strong Winnipeg, and vice versa, if there is a strong Winnipeg, you get a strong Manitoba. So we are of the opinion that the Capital Region Strategy and the direction that has been implemented in co-operation with the municipalities and the city of Winnipeg has some very positive outlooks and positive perspectives that we can grow upon for all of Manitoba, and particularly, for the Capital Region.
Rural Manitoba has shown that they are growing at a very significant and a very noticeable pace. We just have to look at some of the expansions and some of the new growth and the aftermarket that has been happening in rural Manitoba. So everybody should be benefiting from this, but the best way to benefit from it is to recognize the strength in co-operating and working together.
So the Capital Region really is a very, very powerful mechanism for this to come about. I am very optimistic that this is the direction, and we are going to see some positive initiatives coming out of this.
As the member has alluded, it is a newer format. The format for the Capital Region Strategy is only three years old, but in looking at a lot of the planning and studying of some of the major urban areas right across North America, three years is a very, very short time. We are on the cutting edge of doing a lot of things here in Manitoba for the betterment of Manitobans, and working within the Capital Region Strategy, I believe, has got a tremendous opportunity for Manitoba and Winnipeg and the Capital Region to really shine above a lot of the other areas right across Canada and North America because North America and the world is our market. So the more that we can bring ourselves together and focus our attentions, the better it is for everybody and particularly for Manitoba.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairperson, I have a couple of questions that I would first like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, who has been patient in waiting here.
The issue that I want to discuss for a short time is the capture of elk. Earlier this year, the government made an announcement that First Nations would be the ones who would be doing the capturing for the government, then they changed their mind and the wildlife management committee of the Swan River Valley was given the responsibility of deciding who would do the capturing of the elk.
I want to ask the minister whether he feels that his government has fulfilled the commitment that they made to First Nations that they would be the ones that would have the responsibility of capturing elk for this season.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, if I understood the first part of the question correctly relating to the input from the management board in the Swan River Valley as related to sites for capture of elk and what the implications might be for the First Nations in that respect, is that the direction the member was going with her question? Because Natural Resources in all cases retained the right for final approval where a trap would be located, and we exercised that authority in a couple of ways, but generally it was a co-operative arrangement.
We also at the same time, as the member indicated, have allowed--allowed is the wrong word. We made an agreement with the First Nations Assembly of Chiefs to also run a capture, but there, as well, final decisions as to where the site would be located was Natural Resources.
I also indicated, and I think this is maybe where the problem or question is flowing from, that in all cases where a private landowner was involved, his rights would not be impeded if he did not want to have a capture on his property. We were not interested in anything other than a co-operative arrangement where there was private land involved.
* (1550)
I am not sure if this is where the question was headed, but there was certainly some concern expressed and, I think, some apprehension and some misunderstanding about whether or not the province was going to say, well, only the First Nations would capture in the Swan River Valley. Contrary to some of the debate we heard earlier in the House today, I think this is an example of where, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the co-operation of the opposition should indicate that this is certainly a forward-looking process where we involved the assembly and the First Nations in helping them and working with them to be established in the elk ranching business.
There was some misgivings from residents in the valley about whether Natural Resources would override their best interests in allowing for trap sites. I do not think that happened. I believe in the end we ended up with--well, we did not end up with a lot of elk, we ended up with a reasonable understanding within the valley of the fact that trapping, while not everybody's most desirable occupation, can be carried out in a reasonable and cooperative manner with landowners, and that if we had had a colder winter with more snow, we would have been able to run a more successful trapping venture.
I would ask the member if she wants to rephrase something around that question, because I am not sure if I know where she is going.
Ms. Wowchuk: The question I was asking the minister was late last fall you signed an agreement with First Nations to do the capture. Was it your intention--and I think you might have answered this--that First Nations would be doing all of the capture for the Department of Natural Resources this year, and after meeting with the people in the Swan River Valley and a different proposal put forward by the Elk Management Board, did you then change your mind and allow for the elk capture? What was your first intention?
Mr. Cummings: There was never intent that they would run all of the capture. There was a misunderstanding in the Swan River Valley only that the First Nations might be the only ones who were going to trap in the valley. I know where that story started, but it was never my intention, nor was it ever part of the agreement that that would occur.
