RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I understand that my colleague for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) had reached this line and had asked questions in general from this morning, so we can continue on this, and then if the minister can elaborate a little on what some of the plans that he has under his Executive Support Services, what we will see in the next little while or the future as far as results; what he hopes to gain or see happen within this part of the department as far as the staff; and what future projects that we might be seeing and looking at.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Well, I am not sure if I understand the member's question correctly, but I do not believe that there are any changes anticipated in the levels of staffing in this area. Indeed, this area of the department is the Executive Support area, and we are not anticipating any dramatic changes in the course of the next year.
Mr. Clif Evans: I apologize because I was not available this morning for introductions of staff. I do know the deputy minister, but I do not remember whether I have met some of the staff that is sitting here with us this afternoon, the new staff. If the minister would be so kind.
Mr. Derkach: I would be happy to introduce the staff once again. We have the deputy minister, who is Winston Hodgins; we have Denise Carlyle, who is the executive director of Finance and Administration; and we have Brian Johnston, who is chief of Financial Services, Administrative and Human Resource Services.
Mr. Clif Evans: I guess my eyes are getting much worse than I thought they were; I do now recognize Ms. Carlyle. I have no further question on 1.(b).
Mr. Chairperson: Item 13.1.(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $420,400-pass; (2) Other Expenditures $78,000--pass.
Item 13.1.(c) Brandon Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $143,900.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Brandon office has pretty well been a stable entity within the department over the past few years. Is the minister seeing any need of expanding that office, and, if there is a need, what would it be? In light of everything that is going on in our province rurally and that, does the minister hope to maintain that office on a steady basis, or is he looking at expanding the facility as far as staffing and/or services provided?
Mr. Derkach: This has been a very busy office, especially with the announcement of Maple Leaf Foods and the activity that is occurring in the west side of the province. This office is certainly being asked to do more and more as the days go by, and we are going to be adding a resource in Brandon, or we hope to, over the course of the next year to help complement the office staff at the Brandon office.
Mr. Clif Evans: Resources as far as staffing or resources as far as capital?
Mr. Derkach: Staffing.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, if we could get it on the record.
Mr. Derkach: We are talking about staffing.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Brandon office now has three full-time people. Can the minister tell me how many more he might anticipate going to the Brandon office and under what capacity?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, we have two staffpersons at the Brandon office at the present time. The Estimates show we have a total of three positions in that office. We intend to fill that third position, but at this point in time the specific job description is not available.
* (1440)
Mr. Clif Evans: If the job description is not available now, the minister must have some knowledge of what it may be and whether it is (a), (b), or (c).
Mr. Derkach: We are looking at someone who can work with the companies that are locating in Brandon and, most importantly, Maple Leaf Foods. Also, someone who can be a liaison for a project like Maple Leaf and the government and the City of Brandon. It is also someone who has to be able to work with communities as the whole concept of the hog barn and hog production expansion occurs in rural Manitoba, so this is the type of individual that we intend to add to the complement of staff there.
Mr. Clif Evans: As part of this, the minister talks about the hog industry and implementation of Maple Leaf Foods. Will this staffperson be knowledgeable in future planning for the surrounding area and the Brandon and surrounding area, or will they be just an administrative support to assist in the future planning of what is happening in and around Brandon?
Mr. Derkach: Many times there are issues that arise with a project of this size that have to be addressed either through ministers' departments directly or there are issues that arise where people who are working in the field may need some assistance as well, and this position would not be meant to duplicate any of the services that are available from departments at this time but indeed to help co-ordinate some of those services and to ensure that we have sort of a co-ordinated approach in the projects and the initiatives that are undertaken.
Mr. Clif Evans: I could ask this question further down and may go back to it. I ask under the Brandon Office because we are talking about the Brandon area and the Maple Leaf Foods issue and the hog industry as such in that area: Have there been any resources requested by the proponent or by the community as far as the department under any program for capital resources to assist in the project, or has the department just basically been asked to be a part of the whole planning process in getting the plant underway for the future of it?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, our agreement with Maple Leaf and with the City of Brandon has been to participate in the infrastructure side with regard to the construction of treatment facility for sewage, with construction of extension of water services to the plant and also other infrastructure components that are required. There will also be the need, of course, to construct access to the facility as well. Those are the areas that we as a government would be contributing in.
An Honourable Member: As a department or as government?
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the members, if they are going to try and put some interjection in, they might want to put it on the record, so that Hansard can properly put it in place.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, I forgot what I had said. As a department and not as a government specifically, but as a department?
Mr. Derkach: Some of these resources will come from the department, from my department, and others may come from other departments, whether it is Highways or Industry, Trade, depending on the nature of the infrastructure that is going to be required. Suffice it to say that it is a government contribution rather than a specific department one.
Mr. Clif Evans: So, on that topic alone, we could deal with more detail under the Water Resources Branch then as far as any specifics? With that project, then, we can deal with it later on? As the minister is saying, there is going to be some input from sewer and water treatment, and that support will be coming from this department.
Mr. Derkach: Although we can deal with it later on, I do not know what other details I can provide because at the present time there is work going on through the city engineers, the consultants who have been hired by the company, and the government professionals who are working out details. So we do not have specific dollar figures at this point in time because those are still being worked through.
Mr. Clif Evans: Then I will wait until that part of the Estimates process and deal with it more in detail.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 13.1. Administration and Finance (c) Brandon Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $143,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $53,400--pass.
Item 13.1.(d) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $125,300.
Mr. Derkach: I have not introduced, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Roger Dennis, who has joined us. He is the executive director of Local Government Support Services.
Mr. Clif Evans: Welcome, Mr. Dennis.
Human Resource Management, 13.1.(d), the budget line has gone up $10,000. I see that is mostly for salary. I see also there are four staff for that part of the department. Can the minister tell me, the line under this area: "Assets Department and Managers on all Workforce adjustment" by the Activity Identification, what does that exactly mean?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, that is a typing error. It should be: "Assists Department and Managers on all Workforce adjustment" instead of "assets."
Mr. Clif Evans: I know the minister tries to confuse me a lot of times on different issues and that, but this is a funny way of going about it, misspelling some of the parts of the Estimates book. So, okay, it assists departments and managers on all workforce adjustment. Okay, thank you, that is good.
* (1450)
Mr. Chairperson: Item 13.1. Administration and Finance (d) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $125,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $20,900--pass.
Item 13.1.(e) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $337,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $188,200.
Mr. Clif Evans: I am going by the Estimates book.
Mr. Chairperson: What number are you on? What page are you on?
Mr. Clif Evans: I was on 27.
Mr. Chairperson: That is 3.1.(e). That is where we are right now. Have you got some questions there?
Mr. Clif Evans: Here I see again an increase in salaries. Is this salary increase as far as civil service and in accordance with annual pay increases, or is it for any other specific duties that are involved within that part of the department?
