LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, May 10, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Minister's Salary, item 1.(a)‑‑pass.
This completes the Estimates of the Department
of Family Services.
Resolution 9.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $7,628,200 for Family Services, Administration and Finance,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
The next set of Estimates that will be
considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for the
Department of Education and Training.
Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister
and the critics the opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set
of Estimates?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: No?
Okay, we are rolling.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Does the honourable Minister of Education and
Training have an opening statement?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Yes, thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair.
I am pleased to introduce the Estimates for
the Department of Education and Training for 1993‑94. I would like to set a context for this
introduction by giving you an indication of my department's accomplishments and
then describe where we will direct our energies in the coming year.
It has been a little over a year since I
became the Minister of Education and Training.
In that time I have made personal visits to schools across
I have also spoken to our partners in
education, and I have heard them express their concerns. In addition, I have gotten to know members of
the staff of my department, and I have come to appreciate their dedication and
their hard work. It has been a
challenging time for all of us in the department but an exciting one too. I truly believe that the course we have
chosen to guide education into the next century is the right one. That does not mean, of course, that we do not
face some considerable challenges, but I am confident that we will meet them.
We have begun a process of educational reform
in this province that I believe will successfully steer us into the
future. In fact,
The review of The Public Schools Act: The report of the panel has just been released,
and our education partners are now taking the time to review the 106
recommendations. These recommendations
have organizational, legal and financial implications on our current education
system and will eventually contribute to the new legislation.
The task force on Distance Education and
Technology: I will be releasing the
report of the third and the final stage of this task force shortly. I expect that the report's recommendations
will positively affect our technological capacity in education and help meet
the needs of Manitobans in all areas of the province.
Francophone Governance: We will introduce legislation in this session
to implement the governance structure, with the election of regional committees
and school boards taking place this fall.
A committee, chaired by former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin, will work in
partnership with parents and other interested individuals on the model and the
implementation of Francophone Governance.
High School Review: Many of the strategies recommended in
Answering the Challenge have been implemented.
Current work is focusing on instructional methods, improvement in
curricula and in the learning environments.
The University Review: The commission has concluded its hearings and
has received 237 briefs or submissions.
These are being reviewed and analyzed for the commission's
consideration. The members hope that they will have a draft report or an
interim report ready this summer.
* (2005)
The consolidation of all skills training
initiatives within my department: A new
division has been created within my department that brings together all the
skills training initiatives of government in one place. Consolidation will result in a more effective
delivery of programs and services.
Workforce 2000: This is an initiative that ensures ongoing
training within the workplace so that knowledge and skills remain up to
date. The number of partnerships in this
area is steadily increasing.
College Governance: The incorporation of the community colleges
under boards of governors will allow the colleges to be more responsive to the
needs of the community in the education and training area.
These initiatives have already resulted in
real educational benefits to Manitobans, such as expanded high school, college
and university program offerings, higher performance standards for students and
a greater community involvement. I think
you will have to admit they amount to an impressive record of action designed
to address the challenges of the future.
These reform initiatives are also designed to ensure that our programs
and institutions reflect our commitment to lifelong learning.
I would also like you to note that each of
these has involved consultation with our partners in education and training.
Educational reform has been and will continue to be a consultative
process. My department and our
government are committed to meaningful participation and openness and have
accepted the responsibilities and the rewards that come with these.
At a recent educational forum, I described my
vision of the future of education in this way.
It will involve partnerships of all sorts, including those among
parents, schools, business and industry, between schools and universities and
between community colleges and schools.
Education in the future will also be accountable and responsive to the
needs and the aspirations of Manitobans.
So you can see that the partnerships and public consultation with all
members of the community are an important part of the future. They are also the means that we will use to
get there.
Manitobans know that the responsibility for
educating and training our citizens is a shared one. Each of us has a role to play in the
process. The department provides
leadership to ensure that there are high quality education and training
programs for Manitobans throughout their lifetimes so that they develop their
own potential and contribute to the economic, social and cultural life of
To ensure that the future of education is a
sound one, we have had to make some tough decisions. We can no longer ignore the fiscal challenges
facing us. We must take action to reduce
and to eliminate the budget deficit.
Manitobans have sent us a very clear signal that they do not want to pay
more taxes. They expect us to eliminate
the deficit by keeping our spending under control. They also believe in accountability and our
ability to do more with less.
In February I announced a 2 percent reduction
in provincial funding to school divisions for the 1993‑94 school
year. Per pupil support to independent
schools was reduced by the same amount.
In keeping with our commitment to taxpayers to restrict increases in
taxes, I also announced in February a 2 percent limit on the amount of
additional money school divisions can raise through property taxation in a
fiscal year. That limit remains in
effect for the next two years. The
Educational Support Levy rates, however, stay the same in 1993 as in 1992.
It is important during these difficult times
that all public sector organizations control spending. Therefore, grants to school divisions for
administration have been reduced. School
divisions now have an option of closing their schools for up to 10 days
allocated for in‑service or administration. We have already introduced a similar measure
in the provincial government for both MLAs and civil servants.
The schools finance branch has worked closely
with the Advisory Committee on Education Finance last spring and summer. They
made recommendations which I accepted in six areas, and these have resulted in
better recognition of smaller class size in small rural high schools, the
enhancement of Level II and Level III funding for special needs children,
additional funding for northern divisions, funding for Distance Education and
fairer funding for transportation. Also,
phase‑in funding for '93 and '94 will assist school divisions in making
the transition to the new funding formula announced in '92‑93.
In February, I announced a 2 percent reduction
in support to universities and a cap on tuition increases and tuition changes
for visa students. I asked that the
universities examine their spending and identify cost savings in the face of
extraordinary fiscal challenges. Again,
it is important during these difficult times for public sector organizations to
control their spending. The time has come to find creative and innovative ways
of controlling spending while ensuring a high quality of education and training
for Manitobans. We have both recognized
the need and found ways of doing so.
Meeting the wide‑ranging education and
training needs of Manitobans is a high priority for this government. One of the ways we intend to do that is with
the introduction of a new education information system within my department. Its comprehensive database, which includes
information on students, schools, divisions, teachers and professional staff,
courses and facilities, will be used for planning and developing policy.
* (2010)
Now I would like to turn to other initiatives
and issues affecting K‑12 education.
I have spent a good deal of time this past year consulting with people
who have a stake in the improvement of our education system. My consultation with educational partners
have been very successful in identifying issues in need of attention. Among those we have identified are preventing
violence in the schools, parental involvement, early literacy, teacher
training, student and program assessment, vocational and career education. We will have an opportunity in a series of
Education Innovation fora to consult on ways of addressing these issues as
well.
I recognize that violence in our schools is a
very serious problem. It is a problem in
the whole of society, and it will not be resolved by educators alone. We need to work together. We have already
begun forming partnerships that include parents, schools, community agencies
and various government departments. We have worked with school divisions to
create a resource list of 80 people who can provide support in dealing with
disruptive students.
My department has also been presenting a
series of training workshops on prosocial skills. These workshops focus on managing student
conduct and conflict mediation in schools.
The response of those attending has been very positive.
My department also organizes second step
workshops that provide support for violence prevention. One hundred and twenty‑three educators
have been trained to be trainers in this series. In addition, 222 educators have been trained
to implement violence prevention programs in classrooms.
The Student Support branch has funded school
programs on Behaviour Management and Violence Prevention in 62 schools in 15
divisions. The $358,000 allocated to
these programs underscores our commitment to this issue.
Also, an interdepartmental committee has been
formed that includes Education and Training, Justice, Family Services and
Health. This committee is looking at
ways of improving the co‑ordination of services in various areas
including serving students with profound emotional or behavioural disorders.
As you can see, we are working hard to combat
violence in the schools. We know we need
community involvement to be successful in meeting this challenge. We know that parental involvement has a very
positive effect on student attendance, achievement and discipline. When parents are involved in their children's
education, students have greater motivation and a more positive attitude
towards homework and school. It is not
surprising then that these students do not usually become school dropouts.
My department is actively reviewing the most
effective ways of involving parents. The
Student Support branch recently completed a study entitled Parents and Schools,
Partners in Education. This describes
the benefits of parental involvement and the dynamics of involvement programs.
Both the Curriculum Services and Native
Education branches have created parent guides on a variety of subjects. The Dauphin office of the Native Education branch
has held a parent empowerment conference that dealt with, among other things,
parent‑teacher interviews and legal rights.
Recommendation on parental involvement is also
included in the report of the legislative reform panel. I personally believe that increasing the
involvement of parents in the school system will be an effective way of
addressing many of the social challenges in the classroom. We also know that parents play a crucial role
in early literacy.
The issue of teacher training is a concern as
well. We want to make sure that teachers
have the appropriate training to meet the demands of both the present and the
future. That means ensuring that
preservice as well as in‑service training is relevant to them.
We must find innovative ways of providing
opportunities for ongoing professional development. My department provides supports to teachers
in the use of effective instructional methods in the classroom, and we know
that the ability to collaborate and work in teams is important for students to
have. Co‑operative learning has become an important practice.
The Student Support branch, in conjunction
with the federal Stay‑in‑School Initiative and the Winnipeg
Education Centre, is organizing a co‑operative learning program for
Manitobans have also told us that they want a
more clear picture of how well students are performing in the province. They
know that our future economic well‑being depends on it.
* (2015)
Teachers also want to know that what they
teach and how they teach is appropriate to children's abilities and needs. Our approach to student and program
assessment has five prongs and involves the inclusion of student assessment
guidelines in curriculum guides, cyclical assessments in major subject areas,
the use of departmental examinations in the last year of high school,
professional development activities to enhance educators' abilities to assess
student achievement and collaboration with the faculties of education to ensure
that teachers in training develop a wide repertoire of assessment and
evaluation skills and activities.
Discussions with educators and other partners
in education have identified the need to have strong programs that incorporate
what we have always thought of as the basics and the new basics. According to
the Economic Council of Canada's employability profile, the new basics
comprise: academic skills; communicating,
thinking and learning skills; personal management skills such as positive
attitudes and behaviours, responsibility and adaptivity; and teamwork skills
such as working together.
We are working with our partners in education
to devise strong programs. An
interorganizational curriculum advisory committee has recently been established
to provide input on curriculum matters.
Currently under review are the new science and math curricula.
Our consultations have not stopped at our
border either. We have also been working
with our partners in the western provinces to develop computer‑assisted
courses in math and science.
Recently completed was an interactive video
disk pilot project for middle‑year science students. This action research project took place in
six rural and six urban schools. The
results have been very exciting. They
suggest that the use of this technology may be an important way in encouraging
greater participation and achievement of all students, particularly girls, in
science.
This next year, we will continue strengthening
our programs. Strong student achievement and high‑quality programs are
important elements of future reform.
The last issue I will deal with in K to 12
education is vocational or career education.
We want to ensure that students making a transition from school to work
have a smooth passage. Providing work experience, co‑operative education,
business education partnership programs and the skills for independent living
course at the high school level gives students an opportunity to use skills
learned in school and develop new ones they can use when they enter the
workforce.
Mentorship and job shadowing programs give
them a taste of the real world of work, and decide whether an occupation is for
them or not. Funded vocational programs
have industry advisory committees that play a role in defining expected
outcomes and ensure that the skills students learn adequately prepare them for
the workplace.
The recent switch to unit credit funding for
vocational programs encourages a wide variety of students to become
involved. The new funding formula makes
it possible for all students, including the academically inclined, to take the
course as electives. The unit credit
funding formula has been widely praised across
We are very concerned that all students can
make the transition from high school to work or further education and training
and that Manitobans have opportunities to pursue lifelong learning. That is one of the reasons that we published
Manitoba Prospects, a career‑planning tabloid, this winter just before
the two‑career symposia. The
tabloid and career symposia work well together to inform students of vocational
options and their educational or training requirements.
* (2020)
That brings us to the initiatives in the area
of post‑secondary education and training.
We have just made major changes in the post‑secondary education
and training area to consolidate all government skills training initiatives
within a single division. Programs have
been transferred to our newly created Advanced Education and Skills Training
division from the Departments of Labour, Family Services and Rural Development
and from my department's former Post‑secondary Adult and Continuing
Education, or PACE division.
The new division will oversee the delivery of
programs to meet wide‑ranging education and training needs of all
Manitobans, including programs for youth, for employed and underemployed
adults, for various equity groups including aboriginals, women and the
disabled, for social assistance recipients, some of whom are single mothers,
and for Manitobans generally seeking higher levels of skill training. Apprenticeship programs are also included in
this division. The division will offer
programs that will be delivered in a variety of settings for both sequential
and nonsequential learners. The
reorganization will ensure that education and skills training initiatives are
linked, effectively co‑ordinated and strategically focused, to improve
the employability of all Manitobans.
Our challenge in making these changes has been
to respond to education and training needs of all Manitobans in an efficient
and a co‑ordinated way that will support the skill requirements necessary
to make
In partnership with Employment and Immigration
Canada, we have already established a management committee with representatives
from both levels of government to ensure that the spirit of the agreement is
fulfilled. In
College governance is another step we have
taken to improve our capabilities in the labour market area. Through this initiative we are changing
institutional arrangements to address current and evolving labour market
needs. As of April 1 the three community
colleges in
Our Workforce 2000 initiative continues to be
our key response to an increased demand for work‑based training that
meets the skill needs of industry. In
collaborative effort with the private sector, Workforce 2000 has forged new
partnerships and new models of training through its industry‑wide human
resource planning component. To date,
May 1991 to March 31, 1993, 53 sectoral partnership agreements have been put in
place.
Within the area of training incentives to
small‑ and medium‑sized businesses, 1,704 contracts have been
initiated and, further, 285 contracts with large companies have been signed to
provide support through payroll tax refunds.
These two initiatives have resulted in training for 51,238 employees
since the program's inception in May 1991.
* (2025)
Through the initiatives that I have described
for you, my department is addressing important issues and making significant
improvements to
I am proud of the members of my department who
have recently been honoured with awards.
Last summer, Physical Education Curriculum Consultant Rick LaPage was
given the R. Tait McKenzie Award of Honour by the Canadian Association for
Health, Physical Education and Recreation.
In November, the director of the Literacy
Office, Devron Gaber, was honoured by the Association of Canadian Community
Colleges and Xerox
Just recently, Guy Roy, Assistant Deputy
Minister of the Bureau de l'Education Francaise, received a Canada 125 Award
for significant contribution to community and
I am proud of my department and its
achievements. I have every confidence
that the measures we are taking now to reform the system will ensure that
Manitobans have access to the highest quality education and training
programs. I know that Manitobans will be
prepared for the 21st Century long before they enter it.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the Minister of Education and
Training for those comments.
Does the critic of the official opposition,
the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), have any opening comments?
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I have a brief comment. I wonder if the minister has a copy of her
statement that we could have. The
Hansard for this evening will not be along for maybe a few days. The afternoon
Hansards are usually quite prompt, but the evening ones are not, so I am just
wondering if we could get that before this evening is over so that we would
have it for tomorrow's sitting.
Mrs. Vodrey:
We will make a copy for the member.
Mr. Plohman: I
want to deal with a few of the issues the minister has brought forward in her
statement. I am sure we will have a
chance to deal with more of them throughout the Estimates.
My colleague the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) is the post‑secondary critic, and she will be dealing with many
of the issues involving the community colleges and the universities. As well, the Labour critic will deal with
some of the training areas and the employment enhancement and so on that have
been consolidated in this department for the first time.
So I will be dealing basically with K to 12
and the concerns that we have with the minister's handling of that area of the
public school system. Of course, K to 12
also involves the private school system and the concerns we have with the
government's action there.
If we look back over the last five years, it
is quite clear to us that the government has not placed a high priority on the
public education system. I released
figures in the House, and the minister indicated to the press that she had
other figures that show‑‑and she has even included it in letters to
individuals that she has funded, and the government has funded, public
education, elementary and secondary education for the last five years at above
the rate of inflation.
The figures that we have, which are from
Statistics Canada and are figures that I believe do not mislead, do not
misrepresent the picture but tell the facts to the public when provided to
them, would indicate to us that the minister and her government have
significantly underfunded public education and eroded the quality of education
and the ability of school divisions to provide quality of education over the
last five years on the basis that funding has not kept pace with
inflation. It has also resulted in an
offloading factor, which means that local school divisions have had to increase
the local levy in order to offset the reductions from the province or the loss
in real purchasing power of the dollars provided.
* (2030)
If you look through, since 1989‑90, we
could see a 6.1 percent increase in public school funding. In '90‑91 it was 4.6 percent; '91‑92,
2.05 percent; '92‑93, 3.05 percent; and '93‑94, minus 2 percent,
for a total of 14.2 percent in the increase to the public school system as
announced by the minister in January, February each year, in total funding by
the province.
The increase in the inflation rate over that
same time has been 5 percent in '89‑90; 4.4 percent in '90‑91; 5.6
percent in '91‑92; 1.5 percent in '92‑93; and 1.5 percent in '93‑94. So the inflation increase has been 18
percent.
So there is a difference of almost 4 percent
between what has been provided by the government in increased funding to the
public education system versus inflation.
Having said that, the real crunch and crisis
has come about this year with the rather significant decrease in funding of 2
percent. When you combine that with the
1.5 percent inflation, that is like a 3.5 percent drop in real dollars to the
public education system. When you also
consider that several school divisions see cuts of 3, 4, 5, 6 and, I believe as
high as, 9 percent‑‑the minister will be providing those figures I
hope at the closest opportunity for us so that we will be able to see exactly
how the impact of the minus 2 percent has been felt in the various school
divisions.
What we have seen there is a significant drop
in school division funding. The variance
between the minus 2 percent and the other figures that I mentioned is not
always directly related to the relative wealth of the school division. Many school divisions that are the very
poorest have felt the biggest cuts.
What it tells us is that the minister has not
attempted to ensure fairness or an easing of the impacts with the reductions.
In other words, equalization has not been realistic in terms of the impact on
these school divisions, so divisions like Transcona‑Springfield are
feeling a real pinch this year after a reduction last year. As a matter of fact, they have been required
to actually reduce the local levy by some $41 per household. Now we will find out, I guess, if the
minister has done anything to ease that impact for the school division, because
reducing it on top of the cut they took from the minister this year means a
serious erosion in the quality of education in the Transcona school division.
In addition to that, because of Bill 22 we are
seeing some school divisions eliminating professional development days, not
because, as the minister says, it is a matter of an option that is available to
them, a matter of choice really, in the decision. Whether they want to cut professional
development days or to cut classrooms is what it amounts to‑‑cut
teachers, cut classes. They really do
not have a choice, so they are having to eliminate professional development
days, whereas other school divisions are not doing that. So you are going to see a tremendous
variation from school division to school division with this new policy that the
government has put in place.
It is going to be chaos out there for
teachers, and I think it is a tremendous erosion of a very important activity,
one that the government has targeted for some time. I do not think it is based on sound
educational data that in‑service days and professional development are somehow
ineffective or not worth paying for, or whatever the case might be, but on what
they believe or they perceive to be, or what they believe to be, on the basis
of polling, public opinion that says professional development days are
something the public does not agree with or does not support.
So I think the government is implementing
their own agenda based on polling, on political opportunism, as opposed to on
the basis of sound educational data and decision making. Of course, in doing that they are going to
incur the wrath of many people in the province and the teachers and school
divisions will be the primary public that will very much object to this, and I
think rightfully so, and will have our support in so doing.