The success that I think I have had this year despite the fact that we did not catch many elk was that the First Nations began their capture, had actually greater success than our other contractors in the end; and secondly, the Elk Management Board agreed to work with us on something that in the main they considered distasteful and, in fact, took a role in attempting to capture some elk themselves. That was in my view a positive step forward, and I am anticipating being able to add quite a few more elk to the basic herd in this province next year.
I want it said clearly for the record that we have said--we have made it clear that in many statements that the government wishes to capture a certain number of elk and then the capture will be stopped in all forms. That number nominally was 700, I believe. Whether we are going to get there or not remains to be seen, but in the interests of everyone including the wildlife community, and the elk industry for that matter, there eventually has to be a known number of elk held in captivity, and then the industry will be purely volume driven and demand driven from there on.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that as a result of the weather the number of elk captured this year was not as large as he anticipated. It is my understanding that there was one individual who tried to help the government out to capture elk and, in fact, did capture some in a pen that was not inspected without approval. It is my understanding as well, it has been brought to my attention by people in the valley, that this individual then came to the Department of Natural Resources and said that he had these elk, and he would like to sell them to the government, which was an illegal activity. It is my understanding as well that this individual was not charged but was told to let the elk go.
Can the minister indicate what he knows about this incident and why, is it government policy when someone captures wildlife, or holds wildlife illegally, that they would be allowed to let them go, or is it government policy that if someone is holding wildlife without a permit that they would be charged?
Mr. Cummings: There is no third-party confirmation of this capture. In other words there was a phone call made to the department, and the individual was told this better not be true, and when our officers get there, there better not be any elk there.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate whether there were deputy ministers and legal staff involved in any way in ensuring that these elk did not stay in captivity and what the process was to ensure that they were disposed of before any of the natural resources staff was able to get there?
Mr. Cummings: The site was inspected by Natural Resource officers and there were no elk there when they arrived. By the way, there were obviously elk tracks in the area but there are numerous opportunities for them to have been around that site before and after this particular incident, so tracks in and of themselves did not cause us to lay charges, and there is no evidence of anything else that I have been informed of.
Ms. Wowchuk: I believe the minister is well aware that there are a few individuals who have traps who have offered their services to the government to capture elk, and these pens continue to be open and feed continues to be available for animals to walk in and out of these pens. Is there not any step that the government can take to discourage this kind of activity? Is there not any action that the government can take to ensure that these animals are not being attracted into pens that they should not be?
I raise this with the minister because it is an issue that has been raised by several people in the community, people who are concerned about protecting wildlife, people who are concerned about how the capture is being operated and concern about what the intentions of these individuals are who have these pens, so I look to the minister to see what kind of advice he can give and whether there is any room for his staff to move on these kinds of instances.
Mr. Cummings: I have never seen an industry that is so fuelled by innuendo, fear and loathing as the elk industry, frankly, neighbour pitted against neighbour, wildlife conservationist pitted against wildlife conservationist. It very often comes down to those who simply, under no circumstance, will tolerate what they consider a species of wildlife that should be kept in the wild and never be kept under any other circumstances to be expropriated or captured and allowed to go into any kind of an industry for any other use other than simply to be wild in our natural areas. So having said that, and I want that clearly on the record, there are vast differences of opinion about what should happen in the Swan River Valley particularly and in other parts of the province, about whether or not there should be a capture or whether or not there should be elk ranching. I support and can justify and I believe have a good working relationship with a vast number of people on both sides of this issue in terms of supporting a limited capture of elk to get the industry started.
* (1600)
Manitobans and the Manitoba economy has been shortchanged for a number of years because other jurisdictions have had that legal elk ranching. We probably have seen poaching going on that we were--and this is more fear, loathing and innuendo, but the fact is there are myriad stories out there about elk being poached out of Manitoba and ending up in other jurisdictions where elk ranching was legal.
I believe by legalizing it and by imposing through the Department of Agriculture the type of standards for DNA testing and herd health, that Manitoba now has gone from zero to being a leader in the protection of the genetics of our elk that are being used for agricultural purposes. The DNA testing allows us to now charge anyone who has an elk on their property in captivity that their parentage or their origin cannot be traced, and the penalty for being caught with that type of unidentified or unsubstantiated elk will be the loss of their ability to ranch elk in this province. That is tens of thousands of dollars worth of value being confiscated from that operator through the loss of his permit to operate.
What has all this got to do with the debate in the Swan River Valley? Nowhere in the province are the feelings more strongly held than they are in the Swan River Valley. I know people quite well on both sides of the argument, maybe better than the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) would like me to some days, but the fact is I have known these people since I was a teenager, some of them, and the fact that our legally authorized captures have been harassed is not a pretty story. The fact that the very corner of the valley--I believe it is called Pretty Valley--where we have said we would not take any more elk this year was the area where we took elk from previously. The member is talking about the former co-operators in terms of capture. We said we would not take any more elk out of that corner this year because there was, I believe, 70-odd head, or something like that, taken out of that corner a year ago, so we would not take them from that herd.
This is still a matter of debate, and I guess I am going to start the debate by what I am about to say on the record. I want to talk to the advisory committee about what their understanding is of valley elk, because the co-operating committee in the valley--and I am going to have to confirm this, but I believe they set up a trap not very far from Pretty Valley. I am interested to know how they can tell me where their trap was that it was not capturing some of the same elk that they said these other gentlemen should not have been capturing. That is a legitimate question and it is a legitimate discussion that we will have over the course of the summer. I am not pointing fingers, but I think if we are going to have this kind of a discussion, it has to be out on the table about do we want to capture elk, or are the elk so well trained in the Swan River Valley that they only stay in one five-section block and they do not go over to the next block? We all know that that is not the case, so that is a legitimate discussion.
I had committed, along with my colleague in Agriculture, that we would make a capture of a certain number and that we would stay out of the capture business after that. This year has set us back, but there needs to be a number of decisions made regarding the elk in the valley. The crop depredation was down this year because of other conditions, ergo our capture was down as well, but we will be back to capture next year. I hope I will still have the co-operation of everyone in the valley. In fact, I would expect, because we have initiated some pretty open discussion, that we will have better co-operation, and we will also be able to look at opening up seasons as well that one way or another that herd in the valley needs to be reduced.
Mr. Ben Sveinson, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair
When the member asked about whether or not elk are being attracted to feed and whether that leads to trapping possibilities, everybody up there wants to feed and lure elk--including people with some very well-meaning intentions, including Natural Resources--where they simply want to lure-feed the elk to keep them in a certain part of the valley as opposed to going where they might do crop damage. So we have a standard whereby we are telling those who have elk traps that the trapping mechanism must be off them if they are not a licensed trapper.
An Honourable Member: Must be what?
Mr. Cummings: Off, removed.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, if I heard the minister just say--he said that he is telling people who are not eligible for trapping, those traps are going to have to be removed. No? Can you clarify that, please?
Mr. Cummings: What I said is they should be inoperative. The trap mechanism, the gate should be deactivated.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear that the minister indicated that they might be considering other options to deal with the large herds in the Swan River Valley. It has been a recommendation that came from the Elk Management Board years ago, that we should increase the number of licences to allow for more hunting, and there has always been a real backlog of many people who are interested in hunting who are not able to be licensed because they have to go on the draw system. So I am pleased that the minister is thinking about that, but I was raising the issue about elk that were captured illegally. The Department of Natural Resources was notified of it. No action, as I understand, was taken, or the minister says no elk were there.
Is the minister prepared to do an investigation to see why it was that when the department was notified that there was elk in captivity, why they did not go out there and lay charges rather than advising the individual that he should be letting these elk go? I think that the department has a responsibility, and where did their directive come from to say that this individual should be advised to dispose of those elk before anyone came around? Why is it that when there was someone who was obviously not following the directions that were put out by the Department of Natural Resources, that no pen to capture elk could be used without first inspecting it--will the minister look into this because this is one of those issues that lead to further serious problems in the Swan River Valley.
As the minister has indicated, this has not been a pleasant situation for the past few years. There are people on both sides of the issue, and the minister is well aware that in the first year of the capture we were very lucky that it was only a pen that was burned because it could have been a much more serious situation. Here we have an illegal activity--[interjection] and the minister says there were no charges laid then, that is true.
The minister asks if there were charges laid then. No, there were not charges laid then, and there should have been. Any illegal activity such as that, there should have been charges laid. There should have been an investigation as to what happened because as I understand it, that particular fire cost the department money. I believe the department paid $30,000 to the individual who lost that pen, so it cost the department money. The department should be investigating.