Mr. Derkach: The increases that the member cites are as a result of two issues: one being the settlement with the MGEU, which is a percentage increase, and the other is an increase as a result of the reduced workweek days from 10 to five.
Mr. Clif Evans: Under Other Expenditures, can the minister just indicate where the grants of $32,000, what portion of that money goes to what?
Mr. Derkach: I will just read what the increases are. There is $1,000 for the Manitoba Municipal Administrators Association; $12,500 for Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research referred to as ICURR; $4,000 in support to the UMM banquet or conference; and $14,500 in support of the UMM conference. These grants are basically the same as last year, except for the ICURR grant, which was increased by $500.
Mr. Clif Evans: While we are on this topic, the ICURR, could the minister explain that to me, exactly what the ICURR is and why the money goes there?
Mr. Derkach: This committee is one that is made up of deputy ministers from throughout the provinces, and each year we contribute to a conference that is held for all ministers. It is an annual ministers' conference that is held in various provinces around the country. Our participation in ICURR is one which is for the $12,500, and basically it is based on population, as I understand it. They do research work, as well, as it relates to urban and municipal government, and that is some of the area that is covered when we meet as ministers.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 13.1 (e) (2) Other Expenditures $188,200--pass.
We will now move on to 13.2 Boards (a) Municipal Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $561,200.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, I would like to deal with this section more in detail, and I would appreciate if the minister and his staff were diligent with some of my questions as we proceed on this line.
Can the minister first of all indicate: I know that the Activity Identification, hears appeals, implications, et cetera, The Planning Act, The Municipal Act, The Municipal Board Act, et cetera. Application comes from municipalities, jurisdictions for hearing, it says, appeals and applications and referrals. For what types of applications and referrals and appeals would this board--and what is the board in place to deal with?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, the bulk of the appeals that are heard by the Municipal Board deal with assessment. Beyond that, the board also deals with planning appeals that may come before it, and also borrowing by-laws that are submitted by municipalities.
Mr. Clif Evans: How many of each type of identification for application to the Municipal Board does the board hear in the process of a fiscal year? When it comes to the different applications, how many does the board deal with and what types in a year?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the specific detail on the number of cases that are heard if you grouped all of them together--the planning, the by-laws, the annexation, amalgamation and assessments, but I can tell you the bulk are in the assessment area.
As of the beginning of March in 1998, the board had something in the neighbourhood of 1,304 appeals before it, which it is obligated to hear. Now it disposed of something like 936 appeals in 1997, so there were still some outstanding ones left. Those have been added to the number to make 1,304, so that gives you some idea of the numbers that are heard in a year.
We have increased the numbers on the board. We have also increased the staff component of the board because of the increasing number of appeals that are coming, especially in the area of assessment.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, as the minister has indicated, most of the appeals in the majority of the hearings--and the appeals are through assessment or through the assessment part of it, and that is hearing appeals or hearing arguments as to a jurisdiction's assessment or individual assessments that are not being satisfied between the jurisdiction and the individuals, whether it be business or private residential, and then the opportunity is to go to the Municipal Board to hear the appeal or to make the decision on who is right and who is wrong. Is that what the minister is saying under the assessment part?
Mr. Derkach: If someone objects to an assessment on his or her property, they have a right to appeal, and the first avenue of appeal is to the Board of Revision. If they are not satisfied with the outcome of that, they can then appeal to the Municipal Board.
* (1500)
Mr. Clif Evans: With assessments, if it has to go to the Municipal Board, the Municipal Board's decision, once it is rendered, is it final, or is there still an appeal process?
Mr. Derkach: Unless there is an error made by the board in terms of law, the decision is binding because it is a quasi-judicial board.
Mr. Clif Evans: In other scenarios, then, as far as with the applications for appealing and hearing, especially let us use the borrowing by-law, the process that is in place for that, the municipality jurisdiction that wants to pass a by-law for borrowing on a specific project, they have to go before the Municipal Board for approval. Short of that, at this time also, the process where the--of course the proponents make their presentation--objectors make theirs is at this time also, if I am understanding correctly.
What problems would arise for the Municipal Board in making a final decision and making its recommendation to such an appeal? Could either a proponent or non-proponent make, after a decision is made, make some sort of another appeal, and where would they go if they could?
Mr. Derkach: On borrowing by-laws, the Municipal Board decision is binding.
Mr. Clif Evans: Under the borrowing by-law, it is binding. Under the borrowing by-law, there is no alternative except to take the issue and the decision of the Municipal Board to court, or I mean, to go to court to hear their appeal. They have no other avenue of going whatsoever under The Municipal Act for borrowing by-law to proceed with. Strictly court.
Mr. Derkach: As I indicated, the decision of the Municipal Board is binding because the Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial body. However, if there has been an error in law, or if there is a point of law that can be contested, then the by-law can be taken to a court of appeal. But it cannot be taken for any other reason than that.
While I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, I have indicated that most of the appeals are assessment appeals, and we have 1,110 outstanding appeals as of December 31, 1997. Of that number, there were 1,004 appeals on assessment, which was calculated by staff as about 93 percent of all applications.
Mr. Clif Evans: I want to get something for myself to understand, and not being a great one of knowing The Municipal Act inside and out--I am sure that the minister can appreciate that; it is a big book. But under what conditions or under what situations can an appeal or a request be made to the department itself on a decision by the Municipal Board, and can that happen under The Municipal Act or The Municipal Board Act?
Mr. Derkach: On assessment appeals and on borrowing by-laws, those decisions by the Municipal Board are binding. You cannot appeal those to the minister, and as I indicated, the only time you are going to appeal them is if there has been some error made in law.
With regard to annexation or amalgamation, in those conditions and those issues, the board makes a recommendation to the minister, and then the minister either has to concur with the recommendation or, if there is reason not to, then I guess it can be then turned down. But, in most instances, provided that the criteria are followed, and provided that the rules of annexation or amalgamation have been followed, we would simply endorse the recommendations that are made by the Municipal Board.
Mr. Clif Evans: Then can the minister explain to me where Section 122 comes into play?
Mr. Derkach: I think the case that the member is referring to is one that has come before us in the last little while. In a case like that where an LUD and a municipality are in dispute on an issue, they bring it to my desk or to the department, to the minister, who then, after considering it, would refer it to the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board would then look at the issues, hear both sides, if you like, and then make their recommendation to the minister.
Mr. Clif Evans: Before I get to a specific issue--I do not know whether I want to go that way, but I want to understand it better. The minister said, okay, the only way that there can be any further appeal to a decision is if something was done illegally. Illegally by whom, the Municipal Board or a presentation?
Now the minister says that the matter he is referring to has been referred back to him under Section 122 because the decision of the board was not to the satisfaction of all parties that were involved. Why would it come to him under 122? If he is saying that it is binding, was there a problem in the initial or secondary Municipal Board hearing that handled this specific issue?