What we have seen by this minister is an
intrusion into local decision making by way of Bill 16. The minister writes in all of her letters
that it is to keep property taxes down.
Again, we do not find that kind of a statement any more credible than
the statement that she has funded Education above inflation. In fact, the property taxes have been
increased by this government substantially, not only this year has the $75 and
the $250 minimum for many homeowners meant a much larger increase, but in addition
to that, over the last couple of years, there has been substantial offloading
by the government onto local taxpayers as a result of what I talked about
earlier, the funding at lower than inflation.
As a result of that funding that was not
adequate, many times applied very unfairly because of the equalization
mechanism in the funding formula not being sufficient or sensitive enough to
realistically respond to many of the problems that small school divisions are
dealing with, we have seen then a massive offloading in property taxation.
So we have seen the offloading take place over
the last number of years and then a major increase by this government. Yet the
minister writes in her letters time and time again to the public, when they
have expressed concerns, that her only desire in placing a cap on the special
requirement of school divisions is to keep property taxes down.
I do not blame them for being very cynical
about reading stuff like that from the minister after what her government has
done, and even what her government did right after the announcements were made
in the funding of Education. The
minister had to be aware of what was being contemplated as the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) was preparing his budget‑‑this $75 increase
right across the board. People look at
that, and maybe they do not all notice it right now because they do not have
their tax bills, so they will not see it right away and they will not connect
the two. That is obviously what the
government hopes. When we are looking at
it from the total picture, we see immediately that when the minister is saying,
well, we do not want property taxes to increase and then we increase them by
$75, there is no other way to describe it but a hypocritical way of approaching
it.
I hope the minister has some way to explain
herself in writing these letters and justifying it on the basis she wants to
keep property taxes down when, in fact, that is not what her government has
done at all, especially property taxes, and especially in light of what has
happened over the last four or five years in offloading the taxation onto local
property owners. So we will want to
pursue that with the minister.
We want to explore the impact of these cuts on
public schools throughout the province and just see how the quality of education
is standing up to scrutiny right across the province from division to division,
from school to school.
* (2040)
In addition to that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
am going to raise concerns with the minister about the cuts in the services to
special needs kids, especially as it applies to the Diagnostic Centre, the
layoff of clinicians. The minister is
very proud to say that she has increased funding to Levels II and III Special
Needs categories, but she never speaks about that in the same breath as the
cuts, the 66 layoffs of clinicians. When
she talks about the clinicians, she always talks about a $45,000 grant, but she
never talks about the fact that the actual costs to the school divisions are
higher than $45,000 when you consider all of the operating costs. So somehow those school divisions are having
to find additional dollars to employ these people, if they will be employed in
their divisions, for the operating costs associated with it and perhaps even
some salary costs.
There are additional costs. It is an offload onto the local school
divisions, and the minister should admit that rather than trying to skirt the
issue with regard to special needs kids and the impact of her policies‑‑[interjection]
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has a comment?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also want to raise
the issue of the access cuts‑‑university social allowances, the
cuts, the program that was in place‑‑or the Student Social
Allowances Program, I should say, the Access cuts, a substantial amount, I
believe, over 16 percent, the elimination of bursaries. This is something that it is rather mind
boggling to consider that the minister has eliminated these support programs to
so many students.
The Minister of Finance sits there with a big
grin on his face. He thinks all of this
is funny. He should think about what
this does to the kids who may not be as affluent or have as much of an
opportunity that he had when he went to university, or perhaps his children
will have.
There are many kids in this province,
especially with the hikes in tuition fees, who just are not going to be able to
afford to go to university‑‑many kids in poverty, many
disadvantaged people who have no way to break out of the cycle of poverty‑‑yet,
again, just as was pointed out by many of our critics during the Estimates of
Family Services, these are the people attacked by this government, the most
vulnerable, the students.
We see it with the Access Programs. We see it with the social allowances
program. We see it with the elimination
of the bursaries, and we see it with the cuts in the clinicians. It is really something that when I said mind
boggling, it is so unfortunate that the minister, her department and the
government that she is a part of have not seen what they are doing to these
people, or did not care enough, even if they saw it, to stop those kinds of
negative decisions.
We want the minister to be responsible for
some of the things she has inherited from other departments and had a part in
making of the decisions as well, because I want to say to the minister, under
employment enhancement, the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) did
not want to talk about the Human Resource
The Minister of Education is now responsible
for those programs and therefore is responsible for explaining those decisions
under her Estimates. I can assure her
that we will be pursuing with the utmost vigour the elimination of the Human
Resource Opportunity Centre and Program in the
The minister, I hope, will have a better
explanation of that elimination, that cut, than her colleague the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) had when he tried to explain the
unexplainable with regard to the crisis centre in Flin Flon‑‑absolutely
indefensible, unexplainable in terms of any rationale that could be judged to
be fair.
It was an insidious, political decision, one
they thought they could get away with, so they did it without regard for the
impact on the people affected. I hope
that the minister has a better explanation for what she is responsible for in
the cuts under the Human Resource
We also want to talk to her about the Distance
Education cuts. She talks about the
Distance Education and technology initiatives, and yet we see substantial
reductions in dollars for those in those areas.
The minister will have to explain how she can rationalize an initiative
with those kinds of reductions. [interjection]
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says she
will. Now, he may have just woken up
here, but I just finished explaining how his colleague the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) was totally unable to explain the decision of the
Crisis Centre in Flin Flon, for example, other than what we can only assume was
the reason, the rationale, that it was an insidious, political decision by this
government. There was no rationale at
all that would be something that would make any of us feel, any of the people
in the area feel comfortable with.
We will want to look at the legislative reform
document that the minister took six months to get translated and released. We will want to know why she sat on it for
all that time and why she was afraid to release it publicly, other than the
fact that the decisions being made were contradicting many of the
recommendations.
We will want to know what the government's
position is on many of these recommendations since she has kept it at arm's
length and said, well, this is just a panel, a board, that has handed in a
report. Now it is time to go and, I
guess, consult some more on these issues.
We will want to know what the minister's position is on these
recommendations. Where does she stand on
this? Where does the government stand on
the recommendations that are included in that report?
We will want to pursue the issue of provincial
and national testing with the minister.
What does she hope to gain? Is
she ensuring that this is being applied fairly for students in
The issues of violence in the schools, the
impact of poverty, what the government is doing about it or not doing about it‑‑we
would contend that the government is contributing to the growing poverty in
this province. How is that impacting on
fair and equal opportunities for education?
What kind of partnerships has the minister
really developed? She talks about consultation, and yet I am hearing all over
that people feel uncomfortable about what the minister has actually done with
consultation. I was told, for example,
that the
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: I
do not know how the member thinks he has got that information. I would dispute his information on that, and
I do not think that he has any ability to have a look at my schedule or what
the conflicting events have been for the past two events that he has mentioned.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman:
Well, I thought we were going to get some more revealing information
from the minister. I thought she would
at least try to have the courtesy to explain to the members of the Legislative
Assembly why she was not there rather than simply saying that I did not look at
her schedule. I can only go by what
groups and organizations have told me in terms of how the minister has
responded, and we can only assume that the minister tends to avoid these kinds
of gatherings.
* (2050)
I do not think that is contributing to a
consultative mode. I do not think that indicates that the minister wants to participate
in public discussion, hear what the public has to say, if she avoids attending
these kinds of forums. I hope that she
will not be doing that in the future because, clearly, that would indicate to
us that she is making very little attempt to consult in a formal way or an
informal way with the educational community.
So I guess, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
Estimates process will be one of a great deal of confrontation. However, I hope that we will be able to have
a productive discussion in many areas. I
am certainly looking forward to it as critic, having had the opportunity to be
critic for about three or four different departments and as minister for three
different departments, but never in Education.
It is a learning experience for me, and I look forward to this first
opportunity to be involved in this process in the Department of Education,
especially as it applies to K to 12 and, as I indicated, my colleague the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) will be dealing primarily with those issues
of post‑secondary education.
In concluding my remarks, I have to say that
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) that we see at the present time has
presided this past year over a terribly negative process of decision making in
the
We can see that with the situation in Family
Services, as we discussed this afternoon the issue of the crisis centre in Flin
Flon‑‑no contingency plan, no alternatives. We saw that with the issue of clinicians,
when we find out that many small school divisions are not going to be able to
hire the clinicians with the kind of expertise and in the numbers that they
require for their children.
So it indicates to me that the cut was made,
but yet the minister did not even consider, well, let us look at reform. Maybe
a regional delivery of some of these services among several of those school
divisions would be the way to go. Have
that in place, give notice a year ahead of time. Do not work on the Minister of Finance's (Mr.
Manness) timetable, where he says I want 10 percent this month, find 10
percent. That does not make for
planning, and I have to say the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) may not
always be totally responsible for that lack of planning and foresight.
It may be the Minister of Finance by his
timetable, because the Minister of Finance did not plan for the reductions, for
the massive increase in his deficit this year.
He should have known that. He is
the minister responsible for deficits now.
It is not a label he likes, but he tries to leave the impression, after
bungling the economy over the last five years, that this was a total surprise
that came about when the federal government cut the transfer payments and
dumped the bill on his lap.
He never knew this was coming. He has all of these experts, these finance
experts in his department, who we know give daily updates, daily updates to the
Minister of Finance, and let me tell you, he acted like he had a surprise‑‑well,
what am I going to do, I have to go back to the departments.
Now he goes to the Minister of Education‑‑I
am giving her the benefit of the doubt here.
She may have come forward and said, I want to make these cuts, please
take these programs here, we do not need them.
But I have a hunch that it came about as a result of the Minister of
Finance's directive, and on that basis he has to share a large part of the
blame for these cuts.