What I am asking is: is there going to be any investigation of these and steps taken to ensure that there is not this kind of activity going on on an ongoing basis, activity that causes a lot of hard feelings in the area, activities that we would like to see smoothed out.
Mr. Cummings: The member cannot have it both ways. I did not hear her stand up in this House and ask for an investigation and charges to be laid when people were trying to burn out the co-operator who was helping us catch elk a year ago. Where was she then?
Ms. Wowchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Swan River--[interjection] Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River, on a point of order?
Ms. Wowchuk: I will ask the minister another question. Since he sat down, I want--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: You want to ask the minister another--order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: Yes. He sat down. I have a point of order, yes. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, to finish his comment.
Ms. Wowchuk: On a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Swan River, on another point of order.
Ms. Wowchuk: No, on my first point of order.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: On the first point of order?
Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, which you did not recognize me for.
* (1610)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Let me make something clear. I recognized the member for Swan River on a point of order. She said she did not want a point of order; she wanted just to ask another question. I then recognized the minister to finish his comment.
Now, if the member for Swan River wants to be recognized on a point of order, I recognize her on a point of order.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister just said that I did not support him on a fire that took place last year. If the minister--which I am completely unaware of a fire that took place in the last year--
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: There was a fire two years ago. That is the question I raised with the minister.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources, to finish his response.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to turn what is a fairly amicable debate into something else, but I am not going to allow the member to make allegations about whether or not the department has deported itself appropriately when the last time there was a serious incident that occurred in the valley--and the member is right, it was probably two years ago. I did not hear her on her feet then, or any time since, demanding that those who caused a definite dangerous and illegal act to occur, not only that, they were chasing elk with their snowmobiles, and they were in danger of being charged with harassment, if we could have identified them--I did not see the member up asking questions then.
But now that she is at the other end of the valley, she wants to ask about whether or not one of the people who has a trap out there may have infringed on the edge of legality. Mr. Chairman, none of this is condoned. All of it should have been subject to charges. On the other hand, the member is well aware that right in the middle of her own constituency, and I am trying to do her and, I think, everybody a favour by trying to keep some calmness around this situation, and that calmness applies to the same people two years ago who drove snowmobiles through the herds that these co-operators were trying to capture at the very time that they were about to close the gate. So let us make it fair for the goose and the gander. Both sides have been on the verge of finding themselves in serious difficulty, and we as legislators can not be seen to be condoning that.
But the same as a number of other debates that have occurred in this House today, if we do not act reasonable, if we do not act sensible and if we just want somebody's blood on the floor, then we are never going to get anywhere. I will stand up for the side of reasonableness and defend what the department has done, defend--
An Honourable Member: That is why you are attacking the member for Swan River.
Mr. Cummings: The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says I am attacking the member for Swan River. I do not remember using her name. He can jump up on a point of order if he wants, but I think the people in the Swan River Valley would be much happier to know that the member for Swan River and the member for Ste. Rose had a reasonable debate in this House about whether or not charges were or were not laid when certain incidents occurred.
I am saying that if I or the department wanted to find some grounds to lay charges, there are not only these two incidents, probably a few others out there that would have led to a lot of wasted time in court, a lot of hurt feelings, and in the end, in both cases, to the best of my knowledge no elk were injured. They were certainly frightened but no elk were injured, and there were no witnesses or no proof.
We are both discussing something in this House that is probably based more on innuendo and fiction than it is on fact. I suggest that unless we want to carry on the debate in this vein that is probably all that can be said about it.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I do agree that we are having a sensible discussion here, but I want to make a bit of a--show the minister where the difference lies in these two situations. I want to tell him that I did not condone the activities that were taking place two years ago. I thought it was a very dangerous situation where lives were put at risk, and I did not support the activity that took place when that particular pen was burned down.
The difference in the two situations is that when the pen was burned down, my understanding is that nobody was identified as to who was carrying on the activities. In the case that I raise with the minister today with respect to this year's activities, it is my understanding that the Department of Natural Resources did know who the person was who had captured elk and was holding them illegally, but chose not to, and the department did not take any action.
What I was asking the minister was: is there any follow-up? Has any follow-up taken place, or is the minister's department just condoning?
I do not think the two incidents, the one of two years ago which the minister says I did not raise has any connection, because, in one, people are identified; in another one, they are not. I would just like to put that on the record and raise just one more issue with the minister in another area that had caused concern for the people who are concerned about this capture. That was the decision by the government to capture elk in the Lundar area.
When the program was first established, my understanding was that capture was going to take place in areas where elk were causing a serious depredation problem. The herd in the Lundar area is one that has been re-established by a capture, and it is an established herd. My understanding is that it has been elk that were captured and then moved into the Lundar area and the herd is supposed to be doing well. My understanding is that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has put in a fair amount of money to ensure that this herd survives and does well, and that this herd is not causing serious problems, not a depredation herd.
Why was the decision made then to capture elk in the Lundar area when they are not elk that are causing depredation problems?
Mr. Cummings: The Interlake herd is causing some depredation payments to be made, so it is not correct to say that they are not entirely without causing some depredation problems; and frankly, the lack of co-operation that we have had in the Swan River Valley at a time when we were going after significant numbers and had a chance to capture them has impeded our ability to make a capture. We would rather have caught 200 in the valley last year and the year before and not been in the Interlake area.
The Interlake herd, however, has reached, I would suggest, something close to optimum size. They are starting to move. As elk and deer seem to wont to do, they go where the food is good, and they are bound to interfere with agriculture on second-cut alfalfa, alfalfa bales and so on.
We also were at the west end of the Swan River Valley. We were around the Riding Mountain. I think we had--and I stand to be corrected on this number, but we had six or eight co-operators this year. If the weather had of co-operated, we would have done much better on the capture, but I know that if we had a chance to take 200 or 300 out of the Interlake, we would not have taken them. I did press, and I take full responsibility for saying to the department: does the Interlake herd, can it not withstand any withdrawals? We are now paying out some depredation. They said, well, yes, the chances are not as good because the opportunity for them to yard up or to come to bait is not as high. As it turns out, they did. So they were in a populated area, and that is the balance that we are trying to bring.
That is why in the east end of the Swan River Valley, when we had taken some a year ago, we decided we would not take any this year. Maybe we will have to go back there next year, because I am beginning to second-guess myself and ask the department: how do you tell which ones are mountain elk and which ones are valley elk? After a while, I think this is getting to be too fine a point, and I want to have that debate with the advisory board this summer.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate whether there are any plans by his department to capture any other species of wildlife for domestication?
Mr. Cummings: No.
* (1620)
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you for that answer.
I have one more area that I just want to talk about briefly, and that is between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings). That is the use of Crown land.
It is my understanding that at the present time when there is an individual that has a lease and that individual is not going to be using that lease anymore, that Natural Resources is trying to recapture those areas of Crown land back into Natural Resources jurisdiction, and they will not be used for agriculture purposes anymore.
Now that we have an increased interest in livestock because of grain prices, there are more and more people looking for Crown lands for agriculture purposes. Can the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) indicate whether there is a plan to remove more land that is now being used for agriculture purposes and have it taken back into Natural Resources area to go back into its natural state, and if that is so, does the minister not recognize the need for more land for pasture and for hay for livestock producers in the province?
Mr. Cummings: It would seem that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) just made a statement in support of the expansion of the use of Crown lands and maybe even the sale of existing agricultural Crown leases and the continuation of the existing policy to do that. Frankly, that is what we are doing, but there is no change in our policy in terms of long-term lessees being able to buy their agricultural Crown if they choose to, nor is there a change in policy about taking back Crown land and returning it to its natural state unless there should be specific areas that for very specific purposes should be set aside.
I know that we have done a number of swaps which might be what the member is referring to. I know there are a number of small areas. We just took back a little piece from PFRA. It is going to be added to WMA. Those sorts of things are going on all the time, but that is just piece-by-piece management of the works that come up. So I am not sure, unless the member believes that something is happening in a regional basis that I am not aware of. I have not made or seen any departmental policies that are anything different than the status quo.
Ms. Wowchuk: The issue that has been raised with me by constituents is that there is land that is being leased for agriculture purposes. For example, farmers are not using that land now, but they are being advised that if this particular farmer drops it, it will not be able to be taken up by another farmer for agriculture purposes. It will not be land available for agriculture anymore.
I am raising that with the minister and looking for information as to whether that has always been the policy. My understanding is that when agriculture Crown land is in the hands of one individual, they have the opportunity to buy that land, but if they are not going to buy it, it passes on to another individual who can then either lease it or purchase it.
The understanding that I have been given is that this is not the policy now. If the land is no longer used by one individual, it is then reverted back to Natural Resources, and it is not available for agriculture use. If this is the case, I would wonder why that has happened. If the minister is saying there is no change in policy, then I will have to go back to the individual and try to work through this and bring the matter to his attention.
Mr. Cummings: Perhaps the member would tell me where this land is, because unless there is, in fact, a specific or unique feature about this land, then there is some kind of a slip between the normal policy of the department and what is being conveyed to this person. I am also a little suspicious from time to time when these things come up that it is mischievous. I am not suggesting mischievous on the part of the member or mischievous on the part of myself, for that matter, in my response, but that somebody out there might be trying to justify something other than normal policy.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae). I want to ask the Minister of Environment--
An Honourable Member: He is Natural Resources.
Mr. Ashton: Oh, resources, yes. Perhaps we can ask some to the Minister of Natural Resources when the Minister of Environment--I think he was here a minute ago--comes back.
I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder if he could indicate the statistics on the number of people that purchased seasonal camping sites. I have been made aware by the former owner of the Paint Lake Marina, certainly the huge drop that took place in the number of people using seasonal camping sites, that site that led to him having to sell the facility.
I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he could now provide that information and, if not, if he could provide it to us at a later date. There is a lot of concern that that impact was not taken into account, the impact on businesses and others that rely on people that come to our parks and use the seasonal camping sites. As the minister knows, there was a huge drop in the number of people using those sites. I am wondering if the minister can give us any information on that.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, I will be glad to provide that information. I assume you are talking about the campsite outside of Thompson, south of Thompson at Paint Lake? It is interesting, and I would, just for the record, while the Minister of Environment, before he gets here, the Paint Lake area was unique in the reaction to the changes to the charges in that area, but it strikes me as being a difficult situation when there was apparently a lot of public demand for improved services, sewer, electricity, washrooms, all those sorts of things, and there were some improvements made in that area, but when the price went up no one wanted to recognize the increased cost that went with providing these services.
But I would make this analogy, and I do not need to tell the member for Thompson too much about human nature, but I had a similar experience with electrified plug-ins for an institution for which I was a member of the board, and everyone said that they wanted a plug-in and that they would pay. That is what the survey said. They were willing to pay for the opportunity to plug in their cars. I am trying to draw an analogy, because I cannot give exact figures on Paint Lake, but when the time came, the sign-up was almost zero. People would park on the other side of the building rather than pay for the plug-in for their cars, so I guess I am experiencing in the Paint Lake area pretty much of the same result.
Mr. Ashton: Yes, now that the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) is here, I will ask some questions. I would just state that I had asked for the impact of the increase. I point out that there were really no significant improvements to the seasonal camping sites that we are talking about. There is pressure for improvements but it is primarily other users, particularly permanent residents, and I will be corresponding with the minister.
They are concerned about the need for a fire protection system, a volunteer firefighter situation right now that they do have. They need some equipment, so I hope the minister will not confuse the two, and I just perhaps suggest that if you could take it as notice. We are running out of time here, so I am not expecting an answer now, but I would like some indication of what happened with those sites, because I know certainly numerous people that did not renew and it had an impact.
* (1630)
To the Minister of Environment, if I could ask the Minister of Environment very briefly here, because we will be moving this through fairly soon--in fact, we may wish to get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in fairly soon, within the next 10 minutes or so. I want to ask some questions about Tolko. As the minister knows, there has been a change of ownership with Repap, as the significant change in the direction that has been announced in terms of the amount of cut that Tolko is going to be using. It has increased by at least 60 percent, perhaps may have even doubled. It depends on the statistics you look at. I am basing this on information provided by Tolko. So you have a shift in the kind of cutting that is going to take place, the kind of market they are aiming at.
Concerns have been expressed about this in many of the areas affected. There was a meeting for example in Wabowden recently that brought together people in the forestry industry, tourism industry, fishing, trapping. A lot of people raised questions about the impact in that area, which ranged from the bringing in of outside contractors from Alberta, which is obviously an employment issue, but also the question of the sustainability of the cut and the impact on other uses.
I have had concerns expressed to me by individuals. If I had more time, I would ask this of Natural Resources. There is a trapper in the Thicket Portage area. Natural Resources gave a permit to some of the Tolko employees to go in and shoot the beaver that have several beaver houses in that area. He went in and tried to trap, and he found there were only three beavers in his traps. He found out that Natural Resources had apparently given this permit to shoot all the beavers because of the impact they have on the water flows and the impact that it has on logging. So I will be raising some of the more detailed issues.
What I really want to know is what position the government has on Tolko, what position they have now on the request that there be a federal environmental review, and what position the Minister of Environment has on the very question of sustainability, because if it is not there will not be trees there to cut for the next 75 years. I think more than half the province is basically within the cut area that goes back to CFI in the '60s, Manfor, Repap, and now Tolko. But there are some real questions asked about what real impact it is going to have on drainage, on other species, on other resource uses. It has been accelerated by this huge cut, that increase that we are seeing. My concern obviously is that these are serious questions that need to be dealt with.
I know the CEC licence has been appealed by a number of groups, including the MKO. I think the Future Forest Alliance is a group that has also been involved with fighting it. I really want to know what the government's position is, whether the minister has met with Tolko, whether he has met with others who are concerned about the environmental impact.
I want to stress again that what people are looking for in the northern communities now is a balance. I think people know obviously the forestry industry has been around for many years, but we want to make sure that we do not lose other resource uses, and we want to make sure that it indeed is sustainable in a true environmental sense. I appreciate any information the minister could give us on his government's position on Tolko's increased cut.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Chairman, I know that we are in committee, so I will just serve notice that when the Mace assumes its normal position, I will, if necessary, ask that there be agreement that we waive private members' hour today, depending on what time that happens to be.
In answer to the matters raised by the honourable member, he is right that the issues he raises are serious questions that serious people have about our environment and about the situation respecting Tolko and its cut.
The CEC decision and licence conditions are under appeal in various ways. Now, a number of people have sent correspondence raising the same kinds of issues raised today by the honourable member, and he seems to be well in tune with what those concerns are. They are being raised with my office, which is the appropriate place. These concerns, we are responding to those people writing in and telling them that we are considering their letters and their concerns as part of the appeal process of the licence.
As the honourable member may know, when the CEC makes a decision, and an interim licence or any other matter proceeds from that, there is an appeal mechanism and that mechanism is being used now. So it is with that in mind that I am not going to answer all the honourable member's questions because they are the subject of appeals that have been filed by various people, and we are going to examine the questions very seriously.
I will, however, ask my staff to review what the honourable member has said today, and we will prepare, to the extent that we can until the appeals are finalized, some kind of answer that would give the honourable member as much information as we are able to give him at this point. The appeal will ultimately be determinative.
The honourable member did, however, refer to a federal review, and I am not sure whether that is possible with the Tolko matter or not. That is something we can find out, but earlier this year, I attended in St. John's, Newfoundland, a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers of Environment. I would say an historic partnership on harmonization of environmental regulation began that day with the signing of a multilateral agreement. It contains an umbrella agreement, plus three sub-agreements, dealing with things like assessment and standards. In the next three years, there will be a number of other sub-agreements which will regularize the review process, the assessment process, and all the ministers there are satisfied, will improve the environment for environmental regulation in the future. But surely there will be further opportunities for us to discuss these matters at future occasions as well.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, since the minister, I think, is essentially taking this matter under advisement, I would just like to make a few more comments, and given the time on the clock, I certainly do not expect the minister to respond now.
I just want to indicate the significance of the concern. I have attended a number of meetings. I attended a meeting of the forestry advisory board of Tolko. It included Natural Resource officials and people from northern communities. There was a meeting in Wabowden, which I did not have the opportunity to attend, but I talked to people both prior to the meeting and since the meeting. This is where much of the concern, I think, was expressed, in this rather unique combination of people involved in the forestry industry, people involved in various other uses. In fact, people said at the meeting they wanted a balance. They are concerned. The quote particularly that came out of the meeting in this minutes indicated the degree of the concerns.