Mr. Derkach: When there is an issue between an LUD and a municipality and that issue comes before the minister and is sent to the Municipal Board, that decision comes back or that opinion or, I guess, that view or that recommendation of the board comes back to the minister, but that is not the same as an assessment or a by-law, because those are binding.
In the case of disputes over issues which come before the minister and then are sent on to the Municipal Board, when they come back they are recommendations of the board and they are not binding.
* (1510)
Mr. Clif Evans: But, if the Municipal Board makes a decision on an issue, why then, and even if there is a dispute--and the minister points out that a dispute between an LUD and a municipality. What if it was a dispute between--because the issue is for borrowing money. That is the issue to get approval to borrow money. So, if the board has already made the decision, and the minister says they can come back to him if there is a dispute, but he has also said that it is binding. So, under Section 122, how many times can this dispute be brought before the minister, and how many times can the minister go back to the board and say it has to be resolved?
Mr. Derkach: The dispute that the member refers to was not a dispute as it relates to a borrowing by-law. It was a dispute over an issue as to what by-law, I guess, to implement or put forward, and that was sent for recommendation to the Municipal Board. But the by-law itself was not put forward. Therefore, if the by-law were put forward, whatever the board would recommend on the by-law would then be binding.
Mr. Clif Evans: We are going to be going back and forth here with binding and unbinding and by-laws until we will confuse everyone here. I am still not clear, and I guess why I even raise this issue is that I want to stabilize in my own mind exactly what powers under The Municipal Act and The Municipal Board Act this board has, if it is there to make a decision.
What I am understanding a little here is that there seem to be little ways that the board or proponents on an appeal for a by-law between--you can keep going back and forth, back to the Municipal Board to make another decision on a decision on another decision on if somebody is disputing the decision.
Mr. Derkach: When two bodies come forward, a municipality and an LUD in this case, with an issue to minister, and when it is an issue where there is clearly a dispute between the two bodies, the minister would consider it, and if the minister feels that it is appropriate that the issue be sent to the Municipal Board, that is then done. The Municipal Board, then, would conduct a hearing where both sides would have the ability to bring forward their case as it relates to the issue.
After hearing all of the concerned parties, the Municipal Board would make a recommendation. The recommendation is sent to the minister. The minister would then review the recommendation and, as it refers to specifically the issue that came before the minister, then would render his/her decision and send it to the affected parties.
Now, in the cases of assessment or by-laws, those kinds of decisions by the board are not recommendations; they are decisions. They would be binding, and there is no appeal on those types of decisions unless there is an error in law. On annexation and amalgamation or on issues other than that, those can be appealed and can be disputed, and the minister can, in fact, alter those decisions if for some reason the Municipal Board's recommendation is seen to be not in keeping with, perhaps, I do not know, the principles that the department feels that should be adhered to.
Mr. Clif Evans: So, on one hand, the minister cannot get involved; on the other hand, the minister can get involved. I guess the question is: how many times? How many times can a minister get involved? How many times does the minister have to hear or have the opportunity to hear requests that under Section 122 the minister deals with the situation because a board made a specific decision? Whether it is or is not, let us be hypothetical because the issue at hand in this particular jurisdiction is not the issue that I am referring to as far as whether it makes a difference or not. It does not. The decision as to where the lagoon goes--and this would be Lorette and Tache, whether it was relocated or whether it stays and for expansion--that is not the issue.
What I am trying to understand is the process of the Municipal Board in dealing with the minister on this specific and other related appeals that are being heard. So that if it was to happen again tomorrow between--well, I will give you an example, the LUD of Ashern in my area and the R.M. of Siglunes. [interjection] Yes, well, prior to, I know this. I am just trying to understand. I am not trying to be critical. I am trying to find and make sure that the due process has been followed.
My question is how many times this can go back to the Municipal Board. From what I understand and read, because of disputes over this or that within the process, it keeps going back to the Municipal Board for either a decision or for a recommendation. Well, the minister shakes his head, but I believe that the question is how come it had to go back to the Municipal Board so many times? Was there something that, each and every time that the Municipal Board made a decision on something or a recommendation, something else was picked out. It was given back to the minister, and then the minister had to decide, yes, we have to send it back to the Municipal Board.
The minister may dispute the fact that there has not been these amount of hearings. If he wants to dispute that, I would like him to put that on record, but I am just trying to get a sense of who has the final say.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to determine whether the member is speaking--he is going to have to give me more specifics because I do not believe that we can talk about hypothetical situations and yet try and bring out certain details. So, if he is talking about the Lorette situation, then I can certainly give him some insight into the process that has been undertaken with regard to that situation.
* (1520)
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, yes, and I want to let the minister know, only as to the due process and how the due process in a situation like this works with respect to right from the initial proposals to the application for a hearing and the appeal, the hearing itself and what might happen if, because he has indicated that the board has the final say in certain areas. Yet is the board there to settle disputes, or is the board there to make a decision on what the people have presented from both sides? So it is the due process; it is not whether--in my mind and to me, it is not where the lagoon should go. That decision and that proposal are up to the people, for them to make their presentations, and the board has to deal with that.
The full process of this particular situation, I am just asking: why was it able to continue for so long? Did the board make a final decision at one time in the past three years or did they not?
Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the member would like to meet on the specifics of the case under Section 122, I could certainly do that with him privately and we can talk about the specific issues of that particular case. But normally what happens is when an issue comes forward to the minister, that issue is simply referred to the Municipal Board, which is an arm's-length body, a quasi-judicial body who can hear both sides of the issue, and then bring forward their recommendation to the minister.
In the case the member cites, there were far more complexities than that in terms of the issues that were, I guess, created within that area. Therefore, this is not a usual case, and the Municipal Board has recommended that the communities, for the community or the R.M., put forward both by-laws, if you like, one for the relocation and one for the upgrading, and then go through the process of the by-laws and bring them forward for the Municipal Board to hear. But this is not sort of a regular or normal case. This one in particular is an unusual one, and I think what is being sought is some kind of a solution so that the debate does not continue to go on and on in the community and in terms of whether it should be a new lagoon or the expansion of the existing lagoon.
In the end, it is the municipality who has to bring the by-laws forward. It is not the LUD--they do not have the ability to do that. It is not the department. It is not the Municipal Board. The municipality has to come forward with the by-laws that they want to see addressed. Once the decision, once the by-law comes forward, then the Municipal Board makes its decision on the by-laws after hearing both sides, and that decision at that time is then binding.
Mr. Clif Evans: I guess the questioning--yes, certainly, I can sit down with the minister with respect to this specific issue, and that is well and fine, but again, the specific issue that he is talking about, to me, is the decision should be made by the people.
Mr. Derkach: Yes, that is exactly what has happened.