So in conclusion I have to indicate, as the
minister has said, that we have to explore these issues and ensure that the
Minister of Finance, who is sitting with us tonight, is part of those
discussions because he has to share some of the blame.
But we will not let this Minister of Education
off the hook on this because she answers for education in the province. She is the person that the education
community is wanting to hear from. She
is the one who they want to hear justification from, and if there is no justification,
they will hold her accountable. They are
doing it already, because they see the empty rhetoric in her answers in the
Legislature, empty rhetoric to answers day by day that we ask questions on in
the Legislature. We only see empty
rhetoric, empty words, in response; it is unfortunate. The educational community, the children of
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic for the official
opposition for those remarks. Does the
critic for the second opposition party, the honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock), have any opening remarks?
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I must confess I have
been so enthralled by the statements of both of the former speakers that I
would like to just dive into the Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic for the second opposition
party for those short remarks.
Under
At this time, we invite the minister's staff
to join us at the table, and we ask that the minister introduce her staff
present.
Mr. Vodrey: I
would like to take a moment to introduce the staff from the Department of
Education: Mr. John Carlyle, who is the
Deputy Minister of Education; Mr. Jim Glen, who is the Acting Assistant Deputy
Minister of Administration and Finance; and Mr. Tom Thompson, the Director of
the Finance Branch.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The first item will be 1.(b) Executive
Support (1) Salaries $370,500.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, this section deals with the minister's staff as well as the deputy
minister, I would think. How many of the
eight SYs here are from the minister's personal staff, secretarial and
political staff?
Mrs. Vodrey:
There are five staff. Three are
secretarial support; one is a special assistant; one is a political assistant
also.
Also in the deputy minister's office, were you
asking for the minister's office alone or the deputy minister's also?
Mr. Plohman:
Just go ahead.
Mrs. Vodrey:
On the deputy minister's side, there is a secretarial position and a
program analyst position.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister indicate how her office is going to be handling the
reduced workweek that is being planned and also how this will be applied to the
department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The Department of Education will be closed Fridays in July, which has
been discussed as a potential for the government of
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Minister responsible for The Civil Service
Act (Mr. Praznik) sent out a letter on April 27 outlining those days. Those are the ones that will apply to the
whole department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, that is correct.
* (2100)
Mr. Plohman: I
said the whole department, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. My question, is there any designation of
essential services in the Department of Education?
Mrs. Vodrey: No,
there is not a designation of essential services in the Department of Education
during those periods.
Mr. Plohman:
Has the minister estimated the saving in dollars as a result of this
measure?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The savings will be approximately 4 percent of salaries and the amount
is approximately $120,000.
Mr. Plohman:
Was this the estimate prior to Estimates or is this the estimate at the
present time or has it changed at all?
Mrs. Vodrey:
It is the estimate at the present time.
Mr. Plohman:
So did the minister meet the target that was established prior to this
decision being made? Each of the
departments were targeted for a certain amount of money. If it was 4 percent, it was applied?
[interjection]
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) speaking
from his seat said there was no target.
Was there a target of 4 percent or was there not?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Government did look for the same procedure across government departments
and the Department of Education then, in applying this, has come with the savings
of approximately 3.84 percent, which, with that number of days, is the
percentage that is arrived at.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item (b)(1) Salaries $370,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $105,300‑‑pass.
Item (c) Planning and Policy Development (1) Salaries
$386,800.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this area has been changed in name. Perhaps the first question would be why is it
changed from the previous year?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
would like to just take a moment to introduce Mr. John Didyk who is the
Director of the Planning and Policy.
Yes, there has been a change. The Planning, Research and Policy
Coordination branch was renamed to Planning and Policy Development to better
reflect the department's emphasis on a corporate strategic direction and to
formally reallocate research tasks to individual units across the department.
Mr. Plohman:
Has there been any change in function of staff? I see the numbers have not changed.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
would just like to take a moment also to introduce Jean Britton, who is the
assistant director of the branch.
No, there has not been a change in function.
Mr. Plohman:
In the Expected Results, the minister indicates, "Management focus
on results. Improved education and
training outcomes. An effective and coherent
overall policy framework. Sound program directions. Effective and efficient utilization of
departmental resources."
Can the minister just give a brief overview of
the major activities that will provide those expected results?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this branch does have a number of
activities. First of all, in
consultation with the minister and senior staff they will complete a
departmental strategic direction document.
They will also plan and prepare information for the public Education
Innovation fora. They will prepare
strategic direction documents for senior management by working with issue‑based
departmental committees which have representation from all divisions.
They also assist department units in preparing
one‑year operation plans which merge the branch objectives and activities
with departmental objectives and financial allocation. In addition, they serve on departmental
committees which are developing policy statements or documents, and these
include issues such as teacher training and parental involvement, assessment
standards, gifted children, adult education and special needs. They also have assisted our Student Support
branch and continue to assist our Student Support branch in our policy for at‑risk
students. They also work with senior
management on developing some broad policies and procedures relating to issues
such as curriculum development and also our labour force development strategy.
Mr. Plohman:
The strategic directions plan, was that something that just began this
year? Is that for the public education
system, or is that for the department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Their work is to update a document which we have released called
Building a Solid Foundation for our Future, and this was our strategic plan for
the years 1991 to 1996. We are now
approaching the mid to latter part of that time frame. This deals with both the K to 12 side and
also the post‑secondary side.
Mr. Plohman:
So that is an activity that has just begun this year, to update that
document. Is that what the minister is
saying?
* (2110)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a process of evaluation which does
occur at the end of each year, but there is also a formal update which is also
in process now.
Mr. Plohman:
This formal update is being done by a total of eight people, or is this
something that draws upon the resources of the whole department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is for the whole department, and this
branch is providing the co‑ordination.
Mr. Plohman:
So can the minister estimate the number of staff that are devoted to
this and identify them in each of the branches that are devoted to this kind of
an undertaking?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a management committee and it reports to
the deputy minister. It has on it
representatives from various divisions.
Also, it has on it John Didyk, who I have introduced as the director of
the branch. From the post‑secondary
side, we have three representatives. I
am not sure if the member would like to have their names read into the
record. They are Devron Gaber and Kathy
Parker Corfee and Reta Owens; then from our PDSS, K to 12 side, D. Altieri
[phonetic]; the second member from that area is Diane Cooley; from BEF, the
Bureau de l'Education Francaise, representatives A. Huberdeau; then from our
human resources area, Jack Gillespie; as I mentioned from policy planning area,
John Didyk and also Jean Britton, who I have introduced as on that, Heather
Wood and Dallas Morrow; from our administration and finance area, Tom Thompson,
Gerald Farthing and Greg Baylis.
Mr. Plohman:
These are all within the various branches of the department? These are all civil servants? There are no external people involved?
Mrs. Vodrey:
They are all from within the department.
There are no external people involved.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that. So this
management committee is made up of, what, about 20 persons that meet how
often? What other issues would they be
dealing with as primary tasks at the present time besides the strategic
directions?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are 14 people. These 14 people have been put together to
manage just this task, just this specific issue. There are other people who then would be
involved in managing other issues which are of importance to the department.
Mr. Plohman:
So the management committee is undertaking this one task. There is not a general management committee
to deal with all of these other issues then, or is it a separate committee that
draws on different people for each task?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is a senior staff committee which is made
up of senior staff from across the department which is responsible for the
overall strategic planning. Then from
that group we are able to appoint task groups, and those task groups will then
become responsible for a specialized issue.
The senior staff group meets regularly, approximately once a month.
Mr. Plohman:
Okay, once a month. Would there
be a different group dealing with a public innovations forum?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The issues relating to the very specific Education Innovation fora are
currently being managed by the senior staff; however, we will be looking to
involve other members of the department as we approach in a much closer time
the Education Innovation fora.
Mr. Plohman:
What is the date for that, and what are the expected objectives?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The expected date will be in the fall of '93, and we are looking through
that Education Innovation fora to explore with partners in education the issues
which have been brought to us over this period of discussion as issues which
the community members of
Mr. Plohman:
Would the education legislation reform paper, for example, be part of
that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the proposals would be a part but we certainly
expect by the time of the Education Innovation fora to have had some feedback
from the partners in education regarding the report on legislative reform. Then this would be an opportunity for further
discussion.
Mr. Plohman:
Then that leads me to the report and the minister's position. As I indicated earlier, the minister received
this some months before it was released.
Was this something that her management group, either the senior staff
committee or another management committee, had reviewed in detail prior to its
release?
Mrs. Vodrey:
No, we have not had an opportunity to review it in detail and to analyze
the report. That will be the work of the
department, while it is also now the request that partners in education also
make that same review. They had asked
for the opportunity for the review.
Also, I should say that the educational associations had requested that
they have an opportunity to view the report before legislation was introduced.
Mr. Plohman:
What the minister is saying is before the government took a position on
it, is that what she means?
Mrs. Vodrey:
They asked for an opportunity to view the recommendations and the input
of Manitobans before legislation was specifically drafted by the government,
because they wanted an opportunity to look at the directions that had been
suggested and an opportunity to not have to come forward only at the time of
committee hearings regarding legislative change.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister refers to partners in education in kind of a formal
way. Is this a formal designation of
certain groups? Whom are we speaking of,
or is this just a generic phraseology about groups with an interest in
education?
Mrs. Vodrey:
On a regular basis, we work with the Manitoba Association of School
Trustees,
Mr. Plohman:
So, when the minister refers to partners in education, she is referring
to all of what some people might refer to as the stakeholders.
* (2120)
Mrs. Vodrey:
It goes somewhat beyond just the names of the organizations. For instance, with the Home and School Parent‑Teacher
associations, we expect that group will also show the report to and have a
discussion with the parent committee. We are looking at the involvement at a
very close level of those who have expressed an interest and are interested in
education in
But I will say, too, we have also placed
copies of that report in libraries, and we are looking for Manitobans, those
Manitobans who are interested to take the opportunity to review the report to
see that views are reflected, that their views are reflected and to provide us
with some feedback on what it now looks like in its full report form.
Mr. Plohman: I
just want to go back to the process leading up to the release of this report,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I understand
that the minister received the report from the panel some time in September of
'92, is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
No, I received the report November 5, 1992.
Mr. Plohman:
This was when it was formally presented by the four panelists and Roy
White, chairperson. Is that correct, to
the minister?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman:
Would the management committee of the department have received a copy of
this earlier and reviewed it?
Mrs. Vodrey:
No, they did not.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying the staff received this report from the panel the
same time she did, on November 5?
Mr. Vodrey:
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman:
From November 5 then to April 27, I guess that is about six months, what
was happening to this report? The
minister went over it, talked about translation but‑‑well, let the
minister tell us what happened to the report for six months.
Mrs. Vodrey:
There was, when the report was received, a request for translation and
the department received the translation.
A copy of the unedited translation however was then sent to the
panel. We began at the same time
starting to draft a news release and cover design and the translation was
verified in the first week of February.
However, in the first week of February, the
person reviewing the translation reported that she wanted a complete
retranslation. Her concern was that‑‑the
French‑speaking member of the panel‑‑and her concern was that
the version that she received was, in her mind, too stilted, that it did not
express the views in the friendly tone of the English report. So in February, our Bureau de L'education
Francaise staff worked with our translation services to make it more Manitoban,
more friendly, and towards the end of February a translated copy was then sent.
In March, the first proof of the document was
completed by the printer, and it was reviewed by our translation staff and by
our policy branch staff regarding formats and pagination. On March 5, the panel was contacted and we
wanted to have the date of the release reflect fairly accurately the date that
the report was actually released. There
was a second proof completed by the printer, a third proof completed by the
printer in mid‑March, a fourth proof completed by the printer. On March
24, '93, the copy was officially signed off by the department. It was sent to Roy White and to Maurice
Mimont [phonetic], the French‑speaking member of the committee. On March 29, '93, Roy White gave a verbal
sign‑off.
On April 1, '93, Maurice Mimont [phonetic] gave
a verbal sign‑off. On April 19,
the printer started the actual production of the report and the summary. There was a delay during the first few weeks
of April as the printer was waiting for a written sign‑off from Roy White
and Maurice Mimont [phonetic]. There was
a clarification, and then April 27 there was the official release of the
report.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, I am pleased that we have that on the record. It sounds like it was very urgent and was
moved right along. I would ask the
minister: Was there any way to speed
this up?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Well, again, it was important in releasing the report, which was
compiled by four members of the public, four Manitobans who had worked very
hard on their job to make sure that they saw the report as accurately
reflecting their work and also that the translation accurately reflected their
work. Because it was their report, it was important that it was their sign‑off
which we achieved.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister talked at the beginning about an unedited form. That is what it received. When it was presented by the panel, it was in
its unedited form. So I would ask the
minister‑‑this was before she talked about translation; this is
what was handed, an unedited form‑‑who edited it then?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
believe I said at the end of January, a copy of the unedited translation was
sent to our policy branch and was then couriered to Maurice Mimont [phonetic],
the Francophone member on the committee.
Mr. Plohman:
Prior to that, November 5, this was an English translation only in its
final form, or was it changed after the November 5 meeting?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The only changes which were made to that presentation which was in
English were minor pagination changes to simply make sure that its format was
presented and the panel approved the changes.
Mr. Plohman:
Would the minister have looked at one of the recommendations, for
example, and said, gee, that does not make sense, or that we have problems with
that one? Did she ask them to go back
and make any changes to any of the recommendations?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Absolutely not.
Mr. Plohman:
Was that ever done prior to November 5 by the minister or any of her
staff?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Absolutely not, again.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, when the minister received, for example, Recommendation 48, did
either herself or any of her staff wonder what that meant? I am just using that as an example.
* (2130)
If you read that recommendation, that
independent schools be required to accept students with special needs if
evaluation by the independent schools determines that it can provide an
appropriate learning environment, and that for the benefit of these children,
special support services and such specialists as school social workers, speech
clinicians and others be made available‑‑what does that mean? Does that mean that independent schools would
accept students with special needs or not?
When the minister sees something like that, or her staff, do they not go
back to the panel and say, like, why do you not say what you mean here?
Mrs. Vodrey:
When the panel presented its report to myself as minister, they did go
through the report and they did discuss their recommendations with us. However, they would say that the recommendations
reflect the words that Manitobans provided to them, and they would say that
these were the words that they used then to reflect the wishes of Manitobans
and the words that Manitobans used to express their ideas. So we did not attempt to change the words
expressed by the panel to put forward the ideas of Manitobans.
Mr. Plohman:
So then if a particular recommendation did not seem to make a lot of
sense or did not read very well, there was no attempt to point that out to the
committee and ask them to go back to bring forward something that was a little
more clear.
Mrs. Vodrey:
In the full report, the member will see that there is context for all of
the recommendations, which then act as a background to explain the
recommendations that the panel has put forward.
The panel felt very strongly about providing the back drop and also
including, as the member will see, quotes from Manitobans who where expressing
themselves.
Mr. Plohman: I
appreciate that the executive summary does not have the background material,
but the wording of the recommendation is the same in both. If you read the recommendation, I just used
that No. 48 as an example which I found extremely confusing, I would wonder if
anyone was reading that whether they would say that means anything at all in
terms of special needs services offered by independent schools.
Mrs. Vodrey:
That is one of the reasons why we are asking for comments from
Manitobans and from partners in education‑‑I will use that term
again‑‑so that we will be sure that they have had a chance to read
what is considered the background, that they will see the recommendation that
has been brought forward, and that then they will be able to make a comment
upon a meaning or any concerns or any special interest that they would want us
to be aware of when they have read the recommendations.
Mr. Plohman:
On this report then, has the minister or the department taken any
position at this time on any of the recommendations? Could the minister say that certain recommendations
reflect government policy and others do not, and if she would say at this
particular point in time that none of it reflects government policy, when can
we expect to see something that does?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have not taken a position on a single
recommendation or on the report as a whole. Our job is, as I said the day that
I released the report, to now review the report in its totality, to look at
what the meaning of those recommendations would be, and I have said each time I
have spoken about it that there are three areas to be reviewed. We do have to look at what the financial
implications of the recommendations are; we have to look at the organizational
effect of the recommendations and the legal effect of the recommendations.
We will be looking at that from the point of
view of government, and the fact that we are looking to reform The Public
Schools Act. We are asking, too, that
Manitobans and partners in education in
Mr. Plohman: I
think partners in education is a good term, so I do not have any
difficulty. The minister said she is
using it, and I thought maybe it was a formal designation of a group. That is why I asked about it before. But I think it accurately reflects the groups
that the minister has talked about when she mentioned a number of the groups.
I want to ask about the plans for this report
and action on it, because we have seen a lot of reports and recommendations
that often gather dust and perhaps never do get implemented to a great
degree. In this particular case, it
seems that legislative reform is a priority.
I do not know whether I am categorizing it right on the part of the
minister. If it is, then the minister
must have a timetable for responding.
Can I safely say that this is going to be used, this report from the
panel on education legislation reform, would be used as the basis for the
action plan that will be undertaken by the minister?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this report is intended to be the basis
of reform for the legislative framework for the revision of The Public Schools
Act. We also recognize, however, there
are other areas of reform to be considered.
Some are substantive in content and nature, and we will look at areas as
we get along further in the Estimates such as curriculum, but this was intended
to be the document to assist in the framework reform of The Public Schools Act.
Mr. Plohman:
What would be the timetable that the minister has projected now? Does she have a spreadsheet with a timetable
for proceeding to draft legislation, and what processes will be involved in
finalizing that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The first step was to receive the feedback from the partners in
education, and when we met with those groups we had asked them if we could
anticipate their response within approximately two months. The groups said to us that they would like to
have the report, to have a look at it, begin their analysis, and when they had
done that they would then let us know if they could meet that timetable, or if
in fact that timetable would not be able to be met by their groups because of
the large amount of work. However, we
are saying that we would like to move ahead with reform to The Public Schools
Act. We would hope to introduce some
changes for the session in '94.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, now I am getting a little bit
concerned. First, we are going to have
feedback from the partners, perhaps in two months as target. Then, there are no other steps, and all of a
sudden we are going to have some changes for '94. So if we sit in similar months to this year,
we could look forward to some changes in about a year from now. Is that what the minister is saying? Not comprehensive rewriting of the act, or is
that not envisaged in the first place?
Maybe I have the wrong idea, feeling that
there was going to be a major public education act, rewriting of The Public
Schools Act. If I am wrong on that, then
it seems that the minister is now saying there will be some changes, which
seems to indicate to me, maybe some minor changes, nothing substantial, in a
year.
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I said, this is intended to be the basis for major reform of The
Public Schools Act, the legislative reform. We are in the process of analyzing
and looking at the impacts, and at this point I am confident to tell the member
that we would look for some changes. It
may be, when we receive back the information and we have had an opportunity to
analyze ourselves, that it will be the year for the complete overhaul or the
major changes. I want to be careful to
be as fair and as honest with the member as I can, and we want to make sure
that we are able to look at the impact and make sure that the timetable is one which
is orderly for the functioning of schools and school divisions in this
province.
Mr. Plohman:
So we may very well have a‑‑maybe the term is not that
appreciated, but a piecemeal approach to rewriting the act as opposed to a
comprehensive job.
Mrs. Vodrey:
We are looking for the changes to be comprehensive, but we would also
like those changes to be orderly in their effect.
Mr. Plohman:
Orderly meaning that the financial, organizational and legal effects
have all been determined prior to decisions being made?
* (2140)
Mrs. Vodrey:
These are major recommendations.
The three areas are major issues to be considered in the functioning of
schools. Some of the recommendations also relate to other reforms which may be
undertaken in areas such as curriculum, and we want to make sure that the
reform that we plan to undertake‑‑and on which I believe a good
start has been made by this report in pointing out a direction‑‑but
we do want to make sure that the reform is an orderly one.
Mr. Plohman: I
certainly would like to have a definition of orderly from the minister's
perspective as to precisely what that means in terms of what could be passed
next year and what would not be. What
would make up the definition of orderly in the minister's mind? Would issues of financial impact be the major
one to determine whether it is orderly?
Would it be controversial ones not put forward because of political
ramifications? What kinds of things is
the minister thinking about when she talks about orderly? Curriculum is not part of this, and boundary
review is not even part of it, as I understand it. So the other recommendations that are in
here, many of them are pretty straightforward.
What is the concern here?
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I said, the recommendations are within the context of the
report. However, they also will have an
effect on other kinds of reform such as curriculum reform, and it will be
important to make sure that the issues of reform are well known, well
established and that then The Public Schools Act and the reforms that are
occurring in education are able to occur within‑‑I can only use the
term an orderly time frame again.
It would be important for us not to, and the
member had said it, we do not want to ad hoc education reform or this first
change to The Public Schools Act in over 10 years, the first change to The
Public Schools Act that has actually included public hearings, the input of
Manitobans.
We recognize that because we have included the
views of Manitobans, we now have a great deal of work. This is a benefit. This is the first time that this public
hearing process has actually occurred.
It really is a very big task. We
would like to do it in the most holistic and responsible way.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister said, this should be orderly, she wants to do it in a
holistic and responsible way, she has a number of criteria that these will be
evaluated on, the financial, organizational effects, the legal effects, and
then she may bring in some changes next year or major changes, we are not sure right
at this time, depending on how that evaluation takes place and what input comes
from the partners in education.
Is that summing it up pretty well?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
think the member has certainly understood the goals again of the orderly and
holistic approach and the effects that we are looking at in terms of the three
areas. Also, I would just like to add,
because I do not believe he included this in his list, how the reform of The
Public Schools Act will also affect other areas of education when we look at
recommendation No. 27, that basic education be defined in legislation. We will need to make sure that those terms
are clear and that the reform of The Public Schools Act is done with the view
of education as a whole.
Mr. Plohman: I
think I can understand what the minister is saying except when she talks about
a holistic approach and then she talks about some changes, perhaps next
year. Would that mean that, if she is
not going to bring in all of these changes at once or all of the ones that the government
determines make up the major reform as far as the government may want to go,
but wants to bring in some next year and then some, some other time, does the
minister expect to have a timetable for that, a time line to deal with the
major reform that she is talking about?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member I believe is saying that if it
all cannot be accomplished in a single effort, then we would make sure that
those which could be or short‑term objectives would be identified. There may be midterm objectives and long‑term
objectives. However, we are in the
process, and I would like to make this clear, of analyzing now what the
recommendations are from the panel. We
are looking at analyzing those recommendations and analyzing them as well in
the light of the direction of reform of the Department of Education.
Mr. Plohman:
Quite often when major policy changes are put forward or proposed by
government, it is done in the form of a white paper or something similar, a
green paper or whatever, to say, this is the government's position; this is the
government's intention; this is our desired direction at the present time and
now we want to know what you think.
Does the minister plan to do something like
that prior to us seeing a new act in the Legislature, or a partial new act?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The place we are at now is we want to see what the public says about the
report. This is an opportunity through
the document for the public to look at the reform to The Public Schools Act,
the legislative reform initiatives that have been recommended by
Manitobans. That is the step we are at
now, and, as I said, it is one step in the larger context of educational
reform.
Mr. Plohman: You
see, when you have a reform thrust and you are looking at what you would call
reform, you are looking at a process.
The minister has used the term "reform process." Then that seems to indicate to me that there
is a known process; there is a planned process that the government has. But it seems to me the minister really does
not have that plan all put together, not the outcome of it, but the plan to get
there. That is why I am asking about a
time line and what we can expect in terms of actions. Is there a planned timetable?
In other words, the minister knows she has
perhaps two years left in the mandate, could be less, could be slightly more,
but just thinking in terms of the government's current life, does she want to
have this in place for the time she has to go back to the people in an
election, or does she have only small parts of it? Is there a time line for any
particular actions, such as a white paper, or has that not even been
contemplated at the present time?
* (2150)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I have told the member that the Education Innovation fora will
occur in the fall. Those we look to be
very broad in their scope. They will‑‑and
the member asked me in an earlier question‑‑include, yes, some of
the issues that will involve the reform of The Public Schools Act and other
areas of reform.
I do hope, in the next couple of weeks also,
to make another announcement which may also add and clarify in terms of a
timetable, but I would think that the two time frames that I have given to the
member, one being the Education Innovation fora, which, again, will involve
Manitobans, to take place in the fall‑‑and then we also look for
some changes.
The scope of those changes to The Public
Schools Act, I have explained to the member that we will be looking at the
developments and the response that we get from the educational partners. We will be looking to make some changes to
The Public Schools Act in the '94 session.
I would say to the member, too, that the process of educational reform,
yes, I have referred to it as a process.
It is one which requires a whole series of activities, including
consultation and goal setting of where we want to achieve changes, and also
direction.
We have had the introduction of many new
initiatives over the past few years as well, and the department over the past
years has been initiating reform.
Through my term as minister, I have also been consulting with Manitobans
from all sectors of the province regarding the initiatives that will be
required for the future. The key to our
success will be to develop positive actions.
Manitoba Education and Training is, in its effort to do that,
establishing stronger linkages and partnerships with business, community,
labour, education sectors, and we are addressing a number of challenges.
The issues that we need to look at in the
process of educational reform are some agreement on the goals of education,
because there are some often competing viewpoints. Another reality that we have to deal with is
working within limited financial resources.
We also have to look at global competition and the challenging of
traditional values, and also obtaining objective and accurate data to separate
the assumptions from the realities, and also the sharing of responsibility and
the seeking of solutions.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister first said that she believed she would have received the
feedback from the partners prior to the forum. When I asked about this earlier,
was this report to be part of it, the minister said, well, we hope to be‑‑I
gathered‑‑some distance along by then, will have received the
feedback from the partners. So can we
assume then at the forum or "fora" as the minister has said‑‑is
that the Latin for a plural of forum, so there are several forums taking place
at one time‑‑will the minister have position papers then? Does she envisage having position papers on
aspects of this legislative reform panel recommendations?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the broad scope of education
reform and the issues that I have just spoken about in my last answer, yes, we
will look to have position papers at the fora as a start for discussion among
the people, among the groups that will be present there. It will be a way to focus the discussion of
the fora.
Mr. Plohman: I
am just using the legislative reform as an example here in trying to understand
the process that the minister and her department are going through. There are all of the other aspects of reform
that we can deal with at some point in time during these discussions. But using this as an example, I am trying to
understand precisely what process the minister is going through when she talks
about the reform process dealing with legislation, a major part of it.
So we are going to see the partners come back
with feedback. As a result of that, the minister will take a position on some
of the issues, if not all, that have been recommended by the panel, depending
on the feedback that comes back from the partners. Then the minister or her
staff, on her behalf, from the department will put forward position papers for
those interested parties who are attending and participating in these fora in
October or November, whatever, in the fall, to get their response to the
government position. Is that what we can
expect?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
would want to be careful with the member's definition of government position,
because what we would like to do is to be able at the fora to put forward the
issues. There may be raised at that time
some of the competing views around some of those issues. We will have to look at where are the areas
of some agreement and where are the areas on which there is not such wide
agreement, and the numbers of issues to be discussed will not necessarily be
just a series of government positions.
We are looking to do this in the most inclusive way, but we also
recognize that we need to provide some leadership, some identification of the
issues, and the information that Manitobans will need to understand those
issues and to provide some feedback to government.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister said I should be careful with the government
position. I gather from her statement
just now that this process is far too preliminary to be discussed as a government
position at the forum, or fora, that in fact this is still the preliminary
consultation. If there is a consensus
that readily identified on some issues, then the minister after a forum will be
in a position to say we are going to move forward on these, if she feels
comfortable with the direction that the consensus seems to indicate. Those that are more difficult or more
expensive or have an impact on other areas, they may go through a more lengthy
process to get to a final solution.
Would that be fair in terms of how the minister will arrive at those
areas that she may want to move on?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, I just want to clarify with the
member. Is he speaking of this report
alone or, is he speaking of the scope of the issues that will be raised at the
education fora?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am speaking now as I identified to the
minister using this legislative reform as the example to explore how the
minister and her department are going to approach reform. So I am not talking about the realm of other
issues that might be brought forward at that forum, but I am trying to deal
with the one aspect of it.
I detected earlier on, and maybe that is a
very minor part of that innovations forum.
I hope this has a substantial place. Otherwise, we are not going to get
much movement on this report. So if it is a very minor part of that forum and
the minister can clarify that, but in any event, that is what I wanted to see
happen here is to find out how the minister is going to move on these 106
recommendations.
* (2200)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I have said to the member that I expect
to have responses from the educational organizations, and I will have to look
at what those responses will be and exactly where the community has seen the
impact of these recommendations. When I
have a look at those, we will then be able to determine more specifically
exactly how the legislative reform will be presented at the Education
Innovation fora.
The member has asked, will this play a
substantial part. I think it is very
important to recognize that this is the basis that we are looking to when we
look to reform The Public Schools Act, which is the first major reform in 10
years. That is a specific and large area
of education reform for
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being after ten o'clock, what is the
will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: To carry on with it.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: To carry on?
Okay, we will carry on.
Mr. Plohman:
We can expect the forum to deal with parts of the legislation reform and
then following that the minister is going to be making some decisions on which
recommendations or amended recommendations or whatever might be the case, what
position she is going to take on the issues identified here. Some of it may find its way into legislation
next spring, but the minister is not in a position to say how much, if any,
will find its way into legislation next spring.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I said to the member that we certainly look for the reform of The
Public Schools Act. We look for this
reform to be a major aspect in the reform process of education. But at this
point we must take the time to analyze the report, to also receive feedback
from the community, as was requested of us.
When we have that information, we will then be able to look at exactly
what a total timetable‑‑and, as I have said to the member, I have
not in any way discounted major reform.
This document is the basis of major reform,
but, as we have spoken about for some time now, we need to make sure that the
impact of that reform is fully recognized, because we do want the process and
the impact of the process, the effect of the process to be orderly.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is not able to give any time line or goals for achieving
major reform, because she does not know, at this point in time, would it be
accurate to say, how major that reform might be?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I am not sure how to clarify more strongly for the member other
than to say that it was an initiative of this government to undertake the
public hearing process to reform The Public Schools Act. We have a commitment to that.
The second part of the commitment was where
there was a request to view what the recommendations were, and when those
recommendations were released, the chairperson of the committee made it clear
that these were recommendations representing the views of Manitobans, and he
said at that time they had not been analyzed for their effect on the three
areas that I have been speaking about.
So that is the work now of my department in
analyzing and also of the community to respond, and when that work is done, we
will have then a much stronger view of exactly the details of what that reform
may be. However, I can assure the member
again, that it is a process and a reform that we have taken very
seriously. We have taken it seriously
enough to make sure that the public hearings occurred and that Manitobans did
have an opportunity to say what their views were and to give their views in a
very open way, so that they were able to say exactly what they thought.
Our department then will be basing its
decisions, in terms of the reform of The Public Schools Act, upon a number of
principles, and those are principles which look for excellence, principles
which look for equity, openness, responsiveness, choice, relevance, integration
and accountability. So we will be
looking to hold to those principles as we look to reform The Public Schools Act. But I can assure the member, again, that this
is a very important initiative, a part of our education reform, but a very
important initiative.
Mr. Plohman: I
will try once again, just one angle on this.
The minister has talked about the consultation, so the report took
place. Now, people wanted to see the
report. At some point, the government
has to take a position, and I am trying to determine how far along the way the
government is in taking positions.
I will not try to phrase what my understanding
is of that at the present time, except to ask one more time, does the minister
envisage a position paper at some point to say one last round of consultation,
because at some point, the people want to know what the government is going to
do. You can go through all this
consultation, but if there are no positions taken, there will not be any action
forthcoming, and it will still be a surprise for everyone when it finally comes
down because it may not‑‑well, it definitely will not reflect what
everyone wanted. It is impossible.
So there is where the leadership comes
in. Does the minister envisage a
position paper prior to legislation?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
can say that the position of government, when the analysis is done, when the
feedback from the organization has been received and government has integrated
the issues, the position of government will be known. It may be in the form of a paper, but I can
assure the member that the position will be known to the groups, in terms of
the direction that government wishes to take.
* (2210)
Mr. Plohman:
Of course, we will want the Legislature to know too, and that is why the
paper released to the Legislature would be very important‑‑usually
tabled in the Legislature. That was the
commitment I wanted from the minister, if such a position paper was put
forward.
I just want to ask the minister how far along
this analysis is. Did any analysis get
done between the period of November 5 to April 27? Surely, you did not have to have a translated
version in order to start doing an impact analysis about the financial,
organizational and legal effects, and the impact on other areas.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was certainly a review of the magnitude of
the report, the scope of the report, but there was not a point‑by‑point
analysis of impact of the report in that time period. However, we are able to say that the
legislative reform process does share some common principles with other
initiatives, and this is part of reviewing the magnitude of the report. It does speak to partnerships. It does speak to excellence, assessibility,
equity, openness and responsiveness, those principles that I stated
earlier. We saw those principles within
the report.
The legislative reform process has been an
important vehicle to this government, certainly since I have been
minister. I have made frequent
references to the legislative reform process when I have been in the
House. It will be an important basis and
a part of education reform. Those, by
reviewing the report, were known and were evident, but as I said, we are now in
the detailed analysis part, where we will have to look at the impact on the
areas that we have been discussing this evening.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister said six months.
There are 14 staff dedicated to the strategic plan or strategic
directions for the department meeting once a month as we found out earlier.
I know there is always a difficulty with the
many chores that have to be done and the limited staff and resources available,
but surely in six months there could have been an evaluation done of some of
these categories for say half of the recommendations or two‑thirds or
three‑quarters, maybe the easy ones at least, I do not know.
Has the minister not received a report on the
analysis with regard to the financial, organizational, legal impact on other
areas, any of those yet, any of those 106 recommendations, or are they not
being done recommendation by recommendation?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just let me clarify for the member, the group
that meets once a month is the senior staff who is, I think I mentioned, the
group that has responsibility for the overall direction. The group of 14 individuals whom the member
has mentioned is a group which has been looking at the strategic plan. That group, I am informed, may meet, by way
of example, sometimes three times in one week to work on an issue, and then
they will not meet for awhile while they are doing some additional study on
that particular issue.
In terms of the panel report, our Policy
branch had, in fact, been working with the panel to make sure that the report
could be released, that the translation work met the issue, met the concerns of
the panel and that the report could be out.
So as I have said to the member, yes, we were
able to look at the report in a global sense.
We have been able to review the magnitude. We have been able to extract principles that
we found in the report, and we are now in the process of doing a detailed
analysis and effect of this particular report.
Again, as I said to the member, too, it is not necessarily just a linear
study. He asked are we doing it sort of single recommendation by single
recommendation.
We are in fact looking at this report. We want to know the effect in the areas that
I have spoken about. We also want to
know, as I have said this evening, the impact of this report on the other areas
of education.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, I understand all those things, but, now, this is six months since
the report was received by the minister. There was some need to oversee a
process before it was released, and I can see where that might have occupied a
minimal amount of staff time, but we are six months into the process.
I just wonder if the minister can give us any
progress report as to the progress on the analysis of the recommendations, as
they would be impacting on the categories mentioned. Are we 50 percent of the way through, or 20
percent or 10 percent or what?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said, the process of evaluating under all
of those frameworks is an important process.
It is a big process. I am
informed that the administration area of my department has now gone through the
whole document, and has been looking at the legal implications and also the
organizational implications.
Mr. Plohman:
Okay, so the administration is looking at the financial and
organizational impacts, but‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
It is the legal, not the financial.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that clarification‑‑legal and organizational
impacts, okay. The financial‑‑is
that being done or is that going to wait until the other part is finished? I
can see the other area impact on other areas of reform being somewhat nebulous.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we, again, are in the process of analyzing the
financial area, because, just by way of example, there are a couple of areas
which will require us to look at, transportation, for instance, and integration
across the curricula. We were having to
look at that with the various areas of my department which would be required to
have the responsibility in those areas.
The point that I have wanted to make is that
it is an integrated approach. We have
had to look at it not just as a single report by itself, but its impact across
education.
* (2220)
Mr. Plohman: I
appreciate the minister saying that. It
is just not a matter of looking at it and individual recommendations, but when
combined with other initiatives, there could be variations in the cost factor
perhaps.
One of them might be Recommendation 32 that
Departments of Education and Training, Health and Family Services co‑ordinate
the services to learners with special needs, that the government pay the actual
costs of providing education and required support services for such learners,
and that funding at the school division level be organized in such a way as to
ensure funding is not reduced for programs prior to other children.
So that one says that the government pay. It then is a question of to what degree a
service is provided. So you have to
establish some level of service that is realistic or that meets all of their
needs or a certain portion of them and then develop a price tag on that. Is that how the minister would have the staff
do that? Would they be going on the
basis of what is provided now, or what should be provided to meet the needs
that are known to be out there?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, just as another example of the analysis, we also wanted to go
through that report to look at what might currently be in the act because, in
fact, some of the recommendations are currently addressed in the act. Manitobans may not have come across those.
We also have to look at which of the
recommendations may address something which is in the act and may require a
modification and which were areas which were not currently within the act.
In terms of the question he asked on
Recommendation 32, again the questions that have to be analyzed are which of
the services that we would be speaking about provided by these departments. It
will require us to again have a look at what the needs are, where the services
are being provided, and by whom the services are being provided.
Mr. Plohman: So
the analysis is done on the basis of the recommendation, not what the minister
would like to see. In other words, she
may not agree that the government should pay the actual cost of providing
education and required support to learners with special needs. I am not asking the minister if she agrees
with that or not at this time, just saying she may not agree, but she is going
to have the staff undertake a cost analysis based on that recommendation, not a
modified form, or what the minister would like to see. The analysis would be done on full‑service
delivery being provided by the province.
Mrs. Vodrey:
In the process of the analysis, we will be looking at the financial
implications, but it is important to know that the financial implications are
one way, and that we also would be looking at other ways to meet the needs of
those students.
For instance, we might be looking at issues
such as Distance Education. We might be
looking at forms of service which would become available to us in terms of
meeting the needs, and we would have to factor that in.
That is why I was saying to the member that
there are a number of issues which are underway in the Department of Education
and in the process of reform, and we will have to look at these recommendations
in the context of all the potential changes.
I mentioned Distance Education as one, as a method of delivery which
will need to be integrated into the recommendations. We will need to be looking at them‑‑again,
I use the term‑‑in a holistic, contextual sense.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then we can assume that there would be one
analysis done on the conventional delivery of such services but also some
alternatives that would be placed out there before the public at some point to
get some feedback.
Mrs. Vodrey:
That is true, especially in terms of looking at Distance Education, by
way of example. It does put forward
alternatives to the traditional or to the methods which we are using, maybe as
a first response at this time.
Mr. Plohman: I
just want to ask how many of these reports were produced in the first printing,
or has there been two or three printings, or what exactly has taken place up to
this point?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The English version on the first printing, 200 copies; in the second
printing, 500; a total of 700. In the
French version in the first printing, 50 copies; in the second, 150; for a
total of 200; the Executive Summary, 1,000 copies.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, when was the second printing, Mr. Deputy Chairperson?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Within about two days of the release of the report. There was a great deal of interest.
Mr. Plohman:
Is there a third printing being planned?
Mrs. Vodrey:
At the moment, we have not used all of the second printing. However, if there is a demand for a third
printing, a request on behalf of Manitobans, we will go to a third printing.
Mr. Plohman:
My office has asked on two occasions for 30 copies to distribute and was
told that they do not have them. I am
wondering whether the minister has directed that only certain people get
copies, or is there a screening done, or what takes place here? We asked two days after. As the minister said, there was this great
deal of interest. Well, we asked within
the first two days for the 30 copies, and, subsequently, we asked just about a
week ago, or three or four days ago actually.
* (2230)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I am informed that there was a call placed to my
office today, and I am informed‑‑well, it is now 10:30 in the evening,
but the member will receive them tomorrow.
I would just like to make it clear; there is
no screening for those who wish to receive the report. We are making every attempt to make sure that
Manitobans who would like to receive the report will have the report.
Mr. Plohman:
That is good to know. I did not
say that without any basis. It was a
question, not a statement of fact, but I did ask the question in light of the
fact that our staff had asked on two occasions previous to today.
If the call was put in again today to the
minister's office, that was not where they were calling. I believe there was a number that was
provided, and that was where the original calls went and not today. So, if the call was made today again, why did
it have to go to the minister's office before action was provided?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, the call went to our Policy branch today. Again we are making every effort to provide
the copies as the requests come in, and the member will have his copies
tomorrow.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that. I want to
leave this report for the present time and perhaps will come back to it later
on, but at this time I want to ask some other questions of the minister on this
section.
The management group, the senior staff or the
management committee that maybe pulled together for a particular job, would
they look at such things as I believe the minister said curriculum, and, say,
the issue of national testing and participation and evaluation of what is going
on there? Would that be something that
would be dealt with here?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, the two issues which the member referenced, the
national testing and also curriculum, are examined in committees under the PDSS
section of my department, the K to 12 section.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, initially, I understand the minister said earlier that various
departmental management would be called in for particular jobs. However, the senior management and senior staff
would deal with major issues such as this, I would think, in providing
suggestions or recommendations to the minister.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Where issues go across branches, then the committee that would look at
it would then be representative. When I
look at some of the issues the member has referenced, there needs to be a
collaboration between our PDSS branch and our Bureau de L'education
Francaise. The issue of national
testing, however, and the participation in the most recent assessment was a
decision made at the Council of Ministers of Education, and therefore it is
managed by our PDSS branch.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, so surely the minister realizes that there are policy implications
of participating in that kind of a test. There is also curriculum analysis that
has to be done to determine what input the minister should take to the Council
of Ministers as to concerns.
So these would be identified by the PDSS
branch and probably then reviewed by management prior to the minister attending
a Council of Ministers meeting where she might put forward suggestions or
concerns with regard to the upcoming test.
Would there be that kind of process? On that basis, would the minister be prepared
at this time to deal with any of those concerns and discussion about the
national math test?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The Curriculum Branch and the assessment branch both worked on what
would occur for
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, that is fine. We can deal
with it at that time perhaps, although we may get to it yet tonight.
The Independent Living Skills is a
course. Is that the proper name for it,
Life Skills?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The course name is Skills for Independent Living.
Mr. Plohman:
Skills for Independent Living.
Again, would that be brought forward under the Curriculum Branch?
Mrs. Vodrey:
That would be best discussed under the PDSS area 16.2.
Mr. Plohman:
The issue of boundary review, does the minister have a position on
boundary review at the present time? It
is just touched on briefly in this legislation reform. It is not really a part of it, other than
that the commission would remain. The
area is one that is not being acted on at the present time. I believe, alteration of school division
boundaries, the board of reference be retained.
Is the minister undertaking any analysis of that, any review at the
present time within the department of the whole issue of boundary reviews in
the context of reform?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, the issue of boundary review was deferred last year, and it was
not cancelled. Therefore, it is still an
issue that is being considered by this government. I hope to give the member more information
within the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying that this might be the subject of an
announcement in the next couple of weeks, the issue of the status of boundary
review?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, as I said, I hope to provide the member with more information
within the next couple of weeks on the issue of boundary review.
Mr. Plohman:
Did the management committee and the minister's senior staff review the
whole issue of the delivery of services to children that was the subject of the
paper of June '91 from several of the partners in education: MAST, MASS and MTS and school business
officials? Was that reviewed, and what
is the current status of that subject matter?
It is also the part of the legislative reform, but, of course, it is not
exclusive to that report, being dealt with by a number of organizations and is
a major concern at the present time. Can
the minister indicate what the present status of action on those requests and
concerns is?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The working group that has been working on that particular report has
been an interdepartmental working group, and we have been represented on that
committee by staff members from PDSS. I
will be able to provide the member with a more detailed status update on that
report in the PDSS section of the Estimates.
However, I can tell him that that committee has been working and they
have done a great deal of work in looking at what services are offered within
the departments so that there is a basis of information, but I can provide him
with the details when we get to the PDSS section.
Mr. Plohman:
That raises some concern on my part, I think. It seems to me then that the
interdepartmental committee is at a level that does not involve the senior
staff. Is that correct?
* (2240)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the people assigned to do the work were the
people who were extremely knowledgeable about the hands‑on availability
of service. From our department, we assigned
Mr. Bert Cenerini, who is the director of our Child Care and Development
Branch, and Mr. Hugo Stephan. Also
represented was the Assistant Deputy Minister Carolyn Loeppky. Then there was also a committee of deputy
ministers, and the Deputy Minister of Education was represented on that
committee. Excuse me, our deputy
minister chaired that committee.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so there are several committees then. The minister is indicating there is a deputy
ministers' committee that is taking charge of this issue. I would think I could characterize it as
that. Then there is a senior staff‑‑the
one that Carolyn Loeppky would be on, would that be another committee or would
that be the same committee that PDSS is on as a hands‑on committee? There would be two levels of committees or
three?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there were two levels of committee. The deputy ministers formed a steering
committee. Then the assistant deputy minister and staff from our Child Care and
Development Branch formed a working group with members from the other
departments.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister say how long the deputy ministers' committee has been
in place? The brief was made in June of
'91. There have been many, many discussions about this. It has been raised in Estimates in the
past. It is a major area that needs
addressing. All political parties
recognize that. All partners in
education realize it. How long has this
been ongoing now, when the deputy ministers' committee was established, I am
asking.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to say to the member, some of
the questions that he is asking are detailed questions of time and also
involvement of staff members who work for the PDSS section of the department. I am wondering if I could ask the member to
put those questions when PDSS comes up so that we will have the information
available to him.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think it is important to establish the kind of
priority that this issue is getting in the department, and that is what I am
trying to do now. I am prepared to ask
detailed questions of PDSS staff when we deal with that. Right now, I am trying to find out from the
minister exactly how she and her senior staff are handling this issue from
their point of view.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this has been an area of priority and also an
area where a great deal of time has been devoted. While I cannot give the member an exact
account of the meeting times, I am informed that there were approximately over
the last year six meetings of the steering committee of deputies and
approximately at least 12 meetings of staff.
At these meetings, there had to be an examination and then work done
when the committee was not together, looking at exactly which services were to
be discussed and looking in detail at how we can put together a report of those
services.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, am I to understand then that the committee was
established about a year ago, the deputy minister's committee, and maybe that
the staff committee of Child Care and Development Branch along with the other
departments was formed about the same time?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the report was received in June '91, as the
member has referenced, and then there was a discussion at a cabinet committee
level in terms of how the report could be best addressed because it did have a
wide scope of an important issue. In
February '92, the interdepartmental co‑ordination services committee was
established, and the report of the working group was received in March '93 to
the deputy ministers.
Mr. Plohman:
So are we to say then that the deputy ministers just became involved in
March '93?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, but I am saying that the report from the
working group was received by the deputies in March '93.
Mr. Plohman:
But the six meetings that the deputies have had go back over a period of
how long? And when were those six
meetings held? Most of them since March
'93? In other words, over the last two
months, or were some of those meetings held prior to that, and how many of
those?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that there were approximately five meetings prior to the 1993
meeting, and I am informed that then there was the meeting in March '93 to
receive the report, and there has been another meeting since the report was
received.
At those meetings of the deputy ministers,
they were also meeting with the working group where the deputy ministers were
able to look at the progress and provide direction as a steering committee.
Mr. Plohman:
How much has the minister been involved with this process? Is there a ministerial committee established
on this as well or just the deputy ministers?
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I said to the member, there is a committee of cabinet that has been
involved and has given the original direction, and ministers sitting in that
cabinet committee have received updates from their staff. I have received updates from my staff at
intervals where they provide a report and also when I have asked for
information regarding an update.
* (2250)
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister satisfied with the pace of the current discussions?
Mrs. Vodrey:
There is no doubt that this is a very important and complicated issue,
and the single issue within the larger report is the concern over the medically
fragile child, which has also required a great deal of work. But I can say to the member, while
recognizing the complicated nature of the work that this committee is doing and
also some of the issues, I would like to say when we get to the PDSS side that
there has already been a number of initiatives which have involved
interdepartmental co‑ordination and which are already in progress.
So it is not as if everything has waited for
interdepartmental co‑operation and co‑ordination to occur finally
at the receipt of this report, but that there are a number of initiatives which
are already in progress as well.
Mr. