LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
May 4, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Victor Monkman, Joe Carlson, George Thomas and others requesting the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring funding of the Northern
Fishermen's Freight Assistance Program to the level it was at in 1990‑91.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Leonard Evans). It complies
with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an essential
component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the 1991‑92 Annual Report of the Manitoba Farm Mediation
Board and the 1991‑92 Annual Report of the
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Postponement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Mr. Speaker, communities in
Yesterday, we were surprised to see that
the MLA for
I would like to ask the Premier now, Mr.
Speaker, will he join the thousands of Manitobans in various communities
upstream at the point of diversion and downstream in calling for a halt to this
project? The data is wrong, the project
is wrong, and it does not make much sense for Manitobans.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for that question, particularly his incoherent preamble in which he
referred to data coming out from the City of
The fact of the matter is, this is a
project that is being reviewed thoroughly and completely, allowing people to
have the input that they ought to.
Unlike the New Democrats, who when they were in office constructed the
largest project in the history of this province, the Limestone generating
station with no public hearings, no complete environmental assessment and
review, this is a project that will have a complete and thorough review.
There will be public hearings. There will be opportunities for people to put
facts on the record, to examine the data that is being provided by the
proponents, and there will be an opportunity for that review. We as a government will not take the position
that the opposition is; that is, without knowing any of the facts, they are
opposed to the project.
Mr. Speaker, we will have the full and
complete environmental assessment and review.
All of those who have concerns will be able to go to that public hearing
process, will be able to put their information on the record in front of a
third party objective review and then, based on expert advice, expert evidence,
a decision and a recommendation will be made by the commission.
That is the way the process should work,
and I stand behind the project‑‑the process‑‑I stand
behind the process 100 percent.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Freudian slip of the
Premier is the most appropriate answer we have had in this House so far‑‑I
stand behind the project. That is what
we felt all along, that this Premier has not only stood behind the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Filmon: On a point of order, I made a point of ensuring
that my words were clear. I stand behind
the process, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to be dishonest in this
House and misrepresent what I have said.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister does not have a
point of order. It is clearly a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, The Environment Act that was
passed in 1987 has been referred to by the Premier as one of the finest
environment acts in the country. It was
proclaimed in 1988. One of the key parts
of that act is that data would be credible, data would be accurate and data
would be available for the hearing process in a fair and reasonable way.
The member for
I would like to ask the Premier if he will
now stop this project from being proposed with the inaccurate data, the wrong
data, the data base from the former project, and ensure that the material
available to the public hearing process, the environmental hearing process,
will include all the proper information and will be credible with communities
upstream like
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, it just shows how foolish the
Leader of the Opposition is when he says, would I now stop this project from
being proposed.
The project is being proposed by the
Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative.
I cannot stop them or anybody else from proposing a project. What I can do is ensure that a process is in
place that provides for a fair, balanced and complete review of the project,
that it requires the proponents to demonstrate all of the effects of their
proposal and to demonstrate that their proposal can in fact be done in a manner
that does not destroy and create negative effects either upstream or downstream
or on the environment. That is the
process that is in place.
The Leader of the Opposition, with all of
his so‑called experts, can come before the commission and try and
demonstrate his vast knowledge on this project in front of an expert panel.
Mr. Doer: Well, the member for
Round
Table on the Economy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Round Table on
Environment and Economy which is chaired by the Premier has been criticized by
a number of groups and people before for being merely a public relations
exercise.
In light of the fact that this is the
largest environmental project now proposed in
In light of the conflict that is now
taking place all across
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, for the
information of the round table, a presentation was made almost two years ago,
because they are not those who do the environmental assessment and review. They do not make a decision on that.
The decision will be made by the Clean
Environment Commission as our Environment Act calls for. I remind the member opposite that this is the
Environment Act that was drafted and passed by his government. So we are following it to the letter, Mr.
Speaker.
* (1345)
Emergency
Room Physicians
Negotiations
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the government has a consultant
working on remuneration and others matters relating to doctors in the emergency
rooms. The doctors think they have an
agreement in December. The Premier (Mr.
Filmon) says they are close to an agreement.
A strike occurs. It takes over a week for the parties to get
back together, I believe at the government's lack of initiative, but it takes
over a week. It takes a weekend for them
to get together. Then the deputy
minister walks in and purportedly cannot negotiate on behalf of the government.
My question to the Premier is: Are they serious about the strike? When are they going to get serious, and when
are they going to get down to negotiations to settle and solve this situation?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend poses
his rhetoric‑filled, inaccurate, preambled question, negotiations are
ongoing.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, only in the minister's mind.
Fee-for-Service
Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, can the minister give us a cost‑benefit
analysis? Can he provide us with a cost‑benefit
analysis of how much it is costing the province to pay fee‑for‑service
physicians at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface at increased volumes
versus paying the salaried doctors now who are on strike?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, maybe
that is the crass approach to such a situation my honourable friend the New
Democrat might take, but we have not even thought of such an analysis because
that is not a part of any of the discussions, negotiations and hoped‑for
settlement that we would like to achieve.
Mediation
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary to the minister or the
Premier, whoever can get this government to act on this matter, rather than
sending deputy ministers to say they cannot negotiate: Will the government now get serious and will
they appoint a mediator, someone like Wally Fox‑Decent, to step in at
this point in time to ensure that this strike does not continue over the
weekend?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again my honourable friend the New
Democrat, steeped in a history of philosophical attachment to labour, to labour
unions, to negotiations, now wants us to interfere in a bargaining process, a
negotiating process, that is ongoing as we speak.
Surely my honourable friend would not want
government to intervene in such an untoward fashion when the two groups are at
the table attempting to achieve an agreement.
Surely my honourable friend should revisit the history that has driven
New Democratic Parties and not try to intervene in bargaining as he so
suggested.
Wide
Environmental Review
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, I think
members of this party want to applaud the member for
My question for the Minister of
Environment: Will he now, given the
concerns of two successive members of the Legislature from the
Will they now recognize that a full basin
study is required in order to get the right answer before construction starts?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, there
are two parts to the member's question.
He realizes as well as anyone in this room that the federal authorities
have a decision to make whether or not they are required to be part of this
review.
We have, as I said before, been in contact
with them, and they are watching our process, and they will be responsible for
making their decision in that area. If
the new Environment act federally and the regulations that were associated with
it were in place, that decision might be more clear. Nevertheless, it is their decision.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the member talks
about wanting additional studies and additional information. I think that he overlooks the fact that the
Clean Environment Commission, in hearing the presentations, will very likely
hear arguments like that. They will also
hear the presentation of information that has been gathered, and they will
review the guidelines. It seems to me
that, in the end, all of the questions will either have to be answered or the
commission will decide appropriately.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister,
that is the lesson of Rafferty‑Alameda and Conawapa‑‑do not
get started before you know what you are doing and where you are going.
* (1350)
Jurisdiction
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): My question for the minister is‑‑I
am glad to hear that the federal government has been contacted. I want to ask
the minister if he has expressed an opinion to his federal counterparts that in
fact rivers do flow through jurisdictions, not just within jurisdictions, and
that this river basin starts in one province and ends in another and goes
through this province, Mr. Speaker.
Has he made that known to the federal
Minister of Environment and asked the federal Minister of Environment to
participate as they did with Conawapa in a joint review?‑‑which
makes sense.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
member forgets one key item when he references Rafferty‑Alameda, and that
is that construction proceeded before proper decision‑making processes
had been completed. Surely he does not
think I am that stupid.
The fact is the provincial process will be
properly carried through, and we will make sure that in the federal process,
all the questions are answered so that they could be dealt with and properly
handled in each area of responsibility, which is the very item that this
minister and this government has been fighting on the national level to try and
bring some clarity to. I need not get any lessons from him about areas of
jurisdictional responsibility.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think this
government does.
Basin-Wide
Environmental Review
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): My final question to the minister: In view of the decision of the Conawapa
review commission which was to include a discussion of the whole basin, in view
of that leadership of that commission, is it not time that this minister took
the initiative and spoke out in favour of an overall basin review to discuss
and look at all of the ramifications of this project before we get down the
road, like we did with Rafferty‑Alameda?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would not
want to suggest that the member is not listening, but it seems to me that he is
overlooking the fact that we have said very clearly, the very questions that he
is posing, if they cannot be properly answered in front of the commission, the
commission will pass a recommendation that reflects that, or they will
recommend further work if that is what is seen to be needed, if there are holes
in the review.
The authorities have been working on
making sure the information is provided.
The proponent has been responding to the guidelines that were placed in
front of them, and they have now responded to the point where they believe it
should be aired in front of a commission.
That is a very clear process, a very open process, and I invite the
member to participate.
Solvent
Abuse
Youth
Treatment Programs
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of
Justice tabled legislation in this House to replace the legislation we all
agreed to in this Chamber three years ago to try and curb the sale of solvents
to minors.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, we were very
disappointed, but it is not our disappointment that counts as much as the
disappointment of all those who have worked so hard in the community for years
and years to make some inroads in this area. The bill is watered down and it
attacks the victims.
We would like to know from the Minister of
Justice today why he included a provision in this bill to penalize the users,
to treat the victims as criminals, when there is no place to send those young
people now, no treatment available for those who are addicted to solvents.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I, frankly, am sorry the
honourable member is disappointed because when we embarked on this back in 1990
when the honourable member brought in the bill, everyone I believe was on the
same side‑‑that we should do what we reasonably can and what would
be effective to try to curb this behaviour that goes on in our society.
I am sorry the honourable member is
disappointed, but she would be more disappointed if we had gone ahead with her
bill, and the first time it was challenged in the court it would have been
struck down, and we would have been left with nothing.
So I hope the honourable member will take
the time to consider that aspect of it and that she and her colleagues will
work with us to give this bill speedy passage, so there is no further delay in
bringing help to those who need it. We
just simply disagree with the honourable member that we have watered it
down. The bill is stronger than the one
that she had brought forward and for good reasons.
As far as penalizing users, that is not
the intention here. The young offenders regime that we have in this country is
there to assist young people. It is not
there strictly to punish young people but also to help rehabilitate. If we can get young people before the courts
to help make things happen for these people, that would be better than doing
nothing with them at all.
* (1355)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, this minister's idea of treatment
is to lock up kids without providing any help.
I want to ask him‑‑since he
has added a new provision to the legislation we all agreed to three years ago
that has nothing to do with whether or not it will stand up before the courts,
and that is the question of penalizing the victim‑‑will he agree to
at least withdraw that provision until there are adequate treatment programs in
place and until he has looked at the fact that in
Mr. McCrae: I think there will be adequate time to debate
this bill further at a later time, but when it comes to locking up kids without
providing help, Mr. Speaker, that is just not on.
The honourable member has this thing
totally backward. There is one thing‑‑the
Young Offenders Act is often criticized for things, but there are also some
good parts in that act. One of them is
that when you are brought into the young offender system, which we could not do
with the honourable member's bill but can with this one, you can bring into
play the community, the Youth Justice Committees which exist in 61 of our
communities here in
While I do not quarrel with the honourable
member about trying to make this thing work and trying to make it work right,
we have something here we can work with.
We believe it will be found to be suitable when it comes to any
challenges in the courts. We are asking
honourable members on all sides of this House to get on board, support this
thing and do it quickly.
Bill 29
Enforcement
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I want to ask the Minister of Justice why he
has watered down the legislation we all agreed to three years ago to the point
where someone accused of selling solvents to minors can simply argue that he or
she understood the substance would not be used as an intoxicant. Does he expect to get a single conviction out
of this legislation?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, how can you make that
argument when you have a young person coming in to buy an intoxicating
substance who smells of glue, gasoline, et cetera, when it is late at
night? How can you make that argument
when that is the kind of transaction that is happening?
For example, what is the markup on the
products that we are talking about? Was the
child showing signs of intoxication at the time of the sale? There are a lot of circumstances that come
into this that place an onus on the vendors of this type of product to take
notice.
What the honourable member was saying
before is the part that would not have withstood a court challenge. Why would we want to go ahead with that
knowingly and have the bill struck down and we are left with nothing? We have indeed strengthened this bill, not
weakened it, as the honourable member suggests.
Solvent Abuse
Northern
Treatment Programs
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I also have a question in regard
to the growing problem of solvent abuse.
Last week, there were two deaths in my own
community, two adults who died from solvent abuse. There are many cases in my own community and
throughout the North of continuing solvent abuse. In fact, I received a call from a parent just
a month ago. One of her children who is
now a young adult has been addicted to solvents for many years. There are no treatment programs. There are no treatment programs available to
northerners.
I would like to ask if the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) will undertake to try and get the kind of national attention that was
placed on Davis Inlet, another northern community, in this case in
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend correctly
identifies an issue in which a number of northern communities, MKO, et cetera,
have very much attempted, over the last number of years, to have the federal
government place in one of those northern communities a treatment centre.
To date, as I understand it, there has not
been progress, which would lead one to believe that this will become a reality.
I think this legislation that is being proposed in the House is a very positive
step in terms of curtailing the practice from a vendor standpoint and certainly
would signal this province's commitment to try and legitimately come to the
root of the problem and attempt to provide solutions.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from any merits or
problems with the bill, I ask again in regard to treatment because it is a
serious problem, and I can take members to my own community where it is ongoing
on a regular basis and it destroys people.
I would like to ask again if the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) can raise this since MKO has been trying since 1986 to get funding
from the federal government. Will he undertake
to get our problems in
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, maybe my honourable friend's
pleas are well intentioned and legitimate, but surely my honourable friend
would want to consult with his M.P. who has an opportunity, day in and day out
as the federal Parliament sits, to draw attention to that issue.
Surely my honourable friend could simply
contact a former colleague of his own who is now running as a candidate for the
Liberal Party in the next federal election to raise this issue to the national
scene.
Solvent
Abuse
Northern
Treatment Programs
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, Rod Murphy has raised the issue.
I raise this to the Premier again because
it does not just affect the federal government.
It is not just people under federal jurisdiction. There are many people‑‑and quite
frankly, I do not really care whose jurisdiction we are talking about
here. You have people who have a major
problem. It is destroying people and
people are dying.
I am just asking again to the Premier if
he will undertake at his next meeting with the other Premiers and with the
Prime Minister, whether he will try and get this on the national agenda and try
and end this human tragedy, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, these are indeed areas of human
tragedy that affect people in many areas of our province, and there is no question
that they are in some of the communities of the North.
Mr. Speaker, the matter does obviously
fall within federal jurisdiction, and I would be interested to know whether or
not the federal Member of Parliament for that area did ask a question in Parliament,
whether he has put that on the agenda of Parliament, whether or not this is an
issue in which the federal government has said no or whether simply the member
has not pursued the issue.
I certainly‑‑[interjection]
Well, I think there is a great tendency on the part of opposition members, who
were in government themselves for most of the last two decades and who
obviously did not address this issue when they were in government, to now raise
the issue as a political issue with this government because they feel it is
worthy of a question in Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously, as all
members are in the House, sympathetic and concerned about the issue. I will certainly look into it to see what commitments
have been made by the federal government, what initiatives have been taken by
federal members to try and address the issue and see whether or not more can be
done.
Video
Lottery Terminals
Social
Costs
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker, what this government does is,
it looks at VLTs as a source of revenue and has been doing nothing to address
the social cost, the negative social cost, of having these VLTs scattered
throughout the province.
My question to the minister responsible
for lotteries is: What is this government doing to ensure that the negative
impact on gambling is being minimized?
What programs does this government have in place to minimize it?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, part of developing those
policies is to ensure that you are making the decisions on information that is
credible. I would suggest for the
minister, and the question is, no further VLT machines should be going into
rural
My question to the minister: Would she not agree that it is better to know
the social costs of gambling before you continue to put in these machines?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Indeed, I think I answered a very similar
question from the member for
We have the present Leader of the Liberal
Party who has written to me requesting that we expand VLTs into veterans' clubs
and legions throughout rural
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the minister can skate around the
issue if she so chooses. The question I
asked the minister was quite direct: How
can this government justify the continual promotion and installation of VLTs
throughout the province not knowing what the negative social impact is in the
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, we have implemented video
lottery terminals in a very responsible way where we have put them in age‑controlled,
licensed facilities throughout rural
I have indicated that we have a study
ongoing, Mr. Speaker. When we have the results of that study, we will then be
in a position to determine the kind of treatment options that might be
available to those who have problems.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Introduction
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
minister responsible for MPIC. Last
week, the minister refused to answer questions on his position on a no‑fault
system for Autopac, and in previous legislative committee meetings, the
minister has denied an interest in bringing in a no‑fault system.
Can the minister today now tell the House
whether a decision has been made on the introduction of a no‑fault auto
insurance system as recommended by the Kopstein report and supported by the
Tillinghast report? Has a decision been
made, and when will it be announced?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I have said on previous
occasions that in reviewing the various options for cost containment for MPIC,
I felt there were ways of obtaining cost containment without going to any kind
of restriction on tort.
But, as I have indicated, I am
increasingly concerned about the costs we have experienced recently and that we
see on the horizon, and I have clearly indicated that we are looking at all
options, including some restriction of course.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would answer
the question as to when he will announce a decision.
Tillinghast
Report
Public
Utilities Board Review
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, for the benefit
of the Liberal Party which does not seem to be aware that MPIC commissioned the
Tillinghast report on no‑fault insurance three years ago and for the
minister who does not seem to have read it, a copy of the report released by
the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) in 1990.
My question: Why has the minister of Autopac sat so long
on the Tillinghast report which identified savings of $63.5 million for 1990,
and specifically, has he had a response from the Public Utilities Board on that
report?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, as with any good actuarial
review, they start with some assumptions, and the Tillinghast Review started
with a certain set of assumptions.
Any potential changes that the corporation
may be considering and any recommendations they would make to us might well
start with a different set of assumptions.
The member should not, nor should any of us assume that an actuarial
review can go beyond the assumptions upon which it is built, and the
Tillinghast review was an important review based on certain assumptions which I
have reviewed very carefully, contrary to his opinion.
* (1410)
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Introduction
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the people of
He has been meeting with the MSOS, the
Society of Seniors and the Bar Association.
I presume he has been meeting with other groups he might like to tell us
about, but when will we expect a decision on this very important recommendation
of the Kopstein report?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not inviting the
member for Brandon East, but the fact is, we have been meeting with the groups
he named plus a number of others to review what their thoughts and their
concerns might be on any type of a format that would provide an alternative
settlement basis for bodily injury.
I think it is only fair and reasonable
that we tell those groups what the range of options are and get their feedback
so that we can adequately assess our position.
Provincial
Court Judge
Justice
Department Review
Ms. Becky Barrett (
On Thursday, the Minister of Justice
stated he would have options available for dealing with these issues by
Monday. What options has he been
provided with and what choices has he made?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Immediately, Mr. Speaker, upon my
direction that recommendations be brought forward Monday, my department in
doing its work has come across allegations, further allegations, if you like,
in this matter.
Those allegations are being reviewed very
carefully by my officials so that we might properly prepare ourselves for
whatever next steps need to be taken.
Judicial
Council
Review
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Unlike the honourable member, because of
my job, I am not able to prejudge whatever findings might come about as a
result of a full review of these matters.
I am not able to make decisions on these things without the benefit of
looking at all of the evidence.
As I have said previously, what I do know
has caused me to ask my department to review and to do so thoroughly. I think it is important that we not stampede
into things and thereby make mistakes and then miss the point of what we are
trying to do in the first place.
So I would think the honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, we would suggest
that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Why, given the fact that he has a more than
adequate amount of information on the childhood abuse case that was lost in
appeal by his Crown, has he not asked the Judicial Council to review this
judge's ability to deal with these kinds of issues leading from that particular
case, cases before that? Why do we have‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. McCrae: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I am not able
to make the decision about the appropriateness or lack thereof without having
the matter properly canvassed through the appropriate tribunal.
As I told the honourable member and others
recently, my department is working to advise me on options my office might
have. I expect before the end of the
next week to have a report for the honourable member.
Antiracism
Strategy
Education
System
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
We have had an incident over the weekend
on Thursday which happened at a local SuperValu store, and I do not want to
talk about that specific incident. What
I want to ask the minister about is‑‑[interjection] That specific
incident, for the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), if he does not
believe it is a serious issue‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the report from the
Manitoba Intercultural Council on combating racism said that one of the things
that was necessary was to incorporate some form of education through the
curriculum.
I am asking the minister: Can she indicate to this Chamber what
progress has been made on that particular recommendation?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in some answers, the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey), my colleague, introduced last year a multicultural
education policy that has been setting out some parameters within the school
divisions on how we treat each other in a more respectful way. I believe that there are more positive things
happening in our school system today than when I went to school for instance.
I think it is incumbent on each and every
Manitoban, all of us here in this Legislature and everyone throughout the
community, to work very much toward respecting each other, respecting our
backgrounds, our cultures, our traditions, and coming to a way to deal in a
more positive way with our differences.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Family Services; and the honourable member for
* (1420)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
FAMILY
SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon this section of the
Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Family Services.
When the committee last sat it had been considering
item 5.(a)(1) on page 59 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): During
our discussions yesterday on Community Living and Voc Rehab I offered to
provide copies of the Board Development Guide and I am now pleased to table
these documents.
The second item that I would table in
response to a request from my honourable friend from Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
is a list of staff development and training provided by the Community Living
and Voc Rehab program.
Thirdly, again in response to a request
from my honourable friend from Burrows, I am pleased to table a copy of The
Child Day Care Standards Act.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I want to get into the whole issue of foster parenting and
the per diems which have been granted and the per diems which have been cut by
some 2 percent and, of course, the funding to the Manitoba Foster Family
Association. We know that the Foster Family
Association had its funding cut this year, and we assume that it is because it
was primarily an advocacy organization, since that seems to have been the
criteria for much of what they did.
Can the minister tell us what has been the
reaction of foster parents to the fact that their association is virtually in
danger of no longer existing?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the changes that have been announced
have led to some discussion within the community. I had the opportunity to meet with the new
executive of the Foster Family Association just last week. There appears to be a desire on the part of
the group that I met with that the organization continue to represent the
interests of foster families.
They are looking at ways to ensure that
they will be self‑sustaining, and we have offered in the department any
assistance that we could give to help them achieve that.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Can the minister tell me
what his department felt was the function of the Manitoba Foster Parent
Association and what the association hopes to continue to have as its primary
functions?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Prior to the change in funding there were a
variety of functions. One was to
represent the foster families who were members of that organization. When they, in fact, felt a need to call for
support they could call the Foster Family Association. Secondly, they were responsible for the
training part of the program that was offered to foster families. Thirdly, they
were involved with both the insurance aspect and the acquisition of legal
services on the part of clients who felt they needed that support.
Mrs. Carstairs: Why did the government determine that the
kind of support these parents were receiving from the Manitoba Foster Family
Association was no longer of value or at least not of sufficient value to be
supported by government funding?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The honourable member is raising the issue of
the grants that we offered to certain groups and difficult decisions that were
made regarding funding. A number of the
components of the work that the Foster Family Association were doing will
continue to be offered through the agencies.
I can tell the member that the Child and
Family Services agencies will be directed to allocate over $500,000 from per
diems to provide for foster parent education.
I have said before that the agencies are responsible for the recruitment
of foster families and the licensing. I
think they can also assist with the training of those families.
As well, the department will continue to
fund a liability insurance policy for foster families and will continue to pay
the actual cost for the legal aid assistance program. The department will continue to support the
foster parent intentional damage compensation plan. This then covers off the responsibilities
that the Foster Family Association had carried before. The foster families are indicating to me that
they wish to maintain an organization and are currently meeting with their
membership and exploring ways in which the organization can become self‑sustaining.
Mrs. Carstairs: If I understood the minister correctly, he
said that the agencies are now going to be given $500,000 in training
monies. If that is the case, what is the
increase? Is that from zero to $500,000?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have indicated that within the funding
that is directed towards the agencies is some discretionary funding to achieve
from within that amount an amount that can be directed for foster parent
education.
* (1430)
Mrs. Carstairs: So this is no new money for funding of foster
parents. This is going to have to be
taken from budgets which were already stretched to the limits.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The agency received, as a direct transfer
from government, a sum of money of $2.83 a day which was called an agency
allowance. We are asking that they identify
money from within that amount to direct that towards the training of foster
parents.
Mrs. Carstairs: What was the indication from the agencies
that that $2.83 of discretionary money was not already being spent?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I have indicated before, prebudget, I had
an opportunity to meet with the chairs of the three agencies and the directors
of the three agencies, and indicated that we wanted to have them use part of
that agency allowance for the training purposes that we have identified for
foster parents. The understanding that
we had with them is that that is a manageable way to deal with the issue.
Mrs. Carstairs: Was there any surplus in this $2.83 per day
in last year's budget?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is funding that remains with the various
agencies to have them determine where they want to allocate that. You would have to go to the financial
statement of each of the agencies, and I can tell you that of the three
southern agencies, their circumstances are different.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell us if he is aware of any
budgetary surplus in any of the agencies for the fiscal year 1992‑93?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that in the Central Manitoba
agency and the
Mrs. Carstairs: What were those surplus amounts
approximately?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have their audited statements at
this time. I am sure that in due course
that information will be available as they prepare for their annual meetings.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am assuming since you did not give me the
information for the
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are not aware that they finished the year
with a surplus.
Mrs. Carstairs: If they did not have a surplus, and they have
more children coming into care, just where are they supposed to find their
share of this $500,000?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I have indicated that there is an amount
on a daily basis that the agency retains as an agency allowance that is used
for some of their discretionary spending.
We have asked them to direct some of that to foster parent education.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, let us not get into a problem with
semantics here‑‑discretionary and surplus are not identical words
in the English language. The fact that
they have discretionary monies does not mean that they have surplus monies or
additional monies. So what programs is
the minister recommending be cut from the discretionary funding that are
presently in existence in order to come up with the $500,000?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I would certainly agree that by any
definition the words discretionary and surplus do not have the same meaning and
will not want to debate that further as we are in total agreement.
In the funding that flows to the agency
and then flows to foster parents on a daily basis, the agency allowance is
$2.83. It is a sum of money that accumulates within the agency as part of the
amount that comes from government for specific foster children whereby they can
make some determination within the agency whether that is spent on special
occasions, whether it is spent on activities, or whether it is spent on
education for foster parents.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is the minister saying that the means or the
ways in which the $2.83 was spent last year was not reasonable and an
important, significant way to spend that money?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have made no such judgment of the manner in
which the agencies have allocated those funds.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, if the minister makes no judgment, then
presumably he believes that the money was well spent, but he is now saying that
you are going to have $500,000 less to spend. What kind of services does he
think are going to be denied to these youngsters as a result of the decision to
force them or to demand from them that they spend $500,000 in the training
which used to be done by the Manitoba Foster Family Association for $365,000 a
year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As part of that funding that flows with the
foster child, $2.83 remains within the agency, and there is discretion within
the agency as to how they are going to allot that funding for activities that
the agency is involved in. We are asking
them in this budgetary year to use 50 cents of that on a daily basis to
accumulate, to put that money into foster parent training and education.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me the figure now that
will be paid, not to a special needs foster child, but to a regular foster
child in care or the parent of that foster child in care? What is the per diem?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The per diem for children 10 years of age and
younger south of the 53rd parallel will be $16.23; for children who are 11
years and older who come under the care of an agency, the sum is $20.15.
Mrs. Carstairs: In terms of the child that is 10 years and
younger, that $16.23 a day, which includes all of the costs of that child and
the care of that child, how does that compare with the support which the
government deems necessary for child care?
Mr. Gilleshammer: My understanding of the question is, what is
the equivalent cost for daycare?
Mrs. Carstairs: It is my understanding that the government,
if they are fully subsidizing a space in a child care centre, pays about $16.40
plus the maintenance grant which is given to a child care plus what other grants
might be available, which brings the cost of support of that child for eight
hours of care to well into the range of $20 to $24 per day. Yet we consider that it is reasonable for a
foster parent who has 24‑hours‑a‑day care, has to purchase
the child's clothing, has to provide any funds for activities for that child,
including school supplies, for $16.23 a day.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there will be a difference in the cost
of purchasing daycare services with salaried personnel in a daycare as compared
to funding that flows for foster parents.
I do not think at any time that we have attempted to equate daycare with
foster care.
* (1440)
Mrs. Carstairs: I hope we would not because they both are
extremely valuable services, but I think indeed the amount of money paid to
foster children is woefully inadequate even when we compare it to what it costs
the province to keep a child in a child care centre for a minimum of eight
hours a day.
I question why the government would choose
foster parents to cut $2 a day from the support when it should be well
recognized that the care of a child for 24 hours a day, including all of the
expenses of that child, is substantially more than $16.23 a day. We recognize
that because we do not even try to operate child care centres for less than
that.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think the distinction that the member is
making between the cost of daycare and the cost of foster care has so many
differences that it is not an accurate comparison. For instance, on the daycare
side we recognize that people are purchasing a service where salaried, trained
staff have to be accommodated within a salary schedule. On the foster side, the amount of money that
flows with a foster child is broken down into many components, and salary is
not one of them.
But getting back to the original question,
one of the determinants that we looked at in making a decision was the
allowances for foster care in other jurisdictions, as I have said on a number
of occasions, and the comparison that I will use at this point is the care of a
12‑year‑old child. Under the
new fee in
We also looked at the other provinces, and
we felt that
Again, by comparison, we felt that our
system was one area that we could make some adjustments and still compare
relatively well with other jurisdictions.
Mrs. Carstairs: Surely those comparisons were equally valid
two years ago. I mean it was under this
government's administration that there was a recognition that foster parents
were underpaid, and they increased the fees.
What has changed in the philosophy of the department that now says that
somehow or other they are overpaid and can do it with $2 a day less?
Mr. Gilleshammer: You are right. The fees back in 1988 were quite
substantially lower than they are now.
In fact, for the younger children, the zero to age four, the fee was
$8.93. So now a number of years later,
it is virtually doubled to $16. Similarly, for 11‑year‑olds the fee
was $11. Now, even under the new
structured system, it is $20.15. So the
increases that foster families achieved through a Memorandum of Understanding
in 1988‑89 did substantially increase the fees to the point that they
were amongst the highest in the country.
We know that the cost of living in
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Carstairs: Is the minister saying that when they made
the decision to increase the fees in 1988‑89, they were not aware at that
time that they would be among the highest paid in the country?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I was not part of the discussions at that
time, but there was a recognition the foster family rates at that time were too
low. A dramatic increase has taken place
surpassing almost all other provinces, and again, in terms of comparison, our
rates appeared to have been higher. In
talking to many foster families, while they are disappointed and not happy
about the decision, they have indicated that they can continue to offer their
services at the new rate.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I am sure many of them will continue to
offer their services because the very fact that they are foster parents for the
most part makes them very dedicated individuals and with a great respect and
caring for children. But whether they
can do it at that rate, I am really interested here in the fairness issue.
If the government thought the rates they
gave last year were fair, why all of a sudden have they become unfair or
lavish?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The words the honourable member is using are
her words and not my words. I am simply
saying, in terms of comparison, the rates in
Mrs. Carstairs: I mean, I am obviously going to get no
further on this, but the reality is that I find it quite appalling that they
would choose to cut funding from an area that they themselves recognized was
woefully inadequate, in a very short period of time would cut funding from
people who are not paid for the service that they provide.
They are given money to purchase things
that are required for that child. By the
minister's own statement they are not salaried personnel, they receive no
salary. I think that the benefit
structure that had been worked out in terms of help and support to them was
reasonable when it was worked out in '88‑89. I think the government has
done a backward step here.
In terms of the relationship with other
provinces, and the minister has used this in the House and also in Estimates,
he compares the foster care rates in
It is my understanding that
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is my understanding that we do have
more children in foster care on a per capita basis than other
jurisdictions. I would say to you that I
recently met with staff and colleagues from
* (1450)
I am given to understand that there are
negotiations going on which may create native agencies.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is it also true that if children had to be
removed from foster care and put in either group or institutional care that the
per diem rates for those children would rise dramatically?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that is correct.
Mrs. Carstairs: Does this minister not have some concern, therefore,
that if as a result of cuts to per diems and as a result of cuts to the Foster
Family Association that those who have been serving in this field will decide
not to and this will result in much more expensive care for these children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have talked to many foster parents over the
last six weeks, some who have dedicated themselves to fostering and will
continue to foster and would have continued to foster in 1988 irrespective of
the rates because of the thoughts and feelings they have about the service they
provide to the greater society. I have
also met with a few foster parents, or received letters from them, that say
that they are re‑evaluating whether they want to continue as foster
parents after the graduation of the children that they are currently looking
after. At the same time, we have also
new foster parents coming on line.
So it is a little early to make a
determination that the change in the foster rates and the change in the
relationship with the Foster Family Association is going to lead to a shortage
of foster home placements.
The statistics that we have at the present
time do not indicate that, but I think it is fair to say, we will need to look
at this over a longer period of time.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can I have the assurance from the minister
that he will indeed monitor this and when foster parents leave or make the
decision that they will leave foster parenting that the department will do some
analysis to discover why they have lost foster parenting?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, as part of the normal business between
the agency and foster parents, they do what is called an exit interview, and do
a tabulation of the comments and statistics around foster parents who, for a
variety of reasons, are leaving the system.
I have no problems saying to my staff that we must be in contact with
the agencies to be aware of those circumstances.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have some
questions as well on the foster family changes, and I have a couple of
items. First of all, I have a petition
that I would like to table with the minister, actually a number of petitions,
and these are not in the proper form to table in the Chamber, so I would like
to‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not recall having seen the committee process
used for the purpose of tabling petitions.
I think there is a process of what may be done in the Legislature, but I
think it is out of order to accept the petitions in the committee stage. It is for questioning the Estimates of the
Department of Family Services or whatever department, but I have never,
certainly, seen it, nor would I think it would be appropriate to set a
precedent of having this as a petition‑presenting forum.
Mrs. Carstairs: On the same point of order, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, it is quite in order for this Chamber to be used to pass
information from one individual member to another individual member in the way
that we have been tabling documents over the last few days. This is simply a document.
The member who says that he wished to
table it indicated that it was not a petition in the formal sense of the
word. It cannot be tabled as a petition
in the Legislature because the wording is not correct, but it certainly can be
done here, Mr. Minister, as you well know, because it is not being tabled as a
petition. It is being tabled as a
document of signatures of individuals who want to give the minister a message,
and the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is simply the conduit for that
message.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I will not rule on
the point of order at this moment. I
will take it under advisement.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the member for
* * *
Mr. Martindale: I have been in receipt of some excellent
letters, and I have one copy of a letter addressed to the minister from a
Westman Foster Family Association. This
letter is signed by the executive of the Westman Foster Family Association. It has quite a list of signatures.
The question for the minister is, why has
the category for family recreation been removed from our chart of
accounts? I think foster families were
quite surprised when originally they heard that the per diem rate was being reduced,
and then they were even more surprised when they heard it was a particular item
that was being removed. They have been
asking us as critics and asking this minister, where are they supposed to take
the money for recreation? Are they
supposed to take it out of clothes? Are they supposed to take it out of
food? What alternatives do families have
to make up for this particular shortfall since family recreation has been
removed?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the money that
flows to the foster family is a lump sum that for a 12‑year‑old is
around $600 a month. The decisions that
foster families or foster parents have to make around that funding are
decisions that they will make on their own.
Mr. Martindale: So the minister really has not answered the
question about where families should take the money. I guess he is saying that they have to take
it out of food or clothes or whatever.
It is really up to them, but in order to provide them with recreation,
that will have to come out of some other part of their budget. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is a chart of accounts that has been
used by foster families. I can identify
the various areas that they look at.
There is a household allowance, an allowance for bedding and linen, an
allowance for repairs and equipment, an allowance for utilities, an allowance
for food, an allowance for health and personal care, an allowance for
transportation, respite, replacement clothing, personal allowance, babysitting,
child care, damages and deductibles.
So there is a total number of dollars that
flow to the parent, and the foster parent has the ability to make decisions
around the care of that foster child. I
know in talking to foster parents and, in fact, in receiving letters from foster
parents‑‑this was a guideline that was drawn up a number of years
ago to account for the money that flowed‑‑many foster parents tell
me that the expenditures that they make are not related directly to this chart
of accounts, but they have the freedom to make their own decisions within the
money that has flowed.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
If for a 12‑year‑old child
they get some $600 a month, the money flows to the foster parent and not to the
child, and they have the ability to make decisions within that global amount.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go on to their second
question in this excellent letter and that is, and I quote, when government
employees and funded agencies have a 4 percent decrease in salary or wages with
10 days off to compensate, why are foster families expected to accept a 10
percent decrease in maintenance fees with no compensation?
* (1500)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the decisions around
the reduction in per diems, the reductions to do with salary, the grants we
discussed yesterday‑‑some of the organizations lost 100 percent of
their funding, others 10 percent‑‑we looked at the rates that
foster parents in other jurisdictions received, we looked at the rate in
I know that, as I indicated to the dozens
of foster parents that met on the steps here, they are disappointed, and I know
that they are not happy with the decision, but again we go back and the
original purpose in this whole process of budgeting was to find some cost
savings within government.
I note in stories coming out of
Mr. Martindale: I would like to paraphrase their third
question. Basically, I think what they
are saying in their third question is, who is going to speak up for the
interests of foster families if the Foster Family Association is unable to
continue, or if they are a much smaller organization and unable to provide all
of the services that they have in the past to foster families, who will
advocate with government? Who will
defend the interests of foster families?
One of their concerns is that there may be cuts to rates next year or
the year after, and who will speak up for those parents?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to tell my honourable friend
that there are very strong local chapters that exist in the Westman region, in
the central
The foster parents that I met with last
week tell me that they are determined to have their umbrella organization
continue, and certainly if it is the will of the local chapters to have an
umbrella organization, I am sure that they will find the means to in fact be
self‑sufficient.
There are others in the system who speak
for foster children and who speak for children in care. There are others in the system who have the
same aims and goals to see that there are stable foster placements within the
province. That is a goal of the
department; that is a goal of the agency as well as the Foster Family
Association. As well, there are other
individuals who monitor the system who I am sure will not be hesitant to speak
up for children in care and for the care providers that we rely on.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to go
back to the Child and Family Services Agency of Winnipeg and continue with some
more questions on a topic that we began last night.
Does the government plan to continue to
appoint a majority to the board of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services
Agency?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We will abide by the current legislation.
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister foresee in the future
changing the legislation to allow for more elected representatives from the
community?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are in the first full year of the full
board, and I think in the discussions that I have had with the chairperson and
some of the new board members that it is working well. Certainly, we will monitor the experience
that they have in the coming years and that will be a decision that will be
made sometime in the future.
Mr. Martindale: Do the government‑appointed board
members get a per diem for attending board meetings? If so, how much?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the per diem is $243 for the
chairperson and $139 for the other board members.
Mr. Martindale: Do elected board members receive a per diem
as well?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
Mr. Martindale: According to the Estimates, the Child and
Family Services budget line is down by $4,566,000. I am looking at 5.(b) in the Estimates. The total subappropriation has gone down from
$96,922,500 to $92,356,200.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Just for clarification, you are on page 59
back in the book?
Mr. Martindale: Page 78 in the Supplementary.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: While the honourable minister is looking that
up, if I could ask the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for a
copy of that petition so I could review it to assist me in the reviewing of the
point of order previously? You will see
that I get a copy after it is photocopied?
Thank you.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The line I think the member is referring to
is the Maintenance of Children and External Agencies that is down from $91
million to $88 million. This is a result
of some of the budgetary decisions that we have made.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister if it would
be fair to say that with a budget reduction of $4,566,300, there are fewer
resources for the delivery of Child and Family Services.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would point out to the member that the line
is for Maintenance of Children and External Agencies and there are some savings
in a number of areas. Part of that is
the difference in the per diems for the Foster Family Association and,
certainly, there were other budget decisions, including the changes to the
agencies as far as the workweek reduction is concerned.
Mr. Martindale: I can see from the Estimates what the
minister means. We are certainly
familiar with the reduction of grants to agencies, and the reduction in per
diems.
I would say that if you look at all of the
reductions, and I will give you just a few examples: the changes to child care; the reduction in
child care centres; the reduction in their budgets; the increases in fees to
parents; the elimination of grants to Indian and Metis friendship centres; the
end of funding for SKY, Street Kids and Youth; the elimination of the grant to
MAPO. The result cumulatively or
collectively of all of these decisions is that organizations in the community
which help children in various ways have all been affected by this budget, and
all of them will be delivering fewer services or services to fewer children.
* (1510)
Many of these are preventative in nature,
for example, the recreation programs being run by Indian and Metis friendship
centres or in the case of
I believe that what this government is
doing is cutting resources at the front end which are really preventative and
that that may have the result that at the back end that more children will be
apprehended. I believe that that will be
more expensive and also much less desirable.
I would like to ask the minister if he
agrees with that assessment.
Mr. Gilleshammer: First, I would point out to the member one of
the organizations that he referenced, the Street Kids and Youth, is not an
organization that this department funded.
I feel that it is important that he knows that.
The member is saying that he would have
different priorities in the manner in which he would spend the $700 million
that this department accesses. I am not
sure he has indicated yet what those priorities would be to stay within that
budget. The argument that‑‑and
I am hoping that he will, because I feel he has been on the verge of it lately,
and I am sure that he will tell where we could find those savings in other
areas in order to achieve some of the objectives he thinks should be more
prominent in the budget.
This argument that spending more money on
certain issues and certain programs saves money in other areas is an
interesting argument that is very difficult to show that savings later on. I can say that there are programs that were
initiated in the '70s and '80s with that premise that if you just spend money
in those areas, you will save money later on.
I do not think that any study has been done which would show that.
We are faced with expenditures today. We are faced with containing expenditures
today because of the tremendous level of spending that the government that was
in power through most of the '70s and '80s, through the spending habits that
they displayed at that time. All
governments across
Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that the minister is saying
that he does not believe in prevention and does not believe in spending money
on prevention.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gilleshammer: The analysis of the member is totally false.
Much of the work this department does is prevention work.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: I am glad to see that the minister does
believe in prevention, but in spite of that belief his department has cut back
on services which clearly are preventative in nature. What people have said to me is that if
recreation programs are not available for children, to use that as an example,
they are going to be on the street. Some
of them are going to be getting into trouble, and that is going to cost government
a lot more money in the correction system.
It may not be out of this minister's
budget, but it is still going to be out of the budget of this government. I am surprised that this minister cannot see
that and is not willing to at least hold the line on items that are
preventative in nature rather than reducing them. Does the minister understand what I am
getting at? Do you agree with my
example?
Mr. Gilleshammer: In a perfect world where we have no concern
or care about the amount of money that we spend, we could spend many more
dollars in recreation. The theory that
children who are involved in recreational pursuit tend to have interests which
keep them out of trouble is a valid one, but we have to have a balance in our
expenditures. That balance has meant
that we can no longer support some of the expenditures that we have had in the
past.
In order that we make those corrections
now we will avoid the decisions that Roy Romanow was making to close 52
hospitals in
Yes, these are budgetary decisions that
impact on services in some areas, on advocacy in other areas, but the small
adjustments that we are making now are going to help us preserve the services
provided by the Departments of Health, Education and Family Services and still
leave some resources for the many other departments who are competing for those
other dollars.
You have critics who every day in the
House say that more should be spent in the justice area on programs. I am not sure who brought that up today but
somebody in a very, I think, concerted effort made the point that we need to
spend more there. We have critics of the
environment who are saying that more dollars need to be expended for
environmental reasons. We have critics
in Agriculture who are saying, spend more on the safety net programs that are
in place for the farm community. We do
not want to withdraw that money like
Clyde Wells is doing that. The people supported him and re‑elected
him yesterday. Premier Bob Rae is doing
that and it is causing dissension within the ranks, but he has to make those
decisions. So, yes, we have made some of
those decisions in
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to ask
the minister if there was a workload study done regarding the staff of the
Winnipeg Child and Family Services Agency.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Not this past year.
Mr. Martindale: When was a workload study done?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there was one done the previous
year.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what
recommendations came out of that report?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is information we do not have at the
table today.
* (1520)
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister provide it to me in the
future?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will make some inquiries about it and if
that is available we will get the member some information.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask a couple of questions
about the child‑abuse registry.
Could the minister tell us if the registry is being reviewed and,
specifically, does the review include who goes on the abuse registry or who
does not get their name on the abuse registry?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are moving in the direction of a review of
The Child and Family Services Act, and the review of the child abuse registry
would be part of that greater review.
Mr. Martindale: When that review is finished will the
minister be making any public comment on it or report to the Legislature or
share any of the results with the critics?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The review of that act, which I have
indicated would encompass the child‑abuse registry, has not yet
commenced, so we have some work to do to set the parameters of that review and
certainly, as part of that review, a portion of it will be to talk to the
public about it and I anticipate that this review will take some time to get up
and running and then some time in this duration.
Mr. Martindale: I appreciate that information, but after the
review is completed what sort of information will be available to the public resulting
from that review or will there be no information forthcoming until amendments
are made to legislation or announcements are made about programs? What kind of public information will be
available after the review is completed?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say to the member that we have had,
over the last couple of years, a very good process in reviewing The Mental
Health Act, Part II that involved groups within the community; it involved
agencies within the community; it involved discussions between the working
group and the community. I would
envisage the same sort of process being set up to review that legislation.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to refer
now to the minister's Annual Report for 1991‑92, and I am looking at the Report
on Alleged Physically and Sexually Abused Children in
First of all, can the minister tell us if
this is a continuing trend, and if so what are the reasons for this trend? If
the minister has any analysis of this report, what is going on here? What are we seeing if the numbers are going
down in every category?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, certainly the figures
that are in front of us reflect the actual cases that have come forward. There was with the new legislation‑‑I
am just trying to find the right word‑‑a backlog of cases that came
forward and the leveling off, I think, is a result of more current caseloads,
and that the earlier numbers reflect that backlog that came forward as a result
of the legislation.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us how many cases of
abuse were disclosed where children would not testify and therefore they did
not proceed to court? I guess the reason
for the question is that children find it very difficult to disclose, and in
the first instance they must be telling their story to someone whether it is a
Child and Family Service Agency, but of course if they are going to continue
and if charges are going to be laid, then at some point they know that they
will have to be a witness and testify in court.
Given the trauma of disclosing in the
first place and having to repeat that in court, and the trauma that goes along
with that, is that a factor that discourages some children and some cases from
continuing to court?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the figures that the
member is looking for are statistics that we do not have. One of the overriding factors in child
welfare is the confidentiality that exists with cases. I guess what the member is asking, are there
figures for the potential cases where there is some investigation that does not
lead to charges? We do not have that
information.
Mr. Martindale: The table says report on alleged physical and
sexually abused children in
Mr. Gilleshammer: These are all cases that are reported to an
agency. I was assuming that the member
was talking about some disclosures that occurred that do not get to the agency
level. These are cases that come to the attention of the agency.
Mr. Martindale: Let us just talk about cases that do come to
the attention of agencies then. Are
there some that are disclosed to agencies which do not go to court, and if so,
are any numbers kept on how many do not go to court?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that is information that we do
not have within the directorate, that information would be with the agency.
Mr. Martindale: So I guess I should be asking Winnipeg Child
and Family Services or other agencies for those statistics. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that is an issue that can be addressed
by the agency.
One other point I would mention, that I
have talked about the Service Information System on a number of occasions, and
I think there will be a number of areas of statistical data that we will be in
such a much better position to gather once we have that automated system up and
running in all of our agencies.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the
automated system, what kind of money has been spent to date on the computer
program? I know it has a particular name‑‑IS
something or other‑‑SIS, okay.
* (1530)
Mr. Gilleshammer: While the staff are getting those figures, it
is called a Service Information System and I can tell you prior to my coming
into the ministry that there had been some work done and I think even some
equipment purchased that had never been used.
We started on this process two or three years ago to adopt a program
that met the needs of the agencies and that the agencies were to some degree
involved in. So part of our budget over
the last number of years has included some sums for automation. I think we have some figures here. In the 1991‑92 budget year, we spent
$1.6 million on that, and last year $1.9 million was budgeted for this project.
Mrs. Carstairs: How much is budgeted for this year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have approximately half a million dollars
allocated this year.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is this all being integrated with the
equipment that was previously purchased by Child and Family Services agencies,
particularly in
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that primarily, no, that only a portion
of that equipment is being used, but that the remainder of that equipment is
being used for other purposes.
Mrs. Carstairs: Why was it determined to go to this new
system which to date has cost $3 million‑‑and I may be out $100,000,
but it looks like pretty close to $3 million‑‑when there were
already this kind of system information available in the Child and Family
Services agencies?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told what existed throughout the
agencies was a variety of programs, a variety of equipment, and to move ahead
with a province‑wide system, some new decisions had to be made. I can tell you from the manner in which cases
were moving from one agency to another and one part of the province to another,
there were great advantages to having a standardized system in place.
Mrs. Carstairs: What is happening with all of the equipment
that was previously housed in all of these agencies?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The equipment that was part of the agencies
is being used in the agencies for other purposes. Some of the equipment that was purchased by
the department a number of years ago has now gone to be used in other
departments.
Mrs. Carstairs: I have a letter here dated the 13th of May
1992 written to a Mrs. Margaret Patterson and signed by Deloitte and Touche
Management Consultants with respect to a vendor selection for Winnipeg Child
and Family Services in financial accounting systems. According to this there were two particular
accounting systems that were shortlisted, Entity and SFG. Can the minister tell me what decision was
finally made?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That again was a decision made by the
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me how much money was
given to the agency for the purchase of this equipment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There has been no specific dollars given by
the department dedicated for decisions surrounding that.
Mrs. Carstairs: So this is not part of the Service
Information System?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that it is an internal system that
deals with their payroll and other internal accounting practices.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is my understanding that each one of the
Child and Family Services agencies had exactly the same kind of financial
accounting system. They were required to
have it. Why was it determined that we
went to a brand new agency, made up of the other agencies, and yet again
additional equipment had to be purchased?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there were common reporting
requirements but different systems.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am raising these questions because I become
very concerned when a great deal of money is spent on equipment that, in my
opinion, should be spent on children if it is at all possible for it to be
spent on children.
Now nobody is questioning that you have to
have accounting procedures, and you have to have systems put into place and
they have to be valid and up to date, but I have to say that I was angry when I
got this documentation, because it seemed to me that it was just the repurchase
of equipment that was already out there and working in the agencies.
If this was going to become the umbrella
organization for those agencies and was now going to handle all of this, why
could one of those systems not have been chosen that was already in existence
and used by Winnipeg Child and Family Services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: These are decisions made by the agency that
we fund and by the board and management of those agencies, and for whatever
reasons, they have determined that they, as that document indicates, were
looking for additional equipment.
Let me just address the comments about
providing the tools for social workers to work with and enable them to do their
job. The funding that we are talking about here for a service and information
system is for the front line delivery of service to children.
If the member has not had a demonstration
of some of that equipment, I would urge her to make arrangements to see some of
the equipment and the system that they are putting into place so that the data
on various children and families can be collected and appropriately
disseminated.
I have said before, and I will say it
again, that two of the early reports that I read when I came into this office
were tragic cases of children that had moved so frequently from one agency to
another, one foster family to another, one area of the province to another.
The recommendations that came from judges
and others said, why is the system not co‑ordinated? Why is the system not keeping appropriate
records? Why are these children not
being well served, where in those two cases records were lost, records were
extremely sloppily done, records were not forwarded with the children?
* (1540)
The system was crying out for some sort of
automated system to provide the known data for those specific cases. As a result, we have made it a priority to
move ahead with this service information system that is going to‑‑I
met with the director of the Central Manitoba agency, Dennis Schellenberg, who
was demonstrating this case, this equipment rather, on some mock cases to show
the volume of information that could be called up by the front line social
worker.
They expected that they would have on‑line
computers that would be available in all of their office to all of their staff
to enable them to save so much time in bringing forward that information. I certainly do not apologize for these
expenditures. I am proud of the fact
that we have moved ahead with this, because I think it is just an invaluable
tool that the agencies across the province and social workers are going to be
able to use.
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister knows I was specifically
referring to one that deals with financial and accounting systems and not one
that deals on the front line with children.
I think we are all aware of the children who have fallen badly through
the cracks, and any equipment that can prevent that from happening is obviously
a valid purchase.
When one sees that they are purchasing
equipment to do financial and accounting work that has been done in the past by
other agencies and to our knowledge certainly not inaccurately or the
Provincial Auditor has not pointed out, for example, that it has been badly bungled
by the computers that used to be in existence, and then when you see that a
management consultant has been hired by the agency to compare pieces of
equipment, you kind of say: Is this a
valid way to spend Child and Family Services dollars, when those equivalent
dollars should be spent on children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I was reacting, I suppose, to the member's
comment that she wanted to see dollars spent on children and not on equipment,
pointing out that some equipment is vital to the services.
I accept that she was referring to
accounting systems. What the agency was
faced with were five or six different systems that had to be amalgamated. There was certainly a feeling that even
though the needs that the department had in calling for that information were
the same with those agencies, the systems were all different. So a management decision is made within the
agency by the board and the management to make those changes in the short run
to improve their processes in the long run.
I leave that decision with the board and with the management.
Mrs. Carstairs: In response to the question from the
honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the minister indicated that the
chair of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services Agency gets a per diem of $243‑‑I
think that is the figure‑‑and that the individual board members get
$139 per day.
Can the minister tell us what reductions
have been made to the chair's remuneration and that of the board members for
the fiscal year 1993‑94?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I believe part of the Minister of Finance's
announcement on grants indicated a 4 percent reduction to the members of boards
and commissions across the province.
Mrs. Carstairs: I ask that question because I wanted to point
out to the minister and I did not want to use these figures if these were not
the accurate figures for '93‑94, that at $139, that is 8.6 children per
day in foster care. For $243 for the
chair, that is the per diem for 15 children in foster care.
I find it somewhat interesting that the
government would consider a chair of a board dealing with children worth 15
children.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would make the following comment, that we
do need boards and commissions. I
suppose Hydro rates could decline if we did not need a board chairman and board
of Manitoba Hydro. School boards could either increase teachers' salaries or
reduce property taxes if we did not have to give per diems to the chairman and
board members.
It is a common practice across the
province, across
Now I do agree that there appears to be a
wide spectrum of remuneration for various boards across the province, and when
I look at, from time to time, that various boards and participants get
different amounts, there is a need for rationalization in that area. But I do believe that it is important to have
community involvement and that there be some stipend for these people who are
involved in that form of governance.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is it not true that the boards of the
agencies which were combined to form this particular agency received no per
diems?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mrs. Carstairs: So is the minister saying that the same kind
of volunteerism that the Premier has been calling for in a number of
initiatives, saying that people can look to volunteers, that there was nobody
that was prepared to volunteer to serve on this particular board so that all
the money could go to children instead of paying per diems?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That I do not think is a fair analogy. We made a decision when we brought forward
the legislation to call on the community to provide a governance for a major board
to look after child welfare in the city of Winnipeg, that there should be some
remuneration for the chair and the board members who sat on that.
It was a judgment that we made at that
time when we brought that legislation forward and we have not changed our mind
on it.
Mrs. Carstairs: How many days on average would these
individuals serve in the course of a year?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that they have a monthly board
meeting, that there is a lesser rate for meetings, and that there may be one
committee meeting per month. There is a
lesser rate for those part‑day meetings.
Mrs. Carstairs: You know, the minister has been asking for
suggestions for ways in which we can cut back money. I do not happen to think that this particular
department is one of those where you can find much money to cut back on. I think there are other departments, and my
replies to the Speech from the Throne and the budget both indicated the
departments I thought could have been cut back on.
In terms of anything within this
department, it seems to me that if we are asking foster parents to take
children into their care and to be paid nothing, it is quite unacceptable to
ask people to sit on a board that meets one day a month, an occasional meeting
a month, and we pay the chair of that meeting $243 and we pay the board members
$139.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I appreciate that the activities of this
department are very sensitive, and to make adjustments is a very difficult
exercise to go through. I will read the
member's speech to see what direction she gave to government in her reply to
the budget speech, but again I say that boards the length and breadth of this
province that are in a governance role where millions of dollars are being
expended, the normal procedure is to offer some per diems for the work that
those board members do.
* (1550)
Mrs. Carstairs: Then I would just remind the minister that
although there are millions of dollars being spent, it is hardly like a corporate
board even of Manitoba Hydro where there is absolutely no legal liability on
the part of the directors. There is indeed legal liability on the part of the
directors of corporations. They can be
sued, and that is one of the reasons why remuneration is paid. That is one of the reasons why, too, they can
in fact be held accountable for bad judgment decisions of that corporation and
can be taken to court on the basis of the shareholders' losses. There is no shareholder loss involved
here. They could potentially be sued
because a case was mishandled. In that
case, they could be sued, and I would assume that this agency has insurance for
the board of directors against that kind of suit.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Most board members serving are indemnified
and not subject to suit. I would not
simply compare the board of a Child and Family Services agency with corporate
boards. I acknowledge I did use Manitoba
Hydro as an example, but we have hundreds and hundreds of individuals serving
on boards within this department, and I am sure that all departments of
government have boards where there are chairpersons and board members who are
making decisions on behalf of government.
I acknowledge that there are a number of them, particularly in health,
where they are serving as advisory boards to the minister where there is no
remuneration.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have a
document here called The Neighbourhood Parenting Support Project which was done
by the Faculty of Social Work at the
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am advised that at the staff level there
have been meetings with the author of the report and continuing discussions,
and I believe those discussions have also included the Winnipeg agency.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me if there has been any
progress as a result of those discussions?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are not
aware that the Winnipeg agency has implemented any of the recommendations at
this time, but it certainly goes with the concept of prevention that the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) was speaking about before, and I am told
department officials along with the Winnipeg agency are still actively
considering portions of the report.
Mrs. Carstairs: In reading the Annual Report, 1992‑‑I
do not have the 1993 one as yet‑‑of Macdonald Youth Services, I was
struck by the comment by the executive director, let me just quote from
it: With seven more program closures
during '91‑92, the remaining Macdonald Youth Services programs have been
relegated to providing care and treatment for only the most disfunctional and
troubled children.
Can the minister indicate if that is
essentially the direction of the department, that they will use organizations
like Macdonald Youth Services for only the treatment of the most disfunctional
and troubled children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that is the primary function of the
four major treatment centres, Children's Home, Knowles, Marymound and Macdonald
Youth, and the agencies continue to access them for that primary function.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, that has become their primary function,
although in the past they have had a much broader function and they have had
programs like aboriginal wilderness programs and projects, all of which have
disappeared in the last few years. I
just wanted to know if that was essentially the new thrust of the department,
that they would be using organizations like Macdonald Youth Services primarily
for highly disfunctional children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say it is not a new direction. That has been the direction of the
department. Certainly, organizations
like that continue to offer programming in other areas. I am probably most familiar with the
programming for Children's Home. They
continue to have a relationship with a number of groups in the community to
offer some diversified programming, but the ability to create new programs and
perhaps sustain some old ones is limited by the grants that they are able to
access and, in many cases, the fundraising activities and other income that
they have received from collateral agencies.
By and large, those four organizations are
continuing with their primary function of working with the treatment of youth
that are in crisis.
Mrs. Carstairs: Yes, I raised these questions in Vital
Statistics. The minister recommended
that we wait till we get this area, so I stopped at that particular point.
I want to talk about the whole concept of
adoption and the ability to access adoption records on the part of both the
birth parent and the natural child. What
is the present policy with regard to accessibility of a child who wants to get
in touch with the birth parent?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We had a good discussion of this last evening
around the Post Adoption Registry. This,
of course, is an extremely sensitive area in the providing of information
surrounding an adoption, which must be, in many instances, one of the most
difficult decisions and choices that individuals have to make.
We continue to respect the confidentiality
that surrounded the original decision‑making process. The Post Adoption Registry, which came into
existence a number of years ago, has been able to have two additional staff, I
believe, housed within that particular unit, and we have seen in the last
decade the reunion of more individuals who wish to move in that direction. We
still have a backlog there, and the work is extremely slow because of the need
to respect that confidentiality.
Mrs. Carstairs: When the minister says, they respect the
confidentiality, that is really what I was getting at. What specifically are the rules right now?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can give the member some information that I
have here that the Post Adoption Registry accepts registrations from adopted
adults, adoptive parents on behalf of a child, birth parents and adult
biological siblings of an adoptee.
Legislation permits a search on behalf of
registered adopted adults for their birth parents and/or adult biological
siblings who were not placed for adoption.
Legislation does not permit a search on behalf of birth parents,
adoptive parents or adult biological siblings.
Legislation does not permit the release of names of individuals without
their consent. Searches are performed
according to the date the adopted adult registered with the Post Adoption
Registry. The Post Adoption Registry is
currently performing searches on behalf of adopted adults who registered in the
mid‑'80s. Since April 1 of '86,
more than 1,000 searches have been completed on behalf of 700 registered
adopted adults.
* (1600)
Mrs. Carstairs: Why has there been no change in the
legislation with regard to siblings not placed for adoption?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that this would require a
legislative change and it will be part of the review of The Child and Family
Services Act that I referenced earlier.
Mrs. Carstairs: As the minister well knows, Judge Kimelman
referred to the adoption of aboriginal children out of the province, and in
fact in some cases right out of the country, as a form of cultural
genocide. Can the minister tell us what
progress has been made to reunite those families?
I have been told, and I do not know
whether it is correct or not, that there is no attempt to do any searches until
the individual has reached adulthood, because the legislation says that until
they are adults, no search will be undertaken.
Yet, once they have turned adult, there is no responsibility on the part
of the government to reunite that particular individual, whereas if the search
had taken place prior to their turning 18, there would be a responsibility on
the part of government. Is this correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: What the member has indicated is
correct. I might just make a couple more
comments. It is a difficult area to deal
with. Again, there has been in these
cases an agreement or a contract amongst the principals to the adoption. It is an issue on which I have had a number
of discussions with members of the Assembly and members of the agencies. Some of the agencies have become more active
in this area of repatriation and federal funding has been dedicated to some
degree to provide for some of these searches, and I believe it is adults they
are searching for and reuniting.
I know in a visit I had to the DOTC office
in
Mrs. Carstairs: My concern is for those adoptions that have
been unsuccessful, quite frankly, and there has been a real breakdown in the
family unit of the adopted child.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would just comment that, in those cases,
then we do become involved in providing information where there has been a
breakdown of that placement.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is there a fee charged for research or a
search?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the answer is no.
Mrs. Carstairs: I have been contacted by a number of people
who think that such a fee would be, quite frankly, quite legitimate, and that
it might be able not only to result in additional staff to be hired for this
particular purpose, but obviously the resulting speed. If we are still dealing with those requests
from the mid‑'80s, we are working at seven or eight years behind the
times. I understand that there are fees
that have been charged in other provinces, and that has resulted in increases
in the availability of staffing and therefore in the searching done. I just ask the minister to take that under
advisement.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, thank you. It is an area that I am interested in, and if
we can do some cost recovery‑‑I think it is an area that we have
talked about within this particular branch of the department. Ironically, we do a little cost recovery on
vital statistics and on marriage certificates, but there are services that are
being demanded by people that have the ability to pay for those services, and
we have been working within the department on some initiatives in this area of
cost recovery.
Mrs. Carstairs: I make that recommendation because, as the
minister well knows, there are some adoptees who have no desire whatsoever to
find their birth parents. There are
others who would very much like to and have simply not been able to track them
down through their own resources, and they need a more sophisticated tracking
system in order to make that possible. I
became particularly interested in this when I discovered that Michel Chretien
had found his birth mother, not perhaps in an ideal situation; when he was
charged, his picture was in The Globe and Mail.
It turned out that his appearance is identical to his natural uncle's,
and he was found by his birth mother through a picture in The Globe and
Mail. They have since been reunited in
the
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is an issue and a concern that I think is
coming into more prominence; 20 and 30 years ago, this was not an issue. Of course, with the ability now to track,
with the ability to locate people, I do believe we have some need to look at
our legislation here and to examine some revenue generation. I would expect
that, as we move into the middle portion of the 1990s, there will be changes in
this area.
Mrs. Carstairs: As the minister is certainly aware, there is
a First Nations Child and Family Task Force going on at the present time, and
they have been having hearings throughout the province. One was held on April 20, 1993, in The Pas,
because I was there, and I happened to know that it was going on at that
particular point in time.
Can the minister tell us when they are
slated to make their report?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Their final report we are looking forward to
receiving sometime this fall.
Mrs. Carstairs: As the minister knows, the Cree Nation child
and family caring agency, which has been established, is presently working
under the legal mandate of the Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba.
Until such time as the minister signs the
agreement for the agency to exist, is there any decision that is imminent on
that particular agreement?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There have been ongoing discussions, and we
are reasonably close to concluding those.
I am particularly interested in their position on the governance, and their
preparedness to separate the governance of bands and tribal councils from the
governance of the agency, and to adopt standard conflict of interest
guidelines. I think this is a major,
major step forward.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am in full agreement. I have seen some of their preliminary
documentation‑‑obviously, not all of it‑‑but I think it
is very much a step in the right direction.
I do have a copy, and maybe the minister
does not have a copy, but this is their brief to the First Nations Child and
Family Task Force. I only have it
because there were copies "running around" and I just picked one
up. In terms of the concerns they raise,
however, I think they are legitimate concerns across all aboriginal
issues. I would just like to deal with a
couple of them.
One of the concerns they raised is the
notification of apprehension of an aboriginal child by another agency. Then it says the following: While the act requires notice to be given,
the requirement is quite often ignored by non‑native agencies. It is
vital to the children that our agency be involved in planning and placement
from the early stages of the case. Our
agency is sometimes notified months after an apprehension and just prior to the
court date. We are given no opportunity
to provide advice or to participate in planning. Until the act is amended to require immediate
notification and involvement of native agencies, this problem will continue.
Is that the sense of the department, that
this kind of information is not being given to the aboriginal agencies?
* (1610)
Mr. Gilleshammer: It raises the issue of the relationship that
has existed in the past between agencies, and the relationship that must exist
in the future to have agencies work co‑operatively and collaboratively to
provide the best service possible.
Again, one of the benefits of the service
information system, when we get it up and running, will be that immediate
acknowledgment of the history of the child, of the family, and the ability to
share that between agencies.
That is, I guess, the theory and the
ideal. There are issues of jurisdiction
which continue to be, I think, a factor in terms of quality of service. I think with the new
I have said before that we are not going
to resolve child welfare issues in isolation of all of the other issues that
exist. When I see on television a sign
that says: No RCMP allowed on our
land. That, to me, has an impact on the
delivery of child welfare services in some cases. We have to be so careful that we do not say
all agencies are created equal, and that they all provide the same level of
service, and they all have the same issues that they have to deal with, because
that is not true.
We look forward to the report coming from
this task force. We think there is an opportunity to correct some of the issues
that are in the system. I am not under
the illusion that we are going to correct all of the issues that are entangled
with issues of poverty, unemployment, housing, health, justice and education.
In meeting with my western colleagues,
there was sure an acknowledgment that
We are optimistic about some of the
recommendations that may flow from this task force.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister does not have to convince me of
the need to protect individual rights whether people live on reserves or
not. I was on the right side of the
referendum.
In terms of the current system of funding,
it goes on to talk about services to families:
The current system of funding services to families views such funding as
discretionary rather than essential.
Such funds are now given to agencies on a grant basis. The amount of monies available is totally
inadequate to provide the preventative services which we need.
Then it goes on to say something which
really quite shocked me: The funds
allocated to the Awasis Agency for services to families of the 1992‑93
fiscal year were completely spent by October 1992. Thus, no homemaker or parent‑aid
services were available for the second half of the fiscal year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is referencing another issue that
we have communicated to the federal government, and that is the whole issue of
accountability of funds. I think that
the same issue is relative in Education.
I know of an example where the money dedicated
by the feds flowed and was spent on other priorities, and then the school
system breaks down. So we have an issue
here where we must continue to work with the federal government to have some
accountability, that funds that are flowed for a particular purpose are truly
dedicated to that purpose. That crosses
all departments as well, but it is an issue in child welfare.
Chairperson's
Ruling
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Earlier today I took under advisement a point
of order raised by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) respecting a
document which the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) attempted to
table.
The document is in the form of a
petition. I would like to thank the
honourable members for their advice on this point of order raised. The rules and practices of this House and its
committees are relaxed with respect to the tabling of documents by private
members.
I note that a document in the form of a
petition was tabled in this section of the Committee of Supply during the last
section without question.
I am, therefore, ruling that the document
of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) may be received by this
section of the Committee of Supply as a tabled paper.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for your
ruling. I am pleased to table a petition
to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Premier of
Manitoba (Mr. Filmon), and I would just like to read the one sentence at the
top of the petition.
It says:
"We, the undersigned, are absolutely opposed to the provincial
government's withdrawal of funding from the Manitoba Foster Family
Association. We believe that for the
sake of the foster children of
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for that document.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and thank you for
your ruling.
The funds, however, that seem to have been
spent by October 1992, was the department aware of this, or would this be
totally an internal decision of the agency?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am advised that we are aware that there is
a funding issue around family support dollars in that agency. I am aware that they are in the process of
addressing that with the federal government.
Mrs. Carstairs: Does the minister have any information as to
whether the grant monies that were provided for this purpose had all been spent
on that service, or if they had used the monies for others things? Or is that just a moot question since they
have some autonomy in and of themselves?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have not done that internal investigation
at this point in time and the hope is that this will be addressed between the
agency and the federal government.
* (1620)
Mrs. Carstairs: There is also a recommendation, because of
the necessity of children receiving appropriate services, that the children are
often moved out of the northern part of the province and sent South for
specialized foster home or for group placements. They, of course, are calling for another
group home or a regional group home set up in the North. They are aware, of course, that there is one
already in Pukatawagan. Is there a
movement in the department to establish additional regional group homes?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that last year through Macdonald
Youth Services we established two four‑bed units in Thompson. As the new agency that has provided that
brief gets established, we will be working with them to see what services we
can provide. This was a question raised in the House today as well in terms of
a treatment facility, and I believe that issue was raised by one of the members
and was addressed in an answer.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I was at a funeral during Question
Period, so I was not there. I did not
hear that particular incident.
The final one really has to do with
Justice, but since it is interrelated with your department, I think it is
important to raise it. They are
concerned about the scheduling of child welfare trials. Let me read you what they have to say.
The scheduling of child welfare trials
seems to take a backseat to criminal matters despite repeated rulings from the
court. The child welfare matters take
precedence and are to be heard in a timely fashion. Judges sent to hear child welfare matters in
the North are usually from
The digest recommends to the minister that
perhaps he have a discussion, or his departmental officials have some
discussion with individuals in the Justice department to inform them that child
welfare cases, which I think should be handled with despatch if at all
possible, are not being handled in that way, and that those that sometimes are
being sent there are not equipped to deal with the cases upon which they will
have to make a judgment.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have had this discussion with Judge
Kimelman who has raised similar issues, and if there are recommendations from
the task force that should be presented to other departments, we will do that,
but we have also had ongoing discussions on this issue and look forward to some
progress.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just have one or
two questions on aboriginal child welfare.
I had the privilege of meeting people from the community of Hollow Water
and hearing of their story of what they are doing in their community, which, I
believe, was a very positive story.
I am wondering if the kind of services
that they are providing is being provided in other communities or if at least
their experience is being shared with other communities‑‑the Hollow
Water Healing Circle‑‑so that the experience they have gained can
be shared with others and that other communities can learn and benefit from their
experience.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The
Mr. Martindale: Under Child and Family Support, one of the
Expected Results is the "implementation of recommendations of the
Independent Review of Reporting Procedures in Children's Residential Care
Facilities, the Desjarlais Inquest Report, and the Ombudsman's Report on the
Seven Oaks Centre."
I wonder if we could deal with those one
at a time‑‑if the minister could tell us if his department is
making progress in implementing the recommendations, first of all, of the Independent
Review of Reporting Procedures in Children's Residential Care Facilities.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I think I can give you some extensive
information on the Suche report and the recommendations that have come
forward. In April of 1992, the working
committee was appointed to oversee the implementation of those
recommendations. The committee has met
on 11 occasions during the period June 4, 1992, to January 28 of this
year. The committee has had an
opportunity to consider all the recommendations and to provide feedback and
direction on the majority of these.
Sixteen of the recommendations were delegated to three subcommittees for
the development of action plans. These 17 recommendations requiring legislative
amendments to the act have been reviewed with the assistance of the Policy and
Planning branch with a view to prioritizing for legislative amendments.
Funding is being provided to Winnipeg
Child and Family Services to develop a specialized team to investigate
allegations of abuse against residential care staff. A standard is being developed that will
require all facilities to orient staff in safe practices and procedures for
investigating allegations of abuse. The Office
of the Children's Advocate has been established.
The development of pamphlets which outline
and clarify the rights of children has been implemented. A pamphlet related to the Seven Oaks Centre
has been completed. A joint funding
committee comprised of the Manitoba Association of Residential Treatment
Resources and the branch have examined and are prioritizing funding issues.
The curriculum development subcommittee
has developed an outline for core courses for youth care workers and
supervisors. With the support of the branch, MARTR and the Child and Youth Care
Workers Association of Manitoba Inc. have submitted a proposal to the
Nonviolent crisis intervention training is
available to all staff members of the organizations of MARTR. Staff of child care institutions may now
access the training through MARTR. Responsibility for the licensing and funding
of children's facilities will be amalgamated with the Child and Family Support
branch. Quality‑assurance reviews
of residential care facilities will be initiated during 1993‑94. Recommendations related to youth correctional
facilities have been delegated to a subcommittee comprised of the Department of
Justice and the branch.
Seven Oaks Centre, the committee has
supported the implementation of the Ombudsman's recommendations. Mental health supports are now being provided
through ongoing consultation with the acute treatment consultation team. Developmental issues will be considered
within the context of provincial strategy regarding resource development.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what progress has
been made in implementing the recommendations of the Desjarlais Inquest Report?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer to that, I think, can be developed
in three areas. First and foremost, we
have the task force that the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) was
asking about, in which we went into some detail on. That task force is currently partway through
its hearings, and, as I have indicated, we anticipate a report from them in the
fall of this year.
Secondly, we have further developed the
quality‑assurance model and have worked with the DOTC agency on quality‑assurance
issues.
Thirdly, we have developed the Service
Appeal Panel which has been put in place to hear any appeals of service that
relate to political interference as it relates to specific cases and agencies.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us what progress has
been made on the Ombudsman's Report on the Seven Oaks Centre, and was there not
a recommendation to close the Seven Oaks Centre?
* (1630)
Mr. Gilleshammer: There were a number of recommendations that
came forward from the Ombudsman's report, and I can indicate that a new
admissions agency contact and case planning review policy was developed.
The policy formalizes the requirement for
case reviews of all children placed at Seven Oaks Centre and ensures
appropriate placement and treatment planning, a consultative service with
mental health clinicians from the acute treatment and consultation team, was
made available on a weekly basis to staff at Seven Oaks to strengthen their
treatment of high needs children placed at the centre.
Under the area of medical, all the medical
policies, practices and procedures followed at the centre were reviewed by an
independent medical resource person from the Department of Justice. Findings and recommendations from this
medical review are in the process of implementation, and there are some other
ongoing areas of change as well.
Mr. Martindale: Was there ever a recommendation to close the
Seven Oaks Centre?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There have been recommendations, I think,
within the system and from critics that the Seven Oaks Centre should be modified
or changed and, some say, closed. There
has been a reasonable amount of reform that has taken place at the Seven Oaks
Centre in terms of downsizing it from, I think, some 60 or 70 placements there
a number of years ago to placements of around 20 or 24 at the present time.
One of the key issues that I think
government has to deal with, or the system has to deal with, in terms of simply
shutting a place down is to have appropriate placement for children who really
could be classified as children that need a children's mental health
facility. This is a subject of ongoing
discussions within the department, and certainly an issue of interest to me
that we have to steer the system in the direction where we have appropriate
services for youth, for children that require a mental health facility.
We have had discussions within the
department and interdepartmentally, and while there is no solution in the short
term, I would hope in the longer term that we provide what would be termed the
most appropriate service for children requiring that sort of treatment.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to make your job
a little easier, the Liberal Family Services critic would like to stay on line
5.(c) the Seven Oaks Centre, but perhaps we can pass 5.(a) and 5.(b) and stay
on (c)? No?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We are on 5.(a)(1) Salaries $354,500.
Mrs. Carstairs: I just have one area of questioning that I
want to ask and then we can certainly move on.
That is not the problem.
I was dismayed to see the reduction of
funding to the Child Protection Centre.
This is not a 4 percent. This is
not even a 10 percent. This is,
according to my information, from last year to this year, $807,000 down to
$575,000.
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is an adjustment in the print as the
member references, and we are asking that agency to use an accumulated surplus
which they have at their disposal to continue to provide the same level of
service.