There is a concern that the area around Wabowden will become a vast clear-cut area. That is what the people of Wabowden are saying. They are concerned that, in fact, whereas the life of the resource in that area was probably going to be in the neighbourhood of 20 years, it could be as little as six years. That, I think, is important. We are talking about sustainability, I think, not just in the sense that there will be trees for 75 years to cut. We all understand that is the case. It is a huge area of forest, but, you know, this is a forest that has been passed down to us. It is a resource that has been passed down to us from hundreds of years, thousands of years of natural history. There is a real concern about the impact that the increased cut will have on other resource uses and on the natural environment itself. This is where, I think, there has to be recognition of the dramatic shift that is taking place in the kind of cutting and the volume of cutting.
Obviously, the first questions that will come up will be environmental concerns. That is why I am raising it on behalf of, certainly, the people of Wabowden, a community that I represent. I know the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) has received similar concerns in his constituency. I know many Manitobans generally have raised these kinds of concerns, and I think that it is incumbent on the government and the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae). The Minister of Environment, I think, has to be looking at those environmental questions, along with the resource-use questions, obviously which have been dealt with.
I would indicate that if the minister wishes to see further detail on some of the concerns, I did raise this in the Community Economic Development Committee related to the CEDF, because CEDF is the loans agency that has provided funding for many of the individual contractors who are very concerned, particularly about the use of Alberta contractors. I have talked to Tolko officials, and they have indicated it is their intent that this be a one-time situation. I think one time was too many.
But if that is the indication, I would indicate on the record, I have received that assurance from Tolko, and I appreciate that because employment is certainly one of the aspects that we have to look at, but I can tell you it is a going concern. It is a growing concern with other resource uses and it is a concern to people in the forestry industry, the loggers, many people who obviously have just as much interest in sustainability of the resource and protection of the environment in our home communities as does anyone. I will, in fact, correspond with the minister in further detail on some of these specific issues. I may even raise this during the Estimates of the Department of the Environment, and given the shortage of time, we are certainly prepared to pass the rest of the Interim Supply.
* (1640)
Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
RESOLVED that the sum not exceeding $1,845,435,095, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in the Main Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Shall the resolution pass?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly passed. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a resolution respecting Interim Supply, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of ways and means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Ways and Means will come to order, please. We have before us for our consideration the resolution respecting the Interim Supply Bill. The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED that towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenditures of the Public Service, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999, the sum of $1,845,435,095, being 35 percent of the total amount to be voted as set out in the Main Estimates of the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999, laid before the House at the present session of the Legislature be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.
Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) have any comments? No.
Is the committee ready for the question? Shall the resolution be passed?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly passed. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted a resolution respecting Interim Supply, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), that leave be given to introduce a Bill 23, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 portant affectation anticipée de crédits), and that the same be now received and read a first time and be ordered for second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 23--The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Bill 23, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 portant affectation anticipée de crédits), be now read a second time and be referred to a Committee of the Whole, by leave.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Stefanson: I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider and report of Bill 23 for Third Reading.
Motion agreed to.
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall we consider the bill clause by clause?
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall Clauses 1 through 6--pass; preamble--pass; title--pass. Bill be reported.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 23, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 portant affectation anticipée de crédits), and has directed me to report the same without amendments.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the report of the Committee of the Whole be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development, that Bill 23, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 portant affectation anticipée de crédits), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in, by leave.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Before proceeding further, and in case it is necessary, I would ask that the House agree that we not have private members' hour today.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members hour? [agreed]
* (1650)
Bill 23--The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Bill 23, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 portant affectation anticipée de crédits), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. McCrae: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I am wondering, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), at step seven of the procedure when he moved first reading of the interim supply bill, if leave was granted for that, just to check the record--[interjection] You are telling me it was?
An Honourable Member: Absolutely.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I am sure leave was granted.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for that clarification.
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Roy MacGillivray): His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
His Honour W. Yvon Dumont, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Manitoba, having entered the House and being seated on the throne, Madam Speaker addressed His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in the following words:
Madam Speaker: May it please Your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and beg of Your Honour the acceptance of this bill, Bill 23, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1998; Loi de 1998 portant affectation anticipée de crédits.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill in Her Majesty's name.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, shall we call it six o'clock?
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? [agreed]
This House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 6.