Mr. Clif Evans: Exactly, by the people. Again, it is a due process so that I am more aware of just how the Municipal Board works to a point that if I had these types of disputes amongst the board or amongst proponents or nonproponents of any particular zoning or by-law or borrowing by-law or whatever, that I would not understand how it works. Now, with this, and under due process of the system, not at all the referral of who favours what as far as where the lagoon should go or not go or whatever, but under the due process, that is allowable under The Municipal Board Act, if the Municipal Board decides or makes a recommendation, and I will quote from it: The board really has no alternative except to recommend to the minister that the municipality must prepare a local improvement plan as requested by the committee, as required by Section 313 of The Municipal Act. Now, what does that mean?
What I am trying to figure out and make sure that I am understanding is how is this system working, and why is it taking so long in this particular thing? We seem to be going back and forth and different hearings for different things, when the issue is to make a decision, a comprehensive proper decision as to what the final outcome would be.
So is it the due process, or is it the availability within The Municipal Act and The Municipal Board Act that provides this type of ongoing situation? Is there something within the system? Quoting from the recommendation of the January '98 municipal hearing, and I believe that that was the fourth or fifth hearing--whether it be for the same specific thing, it is still related to the issue; it always seems to be. What is Section 313, how does it come into play, and if the board has made that recommendation and decision, why, is my question.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, I will try to go through this with the member in some detail to help him understand. As I said, this is not a usual case. Where you have an LUD and a municipality--an LUD is within the municipality, of course--and an LUD comes forward with a service plan and it brings that service plan before the municipality, according to the section that the member refers to, the municipality must implement the plan. However, the municipality did not want to implement that plan and so therefore they sent that to the Municipal Board, but the Municipal Board indicated to them that they had no other alternative but to implement the service plan as it was presented.
The municipality, of course, had a different view of the same project than what the LUD did, and so the Municipal Board said, well, in order to try and get a clear understanding of what it is that communities want, why does the municipality not bring forward both by-laws, one that incorporates the LUD's wishes and the other that incorporates the wishes of the municipality and then allow hearings on those by-laws, because there have to be hearings under The Municipal Act for those by-laws. In the end, then, the board can make a decision on what it is the population of the area wants rather than trying to somehow force a decision through.
* (1530)
Mr. Clif Evans: So then what the minister is being so diligent in trying to explain to me is that--am I correct in assuming that the request of the board, the Municipal Board, let us say, to bring both those by-laws to them, does that request come through the minister's office or does it come from the Municipal Board? What if either the municipality or the LUD or the town or the village say, no, we do not want to bring both in? Then what? Where do they go then? Do they go to the minister saying we only want to make our presentation? Why should they go to the minister saying we recommend that we will bring in both proposals?
Mr. Derkach: Let us try to get this through one more time. Initially, when the matter got to the Municipal Board, the Municipal Board did meet with both parties and did indicate to them that, in fact, they should go back and bring both by-laws forward. However, the recommendation to me as minister incorporated the decision under 122 which said, implement the service plan as it was presented by the LUD. When I received that, and knowing that the board had initially recommended that they bring both by-laws forward, my letter to the municipality and to the LUD stated that they should come forward with both by-laws.
Mr. Clif Evans: Did that happen, and when?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, we are still waiting for the response from the communities. We have not had that at this time.
Mr. Clif Evans: So within the last four months, there has not been--or has there been?--a hearing with a recommendation?
Mr. Derkach: The hearing was on the 15th of January, as I am told, and the recommendation came to me. My letter went out about three weeks ago to the LUD and the municipality, and we have not heard a response from them at this time.
Mr. Clif Evans: Okay, if I will get this right now. So there was a municipal hearing then? There was a hearing? It was a hearing recommended by the minister to bring both proposals to the table, at the minister's recommendation, under Section 122 that the municipality requested you deal with this matter, that your recommendations be brought forward to the Municipal Board. The hearing was held? [interjection] Well, there was a hearing held on January 15.
The decision--[interjection] Let me finish, then you can respond--was brought back to the minister on March 2, in and around March 2, and it was then released. It is my understanding that that was what the minister was going to recommend, bringing those two proposals together at the same time at a hearing.
So I was under the understanding that the January hearing was the final one. Then they recommended now--again, and I am not trying create a problem for the minister. I am trying to create an understanding of the due process of the Municipal Board and whether the Municipal Board had every opportunity to hear the issues and make their decision. That is what I am asking.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, when I received the letter from the Municipal Board, the recommendation from the Municipal Board, it was at that time in the beginning of March, I guess, that I wrote to the municipality and indicated that what they should do is bring back both by-laws. It is that letter that has not been responded to yet.
Mr. Clif Evans: Okay, the two jurisdictions are in the process, then, or they have to--now it goes to them through your recommendation and the Municipal Board's recommendation. Now if the LUD or the municipality do not accept the recommendation, then what? The previous order from the Municipal Board hearings and this final recommendation, are they not binding, and why not? The minister says the decision of the Municipal Board is binding.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, they cannot simply ignore the letter that was sent to them because they have an environmental issue that they have to deal with, with regard to the lagoon, so they have a choice, but it is in their ballpark. They either bring forward both by-laws or else, failing to do that, they must bring forward the by-law that reflects the plan that was put before them by the LUD. Therefore, one way or the other, the municipality has the obligation to come forward to the Municipal Board with a by-law, either the by-law that reflects the plan that was put forward by the LUD or two by-laws spelling out both approaches, and then the Municipal Board would hear those and make a decision. When they hear the by-laws, when they have a hearing on the by-laws, that decision then is the binding decision.
* (1540)
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, I do understand that, and I am aware of that process. That part of it I am aware of, like the last recommendation from the January 15 hearing is before both jurisdictions--[interjection] Well, the LUD has to deal with it, too. The LUD should be made aware of and make their presentation available to present to the R.M. at their council meeting to make a decision on so the LUD has to be made aware of what the Municipal Board had indicated. So what is still available if they bring both? If they decide at their next municipal council that they are going to present both, that means another municipal hearing. When is this process going to end? They bring their own by-law or do not accept the LUD's by-law, what process is in place then? Is there going to be another hearing?
The minister said if they bring in both or the LUDs, there will be another hearing, another decision, but if the two jurisdictions are satisfied with the LUD's proposal and request for a by-law to be passed for borrowing and for the project to go ahead, why so long? What prevented this process from happening quicker?
Mr. Derkach: As a result of the letter that I sent to the municipality, they have an obligation: one, they can bring forward two by-laws, the by-law that the LUD put forward or the by-law that reflects the proposal that came forward from the LUD; secondly, a by-law that is their own, and there are two views of how they should address the issue. One by-law would be to expand the lagoon; the other by-law would be to build a new lagoon. Now, if they do not want to come forward in that way, the least they have to do is to come forward with a by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD as it was presented in their plan.
The municipality does not have too many other choices in that regard. It has got to come forward with an action plan of some sort, and they were given the option to come forward either with one by-law or to come forward with two by-laws, saving time and saving, I guess, dollars to ensure that they can start to proceed with the work.
Mr. Clif Evans: Two points. The Municipal Board from its hearings on August 30, '96, and September 3, '96: that the board finds itself in a position where it must refuse to approve the by-law on the basis that the people of the community have indicated by their vote in a referendum--which in my understanding that happened sometime during the last municipal election; there was some sort of a referendum or a vote on all of this--and they are not prepared to accept additional costs involved in relocation of the existing lagoon. So is that when 122 came into play, and when did the minister advise the Municipal Board that they would request two proposals be brought before them at the same time?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, it was the Municipal Board that advised the municipalities to withdraw this issue with regard to the dispute and to come back with the two by-laws. That was the original, I guess, recommendation from the Municipal Board. Since that time, after the communities came forward to the Municipal Board and the recommendation was made to me as minister by the Municipal Board, I wrote back to the municipality and the LUD I believe--at least the municipality because they are the jurisdiction that we would communicate with--that, in fact, they should either come forward with both by-laws or come forward with at least the by-law that was initiated or that reflected the wishes of the LUD but that in coming forward with both by-laws they would then expedite the project.
Mr. Clif Evans: Probably for now I want to put an end to this particular because my basis for the questioning was on the due process of the Municipal Board and all the avenues that were made available to go against--or to appeal, not to go against but to appeal a decision by the Municipal Board that the minister in one of his letters stated was a quasi-judicial entity that could not be interfered with on a decision.
So, technically, if the municipality with its decision presents or prepares a by-law, borrowing by-law, in support of the LUD submission which the Municipal Board has, from my readings, approved, the matter is closed except for the final, one more hearing that the LUD will be presenting to the board for its approval on the borrowing portion, and then it will be finalized.
Mr. Derkach: I think that staff of the department had had a consultation process with the member from Interlake to go through all of this, and I thought at that time he had understood it, but let me try again.
If, in fact, the community comes forward with the by-law that has been put forward by the LUD, and if there are objections to that by-law and the Municipal Board turns it down, then the municipality is faced with drafting another by-law and coming forward with it. So, in other words, we tried to expedite the process by asking him to come forward with the two by-laws so that the board could hear them and then make a decision based on the presentations that are made on the two by-laws. Then, and only then, would the recommendation of the--because it is a by-law then that they are ruling on--would the decision of the board be binding.
* (1550)
Mr. Clif Evans: I understand what the minister is saying. I do understand what the minister is saying on that. I want to assure him that I understand that, after. Again, my concern is why is it taking so long to get to this point that the minister is saying. I do not want the minister to make light of this, not one little bit. [interjection] Well, you are.
Now, the process and the happenings that were presented to me, my question was why is the due process taking so long and why are there avenues when we are being told that the Municipal Board has the final say on a decision? That is all I am asking. Now, if it is not important for you and if you think that it is because I do not understand what you are trying to tell me, I do. What I am trying to say to you is that the question of the due process has been brought to my attention.
So I want to understand, and I want to make sure that the process that is in place--and it is a question, and I brought this to the minister, talked to him a bit about it prior to when he mentioned the Lorette situation and their environmental concerns and with the briefing on another issue because I did not understand. People are asking me why, so I am asking you why. You tell me on one hand it is a final say; you tell me on the other hand it is not the final say. On one hand, you say I have the right to not interfere, but under Section 122 to put my recommendations to the board on a disputed issue. That is fine.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, by no means am I making light of the issue. I thought that I had explained it on at least three occasions now. First of all, when we talk about a binding decision on the Municipal Board's part, it refers to either decisions on assessment or decisions on by-laws. Before a decision can be rendered on a by-law, that by-law has to come forward, and that is what the municipality has been instructed to do: to come forward with either the by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD or to come forward with two by-laws that have the wishes of the LUD, plus, I guess, the view or the attitude or the wish of the municipality. At that point in time, the Municipal Board will deal with them, but those have not come forward yet, and that is exactly what we are waiting for.
Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Now, you asked the question why is it taking so long? Because the municipality has not come forward with the by-laws. Until such time that they do, the Municipal Board will wait and will wait until that comes forward, and they have no opportunity to make any kind of a decision until the municipality applies with either one by-law or with two.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Minister, I understand what you are saying, I understand that, and I have understood it. The question was that staff had indicated to me that you were going to make that recommendation to the municipality. I left with that knowledge and basically agreeing with it. What I was not aware of at the time was that the Municipal Board's decision of January you had on your desk in your office.
My impression was there was going to be a hearing in the very near future recommending what you recommended--so that was my question. If there was a decision sent to your office saying that because of Section 13 we have no other alternative but to agree with the proposals of the LUD, if I had not known that you had that, I was not aware that that meeting had occurred, so you see where part of my questioning is coming from. I was made aware of something that was going to be done under Section 122 but not aware that the hearing and the results, the recommendation of the January hearing and decision, were in your office before you and your department. So the confusion lies in my understanding the process and what directions are taken and what time they are taken.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, the ruling that came down from the Municipal Board that the member refers to indicated that there is no option for the municipality but to come forward with the by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD. However, because there is such a dispute in the community about whether or not it should be a new lagoon or an expanded lagoon, indeed, when I got that decision from the Municipal Board, I said, well, there is another way. If they wish to come forward with the two by-laws, then the board will hear both by-laws, and it will act on whichever by-law it sees to be the most favourable or the most practical. At that time it would be binding, but there was no by-law that went to the board.
The issue that went to the board was the dispute, and the board's ruling on the dispute was that the municipality, under Section 122, would have to come forward with the plan that reflected the wishes of the LUD. To try and resolve the controversy and the problems that were occurring in that community, between the community and the municipality, it was recommended that to expedite things, the municipality should come forward with two by-laws, one that reflects the wishes of the LUD, one that reflects their wishes. At that point in time, the Municipal Board would hear the two by-laws and make its decision on the by-law that it felt should be implemented.
Now, at the very least, the municipality has to come forward with one by-law. The very least is that they have to come forward with the by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD. The out for them, and to try and expedite things, would be to come forward with two by-laws. Because if the board hears the first by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD, and if the board has enough objections and for whatever reason the board decides that that is not the way to go, then the ruling of the board holds. So that means that the wishes of the LUD would not be proceeded with.
When that happens at that time, the municipality would have to make another decision, and that would be to come forward with a by-law to build a new lagoon; however, because of the environmental problems that are being faced by that community with regard to the lagoon, we recommended, I recommended to the municipality, in order to at least be able to accomplish some resolution to their problem that they proceed with two by-laws, and, in that way, the board in one sitting would make a decision on which way to proceed. They would not have to come back to the Municipal Board with another by-law should the first by-law be defeated.
* (1600)
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chair, I think I will leave this for now. Referring to the decision on the recommendation of the Municipal Board Order No. E98-012, that the Rural Municipality of Tache proceed with the by-law to provide for redevelopment of the existing lagoon site employing an integrated waste water pond technology, allowing for 4 percent annual population growth and a storage capacity of 227 days: estimated cost, $620,225 in total and authorizing the borrowing of $140,000 in the local improvement district of Lorette to be paid over 10 years. That was a recommendation of the board. You have explained and I do understand what you have explained, and it is what I am questioning--if, after all this time, there are still avenues in the process to dispute this decision.
Mr. Derkach: The ruling that the member refers to is not a ruling on a by-law. The ruling is on a dispute, so therefore what the board--[interjection] I am sorry, Madam Chair, I am not finished yet. What the board is instructing is that, at the very least, the municipality has to come forward with a by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD as is spelled out in that ruling.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Municipal Board, report and recommendation, January 15: In the matter and application by the Rural Municipality of Tache under the Section 122 of The Municipal Act, this matter was forwarded to the board by the minister under date July 24, 1997, with a request that the board hear and determine the matter in the Lorette lagoon expansion. You are saying that this was not a hearing? How can the minister say that this is not an order, it is not in a by-law?
Mr. Derkach: If the municipality agrees with what the board has just put forward, then all they have to do is come forward with a borrowing by-law that reflects the wishes of the LUD. On the other hand, they have been given an option to come forward, not with just one by-law that reflects those wishes but to come forward with two by-laws, and that is all that ruling of the board or that opinion or that recommendation of the board is meant to do.
Mr. Clif Evans: I understand that. When brought to my attention it was a due--and I can tell you this on record, it was to the due process questions were asked. How can this keep going on and on and on? How can one side have this opportunity, that side have this opportunity? The situation is that the parties, because of the due process that is in place, were saying we have to get a decision on this lagoon done and get started one way or the other for whatever. Whoever is the winner in this in the scenario of where the lagoon goes, let us get on with it.
I strongly believe that both sides were at a loss because of the due process that was taken and back and forth. They are saying decisions were made; others are saying not. Decisions made in favour; others saying not. Referendum was done, I guess, in 1995. Petition was put in place and everything seemed to have to go through the Municipal Board. So the process itself seemed to take too long.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, the point that the member is making is that, in fact, the Municipal Board recognized that--indeed, back in 1997, I believe, in order to try and resolve this without having it to go back and forth--and made a recommendation to the two groups, or to the municipality, that they should come forward with two by-laws, and then they could hear that in one sitting and dispense with it very quickly. However, the municipality chose not to do that, and therefore we have had the dispute come forward to be dealt with, and then the recommendation of the board that said, the least you have to do is live by the act, but, secondly, and I am saying to the municipality as had been recommended to you before, come forward with both by-laws so they can be dealt with instead of having one by-law come forward, perhaps be defeated, then go back and you have to start again, because this process could drag out for another year, and I do not think anyone has any interest in doing that.
Mr. Clif Evans: I agree with that note, because this cannot continue further than it has and as long as the system contributed to the best of its capabilities and mandate, then the satisfaction as far as the decision finally coming into play is what I would like to see, too.
Knowing very little actually of the whole situation to the lagoon and the repercussions that may occur if things do not get going there with a lagoon system of whatever kind--from the questions I was asked, from my own point of view and what I have read and tried to see and get a handle on--it seemed like, without an explanation, due process was allowing this to go on further than it should have.
The bottom line to this, too, is whether the municipality puts in two proposals or recommends a by-law supporting the LUD's proposal, the next board hearing will be binding. Is that correct?
Mr. Derkach: A board ruling on a by-law would be binding.
Mr. Clif Evans: Just some general questions on--I know I have asked some general questions on the Municipal Board. The minister here indicates the board consists of part-time members, 26, and a full-time chairman and executive director.
Because of the workload, as the minister had indicated, the Municipal Board has before it, of the 26--or, first of all, are the department and the minister looking at perhaps if the workload keeps moving on, would they have to appoint further appointees to be part of the system, and does this chairperson sit on every hearing across the province?
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, we have appointed additional members to the board. We have 26 now. We do require some additional members, especially Francophone-speaking individuals who can indeed conduct hearings in the French language, and I am talking about a chair of the panel, who could conduct a hearing in the French language. We do have some Francophone capability but not enough.
Secondly, I had indicated that with the huge numbers of appeals that are coming specifically from the city of Winnipeg, we do have to try to increase our staff component, and we are looking at that presently to give some assistance to the board.
With regard to the chairing of panels, the board is struck in such a way where we have several vice-chairs or chairs of panels, so that the chair of the Municipal Board does not have to be at each and every hearing. Some of the hearings are attended by the chairperson himself. Others are attended by the executive director. Others are attended by--we have an administrative person in the office, as well, and also the chairpersons who have been appointed act as chairs for panels. So at any one time, you can have two or three panels sitting and hearing appeals.
* (1610)
Mr. Clif Evans: I think I have been somewhat boring. The staff, I am noticing, as far as dealing with this municipal question, they are probably wondering, ah, will he or will he not understand today or tomorrow what we are talking about, but I do understand.
I would like to pass this line, and I know we have about 45 minutes, but I would appreciate the indulgence of the minister and his staff for about 10 minutes so that I can move my hip around a bit more. If I do not do that, move around a little bit, I will not be moving much anywhere, so I would appreciate--pass 13.2.(b) and--[interjection] I am sure you would like to do that.
The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Item 13.2.(a) Municipal Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $561,200--pass.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chair, I had indicated to the minister and to the Chair that I would pass the Municipal Board line, and then if we could take 10 minutes for a quick break.
The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): May I ask the member for Interlake if you would like to pass Other Expenditures right now and then after the recess come back to the Surface Rights Board.
Item 13.2.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $216,700--pass; 13.2.(a)(3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($57,400)--pass.
A 10-minute recess--is that agreeable to both? [agreed] Okay, 10 minutes.
The committee recessed at 4:14 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:27 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will come to order. We are on 13.2.(b) Surface Rights Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $20,600.
Mr. Clif Evans: If the minister could just indicate how many disputes the Surface Rights Board has had to deal with in the past year, how often does the board meet, and what types of disputes, other than just strictly landowners and oil companies, do they meet on, or do they intervene with disputes on other issues with respect to surface rights?
Mr. Derkach: There were four orders issued in 1997-98. Three of the four were right-of-entry issues, and one was an application for abandonment.
Mr. Clif Evans: So the five-person board, basically if there is a dispute, it travels to the locale and deals with the situation right there. Is a decision rendered right on the spot between the two parties, or is it something that they take back and make a decision at a later date? And if the minister could indicate just who is on this board.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, in most instances, I would think that the board would want to examine a situation and then take it back for examination and then after consideration would render their decision.
The people on this board are Mr. Arthur Cowan, who is the president, Mr. Dennis Cochrane, who is the vice-president, Mr. Ivan Carey, Mrs. Margaret Hodgson and Mr. Claude Tolton.
Mr. Clif Evans: Have the board members changed--does the minister appoint them? I believe, if I remember correctly, this is the board where the minister and I attended with their provincial counterparts for the annual meeting in Eriksdale or Erickson, was it not? Erickson. This is the board.
Mr. Derkach: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The member is correct when he says that this is the board that he attended when they had delegates from other provinces in Manitoba as well. I might add that the members are appointed by Order-in-Council.
* (1630)
Mr. Clif Evans: This is also the board that would provide the opportunity for a surface and environmental review of MLAs and ministers in the elected assembly to undertake to do an exploration of the areas that Surface Rights deal with and as we did that integrated study a couple of years back, that the minister and I undertook to deal with a specific area and toured it.
Under this Surface Rights Board, might that opportunity not arise again, if there is such a meeting being held, that we might undertake that environmental tour like we did?
Mr. Derkach: Yes.
Mr. Clif Evans: I look forward to that meeting, and perhaps there may be an opportunity for some sort of a dispute to occur near the Hecla area as we now know it. [interjection] Well, the minister says there is not any oil out there, but there is a lot of water and there are great concerns over the situation there, so I look forward to that. Pass on this line.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 13.2.(b) Surface Rights Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $20,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $15,400--pass.
Resolution 13.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $756,500 for Rural Development, Boards, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
We will now move on to Resolution 13.3. Small Business and Corporate Planning Services (a) Corporate Planning and Business Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $639,200.
Mr. Clif Evans: On this line, I appreciate the outline the department has given here. Could the minister indicate and provide some of the analytical and policy and program and developments that this part of the department is dealing with now, and what are some of the future programs that we can see come from this department?
Mr. Derkach: Before I answer the question, I would like to introduce two members who have joined us at the table: Mr. Ron Riopka who is the director of Corporate Planning and Business Development; and Mr. Ed Sawatzky who is the manager of the land development, Corporate Planning and Business Development.
Mr. Chairman, the member asked about the activities of this particular branch, and I would just like to indicate that this is the branch of the department that concerns itself with such things as the Rural Forum, planning and putting together the Rural Forum. It concerns itself with special initiatives like the Manitoba-Ukraine MOU that we have taken responsibility for, the Northwest Territories-Manitoba initiative. It concerns itself with things like--oh, and another special initiative is the Supply Enhancement initiative. It concerns itself with The Planning Act and the streamlining of The Planning Act land use policies. It concerns itself with dealing with programs that have been initiated for the private sector to allow small businesses and medium-sized businesses to locate in rural communities.
The programs such as REDI and Grow Bonds certainly are ones which the corporate branch looks at in terms of how they might be better streamlined or better adapted to changing needs within the province. I guess I should also say that this branch also provides the secretariat function for the provincial Land Use Committee of Cabinet and the interdepartmental planning board and carries out the directives that are set by these two committees. It co-ordinates the interdepartmental development review adoption and implementation of our land use policies.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, would this part of the department--when you are talking about interdepartmental planning board, would that entail the land use of large operations coming into different areas? Does this part of the department work very closely with the planning districts and with the local municipalities as far as putting together their developmental plan and their by-laws in place for their jurisdictions when it comes to residential, commercial or large commercial operations? In other words, also from this part of the department, is the representative from Rural Development on the review committee for the agricultural hog operations throughout Manitoba? Is this part of it?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, the interdepartmental planning board or group is a group that is made up of membership from a variety of departments whose responsibility is to examine major issues that come before them as they relate to such things as land use issues, as they relate to large-scale developments. They would bring forward recommendations on how we would deal with these issues as they relate to some of these larger projects that develop in the province. Our department certainly is very instrumental in that.
There is one other area that I did not mention that we had some responsibility for, and this branch also concerned itself with: the large initiatives such as the livestock industry, the livestock initiative and also the Winnport initiative as well.
* (1640)
Mr. Clif Evans: Could the minister enlighten me more on the Northwest Territories initiative, and where are we going with that, and what is the potential for that?
Mr. Derkach: A few years ago the Province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories put together a memorandum of understanding which would concern itself with the kinds of issues that exist between the two jurisdictions and as they relate specifically to better relations between the two jurisdictions and also trade between the two jurisdictions. As the member knows, for many years, Manitoba has been the supplier of goods and services to the Keewatin region of the Northwest Territories.
With, I guess, the emergence of a new territory called Nunavut and its new capital at Iqaluit, there is every reason for us to pay attention to that area, because indeed over the years we have been a major supplier of many of their goods and services from the province of Manitoba and specifically Winnipeg.
Health services are also being provided to that region from Churchill and from Winnipeg, so many of the people who require health services either use our Churchill facility or they use the Winnipeg facilities. So, for many reasons, there is a need to become closer neighbours with that part of the territory as it exists today or the new territory of Nunavut.
To that extent, as minister, I was charged to undertake the implementation of the memorandum of understanding to ensure that some of the issues that were identified in the memorandum, as signed by the Premier of the Northwest Territories and our Premier (Mr. Filmon), were embarked on and undertaken and completed.
As one of the first initiatives to try and establish closer relations, we put together a trade mission or a mission to the Northwest Territories, where we took 23 or some odd business people representing different business companies to the Northwest Territories. Additionally, we took members of various departments of government, and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) also accompanied me on this mission.
We covered the communities of Arviat, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, and then we ended up at Yellowknife. We were to do Baker Lake, as well, but we were not able to land at the site because of weather. We did meet with members of cabinet of the Northwest Territories and the Premier and discussed some of the issues as they relate to the relations between Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
One of the major issues for us, of course, is the resupply issue, and the resupply of fuel to the Northwest Territories is certainly a significant one. Because of competition, we certainly have to pay some attention to our customer because the province of Quebec, Montreal, business people from there are certainly starting to take a keen interest in this part of the territory and have for some time now shown their presence in the communities, such as Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet and other communities as well. If you go west of that region, you find that there are fairly close ties between Alberta and Yellowknife and the region above Alberta.
In total, we do in excess of a hundred million dollars of business with the Northwest Territories on an annual basis, and I think if you included all of the products and services which includes fuel, it is in excess of $200 million a year. If you look at the amount of business that is done with Alberta, I think it is somewhere in the range of a billion dollars. Now, with the new territory coming into force in April of 1999, it means that this becomes a very important strategic alliance for us in terms of trade, in terms of providing services and in terms of them providing services and goods to us as well.
Mr. Clif Evans: I am pleased to hear that that initiative has been struck. With everything coming into play in approximately a year for them, the time line as far as our memorandum of understanding between the two jurisdictions, the province and the Northwest Territories, a time line, can we see something put in place further to that? You say about $200 million being exchanged or being provided, services that are a benefit to us.
Is there a specific time line that this will cease at a certain time, or is it an open agreement? Can we be dealing with it on an ongoing basis so that--you know, what I am saying is does this provide us with something, say, for five to 10 to 20 years, or do we have to renegotiate and get together and sit down--interprovincial trade, if you want to call it that, or exchange of goods and services. Is it something we can depend on for many years, or is it ongoing negotiations?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, when the new territory is formed and takes effect, it will mean that we will be dealing with a new jurisdiction, and, in all likelihood, I would think that we would want to strike a separate agreement with perhaps Iqaluit because then they will have their own Premier, and certainly they may identify different issues that have been identified in the memorandum with the Northwest Territories as it is today, but we still want to maintain our presence with the Northwest Territories, as well, with its capital at Yellowknife.
What we see here is an increased amount of competition that is coming for business in the Territories from other jurisdictions. The people of Nunavut or the Northwest Territories are keenly aware that it cannot all be one-way, that there has to be some benefit for them as well, and there are areas in which we can participate jointly. There are areas in which we can employ people from the Northwest Territories on initiatives as they relate to the Northwest Territories. There are goods and services that we can buy from the Northwest Territories.
* (1650)
As the member may know, there is a potential of mining activity that may take effect in the Northwest Territories. Once again, we have expertise in the area of hydroelectricity, in the area of construction of buildings and roads that they so desperately need. We are told that they are going to be spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 million in the next short period of time to construct buildings for their capital and also for the residences that are going to be required at Iqaluit. They need not only tradespeople but they need some training that we can provide some expertise in. They also need the materials, and at the present time those materials are coming from not only ourselves but also from Montreal and Quebec.
So it is a competitive environment, and what we found was that they do like Manitoba. They like doing business with Manitoba. They have close ties with Manitoba. Many of the people in the Churchill area have similarities to the people of Keewatin, and so therefore there is a lot of relationship there that they want to continue with and foster and build on.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, would there be another liaison with them perhaps here in Manitoba, here in Winnipeg, as far as any future meetings with them to discuss the potentials and to discuss what the minister has said? After the minister and staff and delegation had gone up there, had there been any type of an agreement to return the favour as far as having them come down here to discuss their future and their plans with the Province of Manitoba in the near future?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening remarks, we have at least 60 people, I believe, who are now registered for a Rural Forum from the Northwest Territories, and they come from various regions. That is an indication of them coming to deal specifically with closer ties with them. We have invited them to bring with them their displays of goods that they have, their art, their crafts and the things that they may want to sell to us as a province.
The Premier of the Northwest Territories has met with our Premier (Mr. Filmon). We have had some of their MLAs and their ministers in our province. We have met with them on at least a couple of occasions. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) and I travelled to Yellowknife to meet with the mayors of all of their communities and to meet with a committee on resupply. So there has been over a number of years I would say a low-key relationship but that we recognize needs to be enhanced.
If you look at the whole area of education, and I know the critic for Education is with us here today, there is certainly an opportunity for us to extend our ability to provide at least an exchange of education initiatives between the new territory of Iqaluit and Manitoba. If you look at some of the initiatives that have taken place between Yellowknife and Alberta, Alberta's jurisdictions, once the territory is formed on the eastern side, I think there are opportunities there for us to tie closer relations with them through education. I think that is certainly a very key potential for us to focus on over the next year while they emerge as a territory of their own.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): The minister is right; I am interested in this issue. I am very concerned that the government of Manitoba has taken so long to take account of the changes that have been happening in the Northwest Territories. This division of the Territories and the transfer of responsibilities for both health and education, in particular, as well as transport, have been on the books for a long time now, certainly since even before 1990, and yet it is now 1998, and the government has made one trip up to Nunavut to deal with this.
So it seems to me that there are certainly lost opportunities there, and education is one of the areas where we have lost opportunities. The minister made reference to the relationship between Alberta and Yellowknife. Now that has been going on for a long time. It has certainly been there since the 1960s when I taught in the Northwest Territories. It was the Alberta curriculum which was being used. It was obviously the Alberta health system which was being used, and those kinds of links have continued, but in the eastern Arctic, I think there have been opportunities for southern provinces to assist Nunavut, which could have led to economic opportunities in other areas.
I think it may well be too late for Manitoba. I hope it is not, but teacher training, for example, which is one of the key issues, and getting into curriculum issues, getting into supplies for the classroom, that has been taken over by Quebec. McGill University has been doing the teacher training for the eastern Arctic, much greater distance from the eastern Arctic, very different conditions in those southern cities than there are here, so it seems to me that that opportunity is one that Manitoba could have done.
With its BUNTEP programs, with its Access programs, we had a tremendous advantage in speaking to the Northwest Territories on those issues, and to me it is very disappointing that Quebec has been there ahead of us. It is not that they do not have the opportunity to do that; they do, but the distance is much greater, and we had that opportunity, and I think we have missed it.
So I think the minister is well to talk of his interest in Nunavut, but what concerns me is that it has come so late and that Manitoba may well have been--I hope this is not true. I hope there are opportunities for Manitoba because I think our aboriginal self-government initiatives, the initiatives that we have had in education, certainly not under this government but under other governments, in Access and in curricular development in aboriginal issues, have much to offer to the Northwest Territories.
I would be interested in the minister's reflections on that. He seems to think that there are still opportunities. I would be glad to hear about them. But, for example in teacher training, what are the opportunities for Manitoba's universities and colleges? In KCC, for example, are the resources going into KCC that will enable them to meet some of the opportunities that the minister might still see available in the Northwest Territories? So could the minister be a bit more specific on some of these things and tell us what the opportunities for Manitobans can be?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is a little bit mistaken in many of the statements that she has just made because, in fact, Manitoba has had a presence in the Northwest Territories, not for a decade but many, many years. Our affiliation with the Northwest Territories has been basically with the Keewatin region, and there have been agreements between the University of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, specifically the Keewatin region. I know that while I was Minister of Education there was an agreement between KCC and the Northwest Territories.
As a matter of fact, I have been in the Northwest Territories now on at least four occasions. We have had government representation to the Northwest Territories on at least four occasions in the last two years, I guess, since I have had some interest and some responsibility in that area, and since this was given over to me I guess maybe a year ago or less than that, we have certainly increased my personal and my department's involvement in that area, but I would have to say also that Quebec is just a newcomer to the Rankin Inlet, to the Keewatin region. The relationship between Quebec and Frobisher Bay, if you like, or Iqaluit has always been there. There are many French-speaking people in Iqaluit because they are so close.
When you look at the Keewatin region, the relationship there has always been close to Manitoba. As a matter of fact, when I was in Iqaluit a young man approached me and said to me that--although I did not know him, he said just to show you that our relationship is close to Manitoba, I have your signature on my academic certificate, and I can find you several more in this area who have. So there is a good relationship with Manitoba.
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being five o'clock, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being five o'clock, as previously agreed, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until Tuesday next, 1:30 p.m.