Mrs. Carstairs: Just for complete clarification, it is not
intended that the Child Protection Centre would spend less than the budgeted
reduction for any other particular agency this year.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(a) Administration (1) Salaries $354,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $59,600‑‑pass.
(b) Child and Family Support (1) Salaries
$2,041,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,211,300‑‑pass;
(3) Maintenance of Children and External Agencies $88,103,700‑‑pass.
(c) Seven Oaks Centre (1) Salaries
$1,552,700.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am on the record as
saying I want Seven Oaks to close. The
minister, of course, argues that the children there require a specific type of
mental treatment. But, as Colleen Suche
pointed out so eloquently, they do not get treatment in the Seven Oaks
Centre. It is not a treatment facility.
How many of these children could, in fact,
be moved to Marymound or Children's Home or Macdonald Youth Services programs
if there were spaces in those programs, and how many would be left then at
Seven Oaks?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the
difficulties that we have is to have those agencies develop appropriate
treatment resources for those individuals, and often the short‑term
clients at Seven Oaks can be moved on to the facilities that the member
references, but they also will not accept them in some cases until their
condition has stabilized.
We have attempted to make some program and
medical changes that I read into the record a few minutes ago, to assist the
Seven Oaks Centre in stabilizing them until someone else will accept them. I readily admit that we have a program gap
here, in what I call children's mental health services, and we have some
ongoing discussions about that, we have some ideas about that, that we hope in
the next year will lead to a different sort of facility.
Because often the children who are
conveyed to Seven Oaks either by the police or by Child and Family Services
workers bring them to Seven Oaks because Marymound and Children's Home and
others will not accept them. They do not
have what they deem to be an appropriate setting for them, and that gap, as I
have indicated, I think, is a children's mental health facility. Until we have
that developed, Seven Oaks is the place where we will house these individuals.
We have made some changes, based on the
Ombudsman's report, to move in a direction of more appropriate service there,
but we have not achieved at this time that other facility that I think we
require within the system to look at this continuum of care.
* (1640)
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell the committee: What is the average length of stay of a young
person at Seven Oaks, and what is the length of stay for the longest resident
at the present time at Seven Oaks?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the average length of stay is
just over 21 days, and the information I have on recent cases, the longest
length of stay is about three‑quarters of a year.
Mrs. Carstairs: In terms of the new processes put in place,
how long does it take before a child at Seven Oaks is now getting some kind of
psychological evaluation and some form of treatment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The type of service that the member is
referencing does not occur at Seven Oaks.
It will occur at one of the treatment centres or the Child Protection Centre
and that will depend again on those other service providers accepting that
child. Given that the average length of
stay is now around 20 days, the majority of those clients will be provided with
that service within that time frame.
Mrs. Carstairs: When the minister talks about additional
supports, just what are those additional supports these children are now
receiving? If they are not getting
psychological assessment, and they are not getting any psychological support,
and they have been identified by the minister as, in many cases, he says,
requiring some kind of mental health care, what support are they getting?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The changes we have made, in response to the
Ombudsman's report, is to provide training for the staff at Seven Oaks to
better be able to accommodate and work with these children during that roughly
three‑week span of time that they stay there. Some of the changes are with the program that
they offer, some is with the medical practices there.
The training we have provided for the
staff deals with issues surrounding difficult client behaviours, increasing
knowledge of the effects of child abuse, critical incident debriefing for staff
and nonviolent crisis intervention programming for the current staff.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, just a comment, but it still appears
that although there has been additional training for staff and maybe some
beefing up of medical personnel, there is still no direct help for these
youngsters, many of whom have severe mental disorders.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I acknowledge that Seven Oaks is not the
place that is designed or equipped to give them that long‑term
psychological help. It is there to help
to stabilize the individual until other institutions and support within the
community can be accessed.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(c) Seven Oaks Centre (1) Salaries
$1,552,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $276,800‑‑pass.
(d) Family Conciliation (1) Salaries
$631,500.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has been
challenging me through the entire Estimates to find a place to save money in
his department, and I may have found a place, but I need to ask some questions
first.
I read with interest the different
functions under Family Conciliation in the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Put it on your salary line.
Mr. Martindale: I had not thought of that. It sounds like a good idea. Always happy to accept suggestions from
government members on the committee.
However, we have to wait until we get to the Minister's Salary line.
An Honourable Member: You are with your friends now.
Mr. Martindale: I think the minister has the numbers, so he
does not have to worry.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I just wanted to say, with the praise
that I received from the member last night, I know that he is such a man of consistency
that he would find it difficult to have a change of heart overnight.
Mr. Martindale: The minister is again putting words in my
mouth. My praise was quite limited. He was damned by faint praise. I commended him for having the ability to
answer any questions on any line at any time.
It was very small praise indeed.
Back to Family Conciliation, I wonder if
the minister can tell us how many staff are involved in some of the functions
here, first of all, with mediation?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Eleven.
Mr. Martindale: How many staff are involved with court‑ordered
assessment reports?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Eleven.
Mr. Martindale: Are those the same 11 or different staff?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct, they are the same 11.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and the Access
Assistance Program, how many staff are there?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that prior to budget decisions
there were two, and now there are two less.
Mr. Martindale: Then there are no staff assigned to the
Access Assistance Program anymore?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us, since this three‑year
demonstration project has come to an end, who will be taking over these
functions?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told they will be referred for
mediation, and some of them will be dealt with through the private bar.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if the 11 staff
who were involved with the mediation and court‑ordered assessment reports
use volunteers in any of the functions that they carry out?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No.
Mr. Martindale: I have a suggestion involving volunteers that
I think can be delivered at very low cost, and I think the minister will
appreciate anything which may save the department money, since he has been
asking me repeatedly for suggestions.
It has to do with a very interesting
experience that I had in the summer of 1974 when I was assistant chaplain at
family court in
It was a very interesting and complicated
process because, first of all, you had to ask one parent how many hours of
access they would like, and then ask the other parent how many hours they would
agree to, and then talk to their lawyers‑‑which was the most
difficult part‑‑and get the lawyers to agree to the access that I
had arranged.
Mrs. Carstairs: That is harder than talking to the parents.
* (1650)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member for
After an agreement was reached, I would
write it up, and we would all go into court.
Since all the parties had agreed beforehand, the judge would make it a
court order.
The main feature of this was that we were
using volunteers in about 70 churches in metropolitan
They usually started off with a lot of
mistrust and fear and hostility. After a
number of weeks, a trust level built up.
It proved to be very helpful when it came to maintenance payments,
because frequently when someone is denied access, they say, well, if I cannot
see my kids, I am not going to make payments‑‑even though the two
are unconnected.
Of course, when people do get access, then
they are encouraged to make those maintenance payments. So that was helpful to the parent who had
custody of the children.
So I am wondering if the minister thinks
that there might be merit in this idea, that it may be helpful in arranging
access by using volunteers to supervise access, and that it may take some of
the burden off the staff and the system.
It is an idea that has worked elsewhere and may work here.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I thank the member for his suggestions, and I
know that he will recognize that the world has changed since 1974. Sometimes the changes require skilled
practitioners who are knowledgeable in family development, child development
and family dynamics.
I suppose the case could be made that the
clergymen that the member speaks of do have training in that area. I certainly think, and I have said it before,
that the community does have a role to play, that in many areas of the services
that are provided by Family Services, we need to empower the community to
become more and more involved in the delivery of services. I think there was a time when government did
indicate to the community that government in fact could do everything. I would welcome the idea that volunteers can
more and more be used.
We must be aware that in some areas there
is a concern over liability, that where volunteers are giving advice that
presumably might be followed by members of the public, there can be a liability
issue. Certainly volunteers could be
helpful in monitoring and supervising access as an adjunct to mediation.
So we will take the member's suggestion
seriously, that we look at the concept of using volunteers in this area and perhaps
other areas as well, but I do see some issues and some problems. I know that
other governments are also looking at ways by which services can be
provided. I am anxious to look at what
Premier Rae talks about as a social contract.
I know that he is speaking in relation to services delivered by the
government employees in the
Again, if there are civil servants that
the member wants to replace by the use of volunteers, perhaps we could identify
some of the other areas of the department, and maybe even across other
departments within government where the member feels that the volunteer
component could in fact save government large sums of money.
I think of departments such as Natural
Resources and Highways and some of the departments away from the three that
deliver the human services, and we could maybe have the member bring forward
some more ideas where volunteers perhaps could provide these services.
[interjection]
I am sorry I am not able to hear the
member. Do you want to pass these lines
today?
An Honourable Member: There is a question on 5.(d), but I think we
can pass‑‑
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, anyway, we will take it under
advisement.
Mrs. Carstairs: I just want to know if, in the minister's
meetings across the country, if anybody anywhere is evaluating whether the
divorce court is the appropriate place to deal with marital breakdown, and if
there is any pilot project going on anywhere that we could make and bring about
a more civilized way for families to part ways with a certain more degree of
civility than by having two lawyers haranguing at one another in a court room.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we are not aware of any pilots
in any other jurisdictions, but the issue the member raises has been brought
forward within other departments. Nobody
has furthered their thinking on it yet to find a solution.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(d) Family Conciliation (1) Salaries
$631,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $164,900‑‑pass.
5.(e) Family Dispute Services (1) Salaries
$267,700.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to know, as, I
am sure, does the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), what was the rationale in
this department to eliminating the funding for the Flin Flon Crisis Centre?
I mean, it cannot be geography because if
you look around the province, there are other centres equidistant from other
shelters and they have survived. What
was the rationale for Flin Flon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Given that it is a few minutes before 5, is
it the intention to pass these lines today or are we going to continue on
Thursday? Thursday. Okay.
Thank you.
I think what I would like to do is talk
about the backdrop of government involvement in the whole area of Family
Dispute Services over the last number of years.
We have seen the increased funding support for women's crisis shelters,
crisis lines, women's resource centres.
We have seen an increase there of some $3 million.
Now that does not sound like a lot of
money in a department like Family Services where we have a $700 million budget,
but we, in fact, have seen an increase of 262 percent in the budget line from
1988 until 1993. That is a result, of
course, of higher grants and higher per diems.
As part of this backdrop, I would like to
share with you the fact that we here in
Now this is a really important change in
the funding formula whereby we formerly had shelters that had very great
difficulty staying open under that funding formula and other shelters that were
accumulating a surplus. So, within the
funding for these shelters, we have been able to redirect that by changing the
level of the grants and putting more of the money in the form of per diems so
that the funding accurately reflected the traffic that these shelters had.
In addition, in April of 1992, we
announced the family violence initiative, which increased funding to wife abuse
services and women's resource services by an additional 10.4 percent as we put
$500,000 into those services and we have‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
* (1700)
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): It is quite obvious that the minister missed
the question. Could we ask the member
for
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
AGRICULTURE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture.
We will begin with an opening statement
from the honourable Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chairperson, it
is indeed an opportunity for me to talk about agriculture in
Clearly I will say that agriculture, in my
mind, is the most important industry in the province of Manitoba. It started about 125, 135 years ago, and the
first shipment of Red Fife wheat from along the Red River over to Britain
occurred in 1876. Some 876 bushels were
shipped at that time. Over the last 125
years, we have evolved to shipping 60 crops to over 60 countries in the
world. We export many livestock
commodities.
* (1420)
I think it is fair to say there are a lot
of success stories in agriculture in Manitoba over the years. We have expanded what we have done. We have changed what we have done. We have adapted to the marketplace. We have adapted to opportunity. We have had the courage to face challenges
both on the farm, off the farm, inside the country, outside the country. We have adapted very, very well.
We have a record of producing the best
quality of agricultural products. I do
not care what it is, whether it is cereal crops or oilseeds, whether it is
special crops or whether it is livestock commodities, we have a record and a
reputation that is enviable in every country of the world. On the basis of that reputation, we sell to
all these countries in the world, and we have competed very, very effectively.
Certainly, events of a global nature have
affected agriculture throughout our history.
In the last few years, some of those global events have been rather
disturbing for us‑‑the grain trade war which has impacted us very
severely, something that has not gone away, and the solution through GATT that
we all hoped would happen three or four years ago is no closer today than it
was when the whole negotiation round started back in 1986.
On the positive side, certainly, the
positive trade side, the North American Free Trade Agreement is now close to
being in place. The process of the Free
Trade Agreement that we had signed between Canada and United States in '89 has
been very positive for agriculture.
We have expanded our sales in the North
American continent, particularly in the United States, rather dramatically over
the last three or four years. It is very
important that we have done that, because it has offset losses of markets
elsewhere in the world, most particularly the market in Russia primarily
because they can only now buy on credit.
They are unable to meet their commitments both in terms of principal and
interest to the Canadian Wheat Board and, therefore, to the Canadian taxpayer.
We have expanded our sales in other places
like Japan and China, other Pacific Rim countries. I noted last weekend in reading an article
with some dismay about the Chinese being a very big market opportunity for us
in agriculture in the future, we have not done maybe as good a market
intelligence in that part of the world as we have done in other parts. Now it seems that maybe they have surpluses
of cereal grains that we did not know they had.
Their probability of buying large amounts of cereal grains in the next
two or three years is maybe not as high as we had once thought it was.
So that all brings us back to the importance
of the U.S. market being very, very critical.
The disturbances we have had at the border, whether it is hog
countervail, or whether it is questions raised about durum, or questions raised
about peas or lentils. It is very
important that the industry argue those cases effectively and aggressively in
front of the binational panel. Our
record of winning those discussions is very, very impressive.
Of course, over the last few years, my
department has devoted a lot of its time and effort‑‑and certainly
the resources of the department‑‑to safety‑net programs to
try to offset some of the risk farmers face, both in terms of production costs
and market access, and the ability to penetrate those markets at enough return
that the farmers can survive.
Crop insurance has been one of those
programs that has been around since 1960, tried and true over the course of
those 33 years in terms of meeting farmers' needs. Two years ago we built, on top of that, the
revenue insurance program which has paid out $320 million on the 1991 crop in
terms of stabilization payments. It will
be about $175 million of stabilization payments on the 1992 crop.
As I mentioned yesterday in the resolution
debate, in the course of Estimates I am sure the member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk) will want to ask about whether revenue insurance is targeted to where
hurt is. We have done some studies to
indicate clearly that is the case.
Tripartite Stabilization programs are in
place for several commodities, five at this point in time. The NISA program is a long‑term
stabilization program that is in place at this point in time for cereal grains
and oilseeds. As we look ahead, and as
the member for Swan River well knows, I have been out talking in rural Manitoba
about what is the long‑term risk‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the honourable
members carrying on conversations in various areas of the Chamber to please
carry on the conversations either outside the Chamber or in the loge. A number of members have expressed
considerable difficulty in hearing the honourable minister's remarks. Thank you.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, as I said, the member for
I will say one thing positive about
NISA. It is the same across the country,
by and large. Revenue insurance is
different in every province. Clearly, we
want, in the long term, to have a level playing field‑‑at least in
western Canada if nowhere else‑‑so farmers can respond to the
marketplace and produce what they think they can sell, and try to produce and
sell those commodities that they can return an adequate income from the
marketplace.
In the course of looking at what we are
doing and where we are going, if you look back over the last 20 or 30 years, we
have done an awful lot of diversifying of what we produce in Manitoba: special crops, oilseeds and livestock. That rate of change of what we produce is not
going to lessen in the future.
I have said on many occasions in the last
few months that, if you look down the road four or five years from the farm
gate, and you look back two or three years, what you see, as a farmer, is a
number of questions: Can government
continue to give me the level of support that I have had in the last few years
through ad hoc programs or safety net programs?
If you look at the election in
Newfoundland yesterday, and you hear the talk that goes on across this country
about debts and deficits, you would have to think that maybe government, no
matter who they are or how well intentioned they might be, may not have as many
dollars for stabilizing me in the future as they have had in the past.
I think that is fairly well understood by
the farm community. Then if you look at
things that way, you say, well, what can I do to improve my viability on my
piece of land or with what I do with my expertise and my production base, whether
it is acres, cows, hogs, mares or whatever it is? What can I do to improve my ability to live
with a marketplace that is domestic and international? What are the obstacles to my changing what I
do so I can survive? What do I need to
do to upgrade my level of education, knowledge, technology? Looking at change, how does it affect my
family? Am I a one‑generation
farm, two‑generation farm or a three‑generation farm?
* (1430)
Certainly, if you are a two‑ or
three‑generation farm, you have the benefit of some enthusiasm in the
younger generation and some caution in the hands of the older generation, and
that is a pretty good mix. There is a
lot of continuity there, there is a lot of experience. Farming comes down to family farms, stability
of members of a family to enjoy a lifestyle that creates an income and an
opportunity.
We all know it varies in different regions
of the province with what you can do.
Some areas have some of the best soil in Canada and the best
climate. They can produce a wide variety
of special crops. A lot of those crops
have very high value, and certainly I am very pleased to have seen last night
that sugar beet growers approved the stabilization plan that we have negotiated
with them over the last few months, and there is a very high‑value
industry that creates a lot of on‑farm and off‑farm jobs. It is going to run very well again this
year. I certainly hope that our desire
for 28,000 acres is achieved, whereas the industry average over the last few
years has been 25,000 to 26,000 acres.
But as these farmers and their families
look at where they are at in their life cycle, in their career, there are some
challenging opportunities and some challenging decisions that have to be
made. Some of them will not be that
easy. Some of them are economically
difficult. Farmers are very concerned
about extending themselves in debt to do new things, and although some farmers
have a heavy debt burden, particularly younger farmers or farmers who have expanded
fairly aggressively in the last 10 or 15 years, there are an awful lot of farms
out there that are in very good shape financially with 80 percent of their
assets owned, in other words, 80 percent equity.
That is a very enviable position for most industries
to look at. That leaves a lot of
strength in agriculture. I see a lot of
desire. I have talked with many farmers
across Manitoba, and they have cautious optimism about the future. The fear that they experienced two and three
years ago and maybe just as recently as 18 months ago in the fall of 1991 seems
to have subsided some fair bit. It has
been replaced by what I would call cautious optimism and a greater realization
that their future is in their hands, and they have a lot of responsibility to
work with their friends and neighbours, within their family, with their various
farm organizations and commodity groups to try to strengthen their capacity and
ability to deal with the realities of the future.
In that broad context, my department put
out a Vision for the 1990s. It has been
a process of working with stakeholders, over a hundred of them, over the course
of several months‑‑this was put out a little over a year ago, and
it identified what we think are the important things to took at in the future
as an industry.
This was done in consultation with farmers
and agribusiness, and for members opposite who may not have read the document,
let me just give you some of the broad goals and the theme areas that we see as
a department. [interjection] Yes, it is a public document.
The broad goals in our Vision for the
1990s is to assist agriculture and the food sector to shift from its past
emphasis on commodity production toward a sustainable yet diversified value‑added
and market‑oriented industry.
I want to accentuate the words "value‑added
and market‑oriented industry."
It goes back to what I was saying earlier.
We also want to strengthen producer‑risk
reduction assistance to cushion farmers against price and yield fluctuations,
and thirdly, to strengthen Manitoba agriculture's client‑orientation
commitment to our clients who are our customers. They are No. 1, and serving them is the
primary reason why we, our department, exists.
I want to congratulate the department and
all the stakeholders who put this document together. I have had many people who have read it say
very complimentary things about the focus the department is trying to put on
the future to try to help agriculture in Manitoba, in a partnership
arrangement, move on into the '90s and to what is going to happen over the next
10 or 20 years. That partnership is not
only government with farmers, but it is government with the agribusiness
community, the processors, the consumers, and anybody else who is interested in
agriculture.
I see agriculture as from the farmer all
the way to the consumer and back again.
There has to be a communication, a line of understanding all the way
between all those partners. If we do not
work together, we will produce the wrong commodities for the marketplace. The marketplace will not be happy with what
we produce, and we will not know why they are not happy. We live in a global economy more than any
other industry as far as I am concerned; what happens in Tokyo affects what
happens on the farms in Manitoba.
The theme areas the department is working
on have various implementation teams, and these theme areas are well known in
the agribusiness and farming community.
We are going to improve our market orientation and improve our
activities and diversification in value‑added industries. Our risk‑reduction measures will be
advocated more and more in the future.
Sustainable agriculture will be promoted to a very aggressive extent,
and we want to enhance our productivity and our competitiveness both domestically
and globally. We want to improve our
human resources and improve our industry promotion and consumer awareness.
As I go back to what I said earlier about
agriculture from the farm gate to the consumer, it is very, very important that
the public at large understands what agriculture is, why we do things, and the
economic benefit we create for the province of Manitoba and the country of
Canada.
We bring back a lot of foreign currency
into this country through export grain sales.
That is not very well understood by many people. We are the 3 percent of the population, or
less than 3 percent of the population on farms, but we create about 14 percent
of the jobs in this province because of all the goods and services we buy on
the farm and all the activities past the farm gate in terms of transportation,
processing and the value‑added industries.
So, Madam Chairperson, that is how we are
focusing our department and why we are focusing the industry. I constantly meet with many farm
organizations, commodity groups, agribusiness, associations, as we look at the
issues and try to adapt to the challenges of today to create opportunities for
the future.
There is no end of opportunities out
there, but I will also admit there are a lot of challenges. Some of those opportunities are not as
economically viable as you might like them to be. Certainly, as I said, one of
our approaches in the department is to reduce somewhat our intention to
commodity production and improve our activity in the marketing side. If you produce something that is not
marketable, or cannot return enough value for the marketplace for the farmer to
survive, in the long term, it is not going to be a viable industry.
Certainly, the agrifood review that was
held in about 1990 focused on four main areas:
we must as an industry increase our market responsiveness, create for
farmers a greater level of self‑reliance, right across Canada recognize
regional diversity and be more environmentally sustainable in the way we
operate agriculture.
I think those four focuses of the 1990
agrifood review have been very well identified in our seven team areas and the
activities of the department. Certainly
the soil accord is working aggressively in environmental sustainability. Regional diversity means that you can do
different things in different regions of the country to put accent on your
positives.
Greater self‑reliance is what safety
nets are trying to do. We put in safety nets in the second line of
defence. The first line of defence is
the farmer's responsibility, and the members opposite have talked about the
third line of defence, which is still ad hoc programs that can be put in place
to deal with emergencies that happen in the industry here and there.
Yes, we would like the federal government
to respond more in third line of defence activity, but their bottom line is
they say they do not have the dollars.
The election in Newfoundland and the events in Ontario and Saskatchewan
clearly focus on the fact that it is not just here, it is not just the
government of Canada, it is all over that we have these economic problems.
There has been some third line of defence
response by the federal government in FSAM I and FSAM II in 1991 and '92 but,
certainly, some regions of the country would like to have seen more response,
particularly Saskatchewan, with regard to the frost, the late harvest and the
loss of crop that they experienced last year.
In the course of our discussions on first,
second and third line of defence, I can tell the member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk), the one thing we did accomplish was that the federal government
acknowledged it was their financial responsibility to respond in the third line
of defence. I am sure she well realizes
that provincial governments do not have the resources to respond to those kind
of emergencies.
Another issue that clearly is important to
us is our ability to respond competitively to what is happening in the
world. We have developed an industry
that has done an excellent job, as I said earlier, in producing various
commodities and exporting them to the world.
In the area where we have our greatest dependence on cereal grains like
wheat and barley, which is about 40 percent of our production in Manitoba,
certainly those are basic commodities.
We export the raw commodity in most cases with those two crops; with our
oilseeds and our special crops we do a lot more processing, so for them we are
doing more of the right thing.
* (1440)
You produce, you value‑add and sell
a higher‑value product to the world.
When you come down to the cereal grains,
as I look ahead, I have had to meet people from different parts of the world
and hear them talk about how they are going to develop their countries, and I
am talking to third‑world countries, countries that have a much lower
standard of living than we do, much lower wages. What they want to do is improve their
standard of living, improve the economy of their country by growing food.
One of the first things they can do, of
course, is grow cereal grains, so there is no question that we will have more
competition in the future, particularly in East Bloc countries and Russia, as
they expand and improve their agricultural production.
Countries like the European Community, United
States, Canada, we do send experts over there to help them respond and produce
and as they do that they will become competitors to us in the world with cereal
grains.
I think it is important that we must, say,
like in a hockey game when you get to the playoffs, raise the level of
intensity of your game and do a better job of what you can do best. I think that applies to cereal grains, it
applies to agriculture in general here.
This is going to be a challenge to society as a whole, whether they are
going to accept the ability of researchers to produce a better canola variety,
a better tomato, a better potato, a better french fry by the use of
biotechnology.
We have developed an awful lot of what we
do in agriculture through research by provincial government, federal
government, institutions, by universities and also research back on the
farm. This new level of research that is
available to us is called biotechnology.
It is going to be criticized in some aspects in society saying that we
are doing the gene manipulation. I think
it is important that we explain to the public, broadly based, why we have to do
it, why it is a new level of research that is going to be needed to keep us
competitive in doing a better job, for the farmer being able to compete in the
world.
There are a number of things that are
happening that lead to opportunities in that direction, whether it is with
canola or potatoes or tomatoes, whatever it is.
Biotechnology, if we do not use it in Canada and North America, it is
going to be used elsewhere in the world, and we are going to be beaten at
it. I just say to the members opposite,
it is going to be an area of keen interest publicly, and certainly a tremendous
opportunity for agriculture and for food production.
It goes beyond food production because one
of the areas in agriculture that I am sure we will be incredibly successful at
is producing products that can be used in the industrial market and the
pharmaceutical market, nonfood commodities produced from the land or from livestock. Some examples of success in that
direction: certainly ethanol is an
example; PMU operations is an example of producing estrogen for the
pharmaceutical market; erucic acid rapeseed, an example of an industrial oil,
instead of a vegetable oil. Through
genetic engineering we can find more of those kinds of replacement commodities
for synthetics like plastic. Can we grow
a plant that produces plastics? Instead
of producing the plastic synthetically, we produce it naturally. I think there is a great opportunity there.
There are some challenges there, as I said
earlier. Is it going to be
economic? Will the public accept us
doing that sort of thing? What are the
processes of regulation and control that the public should have in place?
So I think it is fair to say that I am
very optimistic about industry, the kind of people that exist in the industry,
the leaders throughout the industry.
They have developed it to where we are over 125 years plus. I know that the challenge of the next 10
years is going to be every bit as intense as the last 20. A lot of change is going to have to happen in
the industry. It is an ongoing process.
I think it is important that anything that comes along in terms of new
opportunities or challenge or change that we analyze it aggressively,
responsibly, and not just say the way it was is the way it should be because it
was okay back then. We will not survive
that way. We have not survived that way
in the past, and today is a test of our ability to adapt and change.
I know that the farm community continues
to shrink in terms of percentage.
Yesterday members opposite mentioned a lot of farmers have off‑farm
income. That is very true. The percentage continues to grow, and whether
that is good or bad remains to be seen.
Another aspect of farming is that you have more and more people that go
through a career and retire in the early 50s, mid‑50s, and then they take
up farming. They come into the farming
community with a pension. Is that fair
competition for the farmers trying to earn a living? Yet throughout North America they will be
more and more the producers of the future. Whether it is acceptable or not, it
is a reality.
It is our doctors, our lawyers, our
teachers, our politicians, they retire‑‑[interjection]‑‑Miners,
yes. It is many walks of life. They see the quality of life that people have
in the rural areas, and they like to be active, so they want to produce some
things and that is agricultural production.
So it is a way of the future whether we like it or not, and the farm
community is absorbing them. They have
become good citizens in rural Manitoba, as I have seen so far.
Other issues: certainly intergenerational transfers of
land, that is the basis of a farm. As I
look back over the last 20 or 30 years, I would say one of the biggest troubles
we have had in agriculture is the fact we have overvalued land. Farmers have spent 20 and 30 years of their
life and sometimes longer trying to pay for that land, and as land transfers
from generation to generation, I am of the opinion land is not as much of an
asset as it used to be. In fact, in many
cases, it is a liability.
Fathers and grandfathers are going to have
to do a better job of being able to help their sons and grandsons get started
in the industry by transferring the land at much lower cost in the future than
they have in the past.
When they say, well, the marketplace
should do that or government should supply money at an appropriate interest
rate to help that, yes, we can do some of that, but still, that family unit,
that family farm, has got to participate in the process of helping the new
generations get started and started in the fashion of not burdened with debt,
like what happened in the high land value years of the early 1980s.
I have seen far too many farms not succeed
because they paid way too much for land, and as the values of commodities
decreased throughout the latter '80s, they got into serious trouble.
So, Madam Chairperson, with those few
remarks, I would like to open the Estimates debate and hope that in the course
of our debate, we can talk about the issues of where the industry is going, how
are we going to address the opportunities and the challenges, how are we going
to adapt, how are we going to have a sufficiently open mind to adapt to change
and not be hysterical in our objection to change. It is critical that we do that.
Industry is developed that way. Industry is full of leaders who want to work
in a very positive sense. The industry
has always been built on optimism, and I look forward to an optimistic process
in these Estimates. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition
the honourable member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I think we have to recognize the fact that
farmers are still facing great difficulties.
The return that they are getting for their product is not adequate. I had hoped that there would have been some
way that this would have been addressed.
This has been going on for several years now. We hear about the GATT negotiations, and we
had hoped that that would be settled and we would see a fairer return for
farmers, but since that has not happened farmers are facing difficulties.
They are facing additional difficulties by
some of the actions that this federal government is taking, adding pressure and
uncertainty to the farming community. It
is the responsibility of the provincial government to speak out for these
farmers and raise the concerns. We have
raised them in Question Period, and we will continue to raise those and get
into a more detailed discussion on them as we get into the Estimates.
The minister indicated in his opening
comments that agriculture is a very important industry in Manitoba, and I have
to agree with him. There is a tremendous
amount of spin‑off that is generated from the agricultural industry that
many times is not recognized by those people who live in urban centres and
those people who are not connected to the agricultural industry.
That is increasing because 10, 20 years
ago just about everybody had someone who lived on the farm or they went back
home to visit their grandparents or parents on the farm. That is not there now. Many people are a generation away from the
farm and do not realize the impacts of the industry and the value of it.
* (1450)
The key to the survival of rural Manitoba‑‑as
agriculture goes down and the revenues from the agricultural industry go down,
we see that our rural communities are suffering. Less and less services are available for
rural people. The key to agriculture, I
believe, is the family farm and the small communities.
It is the family farm operations that are
the most vital ones, and those are the ones that we have to target our supports
at. As the minister has said, there were
many people making a living from agriculture.
The farmers used to make a much better living off the land than they do
now. When you look at farmers' incomes,
there were some statistics that we talked about yesterday where in many cases
more than half the income that a family farm has right now comes from off‑farm
jobs.
That is unfortunate, that you can have all
this money invested in a business, in an industry, and not get a fair return
from it. You have to go outside the
farming business to get an income to supply the basic needs of your family,
because many people cannot do it from the farming operation right now.
Agriculture is an important part of Canada
in relation to world trade. Canada has
gained a fair part of that market because of the high standards that we have
and high quality of product that we export.
I think it is very important that we maintain those standards, and by
maintaining those high standards, we will be able to keep our share of the
market.
I note there are other people, as the
minister has indicated, competing for that market. But it is Canada's high standards,
particularly quality of wheat, that have gained us those markets. We have to be prepared to maintain that high
standard.
That is where I have some concerns not
only with wheat, but when we look at other products, such as in the beef
grading systems and some of those areas, where we are lowering our standards to
harmonize with the American standards.
When we do that, we run the risk of ruining Canada's high reputation as
an exporter, and run the risk of losing the markets. I believe it is very important we maintain
those high standards that we have right now.
Some of the difficulties that the farmers are
facing are the difficulties of carrying high debt load, getting the money they
need and transferring land from one generation to another. I think that that is something that has to be
addressed: how we can ensure that young
farmers can stay on the land, can take over that family operation and still
have some income for that older generation that is getting out of farming. Those are the things that we have to look
at. How can we get the next generation
to stay in farming, but still have something for those who are stepping out of
it to have income?
That has been very difficult with the low
commodity prices that we have been seeing over the last few years. Hopefully, that is going to turn around, but
if the marketplace is not going to turn around, we have to see how we can keep
young farmers on the land. One of the
programs that we will get into, I am sure, is the Young Farmers Rebate and the
change in the amount of rebate for farmers that is now being announced in this
budget, which will cause some concern for young farmers who want to maintain
the family farm operations or start off an operation of their own. We have to be prepared to support those
people.
The minister talked about education, and I
believe that it is important that we continue to educate the public on the
value of the industry and make people more aware of what it is that the farming
community provides for them. We have to
make more efforts to assure that Manitoba products are in Manitoba stores and
that people are aware that those products come from the producer in this
province. I think it is very important
that we educate people. Government also
has to be prepared to provide the farmers with the services that they need and
the information that they need and the supports that they need to adapt to
changes in the crop requirements or market requirements. Government has a
responsibility on that.
What I think is also very important is
that we somehow get control back into the farmer's hands. Right now, the farmer produces a product that
leaves the farm gate at a very low price.
Farmers have very little income in the value‑added stages along
the way. I believe that somehow we have
to work together with communities, with the Department of Agriculture and get
the control back to farmers so that they reap some of the benefits of the value‑added
jobs.
Right now, as I say, too much of the
decisions are made outside the farmer's hands on what is happening with their
product. He produces it because there is
a demand, but not able to get the value added.
So I believe that there has to be a way that we can bring back controls
to communities that they might have more say in the processing of a product so
that jobs can stay in the communities.
Maybe there are ways that this can be done. I believe there are, but there is much work
that will have to be done for that to happen.
The minister mentioned the sugar beet
industry, and I am also pleased that the agreement was signed. We were concerned that if there was not an
agreement, if both sides could not agree on a price that sugar beets would not
be planted this year. We were at the
risk of losing that industry here in Manitoba.
Once you are out of it for one year, it would be difficult to start it
up again next year. It is a lot of revenue
lost out of this province that we could not afford to lose, so I am pleased
with that.
I also think that to address the whole
matter, we have to and the minister has to, I believe, look at discussions with
the federal government on long‑term agreements so that we do not have
this ad hockery every year‑‑are we going to plant sugar beets, are
we not going to plant sugar beets?‑‑a longer term.
An Honourable Member: If you only knew the history.
Ms. Wowchuk: I know it is a long, ongoing process.
My suggestion, as I listen to people in
the industry, there is a need for longer‑term agreements. I hope that the minister will look at that so
that next year when farmers are getting ready to plant those sugar beets that
they will have some stability. I hope that
he will discuss with his federal counterparts some of the other concerns that
sugar beet producers have raised, and I know that there has been a lot of
discussion over the last little while.
So I hope that he will take those recommendations seriously and look at
what we have to do to expand. If there
is room to expand that industry here in Manitoba, do what has to be done.
There are many aspects to the farming
industry, and the other one is the cattle industry, and we seem to have lost
the value‑added jobs in that one.
Granted, those that are raising the cattle right now are having good
price. There is no doubt, they are
having good price, but, again, we are not getting the value‑added
jobs. We have lost the processing
industry here in Manitoba. Can we regain
it? I am not sure, but that is something
we have to look at. How do we get the
processing back into the province to get those value‑added jobs? I mean we are in desperate need of jobs in
this province. We have high
unemployment, so we have to look at every possible way that we can to increase
our employment.
As the minister has indicated himself, it
is the value‑added, it is the secondary jobs that come from the prime
products that have the increased value and will certainly improve the economy
of this province. In each of those
areas, I think we really have to look at how we can get the value‑added
jobs, but again how can we do it in such a way that it is also the farmer at
the farm gate who will benefit and get the best price for his product, and we
can raise the whole income of farm families.
* (1500)
I think that there is a tremendous need
for research on how we can do this, and I believe that the government does have
a responsibility in research. There are
certain things that can be researched by people in agribusiness and those
types, but I really believe that government has a responsibility to do basic
research and provide the information to all people, in the best interest of the
farming community, rather than having research conducted only by business. I would not want to see research reduced any
further by the provincial government or the federal government. That is basic research that I believe has to
be done to improve agricultural products in this country.
But, Madam Chairperson, there are a couple
of areas that I want to touch on that are causing a great concern. We have raised them several times in this
House, and basically issues that are causing uncertainty for the farming
community. The first one, of course,
that I will mention is the method of payment.
We have raised this issue many, many times‑‑and it looks,
and we hear rumours that there could be decisions made very soon‑‑but
in the budget that we just heard from the federal government on the 26th of
April, Mr. Mazankowski indicated that there is going to be a further reduction
in the transportation assistance unless farmers agree to pay the producer
package.
It makes me wonder about what the whole
consultation process was. We spent, both
the provincial government and the federal government, a lot of money over the
last winter on consulting with farmers on how they felt the method of payment
should be handled. Farmers did say, the
majority of them did say that they wanted the method of payment to stay as it
was. So you wonder why did we bother
going through that whole process; why did the government waste everybody's time
on those public hearings, if now, they are just going to blackmail farmers into
saying, yes, you have to accept this package or else we are going to remove it
altogether.
There will be advantages to certain
farmers by changing the method of payment, there is no doubt, but I think as
government, there is a responsibility to look at how it affects everybody‑‑all
people.
In the end, I believe there is going to be
a negative impact on this, not only in the farming community‑‑we
will see a change in the agricultural patterns in this province‑‑but
we are also going to see a negative impact in many of the small towns. We will see reduced services. Elevators along some of these branch lines
will close. We hear about branch line
abandonment. With that, there is loss of
jobs in rural communities. There is no
doubt about it. When I look at the
community of Swan River‑‑no, let us take a smaller town than that,
a town like Pine River, where there are a few people who are supplementing
their farm income by having jobs on the railway lines.
Now, if these lines are abandoned, the
jobs are gone. So the service is reduced
for farmers‑‑[interjection] Yes, that is right. The grain will have to be transported
somehow, but along with losing jobs, along with losing railways, we are going
to have a shift of cost.
Transportation is now going to go onto the
highways, and we have to be very careful on who is going to pick up that cost.
What is going to happen? Where is the
cost? Is the province going to pick up‑‑of
course, on the main highways, the province will pick up those costs. When you get onto the grid roads and the
municipal roads, the municipalities will pick up that cost. Is all of that
going to be addressed?
I think we have to be very, very
careful. I disagree with changing the
method of payment. The farm communities
have been served very well under the present system, and I think the government
is moving in the wrong direction by changing it, but the provincial government
better be very sure on what extra costs they are going to have to pick up by
this.
Farmers are‑‑I mean, since
they have to accept this package, they want to know how it is going to be
presented to them. I think that it is
necessary even though farmers might be disillusioned a little bit with public
meetings and the fact that even though they express their views, they are not
taken seriously in some cases, in this case that all the information be put on
the table so farmers understand what it is they are getting and what the end
result is going to be.
Another issue is the barley sales, and I
am sure we will get into‑‑there are many questions that I want to
ask on that particular issue and what the minister is doing and what his staff
is doing to review all the studies that are being put out right now, but again,
I do not believe there is any need to rush on this particular matter.
Farmers are now seeding. They are getting their crops in. They do not
have time to look very closely at the report. Farmers in Manitoba feel that the
Canadian Wheat Board has served them very well and that orderly marketing has
served them very well. There are studies
that are going completely against what Dr. Carter is saying, and in fact, there
is a real feeling that farmers will lose.
Again, we have to look at the whole area.
We cannot just look at the people along
the border and say, yes, this is going to be for you, good for you, and ignore
the other people because in the long‑‑it may be good in the short
term, but we have to look at what the United States farmers are going to say
when we start dumping a whole bunch of barley in there. If there is going to be all this barley
growing, what are the consequences for Canadian farmers?
All of that has to be addressed. So I would hope that we, both federal and
provincial governments, would look very carefully at this and think about what
they are doing and not move hastily on something like this. If it has worked till now, it can stay in
place for another couple of years. There
is opportunity to sell barley into the U.S. market right now without changing
the mandate of the Wheat Board. It does
not have to be changed. So we have to be
very careful about rushing into anything.
We will have much further discussion on that, I am sure, as we get into
the Estimates.
I guess, Madam Chairperson, the real
concern is getting farmers the best return for their product. If the family farm is going to survive, and agriculture,
I am sure, will survive, but we should not only think about agriculture
surviving. We should think about how we
can allow farmers to make a fair living, get a fair return for what they
produce. They are producing a basic
product in this country, a food product.
We need that product, but we have to be sure they get a fair return and
are able to provide an adequate living for their families but also provide
something that is desperately needed for this country.
So, Madam Chairperson, with those comments
I will close. Some of the other areas just briefly that I want to touch on are
sustainable agriculture, alternate agriculture.
What is the government doing in those areas, in soil conservation, in
water conservation? We will talk in more
detail about that as we get into the Estimates.
There are many, many areas on this that have to be discussed, and I look
forward to getting into the debate.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the second opposition
party wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Chairperson, I listened to the
minister's comments with interest and felt a lot of optimism in his comments
there. I wish to express the same
optimism, and I hope the other party will do the same because, like we say, the
farmers are the backbone of our province, and many times this has been said in
the House. I am not a negative
person. I like to be positive, and I
think the minister knows that.
* (1510)
I would like to say thanks to the minister
at this stage also. I think it has been
a good relationship with his staff and any time I have gone to his office or
have phoned his office I have always had a good relationship there. I wish to continue that with the minister and
his staff because, like I say, having come from the farm or having been raised
on the farm, I should say, and coming from the Minister of Natural Resources'
(Mr. Enns) constituency I guess tends‑‑[interjection] They are
Liberals, I understand.
Even in the budget overall, there is a
14.2 percent decrease, but I am saying that positively here. It is in regard only to the crop insurance,
the decrease, because when you look at administration costs, it is 10.7 percent
down, and as you look at it, there is no more than 5 percent in other
areas. When you see administration down
and there are no great changes, I think it says something but, like I say, the
insurance, I think, as we go through the Estimates, it will be important to ask
questions.
We might want to take a different position
on the GRIP program at that point when we look at the cuts and the explanation
from the minister.
It is hard to argue with that cut in
administration and still maintain basically the same level of services for the
farmers. Like I say, going through the Estimates, there will be a lot of
questions. There have been a lot of
concerns that have come from the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), and we
will see, at that point, what the answers from the minister‑‑and I
am sure we will look at all the departments with optimism.
We are going into the middle of the '90s
already and then we go to the year 2000.
Like I say, there have been a lot of changes over the years, changes in
technology and different things, like the changes to, as the minister
mentioned, the cost of land 15 or 10 years ago and what it is today. It was hard to pass on the farms to the
children at that point. There are a lot
of things to consider what have gone by.
We cannot overlook what went on.
We will continue to look, I think, for a brighter future for our
families, for our children.
I think we have to realize, and the member
for Swan River mentioned about education to express and show the people that
what the farming industry does on the global factor, I think, is to be
considered in that respect.
I will not prolong. I want to go into the Estimates, like I say,
and get the answers from the minister and his staff. I wish him well in the Estimates. We look to co‑operation in dealing with
the Estimates. Thank you very much,
Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: I would remind members of the committee that
debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a), page 14 of the Estimates manual is
to be deferred until all other items in this department have been passed.
At this time I would invite the minister's
staff to take their places in the Chamber.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I would like to introduce
my staff: Greg Lacomy, Deputy Minister;
Les Baseraba, ADM of Management and Regional Services; Doug Burch, Director of
Administration; and Marvin Richter, a Financial Administrator.
Madam Chairperson: 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive
Support (1) Salaries $432,500.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I just want to ask if we
can do the whole section of Executive Support all together, or do you want to
do it line by line? [interjection] All together, that is no problem.
I would just like to ask some questions
about the role of this Executive Support staff, and who is taking the
responsibility for certain projects and how they are being handled. I would like to begin with the whole issue of
the Wheat Board and the removal of the Carter report. The minister has said several times in
Question Period that his department is doing an analysis of the Carter report
and other aspects, barley sales, moving on to a continental market. Can the minister tell us who on his staff is
responsible and what kind of studies are being done at this time?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I would prefer if those
discussions were held under Vote 6 under Policy and Economics. That is where
the staff involved would be in the Chamber.
I think it would be fair to say that all those kinds of issues, that
would be the time and the place.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will hold those questions to that point
then. I want to ask the minister if this
might be an appropriate time to ask some questions about decentralization,
staff responsibilities and breakdown of various staff. Is this an appropriate time to ask those
questions?
Mr. Findlay: Yes.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister then inform us whether there
are any further plans to decentralize any branches of the Department of
Agriculture, how the Crown Lands was decentralized last year, where that is at
and whether there are any further plans?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, in the Department of
Agriculture we have decentralized 94.45 positions. I will just read the different branches and
the number of positions and the towns that they are in.
Soils and Crops, 26.45 in Carman in
November of '91 and another five positions in Carman in June of '92, so that
makes a total of 31.45 SYs in Carman under Soils and Crops. Under Crown Lands there are 15 in Minnedosa,
one in Dominion City. Under the Animal
Industry Branch, there is one in Stonewall.
Under Computer Services there is one in Brandon. Under Soil Conservation there is one position
in Shoal Lake, one in Roblin, one in Steinbach, one in Morden, one in Selkirk;
a swine specialist in Dugald, one position; the Tripartite Stabilization Group,
eight positions in Portage. Manitoba
Agricultural Credit Corporation, there are 23 positions in Brandon, two in
Morris, two in Teulon, two in Shoal Lake, one in Roblin, one in Melita, making
a total of 94.45 positions that have been decentralized through '90, 91 and '92
by the Department of Agriculture in Manitoba.
At this stage there are no additional
plans other than a position here or there in terms of further decentralization.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
whether all of those positions were decentralized out of
Mr. Findlay: The 31 positions of Soils and Crops in Carman
are out of
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification. The minister says they were new positions,
but when you look through the Estimates, you do not see an increase in
positions.
Were these positions that were vacant
earlier but not filled?‑‑because when you look at the total
numbers, there is not an increase in staff.
* (1520)
Mr. Findlay: The new positions I referred to, five in Soil
Conservation and eight in Tripartite, were all 1990. So you would not see anything in the
Estimates in this year. But the
positions at that time were reallocated SYs from other locations in the
department, reallocated to those priority areas. So I guess it is fair to say the SYs, in many
cases, would have come from a position that would have been in Winnipeg.
Ms. Wowchuk: That was what I was trying to get at. The minister had indicated that they were new
positions. I was trying to see whether
they were staff years that were somewhere in the department before.
Just a little further on
decentralization. I do not know whether
this is a responsibility of his department, but whenever we get to
decentralization to ask these kind of questions, they tell us to go back to the
department. So I want to ask whether or
not there has been any analysis done on the decentralization and tracking of
costs, whether there has been an increase of costs a decrease in costs, by
moving these positions out of the city.
Has there been an increase in transportation? Has there been an increase in telephone
costs? What is the minister's view on
this? Has there been a net benefit to
having those positions out?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the purpose behind
decentralization was to put services in rural
The member talks about depopulation and
loss of jobs. This is the reverse,
absolutely the reverse. It is putting
jobs out there. We put offices in
Brandon; a building was built and we are leasing it. In Minnedosa, a building was built and we are
leasing it. In Portage, a new building
was built for Crop Insurance and Tripartite.
That creates construction jobs in rural Manitoba and the services to
supply those buildings, whatever those services are; whether they are
janitorial or service items for operating the buildings, that comes from that
area of the province instead of from the city.
So there are a lot of spin‑off jobs in addition to the 94 I am
talking about that have benefited rural Manitoba.
In terms of costs, I think it is fair to
say‑‑we do not have specific figures in front of us, but I know in
one particular case, the actual cost per square foot to lease the facility is
less than half in the new location as opposed to what it cost in the city of
Winnipeg, so substantial savings to government in lease costs.
In terms of moving people, yes, there were
some costs in moving people out there, as there always are to move staff from
one location to another. The operating
costs, whether they are any different, we do not have a record on that, but I
think the record that is important to me is the jobs that we put into rural
Manitoba.
On this course, we have moved from 50
percent of our staff in the city and 50 percent outside to where 70 percent of
the jobs in the Department of Agriculture are now outside the city and 30
percent in. I think that is a very
significant improvement since we are serving rural Manitoba with this
department.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to assure the minister that I am
not opposed to the decentralization program.
I have always said that if it is handled fairly and if people are
treated fairly then, of course, we should get the services closer to the
people.
There is no doubt that there are probably
many other services that could be brought closer to the people. I do not object to that at all. I was just trying to get a breakdown. Of course, it will be a benefit to those
communities to have some jobs where they are so desperately needed, although I
do believe we need much more than decentralization. There is a need to create jobs, as well, in
the rural community. The
decentralization certainly does help. I
do not object to that at all. I was just
trying to get an idea.
Of course, when you do anything, you
should do an analysis of it when you are working with a budget, whether there
is a benefit or an additional cost to it.
Continuing on with decentralization, the
minister talked about a new office being built in Portage. Again, maybe that should not come under this
section. I want to talk about how the
office was built. Was that built through
public tender? How were all of those
decisions made? It may have to come
under Crop Insurance, but I am dealing with it as decentralization right now.
Mr. Findlay: In the
The building is built and then government
leases the space back from the owner of the building. In this process, in the Department of
Agriculture, we have staff in four new buildings located across rural Manitoba. I am talking about the large ones. There are smaller examples, too, but in the
large situations.
Crop insurance is already in Portage, but
when we expanded activity of crop insurance, adding these eight positions,
larger facilities were needed, so we moved from the provincial building in
downtown Portage to a building that was built out on the western side of
Portage in that new industrial or shopping development.
Ms. Wowchuk: But it is not a government‑owned
building. It is a leased building. The minister is indicating that it is a
leased building. I am trying to figure
out how the tenders were taken. Did you take tenders out? How did the whole process go to make the
decision on who got that building?
Mr. Findlay: As I said in my previous answer, Government
Services looks after all those details, and that would be the time and the
place.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to move on to another section under
Executive Support, and it says, the evaluation of department policies,
programs.
When I talked about different programs such
as barley sales, the minister said they come under a different line. Can the minister tell us then what policies
and programs this part of his staff is dealing with now? What are the major policies?
* (1530)
Mr. Findlay: The program analysis referred to in this
line, for the member opposite, is basically internal program activities. The
Vision document was handled by staff in this area, and there are a number of
other activities, programs and services guides, the FOI activities, freedom of
information, regional statistics co‑ordination, computer disc analysis,
diagnostic lab, vet scholarships, sustainable development activity report for
sustainable development unit, those kinds of more internal program analyses as
opposed to external, which we will talk about in Vote 6.
But I would like to remind the member that
that is where the leadership occurred for the Vision for the 1990s document for
the department, which is a blueprint for the next 10 years at least for this
department.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just wanted to ask the minister about that
document briefly. He spoke about it in
his presentation, and I believe the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) was
asking at that time whether that was presented to members. I have seen the document, but were copies of
that available? Can we get copies of
that document for those people that do not have it?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, this Vision for the 1990s
document was released by myself in January of 1992 and has been available out
of my office and out of the Ag reps' offices or wherever else somebody might
ask for it in the Department of Agriculture.
We had copies available at the Gate to Plate Agri‑Forum and now
here are a couple of copies for my critics. So it has been freely and broadly
available across Manitoba for about 14, 16 months.
Madam Chairperson: Does the honourable Minister of Agriculture
have one that can be tabled here with the table officers?
Mr. Findlay: No, two is it. We will get you one.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to ask for clarification. I want to move on to Financial and
Administrative Services. Is that okay to
move on to that?
Madam Chairperson: Does the honourable member for St. Boniface
wish to ask questions under 1.(b)?
Mr. Gaudry: No, that is fine.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries
$432,500‑‑pass; (b)(2) Other Expenditures $68,700‑pass; (3)
Policy Studies $71,200‑‑pass.
Item 1.(c) Financial and Administrative
Services (1) Salaries.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, one of the objectives is
to co‑ordinate the administration of federal‑provincial agreements
pertaining to agriculture, can the minister give us some indication on what
agreements he is working on right now?
What are the things that are being considered under federal‑provincial
agreements at this time?
Mr. Findlay: The agreement that is under consideration and
activity by the department right now obviously is sugar beets. There will be a
federal‑provincial agreement signed on that agreement that was agreed to
in the last few days‑‑the Green Plan that is being developed which
will be a follow‑up to Farming for Tomorrow which is still also under
activity there.
Once an agreement is signed, there are
always amending components to the agreements later on, and certainly GRIP and
NISA amending agreements do occur almost on an annual basis. So those activities are carried out by this
section.
Just to sum it up, we have activities in
sugar beets, NISA, GRIP, Green Plan and Farming for Tomorrow. Those are federal‑provincial agreements
and the amendments thereto.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to talk about some detail on some
parts of the Green Plan and some of the details on that. Again I want to ask clarification about where
that should be asked, under which section.
Mr. Findlay: Yes. I
would prefer it was discussed under Vote 7. Canada‑Manitoba Soil
Conservation Agreement.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification again, that is where
we would talk about the Farming for Tomorrow agreements and the soil and water accord
contracts and those kinds of things, Section 7?
Mr. Findlay: All detail related thereto could be discussed
there.
Mr. Gaudry: You mentioned that the agreement for the
sugar beets will be signed tomorrow.
Mr. Findlay: There is agreement in principle on detail
between the federal and provincial governments and the producers'
association. The process of actually
getting the agreement structured and signed will be many weeks or months away,
but there is agreement in principle on detail.
That is normally what happens to these ongoing negotiations. An agreement is arrived at and everybody
knows the detail, and it has to be put in writing by staff, federally and
provincially, and eventually an agreement gets signed.
Mr. Gaudry: Is this going to be a one‑year
agreement again, or will you be looking at a long term? I know you mentioned earlier that there is a
long story. I do not know how long it is
going to be to tell us this story, maybe it will take the rest of the
afternoon, I do not know.
Mr. Findlay: Back in '87 the 10‑year National
Tripartite Stabilization plan was signed, and because of events that occurred
in '87, a substantial deficit occurred in the plan on that very first year.
Over the course of time, the program was
in a reasonable degree of balance between premiums and payouts in '88, '89,
'90, '91 and '92. As '91 came to an end,
the federal government looked at the deficit that had been accrued in '87 that
was carried forward for Alberta and Manitoba, which are the sugar beet
producing provinces. That total deficit
was about $10.4 million.
The majority of that responsibility for
that deficit lies with the federal government.
The deficit accrued was about 60 percent in Alberta, the 40 percent in
Manitoba. That is kind of the acreage split
that occurs in sugar beets between the two provinces.
Around about '91, the federal government
said that the plan is in grave difficulty financially. It cannot be sustained. It will never be actuarially sound by the end
of the 10‑year period. So they
struck a special measures committee to analyze the overall industry, what role
it plays, what the problems are.
Clearly, one of the big issues was the
fact that no sugar policy exists in Canada.
In other words, sugar could be dumped from other countries in the world
into Canada at very low prices and really suppress the market price in Canada,
and therefore, decrease the value of sugar beets at the farm gate.
We had certainly hoped that the special
measures committee would address that because this is the only country in the
world that does not have a sugar policy.
So we are vulnerable to dump sugar.
In GATT principles, dumping is illegal, but the way we operate the sugar
industry in Canada, we do not stop it. I
wish we would, because then we would have a structural base to a market price
that would not require the kind of stabilization dollar input that we have.
* (1540)
As a result of that, the special measures
committee said that the offset to low sugar prices in this country has to be
government money in the form of stabilization.
I certainly argued that the federal government had a higher level of
responsibility here, because they are ones that will not put a sugar policy in
place to add some reasonable support to the market price. They refused to do that and took a position
that they would only put in stabilization money equal to what a province would
put in.
In the process of Tripartite
Stabilization, the maximums for for each government has been 3 percent; hogs,
cattle, onions, honey, it has been 3 percent.
In the beets, a year ago, we would not increase above 3 percent in terms
of Tripartite Stabilization contributions.
So beets went over to GRIP. In
this case, in Agriculture, we have maintained our 3 percent contribution, and
Industry, Trade and Tourism has put in an additional 1.5 percent so that the
agreement that we have now agreed to with the growers is 4.5 percent of
provincial money for stabilization, 4.5 percent from the federal government and
4.5 percent from the producers.
That is a bit of the history of what
brought us to where we are at so that the level of dollars going into the
industry will be up around $675,000 of government stabilization for sugar beets
in this province from the provincial government in '93 whereas, in my budget
last year, we spent about $395,000 for the industry‑‑so substantive
increase in dollars committed in the form of stabilization.
The support price for the growers, the
last couple of years, has been between $33 and $34 per tonne. This agreement allows a net stabilization
price for the growers per standard tonne of $36.72. In other words, that is the stabilization
price minus the producers contribution, which is close to $2 a tonne. So that is the history, a little bit more
recently.
You asked whether it is a one‑year
or longer. We would have liked to have
an agreement that was longer term, but because of all the other things that are
happening in terms of GRIP coming to an end in '95, other NTSP programs coming
to an end in '95 and the protracted negotiation process around dollars, pure
dollars. It was some time ago we came down to trying to have a one‑year
agreement to get us through '93. There
is structural evidence that there is a stronger market price today than there
has been for some time.
The company and the growers negotiated a
contract a little over a year ago so that the growers received more of the
export value, that is U.S. export value, for the sugar that goes down there,
which helps to support the producer price.
Strange as it may seem, although we only produce 10 percent of our sugar
in Canada, an awful lot of what is produced here is exported to the United
States. It is simply a matter of
transportation cost and closeness to market.
So a lot of events have occurred which give us, you know, a fair bit of
optimism and hope that the marketplace will be better in the future. If they can get another year under
everybody's belt, it will determine whether that is right or wrong.
I have asked for 28,000 acres, and the company
wants 28,000 acres. I hope growers will
produce that much. That is over 4,000
acres more than last year. I understand
there are growers that want to add acres, there are new growers that want to
come in, and that is all good. I hope
that is what happens, and if we get up to 28,000 acres, it will help the
negotiation process for next year.
The market price strength that is
currently there is maintained. Again,
the grower will get more from the marketplace and have less call on
stabilization, and over the course of the next, hopefully, nine months, we can
put in place something of more longer term stabilization for the industry,
keeping in mind the other discussions on other commodities around the year
1995. That is what is on the table and what has been the process of discussion.
I am disappointed that the federal
government would not take the level of responsibility that they should
take. Their own special measures
committee said that they should take more, and they did not. That is obviously a discussion for the
future, but I can certainly give the members a sense of confidence that that
issue was not just talked about once and forgotten. It was an issue of heated discussion. But in the end, you have to do what you have
to do, and we have done what we had to do.
Mr. Gaudry: You mentioned about the dumping of sugar from
other areas. Did free trade have any
effect on production of sugar in Manitoba?
Mr. Findlay: Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. Gaudry: Just one last question and I will pass it on
to the member for
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, in the process of
development, there were over 100 stakeholders in the industry involved in
evolving the Vision for the 1990s.
Within the department, six umbrella committees have been set up to
deliver the Vision approach on a day‑to‑day basis, activity‑to‑activity
basis. We have a Vision newsletter
within the department.
Those six committees draw upon and work
with people outside the department, as we try to get the whole industry of
agriculture to focus on the seven theme areas that everybody has identified as
critical for the future, areas like industry promotion and consumer awareness;
the crop identification corridor between Portage and Winnipeg last year was as
a result of this process; the Farming for Tomorrow activities, certainly
leading to a lot of the other sustainable activities in terms of shelter belts
and acres that were seeded in a conservation process, so it is an ongoing
activity; the 4‑H cleanup campaign that happened last Saturday across all
of rural Manitoba. It is good to see the
young people contributing in that fashion.
They earn a bit of money from Highways.
It helps the 4‑H program and beautifies the roadsides of
Manitoba. There is a lot of activity
associated in and around it‑‑the Gate to Plate forum, again another
offshoot of that Vision approach.
I am not saying that we have a magic wand
that we can wave to make everything good and perfect in the industry, but we
can, through a partnership approach, try to get the industry to understand the
challenges and deal with the issues. Collectively, between the government and
farmers and agribusiness, we can evolve our industry in a more positive
direction and try to get away from the conflicts between those various sectors
and have a greater sense of partnership, a commitment.
That is what the Vision is about. That is what the Gate to Plate was about, to
try to create partnerships and alliances and understanding and a forward‑thinking
approach as opposed to a standstill approach in the industry.
Ms. Wowchuk: I wanted to ask a couple of questions. I wanted to go back to sugar beets, but I
think I will just go on with this Vision for the 1990s and ask the minister: Is there anywhere in this Vision, or are
there any steps that are being taken, to assure that we have a better
understanding, a more made‑in‑Manitoba understanding and any
efforts to get more Manitoba food onto Manitoba plates?
As the minister says, we have the ability
to grow an awful lot here, but I do not think that people realize that there are
many products that have the food value that they need that are in
Manitoba. Are there any efforts being
made to educate people and to get the Manitoba foods into the Manitoba market
and onto Manitoba plates?
* (1550)
Mr. Findlay: Well, certainly consumer awareness to have
Certainly I will mention a number of the
things that are going on, but the member must be aware that the large food
chains do bulk buying. They buy a
particular food item in a particular region of the country, and in some cases,
you win on that, some cases you lose on it. You might have Alberta product on Manitoba
shelves. In some cases, you will have
Manitoba product on Alberta shelves.
Whether that is good or bad, it is difficult to say. We certainly want the food chains to buy
locally and put it on our shelves, but there are a number of things going on
that promote Manitobans consuming Manitoba product.
The Manitoba Food Processors Association
has been recently formed. I was present
at an unveiling of some logos that they are going to be putting out, and that
is identifying Manitoba products on the shelves, trying to promote Manitoba
product. Peak Vegetable Sales in Winnipeg has a big promotion every year when
the fresh produce starts to come on Manitoba shelves. The marketing boards in the malls and at
various fairs, particularly Brandon Fair, have significant displays where there
are six or seven. There is turkey, there
is chicken, there is beef, there is pork, and they have these cooking
demonstrations to initiate Manitobans to Manitoba product.
They also promote in the stores and they
promote in terms of TV ads, Manitoba product.
The Milk Board promotes milk in a variety of ways, through the schools,
through sports. Last year, we were
involved in a promotion with the Bombers in terms of Manitoba food products,
training table, food products.
So there are a lot of activities going
on. They are broadly based, and the
department is involved in many of them, and the industry as a whole is involved
in many of them. So again, it is a
partnership trying to maximize for least expense, trying to get the message
across to Manitobans about food products in Manitoba.
The process of Manitobans, particularly
rural people around Winnipeg, advertising gardens and contracts that you can
have to have certain products delivered to your doorstep at different times of
the year, again, it is another process to stimulate Manitobans in Winnipeg, the
particular large urban centre, to consume products that are produced in market
gardens around Winnipeg. It is an uphill
battle. I have to tell the member to
make sure Manitobans are aware.
I have been involved for some time trying
to be sure that beef that is on the retail shelf is identified as to whether it
is Canadian, period. We go through a
process as beef producers of having our beef graded, that in order to be
transported interprovincially it has to be federally inspected and graded. We
have a reputation of very high quality beef.
If you go to a retail store‑‑and
there is no rule‑‑U.S. beef can come in there ungraded, unidentified
as to country of origin, and I am sure many consumers are buying it thinking it
is the same as they bought last week which was Canadian produced and graded,
but it is not identified. I have been
trying to get Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally to accept responsibility
that all beef on the shelf has to be identified to country of origin and grade,
not just Canadian product.
Ours, as I said, has to be graded and
identified if it crosses a provincial border, but U.S. obviously crosses the
border, but it does not have to be. The
federal government response has been, well, each province should do it.
Unfortunately, Ontario has bought that line and they are in the process of
setting up provincial regulations. Well,
here we go with a patchwork‑quilt process across the country where one
government could handle the whole country.
So you identify beef‑‑of
country of origin and grade‑‑it gives the consumer a greater sense
of awareness of what they are buying, and it helps us to market our
product. So far, I have not been
successful.
Ms. Wowchuk: I hope that the minister will continue to
pursue that matter. Along with being
identified as Canadian, if there would be a way that we could encourage our own
stores to market Manitoba when it is in this province, that would also help us.
There are a lot of public institutions,
government‑run facilities in this province, and a tremendous amount of
food that is consumed. You look at
hospitals, you look at jails and those kinds of facilities, I wonder if the
minister's staff has done any research or given any consideration to the
possibility of using Manitoba‑grown or, in particular, locally grown food
in those institutions.
I look at possibly, well, let us take a
prison, for example, and no one in particular.
If we were able to use locally grown food in those facilities, it would
be a tremendous boost to the economy in the surrounding area around those.
I wonder if anyone has looked at that, any
consideration has been given to anything like that by anyone in the minister's
staff. Because if we are looking at the
rural economy and trying to look at ways that we might be able to stimulate our
communities and get some economic growth into them, Lord knows we do need some
economic growth in some of those smaller communities, this might be a way that
we might be able to help them.
I would just like to get the minister's
views on that, whether he would consider that a possibility to help small
communities stimulate their economy.
I realize, Madam Chairperson, that in the
end we might end up paying more for our food in this type of situation. It is a matter of whether or not we are
prepared to invest in our rural communities.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, on first blush it is easy
to concede to what you have said, that let us promote Manitoba products on
Manitoba shelves, but we cannot force people to do those sorts of things.
I mean, if a retailer wants to buy in
bulk, you can win and you can lose at that.
In some cases you will say, I will put a lot of Manitoba product on
Alberta or Ontario or Newfoundland shelves and of course vice‑versa, but
it is very clearly a double‑edged sword.
We have tried hard in our industry to
remove interprovincial trade barriers.
When I went to my first Ministers of Agriculture meeting in 1988, it was
the big issue. It was a big issue for
me. We set up a process to identify
interprovincial trade barriers, and I believe the number was 169 trade barriers
identified.
Now you try to get some of those removed,
it is very critical, because everybody is protecting their home turf. Now think of what we are doing in
Manitoba. I am talking about this double‑edged
sword. Yes, it would be nice to have
vegetables and potatoes produced in Manitoba on Manitoba shelves and guarantee
it and have that all work.
That is very nice, but what about the 70
percent of hogs that we produce in surplus to what we consume here? What about eggs? We produce 11 percent of
Canadian consumption of eggs, we have 4 percent of the population. Beef, 60‑70 percent of what we produce
here has to be exported out of the province, and export means crossing a
provincial boundary.
* (1600)
Now, if we put in a barrier that says, you
cannot put Saskatchewan or Alberta or Ontario products on our shelves, and they
say, well, tit for tat, and then we cannot move our pork east, cannot move our
eggs east, we end up losing in that.
In one sense, you help a few people, but
you hurt an awful lot of other people, because we have developed agriculture
here on significant export, east and west as well as international. My position
is, remove trade barriers, not add more trade barriers.
You have to remember the overall
picture. I just think that if we get too
aggressive in putting in restrictions on who can sell what, you help a few but
you hurt a lot. If we are going to
expand in agriculture‑‑the member talked about wanting to have more
activity in rural Manitoba‑‑that means producing more food
products. That means we are going to
have to export more, and the biggest market we have is within Canada. That means we have to move eggs east and pork
east, which we have done successfully in large, large volumes.
The last thing we want to do is encounter
barriers to prevent that. As she well
knows, the Egg Board is in serious difficulties because of aggressive anti
action coming out of Quebec and Ontario which is contravening a federal‑provincial
agreement that was signed 20 years ago.
We are very upset with what Ontario and
Quebec are doing, and we do not want to be part of that same process. Although I can agree in principle, on the
surface, but think about the bigger picture.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister may have misunderstood me. I was not talking about removing all products
from Manitoba stores and only selling Manitoba products in Manitoba
stores. I said, I look at particular
institutes where you do have some control, and I was asking if any
consideration had been made to where we might be able to use locally grown food
in those types of situations. It may not
be feasible, but that is where you have control. It is all government purchasing in a
situation like that and it might help a particular area if you could do that. Granted, you cannot put only Manitoba
products in the stores. I understand
that we have interprovincial trade, and I would not want to put any more
barriers up than we have. I would like
to see Manitoba food identified as Manitoba food. That does not restrict interprovincial trade.
I talked specifically about an institute
where everything is government purchased, and what I was asking is, has that
ever been given any consideration where we might be able to use more local
food? Would the minister consider doing
some research on that, whether that is a possibility? It may not work, as the minister said, but I
want to know whether anybody has done any work on that possibility and whether
he thinks it would be feasible to get more locally grown products into
provincial facilities? I am not talking
about the Legislature here or things; I am talking about things, as I said,
maybe where there is a prison or a hospital facility, things like that,
communities that are farther away from the city where it would be a real
economic benefit to the area.
Mr. Findlay: I think it is fair to say that from a
department point of view and agriculture point of view we support what the
member is saying. Yes, it is nice to see
more and more Manitoba product on the shelves, but for the institutions she is talking
about, the institution does the order buying or Government Services does the
order buying and I am pretty positive they do it on a tender basis, which is a
fair and reasonable way. I think
Manitobans can compete very well because, obviously, transportation costs are
lower if it is produced in Manitoba, but to specifically order it, it is
difficult if you are going to respect the tendering process and try to minimize
your costs.
We will promote the best we can the fact
that we can compete on the basis of quality and on price, and that is the
process that is going to establish who is going to buy what. I think we have been quite successful through
the various marketing boards in sort of passing that message around.
When you talk about the large food chains,
go back to that, it is a tougher process, because the way they do their order
buying you can win and you can lose at it.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I agree with the minister
on the larger food chains, that is more difficult. However, on the local ones if there was a way‑‑and
I guess we will have to take this to Government Services, but I firmly believe
that sometimes you might have to pay a little bit more if you want to support
the local economy. It does not always
boil down to the lowest common denominator of the dollar. Sometimes you have to be prepared to invest
in that local economy, and I think that we will discuss that a little bit
further as we get into Government Services.
I will remember to take it there.
I want to revert, the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) was talking about sugar beets, and I wanted to ask the
minister, are there‑‑and he may have answered it earlier‑‑long
term plans for a sugar beet policy? Is
there discussion with the federal Minister of Agriculture about how the sugar
beet industry should be handled in Manitoba and what is this minister's
position? What would he like to see as a sugar beet policy that would meet the
needs of producers over a longer period of time?
Mr. Findlay: I have advocated that for at least three
years at federal‑provincial meetings.
The only thing I can say is, it led to a special measures committee
approach which, at the end of the day, External Affairs turned thumbs down on a
sugar policy for Canada. Any kind of
border protection for the industry has been ruled out. The special measures committee eventually did
get that in writing from External Affairs.
It has been verbally transmitted many times.
We have lost that argument in terms of
having a national sugar policy in place that gives the industry a chance to
live with the marketplace, so we end up with stabilization programs as having
to offset that. I would have liked to
have had a longer term program for this year, but it got down to simply a
dollars‑and‑cents discussion process and ended up with a one‑year
program. We are looking forward to what
we can do for '94 and beyond on a more longer term basis.
As I said earlier, it has to be consistent
with discussions on what happens to NISA beyond '95, what happens to revenue
insurance beyond '95, what happens to the Tripartite Stabilization programs
beyond '95. I think, if I am pursuing
anything as a minister, and I think this is broadly accepted, it is that we
attempt to end up with whole‑farm stabilization that is commodity
neutral. It does not matter what you produce,
you get the same level of safety net support or stabilization, and NISA is
probably the program that can deliver that.
Whether sugar beets can fit into that
scenario remains to be seen, but that is a discussion for the months down the
road.
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Ms. Wowchuk: Just continuing on in sugar beets, the
minister has indicated‑‑if he has not, other people have indicated‑‑that
not everybody is happy with the price settlement that is there. There are some
producers who have said that they will not grow at this price.
Is the minister confident that at the
price that has been settled at, what, $36.72, there will be enough producers to
meet the requirements of the processing plant this fall, or is there a risk
that there will not be enough acreage planted and the plant could be in
difficulty?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am very confident
that we will have more acres in sugar beets this year than we had in the
past. At the meeting last night, over 70
percent of the producers voted in favour of the agreement as struck, the 4.5
percent from each participating party.
We have had numerous growers call our office saying they want an
agreement because they want to expand acres.
We have had lots of growers say, we are new, we want to get into it, and
at a support price, anything over $36 a tonne, we will be very happy with.
Alberta's support price is $37, so we are
only pennies different. The new contract
agreement between the company and the growers, in terms of sharing the export
revenue from sugar exported to the United States and the stronger market price
that exists right now, all those things are constructive in my mind to seeing
the acres increase from what they have been.
The strong support last night of over 70
percent, I take as a very favourable signal from the growers that they are
going to produce sugar beets.
Truthfully, if you look at what they can get from the stabilization plus
the market for sugar beets versus the wheat, the barley and the canola, I think
sugar beets look very attractive in their rotations.
* (1610)
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification, if those producers
decide not to grow, those contracts will then be open to other producers to get
into it? Those extra acres will be
available for other people to pick up, is that correct?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the company told me
they want to contract 28,000 acres, so they will be taking more acres from
existing contractors and new producers.
They have indicated all the way along they want 28,000 acres. That is why I have pushed for it. I think it is constructive to have all the
acres we can because of all the value‑added processing and all the
transportation associated with that industry.
I am confident that we will have over 25,000 acres, and I would be very
happy if we get the 28,000 and ecstatic if we go beyond that.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister talked about the future and this
being a one‑year term agreement and not sure of how it was going to be
handled. Was there any discussion
between the sugar beet growers and the Minister of Agriculture and the federal
government to bring sugar beets under GRIP?
Was that a consideration, and, if it was,
what were the consequences of that discussion?
Mr. Findlay: Early on in the discussions, and these
discussions started about four months ago, and they did not just happen
recently as you might tend to believe.
It has been going on for months.
We received a letter from the federal
government, I would say it was in late February, early March, which laid out
two options: enhanced Tripartite or
GRIP. I asked the growers which they
preferred. In Manitoba, they adamantly
said no to GRIP. They did not want to go into GRIP. They wanted the enhanced Tripartite
approach. From that point on, we
negotiated an enhanced Tripartite.
I called a meeting in Winnipeg on March
15, involving the federal government, the growers of Manitoba, the growers in
Alberta, the Alberta government and ourselves to try to come to a resolution on
this. Obviously that meeting did not
succeed, because we did not get a resolution till the beginning of May. It has
been a long ongoing process and, yes, GRIP was an option, but the growers did
not want that option.
Really, at the initial stages, the support
price offered or probably offered in both NTSP or GRIP would have been about
the same. The growers had reasons, known
to them, as to why they preferred the NTSP option. In the consultation process, which I believe
in, they wanted one particular angle so that is the angle I followed from that
point on.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister just explain for
clarification for me the difference? Why
would they have preferred Tripartite over GRIP?
I do not understand that part of it.
Mr. Findlay: I guess in a consultation process, if you
believe in it, you have to take the input from the other side and you will have
to ask them. This should really be
discussed again under Vote 6 or under Vote 8, the Income Insurance Fund and
Support Program, if you want further detail.
I do not have any of it in front of me, but we did get a letter from the
growers after I got the federal letter.
I asked the growers, which way do you want to go? They wrote me a long letter on all the
reasons why they said no to GRIP and yes to enhanced Tripartite.
In the consultation process, I have to
respect their judgment as a producer organization that is in close contact with
all their growers that that is the route they wanted to follow. So from that point on we pursued the enhanced
NTSP approach.
Ms. Wowchuk: I apologize.
We got off the track on sugar beets and I realize we should be doing
that on another line.
Getting back to Financial and
Administrative Services, in the Professional/Technical branch we see a
reduction of staff of 9.26, and when I read the second part of it, it is the
privatization of the foods and residential operation at the Agricultural
Extension Centre.
Can the minister tell us why that
happened, what the reasoning was, and also what has happened to those people
who were in those positions?
Mr. Findlay: What we have here is nine people involved in
lodging and meal services at the Brandon Extension Centre building on
There is one person who is full time and
the other eight are part‑time on demand, or as needed, sort of term
positions. We felt that we could no
longer operate a facility that is losing money for the government. We are restricted in what we can charge for
meals in terms of government rates.
Also, we did not want to be advertising this service in competition with
the private sector who are out there trying to also supply lodging and meals.
We feel if the centre is demarketed‑‑and
it can be marketed for greater use for both the lodging and the meals for
seminars, for weekend retreats for various organizations. It can be marketed, but I do not think it is
fair for us to market that facility in competition of the private sector.
If it is in the hands of the private
sector, then they can market it and get a greater use of the facility and save
us from the annual losses that range anywhere from $3,000 to $36,000 a
year. I think it will end up with more
use and probably better management in the process. The process of privatizing it will be through
a tender‑call process. The
department will analyze the tenders as to who the successful tender will
be. The people who had been currently
employed on a part‑time basis, we will be asking that they be given
consideration for being hired by whoever the successful bidder will be.
Ms. Wowchuk: It was my understanding that the Ag centre
was there to provide training, to offer different courses to people in the
farming community, and that this facility was, the accommodations were at a
very reasonable rate so that it was accessible to all people. I would have some concerns that now it will
be outpriced, there will not be the accessibility to people who were using that
facility.
I realize that it will be run somewhere
else, but it will be at an increased cost.
I think we might be losing the purpose of the Agricultural Extension
Centre to provide educational services for the farmers and for rural
people. So I have some concern that it
might be at a cost that might not be accessible to people as it was before.
When will the tender on this facility be
let go? When will we know who the
private contractor is that is going to be managing this facility?
* (1620)
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I hope the member is
not confusing the purpose of the Ag Extension Centre with the purpose of the
lodging and meal component. The two are
quite separate.
The Bain building, to be used for training
and courses, will remain exactly as it is today. The lodging and the meals have been an add‑on
to the facility. Yes, it was convenient
and it was nice, but we cannot go on losing money as government. If she looks around the country, she will see
all governments are starting to face that reality. It is nice if it was cheap, but somebody is
subsidizing and that cannot continue.
The user has to use it.
As I said earlier, if the person who
operates it in the future‑‑and the tenders will be called very
shortly, proposal calls will be put out very shortly, and we would hope that
the conversion occurs by the end of June, that is our hope. I cannot say that it can be met, but it is
our hope. We do not know who is going to
respond, whether the proposals will be adequate, reasonable or workable, but I
want to guarantee her that the process of using the extension centre for
training and education will continue in the future as it has in the past.
I can tell you if that food and
accommodation facility is competitively advertised and promoted, we will bring
more people to that centre, particularly weekend retreats by various groups,
and that will end up using the main building for the training process even more
in the future than it has been today. So
I see it as being a win‑win all around, and I think whether there are
increased costs remains to be seen.
If you can increase the usage by 25 or 50
percent, that shares some costs over more people, maybe the operator can offer
it at much the same rates today‑‑which are very attractive
obviously with the rest of the private offerings in the city of Brandon‑‑and
not increase the cost, because he shares the fixed cost over more people.
So there is something to be marketed, and
I think the private sector can do that, and it is the responsible thing to do.
Government should not compete with the private sector offering the same
services. Our role is training and using
the Extension Centre. The private
sector's role is supplying accommodations and meals for the people that come
and use the facility. I do not see any
less use. In fact, I personally see more
use.
Ms. Wowchuk: Maybe we could just go back a little bit.
Can the minister tell us or can his staff
advise him‑‑he says the extension centre will continue to
operate. When was the residential
section added on? He said it was built
on. How long has that facility been in
existence, and why now is it suddenly such a concern? If it was operating up until now and
providing service, why is it such a concern?
Has government not made any effort to increase the use of that facility
at any point?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we do not have the exact
date, but it would be early '70s, say, approximately 20 years ago, maybe 25
years ago, somewhere in that category.
The Extension Centre, we have aggressively
advertised courses, advertised to people to use it, but I am of the opinion
that more can be done. We will advertise
the use of the Extension Centre for courses and training. The private sector will advertise the
accommodations and the meal services for what they want to do. It will be in conjunction with the training
activities that occur in the Extension Centre.
All that will be analyzed by staff in the process of reviewing proposals
that will come forward.
The member asked me, why have things
changed. I am sure the member is aware
of what is happening in this country and the kind of budgets that come down in
places like Saskatchewan and Ontario and Newfoundland. This is a different world. We are not living in it with a government
with a rate of growth of income on the existing tax base of 16 to 18 percent a
year, which was happening in the '70s and the early '80s. Today you live with a growth on our tax base
income of 1 percent, plus 2 percent, maybe minus 1 percent. That is the reality. You see, it cannot go on. Things are not the same as they used to be.
Premier Rae of Ontario said, things are
not the same as they used to be. He said
it with a glum face. He meant it,
because he knows that is true. The
Premier of Saskatchewan said, we used the credit card too long, and they are
prepared to take the credit card away from us.
Those are harsh realities.
We were making decisions of this nature in
this government over the course of the last five years, trying to prevent
ourselves from getting in that dilemma that those two governments are in,
because they are telling the truth. We are
dealing with the facts of life and the truth right here.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I agree with the
minister. Things are not the same. In
that sense, I agree with him. Things are changing.
On the one hand, he continues to talk
about, farmers have to be educated, farmers have to be prepared to
diversify. We have a centre here where
people can be brought in for training.
Let us face it, some of these people are very low‑income
people. If we have a residence that is
set up there, we should be using that facility.
I just have to say that I disagree with
this move. I disagree with what you are
doing with this particular centre, and we will leave it at that.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. McAlpine): Item 1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services
(1) Salaries $975,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $453,700‑‑pass.
1.(d) Computer Services (1) Salaries
$255,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $77,400‑‑pass.
Item 1.(e) Personnel Services (1) Salaries
$265,800.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would like to ask
the minister a couple of questions as far as staffing goes. Earlier, under decentralization, I mentioned
briefly vacant positions. I want to ask
the minister, when we look at the total number of staff years within the
department, how many positions do we have that are vacant, identified as staff
years but positions that have not been filled within the department.
Mr. Findlay: At this point in time, there are 39
vacancies, but now that the member has raised staff, I want to make her aware
of something that I am going to comment on because I am proud of it. That is the fact that on April 1 of 1992, my
department's employees were 48.3 percent women.
On December 31 of '92, my department's staff was 51.0 percent women.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister must have anticipated my next
question, and that is on the affirmative action plan. I am pleased to hear that there are 51
percent women working in this department.
I want to ask the minister if he has any breakdown, whether most of
those positions are in clerical staff or whether women are being hired in the
upper management of the departments.
Where are the women being hired?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we made a conscious
effort to have women in more management positions in the department, and we
have in the last year‑‑there are 13 women who have been appointed
to what we call nontraditional roles. It
is people like Joanne Buth, Chief of Crops Management; Norma Toews, Manager of
Accounts; Janet Kelly, Field Officer in Killarney; Davetta Sheppard, Acting
Director of Finance, MACC. There have
been a number of women moved up into, we will call, senior management
positions. There is an acting regional
director in Portage now, a woman, Dori Gingera, former chief of 4‑H, and
another woman has taken her place in an acting position of chief of 4‑H.
* (1630)
Many women have moved up in senior
positions in the department over the course of last year as well as the
increased percentage in the department.
I think 51 percent, if I can go back to that, is just about the average
percentage of women in the population.
Ms. Wowchuk: I sincerely want to congratulate the minister
on this because the statistics do show that women are slightly over 50 percent
of the population, and it is time that they did start to take some of the
positions that they have rightfully earned. I hope that the minister will
continue on in this. There are many
others, as the opportunities arise, that we do see more women in management
positions.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
[interjection] Someone just mentioned
here, as we look at his staff. I am not
discrediting any of his staff. At some
point, it might be nice to see women at that table as well. That was just meant lightheartedly. I appreciate what he is doing to increase the
number of women.
I guess just on that, has this created any
problems? Women bring different
responsibilities with them, family responsibilities. Has the minister or the personnel staff seen any
differences in people carrying their workload or different demands on leave
time needed, or have any special arrangements been necessary within the
department as far as child care goes? Has the increase in the number of women
in the departmental staff brought along any other changes that have been
addressed?
Mr. Findlay: Certainly, Madam Chairperson, there are
different issues around the workplace today than there were 20 years ago. We
operate by civil service guidelines, and the basic answer to your question is
no, there are not unusual circumstances.
I can assure the member that we are signing a lot of replacement
authorizations for people who take maternity leave, but that is part of the
modern‑day workplace. It is not
unusual. It is just a fact of the way it
is.
I hear lots of compliments about the
ability of the various female staff to perform.
On the sugar beets, Carolynn Osborn has been the chief operator from our
department in the whole process of negotiation over the course of many months. I have had people who have been in contact
with her on the sugar beet issue and other commodity groups she works with
saying very positive things. They are
really excited by her professional capabilities. I get that many times from Ag reps who are
female, from MACC agents who are female and all the roles that they play. I hear nothing but positives.
We all know that there is a little bit of
a concern out there about whether women can perform the roles, and I am sure
most people will not comment until they have done exceptionally good. I have no
qualms in saying that the female staff are doing exemplary performance in their
jobs and the issues that we deal with in the department are very similar to any
place in today's modern workplace environment.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am pleased the minister does recognize that
these people are capable of doing the job, but that he also does recognize that
women have faced greater challenges than men have when it comes to breaking
into upper management and that type of thing.
That is just the way the world was, but I am glad to see it is evolving.
When I was asking about the questions, I
guess I was looking more at special situations that arise. I was wondering about daycare situations, and
I guess that, in some cases, is addressed through the government daycare. There are facilities. I hope this will also reflect, when we see an
increase in women in the staff, as well, an increased awareness by all
government people of the challenges that women face in the agricultural industry.
We have talked about this at other
times. We talked about the difficulties
some women face in crop insurance and just lines of credit, establishing
themselves in the bank. So I hope these
changes we see within the Department of Agriculture will reflect on the changes
that have to happen in the whole industry with respect to recognizing the
ability of women and that women do choose at times to choose nontraditional
fields of occupation, but that also, when women do go into these professions,
we have to have greater family supports there for them.
When women played the role of the
homemaker, they looked after many of the jobs that now they need support
with. I hope we will see a recognition,
through all policy that is developed through the Agriculture department, that
will recognize the fact that women are taking on more nontraditional roles, and
that as the department develops policies, they look at how it impacts on these
women who choose to go into these fields, that there is a whole different angle
that has to be looked at, because it affects the whole family. So I hope that this will also be implemented
over the years as the department develops policy.
Mr. Findlay: I can assure the member that that is true in
the department as a whole. I think it is
fair to say that industry more and more is looking at a person as a person as a
person, as opposed to a person who is a male or a female.
They are looked at in terms of their
competence professionally to perform the job.
I will tell you, any job that was advertised in the department over the
last two or three years, there were 30, 40, 50 and sometimes 60 and 70 people
who applied, and the competition is looking for the best person.
I do not think there is any selective
process to try to improve the number of women.
It just happens that they are competitively doing better in the
analysis, in the competition process.
Their performance is admirable, and it will make some of the male
members of society improve their professional competence in order to compete in
the Department of Agriculture.
In the industry as a whole, more and more
often, you meet chemical reps who are female.
Let us face it, that is a nontraditional role and a difficult one
because some of the things they will face in their workplace, travelling from
farm to farm, are tough. It is really
tough. I sense society is getting more
tolerant, more understanding‑‑a person is a person is a person, and
that is the way we try to operate.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am pleased about this, and I hope that we
will see the same recognition of the skills of people in other departments of
this government as well. The Department
of Agriculture has done well in this recognition.
I want to move to the 39 vacancies that
the minister had indicated that there was.
Can the minister tell us what the plans are? Is there the intention to fill these
vacancies. Is there a particular section
of the Department of Agriculture where we see these vacancies or is it just
spread right across the board? Why is
there such a high number of vacancies?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the vacancies are not in
any particular section. There is an
ongoing roster of vacancies, positions being advertised and filled. There are people who move on to other things
in life, they resign, people who retire. There is an ongoing process of people
going on the list and positions coming off the list.
* (1640)
It is fair to say that it runs in that
category on almost a continuous basis.
The department executive prioritizes the positions that need to be
filled the quickest. Obviously
competitions take time. There are some
positions that need to be filled right away; others positions can wait a few
months. It is an ongoing management
process for the executive of the department that they do week in and week out.
I can guarantee the member, they are
broadly based across the department. It
is just a factor of the workplace again.
It is surprising the number of people who retire; a lot of notable
people have retired in the last year from the department. Also, a lot of people go back to farming or
go back to homemaker or they get on with a private sector company. It is an ongoing process.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess what I was asking the minister was
whether or not there was any freeze in his department for hiring but, from the
answer he has given, this is just an ongoing process. That was the concern I
had, to see 39 vacancies, and my concern was that if they were not going to be
filled then where was the service going to be reduced? If they are ongoing, that is fine.
I want to move onto another section here
and that is the workplace health and safety committee system. We all hear the statistics about the number
of farm accidents that we have, the dangerous situation that farmers work in
and in particular accidents with children.
It is very serious the number of lives that are lost in farm accidents.
I understand that other governments have
moved to developing a workplace safety package to deal with farm accidents,
brought in working regulations, and I am wondering, is that the role of the
work health and safety committee? Are
you looking at farm safety and how we can improve standards in the farm
community? What is the role of this committee?
Mr. Findlay: The Workplace Safety and Health committee
that you are referring to relates to the department. This is internal within the department
working with staff. In terms of the
broader issue of farm safety and all that, we can deal with it under Vote 5
under Tech Services where we are involved more broadly with the farm community
on agribusiness in terms of the broader question of safety on the farm.
It is a serious issue. It is a concern, and we all know that in
today's farm situation, there is more activity by the wife in doing farm
activities. People do take their
children out. In some cases I have heard
of the situation where they lock them in the house. Well, they will be safe because they are
locked in the house.
It is an unfortunate situation, but it is
of concern and I think the figure last year was some eight children were
injured in farm accidents. It is not a
nice statistic at all.
A lot of effort is made by the department
in terms of trying to convince people to think safety first. I will give the machine companies
credit. They do a lot of work too to
make sure the appropriate signage is in place on all kinds of equipment. We
have chemical fertilizer dealers doing training courses for people handling
anhydrous ammonia to improve safety there.
Manitoba Hydro goes around to various
fairs with their demonstration on moving augers and overhead wires. So it is an ongoing process trying to improve
safety. It will never end. I wish I could think that it would stop
accidents from happening, but all we can do is hope that we reduce the number
of accidents as much as possible. Human
error is generally a factor in an accident, fatigue and not thinking obviously
another factor. In today's stressful
lifestyle, you cannot eliminate it entirely, but education continues by the
department working with the total industry.
If you want more detail we will get it in Vote 5.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will bring that up again under Vote 5, and
I apologize again for getting into the wrong section here.
I want to ask the minister if it would be
under Personnel Services that we could discuss the shorter workweek, the four‑day
workweek, or where would we talk about that? [interjection] Okay.
If this is the section, I want to ask the
minister what his feelings are about how his department will run when we look at
the letter that has gone out, the shutdowns that are going to take place during
the summer months which is the busiest season in the farming community.
I wonder whether his department has done
any analysis of this, what the implications will be throughout the
department. I think about things like
hail claims that may happen on Thursday and many other things that will get
delayed. I know that when we talked to
people who were in GRIP and some of the backlogs that happened at Manitoba Crop
Insurance, they said it was just too much work.
So I wonder what the implications are
going to be, and what kind of backlog we are going to see with the reduction in
the workweek, and whether any consideration has been given perhaps to shifting
that workweek shutdown to a different time of the year when it will not have
such an impact on the farming community?
Mr. Findlay: Certainly the department executive has looked
at how to handle these 10 days off, and it is fair to say that their
consideration is to use seven days in the summer, and three during the
Christmas and New Year's break.
Staff generally believe there is no slow
time. There is always work ahead of
them, always work to be done. Let us
face it, there are events, emergencies that can happen, with an outbreak of a
disease or a hailstorm or a surge of activity at the vet lab, and these 10 days
off will be treated no differently than the weekends off.
If there is an emergency, a disease or a
hailstorm or at the vet lab, staff do work on days off, whether they are
Saturdays, Sundays or statutory holidays.
This would be part of the same process, where emergencies or a need
arises, they will adjust. They operate with flexibility.
I think it is fair to say that you will
find staff that will show up at work as if they never had the 10 days off, they
are that committed. It will happen
occasionally, but staff, the general principle is, the government policy of
seven days in the summer, seven Fridays, and the three days between Christmas
and New Year's, but will respond to emergencies when and where they have to be
responded to, as they always have in the past on long weekends or normal
weekends. That is traditional policy in
the Department of Agriculture, and these 10 days will be treated the same way.
* (1650)
Ms. Wowchuk: Just a little further on that, so what will
the adjustment be? How is it normally
handled? Is this handled as overtime or
do they just adjust and take another day off somewhere else? I am wondering if they have to work on a day
that is supposed to be a day off, is it going to be overtime pay and in the end
not saving money? How will that be
addressed?
Mr. Findlay: It will be dealt with the same as anytime
that people work on weekends now. It
would be other days off. There will be
flexibility in the other days off. So a
day worked is exchanged for a day off somewhere else, some other time of the
year, any other day of the week, whatever works out. So staff have the responsibility of managing
that process in the context of 10 less days pay.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, you say here, continue
staffing vacant positions for the decentralized branches. How many positions have become vacant since
you have decentralized these branches?
Do you look for local people or do you advertise across the province for
these vacant positions?
Mr. Findlay: Certainly, in the process of
decentralization, the government used a very humane process in dealing with
people that did not want to move for whatever reason, and other positions were
found or they were put on the redeployment list.
Where positions were advertised, say, MACC
in Brandon, or Crown Lands in Minnedosa, or Soils and Crops in Carman, the
advertisement was for anybody. Anybody
could apply. Certainly, in certain
cases, local people obviously had a little bit of an inside track because they
lived there. If somebody was hired from
another location, the desire was to have them live in the community where the
job is, not mandatory, but if the person is going to drive from a distance, it
is a fair cost.
It is fair to say that a lot of the
positions that were filled in the decentralization process in the locations
like Brandon, Carman, Minnedosa were filled by local people, or people within
20 miles. Again, for many people, it has
created another off‑farm employment opportunity. A lot of people are farm wives or part‑time
farmers that were the successful candidates in these competitions.
There was not any specific desire to hire
locally, but it worked out that many were, and many that were hired from
distances away would move to the community.
So the end result, you ended up with more people in the community
working for the government and bringing a payroll to that town. They built houses, and they have their kids
involved in the local community activities.
There are more volunteers. It has
a lot of spin‑off benefit for the communities.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, in regard to hiring local
people also, personally, I would look at having young people that are looking
for positions in their community. It
would tend to keep them in the community.
Could the minister tell us how many young people were employed in these
positions that would have gone otherwise out of the community?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, it is interesting the
member would raise it. He and I being
about the same age, we are excluding ourselves from ever being successful in
these competitions, but there is no discrimination on age or no bonus points, I
guess it is fair to say, for age.
Some of the positions were filled by young
people, some by middle age, some by older people, so there is no
discrimination, and no preference can be given.
We have to be nondiscriminatory, but do not forget, where we are at in
our lifestyle, we do not want to be excluded either.
Mr. Gaudry: In talking about decentralization, the
minister mentioned a redeployment list and people that did not want to move
out. How many of these people did not
want to move when you decentralized your department?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, out of the 94 positions
that we have decentralized, each individual had really three options. They
could accept the transfer, the move; they could take early retirement, which
many did; or they could go on the redeployment list, which many did. In total 28 have moved or are commuting. Some
have stayed in Winnipeg, are commuting to the job, and so there are 28 that
went with the job; 58 were hired into the position. Out of that 58, 44 will be called local, so
that means 14 are not necessarily local, so they take a bit of commuting to get
to the community where they are working, out of the 94 positions.
So we have created a lot of new jobs for
people. As I said, 44 local people
received jobs because of decentralization; 28 moved; some of them are still
commuting; and 14 were hired from areas that would be called nonlocal.
Mr. Gaudry: In those positions, have there been any
retirements of these employees that were on the redeployment list?
Mr. Findlay: Eleven have retired and 25 have been
redeployed.
Mr. Gaudry: In the 25, were there any that have accepted
a severance package because of the fact that they did not want to continue with
the department?
Mr. Findlay: All those that have retired have received a
severance package, as does anybody who retires.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to ask the minister, on the
management staff, there is a large reduction in salary. Was there a change in management in this
department. What happened here? There is still one staff year in it, but a
decrease of some $12,000‑$14,000.
Has that been a change of staff?
Mr. Findlay: With all the background noise and the fan
over there, we cannot hear. Our time is
just about up. We will answer for you
beginning of next session.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress
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.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? [agreed]
Also, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) who has one minute
remaining. Stand?
Is there leave that that matter also
remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation,
standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (
This is a very important act, as are all
of the other private members' bills that have been brought before this House in
the last four years by the party of which I am a member. This particular bill has a very interesting
history, Mr. Speaker. The principles
behind it and the bill itself have very many similarities with another bill
that was brought forward by the same member over three years ago and was passed
unanimously by this House over three years ago and then never proclaimed, that
being the antisniff legislation.
Just recently the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) has brought in a pale imitation of that piece of legislation, which we
will be discussing at great length in the House at its appropriate time. So I will not go into any more detail on that
particular piece of legislation at this time, except to say that the process
that was followed by the antisniff legislation is eerily similar to the process
that has been followed by first Bill 36, which was introduced a couple of
sessions ago, and now Bill 203.
The purpose of this piece of legislation
is to ensure health care consumer access to medical records.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very
difficult for any member of this House, either government or opposition, at
this time to put on record any statements in opposition to the principle behind
this bill. I say that because the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and his colleagues in the government have touted
strenuously, at least verbally, their commitment to health care reform,
elements of which include decentralization, local service delivery and
patients' rights.
Well, this piece of legislation, should it
be enacted by the government‑‑and it certainly would be supported
by members of the NDP caucus‑‑would facilitate all of those
processes that the government speaks to.
I would like to begin my comments by
giving just a brief background on the history of this legislation. It actually was a result of several years of
consultation beginning in 1988 by the then‑NDP Health critic, the
honourable member for Churchill, Jay Cowan, who spent a great deal of time
discussing the whole issue of access to health care records, confidentiality of
health care records, and the process for enabling both access and
confidentiality to be maintained.
Mr. Speaker, unlike this government, which
talks about consultation and talks about meeting with the people who are
actually impacted by legislation particularly in the field of health care, the
member for Churchill, Mr. Cowan, actually did something about it.
An Honourable Member: Yes, he did.
Ms. Barrett: He certainly did. He consulted with health care consumers,
health care professionals, facilities, doctors, unions and ordinary Manitobans
throughout the province.
An Honourable Member: Did he consult with them, too?
Ms. Barrett: He certainly consulted with ordinary
Manitobans.
I think it is very interesting that Mr.
Cowan consulted with health care professionals and doctors, because often in
our society‑‑thank goodness it is changing now‑‑we have
confused health care professionals with doctors without realizing that the
health care system includes a wide range of professionals in addition to the
professional doctor.
I think it is important that we recognize
in all of our deliberations on health care reform the vital role that is played
by all of the health care professionals in the field, and not simply the
doctors who are one major component, but certainly not the only one.
Another component of this consultation was
that the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties was especially helpful in
this deliberation that was undertaken by the then‑member for Churchill,
Mr. Cowan, especially their health care consultation rights committee.
The Manitoba Association of Rights and
Liberties is a nonpartisan organization that has done a great deal of work in
the whole area of rights and liberties in the province of Manitoba and has
provided a great deal of support and direction and, at times, advocacy and
concern to various governments in this province of several political stripes.
They have an excellent record and
certainly cannot be accused of being partisan in any way, shape or form. I put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because
the government has the nasty little habit of accusing various organizations
that are referred to by members of the opposition as being tools of the
opposition, or alleging that they are not independent and apolitical. Well, MARL certainly is apolitical and
independent and has a well‑deserved, positive reputation.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, MARL wanted,
and as did we, an all‑party co‑operation on this piece of
legislation, something that we thought we had achieved in the antisniff
legislation only to have our hopes and our expectations dashed. I must excuse myself, I am digressing.
The parallels do keep coming to the
forefront. MARL tried several
times. I would imagine, knowing the
history of this government, they tried on numerous occasions to contact the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who then as now was the member for Pembina
with, surprise, surprise, absolutely no success.
I know the honourable members will find it
extremely hard to believe that the Minister of Health, the honourable member
for Pembina, had no sense that he should consult with this very prestigious
group about a very important health care issue.
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, calls were placed. Letters were written. Not a single call was returned, not even a
single letter of acknowledgment by the minister or his department. The Health Care Consumers' Rights Committee
of the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, after several months of
being frustrated at every turn by the Minister of Health‑‑something
that we on this side of the House and health care organizations in this
province know too full well his typical modus operandi‑‑did hold a
press conference that was attended by members of both opposition parties,
presented their briefs and made their request for consultation in November of
1991.
In June of 1992, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme
Court ruled that records belong to doctors, but patients have full access to
the files. I quote from that
statement: The patient has the right
upon request to inspect and copy all information in the patient's medical file
which the physician considered in administering advice or treatment.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important
although very simple concept that while the physical files must remain in the
possession of the doctor for very good and sufficient reasons, the content of
the files must be accessible to the patients.
The patients are the ones who are being affected by the treatment and
any other consultation or activity that the doctor takes under advisement in
dealing with his patient.
In September, just several months after
the Supreme Court ruling, the government finally acted. It would not act on the recommendation of the
opposition parties, and it would not act on the recommendation of the Manitoba
Association of Rights and Liberties, but it did respond finally to a Supreme
Court ruling.
A letter was sent from the Evaluation and
Audit section of the Department of Health to all executive directors,
administrators, hospitals, personal care homes and other health facilities asking
if legislation was needed. They asked
for a response in one month. I love it,
Mr. Speaker. They obfuscate, refuse to
respond to legitimate requests for over two years, and then demand a response
from every health facility in the province in one month.
In December of last year, the member for
St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) asked if the minister would put his
comments on the record regarding this piece of legislation, regarding the
requirement of the Supreme Court that health records be made available to
patients, and if the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) would table the results
of the survey of all health facilities that was held in September of 1992 as to
the need for legislation in order to implement the Supreme Court ruling.
To date, nothing has happened. The Minister of Health has refused to respond
to those requests. There is no
government legislation on record, and patients continue to have to rely only on
the Supreme Court ruling if they wish access to their files. There is no
provincial legislation.
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for Bill
203. I am sure the member for St. Johns,
who introduced this legislation, would be more than delighted if the government
also introduced its own bill that covered the areas that this piece of
legislation covers. We on this side of
the House hold no hope for that happening as we have seen with the antisniff
legislation. Any legislation that the
government does bring in is likely to be, as I stated earlier, a pale imitation
of the needed legislation.
So we are going to continue to ask during
this session of the Legislature for the government to support Bill 203 so that
the patients of Manitoba will have access to their files as required by the
Supreme Court of Canada.
In order for health care reform to be
truly effective, it must include consumer involvement and it must include and
assist self‑help models. Consumers
must be responsible for their own health care.
We all agree with that, but how can consumers be responsible for their
own health care if they do not know what is in their own medical files? Knowledge is power, Mr. Speaker, and if the
basic knowledge of their own health care files is kept from patients, they
cannot be full participants in their own health maintenance and health care.
Self‑help models are needed so that
individuals and groups can avail themselves of the information that is put
forward in their files. Consumers must
have the fundamental right of access to their own health care records. The natural justice, the Supreme Court ruling,
and all of the consultation that has been done throughout the province of
Manitoba in the last five years leading up to the introduction of Bill 203,
have that as a basic tenet. Individuals
in all areas of their lives should have access to information that reflects
directly on their own health and well‑being in a number of areas.
However, I think it is arguably the single
most important area that many people will face, and by that I mean the health
care records area. It is essential that
Manitobans have the ability to be well informed about their health care, that
they be allowed to have access to their records, and that doctors know that
this is the process and the procedure that must be followed, so the doctors are
aware of what kinds of material should be in the file so that they are more
easily accessible and understood by patients, so the doctors know, if there is
a fee to be charged, what the fee structure is going to be. That kind of information can only be made
available to the health care professionals through regulations upon passage of
a piece of legislation.
I cannot understand why this government
would not bring forward legislation to deal with this fundamental right of
Manitoba citizens. The Supreme Court, as
I stated, ruled in June 1992 that this was a fundamental right. The government did respond by sending out a
questionnaire to every health care facility in the province, and it is
incumbent upon the government to act upon that information. So I would urge the government to support
Bill 203 in speedy passage so that the patients in Manitoba have a fundamental
right to their information.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege
for me to participate in this debate concerning The Health Care Records Act,
Bill 203. I think there are at least
three issues here that we have to discuss.
The first issue is what I call the issue
of human dignity. The question is whether a patient, an individual person, has
the integrity and dignity to be able to see and to look at her own physical and
medical records. I think it is an insult
to any human being, to any individual to be denied access to information
concerning the very own health of her own physical body, or his own physical
body.
Why is it that it is a rule sometimes that
patients are denied information concerning their own physical condition? It has been traditional in our society to
accord certain individuals who occupy social roles too much power over others,
and among the powerful position of roles in our society are the professionals,
including the medical doctors and the lawyers and the judges and other people
of high reputation in our society. If
they are given the exclusive authority and exclusive right to possess the information
concerning the file of individuals, that gives them too much power, in my
opinion, that they can control and manipulate that information to the detriment
of other individuals. In other words, it
promotes power to the holder of the position, and yet dependency and
helplessness on the part of individuals subjected to their authority and to
their formal position.
* (1720)
This is the case with the patient who is
denied information about her own physical and medical condition. She is too dependent and becomes helpless and
powerless as far as the relationship with her own medical doctor. Whatever the doctor will tell her, of course,
will be like God speaking to the individual and cannot be negated, whatever the
instruction is.
Indeed, in our own civilized society it is
very difficult to go against the advice of your medical doctor, a very powerful
individual. Sometimes he will prescribe
things for you that in your own natural state of mind, in your natural feeling,
you know it is not good for you. Who has
the most information, the most sense, the most judgment to make the decision
whether or not a medical prescription is good for the individual except the
individual who is taking it?
Of course, you will say, the doctor who
studied a number of years in medical college should know what he is
prescribing. But medical doctors are not
entirely immune from any kind of self‑interest. Sometimes they get free medical samples from
drug companies, and in exchange for the advantages that they enjoy, they may
try certain kinds of medicine on certain people.
We have seen tremendous consequences about
this. When we have seen, for example, in
the past people have been tried with certain kinds of new medical drugs that
are not yet tested in the market and have suffered. Just remember the case of the thalidomide
babies, when they prescribed certain drugs to pregnant mothers with some
horrendous consequences for the children.
Also, the kinds of prescriptions that some
American drug company had tested in Canada. We have witnessed the consequences of that in
terms of the neurological sanity of people.
A case in point is the wife of the former member of Parliament, Winnipeg
North. She died before she even had a
claim to compensation for the injuries that she had suffered as a result of
this error on the part of medical companies.
Therefore, it is very important that
patients should be accorded the information that is essential to her own self‑respect
and self‑awareness. People should not
be subjected to the complete and absolute control of any other person.
Confidentiality, of course, is the rule that facilitates all of these kinds of
inequality in the relationship of people with people.
Moreover, the right to know should not be
denied. The person, herself, if it
involves her very physical, mental and emotional stability and sanity, that is
the issue.
I think one of the major causes of
inequality in our society is the so‑called rule of confidentiality. They make the relationships confidential so
that nobody else can enquire into it.
Therefore, any kind of unfairness, any kind of inequality will be hidden
from the public scrutiny. That
facilitates, of course, some kind of scandal sometimes, in the relationship
between individuals, among individuals in our society.
The public's right to know should be
respected because the public's right to know is essential to the integrity of
the individual human being himself.
Denied such right to know to your own physical information, you are reduced
to something less than a human being. If
you are denied the right to access information concerning your own physical and
mental and emotional condition, you are reduced to less than a robot or an
automaton, you are reduced to less than a human being. It is simply unacceptable. It is simply irresponsible.
Now the question is: Who has a right to this medical record? Is it the physician who has physical control
of the record, or is it the patient himself who has a vital and basic interest
in the information in one's own record?
Well, the Supreme Court judges had ruled
in June 1992 that physical records, as a matter of physical thing, belong to
the doctor, but the information that is contained on this physical file is a
matter of information to which the patient is entitled to inspect and to make
copies of, all this information, upon payment of reasonable fees for
reproduction of such information, and that the right of the patient is limited
to the information related to the diagnosis, the advice and the treatment of
the illness of the patient.
However, if the doctor believes that the
patient is not entitled to see their own record, it will not be for the
interests of the patient to see their own record, that can be denied the
patient. That is the ruling of the
Supreme Court.
I suppose it will be in a situation where
someone is in an unbalanced state of mind or someone has some incurable kind of
disease like cancer or other terminal illness, that it will make the matter
worse if the patient knew what the disease is all about. Nevertheless, still it is debatable in my
mind why a patient should not know if she is dying or not. If she is really suffering a terminal kind of
a disease, I think it is still her right, or his right, to know that such is the
case.
Why should a person be denied the right to
know that the illness is terminal in nature?
Who is the master of your own self except yourself? I am just asking the question, but then, if
you are mentally incapacitated, for example, you have a very low level of
intelligence, or you are born with a level of intelligence of a child two years
old, say, you are an idiot‑‑well, it is nice to be an idiot
sometimes because you can disclaim responsibility. I say, well, you cannot be blamed for
anything if you are an idiot because all you can say is, oh, I am sorry, I did
not know that.
Aside from those exceptional
circumstances, it is very difficult to deny to the individual the right to
basic information concerning your own health or his own health or his own
chances of life or death.
The real interesting question related to
this is the right of people who are a liability to society to perpetuate and
multiply themselves. This has been a
case in the Supreme Court in the United States, when a long time ago, they had
the issue of whether they can remove the rights of women who had bred morons to
reproduce, and siblings who are also morons, and whether or not you can deny
the right of any human being to the pursuit of happiness, so to speak, by
denying the right to reproduce. Can they
be sterilized, for example?‑‑a very interesting issue for society.
If you were in a position to make the
judgment, would you sterilize people who are breeding idiots in our
society? I cannot be a God and say you
should do this or do that. I think it is
a matter of basic public policy for those who are temporarily in control of
society to make that decision which is also a moral decision. [interjection]
* (1730)
The same issue that the member for
Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has been raising‑‑if you are, let us say, a
subordinate in a hierarchical organization, like a military organization, and
you are subjected to the absolute control of your own superior, and you know
that there are certain rules that if you do not obey the command, you can be
shot for disobedience. The question is,
would you obey or disobey an order which you know is immoral?
That is the same question that had been
settled in the Nuremberg trial. In the
Nuremberg trial, it has been decided that that is no excuse. You cannot say that because you are afraid
for your life, you are therefore exempt from liability in executing an order
which you know in the first place is illegal or immoral. There is such a thing called command responsibility,
and those who are at the top of the hierarchy in the chain of command will be
held accountable for the acts of their subordinates if these acts of
subordinates amount to criminal acts, even if they do not know what their
subordinates are doing.
The same thing holds true in our civil
service. The minister who is at the
political level is accountable for his own department and is held by our rules
and practices to be accountable for practices of their civil servants despite
the fact that they may not have actual knowledge of what is going on in his own
department. Therefore all the honourable
ministers in government should be held accountable for the activities of their
own department regardless of actual knowledge on their part or not.
There is a primordial rule or principle in
our society which says‑‑even in the private sector, we have a rule
that says customers are always right.
That is a rule in private business, in the private sector. There is an equivalent rule in the governmental
sector, the voter is always right. That
is the assumption. The patient is both a
voter as well as a customer. Why can the patient not have the right also to
have the information that a medical doctor should have? That is the question, Mr. Speaker, and I
think the patient should have that right to her own information.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? No. Okay.
As previously agreed, this matter will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
speak in favour of this particular amendment brought forward by my colleague
the member for Kildonan. He brought this
forward last year in the Christmas sitting of the legislative process, and it
gives us the opportunity now to speak on this particular amendment, Bill 205,
The Ombudsman Amendment Act.
We feel that it is a very good amendment, Mr.
Speaker. We feel that it is worthy of
support from all sides of the Chamber. We look forward to the government later
on perusing the bill and investigating and realizing its merits to individuals
in Manitoba. We know that they will be
supporting this bill unlike a piece of legislation that was passed, private
members' legislation that was passed, in a previous session which the
government failed to proclaim.
Unfortunately, we see now that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) in a
feeble attempt to redeem himself is bringing forward a similar piece of
legislation, but it fails on many points.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, this particular piece
of legislation brought forward by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) expands
the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints within the educational
system. I suppose and I imagine most
members would be quite surprised that currently it is a situation here in the
province that the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate
complaints within the educational system.
This particular amendment would deal with that specific issue and as
well it would relieve school boards in the province of any potential or
perceived conflict of interest. It would
allow for the investigation into complaints by children or parents, teachers or
administrators or trustees.
As I was mentioning, currently the
Ombudsman does not have that particular jurisdiction. Presently a parent when they perceive that
there is a problem with one of their children, they take recourse to the
teacher who then if they are unsatisfied with their results then proceed to the
principal, then to the administration and finally to the school trustee. If a parent appeals to the school board, the
board will probably refer the matter back down the ladder to the
administration, so we have the administration basically investigating itself.
We feel that this lacks objectivity under
certain circumstances in certain situations, and perhaps with certain teachers,
the administration will not be as thorough in its investigation of certain
teachers, perhaps.
We feel that the current situation,
because they are investigating themselves, is putting the administration in a
conflict of interest situation, one I do not think they should be in and one
that this particular piece of legislation would deal with. It would be an external agency, an
independent body to investigate complaints within the school process,
educational process in our province.
The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
likes to talk about reform. Well, here
is a very tangible reform that we feel all members of this Chamber should be
supporting. I sense that they will be supporting
this, because I believe all of us are concerned about the welfare and the well‑being
of our children. We know that parents are very concerned about this, because I
was mentioning before the current process:
teacher, principal, administration, trustee and then back to the
administration.
Many parents whom I know are intimidated
by the process. Many find it difficult to approach their child's teachers on a
difficult or a contentious issue. They
may be embarrassed about their own lack of education, but they would feel more
comfortable approaching, I feel, an independent agency such as the Ombudsman
with a concern regarding their child.
The office of the Ombudsman is a well‑respected agency within
government. It is known for its ability
to deal with the particular issues, whatever they may be, in an understanding
and an unbiased manner.
So this is a very important piece of
legislation. It is a very simple piece
of legislation. It would allow for a
referee, as it were, to deal with educational concerns by an independent
adjudicator.
So as I was mentioning before, it is a
very simple piece of legislation. I know
that the members opposite would find this most appealing, and it would go a
long way to addressing concerns raised by parents and educators in this
province. It would go a long way to
reforming the educational system here in Manitoba.
* (1740)
As we mentioned before, members opposite,
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), for example, speaks of reform to the
health care system in this province and it is really just a guise for cutbacks
to essential services to Manitobans. We
are seeing this again in the Department of Education where the minister talks
about reform, but no tangible reforms.
Instead, we see a $16‑million cut to the educational budget, a 2
percent cut, which has seriously negative implications to the quality of
education here in our province.
So when they talk about reform, they are
basically talking about the cutting of service, and here is a very simple but
meaningful reform that this government could bring in if they had the will and
the intention to do so, that could impact in a very positive way upon the
educational system here in this province.
Members opposite often criticize us for
not offering constructive suggestions or alternatives to the problems that we
all face as Manitobans. We often hear
them. They are saying that we are too
critical, we are too negative, simply for the sake of being critical, but we
have here before us, brought in by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), a
constructive suggestion to deal with a serious issue within the educational
system, constructive suggestions that the members opposite must take very
seriously. We hope that they will, as I
mentioned before, take the legislation, take the particular amendment,
investigate it and they would see the value of the amendment, notwithstanding
the simple politics about who brought it in.
Although we have witnessed this prior with
the antisniff legislation brought in by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis),
where the government supported it, but they played politics and they failed to
proclaim it. So for that period we are
waiting. There were lives at risk within
the province. It was raised again today
by my colleagues here in the Chamber.
They did take some limited action on
that. It was a watered‑down piece
of legislation brought forward today.
All of us, as members of this Chamber, will have the opportunity to
speak on that particular legislation. As
the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) mentioned, the new legislation brought in
by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) penalizes those who are most affected
by the tragedy of solvent abuse.
In this particular bill, I know that the
members opposite will listen to our comments very seriously. They will take our suggestions
seriously. I know the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer) is very interested in this.
He, like many members opposite, are concerned about the quality of
education in our province.
Mr. Acting Speaker, undoubtedly he will
take this and write a letter to his constituents, as he has done in the past,
and probably mention some of the very thoughtful comments that have been put on
the record by myself and other members of our particular party. Maybe the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
can take it and spend another $8,000 sending it across the province.
We acknowledge that this would enlarge the
Office of the Ombudsman. There would be
a small, small increase in its budget, but it would definitely be money well
spent. In fact, we feel it would be cost‑effective,
because it would free up the minister's staff to deal with some of the other
issues facing our educational system, some of the other problems that she has
created.
In the long run, Mr. Acting Speaker, this
would save money for the province. It
would be a quick and relatively easy way of providing meaningful reform to our
educational system here in Manitoba. I
urge and expect all members in this Chamber to pass this amendment as soon as
possible. I thank you for the
opportunity to put those few comments on the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Penner): As was previously agreed, this matter will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer). Agreed? [agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 208, The Workers Compensation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail, be now read
for a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): It is my pleasure to rise to commence the
second reading debate on this, I believe, important piece of legislation. This is not the first time we have had the
opportunity to debate this legislation in this House. It had been originally introduced by my
colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) a short time after this
legislation had been struck down. It was
originally in place to protect firefighters in the province, but I will explain
in a few moments how it was struck down by the courts.
First, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to
start off by recognizing an individual who was a long‑time firefighter in
the province of Manitoba, who had dedicated his life to preserving and
protecting the lives and the property of individuals in our province, and
through unfortunate circumstances lost his life as a result of a heart attack
while he was employed as a firefighter in this province. That individual to whom I am referring is Mr.
Bill Laird, who was the president of the Manitoba Professional Firefighters
Association.
I would like to start off by reading the
words that Mr. Laird had read into the record of this Legislature when we were
talking about Bill 56. Mr. Laird was
representing his colleagues, the firefighters of this province, and I quote the
submission that Mr. Laird made: is
dedicated to the memory of those firefighters who gave their lives in the line
of duty, not in a dramatic fire scene covered by the media with bright lights
and followed with bold headlines, but far removed from the scene and sometimes
years later.
To those firefighters who died by the
exposure to slow insidious hazards of firefighting, that robs them of their
health, quality of life, and then takes that life, to those firefighters, we
will keep the faith.
Those were the words that Mr. Laird used
to express his sentiments as he attempted to put forward the position of
firefighters and explain to members of this Legislature, and indeed to members
of the public, the hazards that firefighters face in the performance of their
duties.
Now, there are many of us‑‑and
I know the members opposite quite often make light of the serious nature of
this legislation, and they think that it is not important. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
says that it is not essential for us in this province and, of course, he quite
often ignores the needs of firefighters in this province. I find it is unfortunate that the minister
thinks that firefighters are not an important segment or component of our
society. He makes light of this
legislation, and has done so every time this bill has been introduced in this
House.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
This bill is designed to recognize the
occupational hazards encountered by firefighters in the performance of their
duties, protecting the lives and the property of Manitobans. Medical studies have shown that there is a
greater incidence of heart injury and injuries to the lungs, brain, and kidneys
of firefighters than for any other comparable profession.
Firefighters were covered, Mr. Speaker, by
legislation that had been in place as a result of previous governments, and
then of course that legislation was struck down as a result of actions by the
courts. We had legislation that started‑‑the
first regulation came in in October 15, 1966, that would protect firefighters
from the occupational diseases that would occur as a result of their
employment. That regulation was later
revised by regulation in June of 1974, and that regulation was later amended in
1977 and was in full force until it was struck down by Court of Appeal of
Manitoba in January 29, 1988.
* (1750)
So firefighters in this province indicated
that that did have that protection, and it was brought in a significant period
of time ago, Mr. Speaker, and had that protection.
Since that time, Justice Sterling Lyon
indicated, and I will quote the reason that was used by Justice Lyon for
rendering the decision to strike down this regulation: Under the present scheme of the act, if it is
the intention of the Legislature to deem that certain diseases arise in the
course of employment as a firefighter, resulting from the inhalation of smoke,
gases and fumes or any combination of them, then it clearly must be so stated
by legislative enactment.
That was the comment of the Appeal Court
of Manitoba Justice Lyon, judgment January 29, 1988. So that indicates that Justice Lyon felt that
because the protection, the coverage, that was provided for firefighters, was
only in force as a result of a regulation, had it been the will of the province
and the Legislature, they would have done so in legislation. They would have enacted that protection in
legislation.
When Bill 56 was brought in by the past
member for Portage la Prairie, an amendment was brought forward by my colleague
the member for Thompson at that time that would provide significant protection
for firefighters. It is, Mr. Speaker,
the present bill that we have before us that was brought forward as an
amendment.
At that time, that amendment was spoken
against by the business lobby groups of this province, by the City of Winnipeg,
who put forward what I would deem to be an extensive effort on their part to
ensure that this amendment to protect firefighters was not enacted as a part of
Bill 56.
The city cited that one of the main
reasons why they did not want this protection for firefighters was based on
cost. So they equated the costs of
operating the City of Winnipeg to the loss of firefighters' lives, and since
the cost of that legislation was going to mean more to them than the protection
of firefighters, that was why they brought forward their effort to have that
amendment to Bill 56 struck down at that time.
The City of Winnipeg, the business lobby
group were successful in having that amendment removed from Bill 56, and of
course, since that time, we in this Legislature on this side have had to bring
forward private members' legislation to try and enact that legislation to
provide that protection for firefighters.
The previous minister that was responsible
for the Workers Compensation Board, Mr. Connery, who was the member for Portage
la Prairie at that time‑‑and I will quote from a letter in 1988
that was sent to the minister at that time:
On behalf of firefighters of Manitoba, we appear before you to ask for
your help in having the heart and lung regulation 24‑77 covering heart
and lung for firefighters placed into the principal act of The Workers
Compensation Act of Manitoba.
They made a specific request to the
Minister of Labour at that time, the minister responsible for the Workers
Compensation Board, asking that that protection be provided as it had been for
over 20 years before that. The Minister
of Labour, the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, refused
to accept that recommendation and that proposal that was put forward by the
firefighters.
I know the minister across the way who is
currently responsible for the Workers Compensation Board, to this day, has
refused to enact that legislation that would provide the protection for the
firefighters in this province.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, I asked this
current member responsible for WCB when he was going to enact that legislation,
and he said there was no need because he said they were going to bring in 24‑hour
comprehensive protective coverage for firefighters, something he has not done
to this point.
Point of
Order
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Workers
Compensation Act): On a point of order, the member for Transcona
in his remarks said that I as minister have the power to enact
legislation. I would just like to remind
him, it is this Legislative Assembly that has the power‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Reid: The current minister responsible for WCB is
obviously very touchy on this subject since he has sat on this for a number of
years now since he was appointed as minister by his Premier.
We have brought forward these private
member bills. We have asked this
minister in private if he would enact the legislation himself, something he has
refused to do.
The firefighters are waiting. Firefighters are dying and there has been no
protection afforded them. Mr. Laird is
one of the most recent examples who had worked long and tirelessly on behalf of
the firefighters of this province and who died of a heart attack at a very
early age while he was still employed as a firefighter in the City of Winnipeg
firefighting force.
He suffered a heart attack. That is one of the provisions that would have
provided protection to the remaining family members. Mr. Laird's widow and surviving children
would have been provided that protection, Mr. Speaker, had this legislation
been in place, but since it is not, the widow must now fend for herself and is
afforded no opportunities outside of any protection they might have provided
for themselves during the course of their working career.
The legislation itself would indicate that
there are obviously various causes of occupational diseases that would strike
down firefighters. We take for granted
in our homes, every one of us in this Chamber, I am sure, takes for granted the
different products that we have in our homes.
There are many substances that are used
that we take for granted, and yet when we view some of the products‑‑and
there are many plastic products in our homes, Mr. Speaker, that we take for
granted, polyvinyl chlorides, the ABS piping in our homes, our furniture, our
appliances, carpeting, draperies, all made out of synthetic materials that,
when they burn, give off hazardous gases.
Some of the gases they give off, Mr.
Speaker, are benzine and vinyl chloride‑‑very, very dangerous to
humans. PCBs is also another product
that is given off, and we have heard much over the years about PCBs and how it
can affect human beings. PCBs can
readily penetrate the neoprene vapour barrier commonly used in firefighter
protective clothing. So when
firefighters encounter a lot of these chemicals in their firefighting
environment, they are put at risk protecting the property and the lives of the
people whom they go there to protect.
This bill would have provided some
protection for them, Mr. Speaker. The
mortality rate for firefighters is 30 percent higher than the average
population. Firefighters can expect to
live 10 years less than the average person in society, something that a lot of
us in this House fail to recognize. This
legislation would recognize that and would provide that protection for them.
Another area that we take for granted‑‑when
firefighters, they do not only put out fires.
Firefighters attend accident scenes as well. I hope we all know that. When firefighters go to the scenes, quite
often there are wounds where there are bodily fluids that are being secreted by
the human body, whether it be through injury or otherwise, and that, Mr.
Speaker, if there are individuals who are infected with the HIV virus, can put
firefighters at risk. Now there is no
protection in the legislation currently that protects firefighters from the HIV
virus.
An Honourable Member: Yes, there is.
Mr. Reid: In that sense, Mr. Speaker‑‑
An Honourable Member: There is, Daryl.
Mr. Reid: There is no protection, Mr. Speaker, in there.
[interjection] The current legislation says that it has to be proved that it
occurred as a result of the work environment.
The minister should be very clear about the legislation that he is
attempting to protect here.
The minister responsible is choosing sides
here, Mr. Speaker. He does not want to
defend the firefighters. He has had
significant opportunity over the years to defend the firefighters in this
province and 39 of the American states have firefighter protection with heart
and lung laws. On top of that, the
common causes of line of duty deaths for firefighters is asphyxiation,
explosion, building collapse, electrocution.
So there are many other causes of death for firefighters.
The average age of a firefighter, who died
from duty related causes by occupational disease, was 53 years of age, Mr.
Speaker. This is one of the few
jurisdictions in this country. This minister talks about harmonization of
programs. British Columbia just recently
introduced decisions that would provide protection for work related cancer for
firefighters. I hope this minister will‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a willingness of the House or leave
of the House that the Speaker not see the clock‑‑I notice the
honourable member for Transcona has one and a half minutes remaining‑‑allow
the honourable member to finish his remarks and then to allow the House to
either make a decision whether to pass it or to adjourn debate? Would that be agreed? [agreed] There you go, a minute and a half remaining.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that I had that
minute and a half, and I would like to make a few more comments about this
legislation.
Getting back, Mr. Speaker, to the decision
by the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia, the Workers'
Compensation Board had viewed claims that had been put forward to them by
firefighters that had contracted diseases, some on the opposite side might
consider to be ordinary diseases of life, but the compensation boards of areas
of the United States and provinces of Canada have recognized these as being
work related or occupationally related.
The two decisions by the Workers'
Compensation Board of British Columbia granted coverage to two firefighting
members for work related cancer. The two
claims date from 1986 and will probably be appealed by the City of Vancouver,
but the firefighters are cautiously optimistic that both decisions were well
written and were decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board of that province
and not by an outside appeal agency.
One claim was for malignant melanoma,
which is a form of skin cancer, as we know, and was accepted as a Schedule B
presumption, and the other was multiple myeloma, which was accepted on the
medical and legal merits. So, Mr. Speaker,
in this country, we have other jurisdictions that recognize that firefighters
encounter occupational diseases brought on as a result of their
employment. I hope that the members of
this House will support this legislation and bring it through to committee.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being just after 6 p.m., this House
is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).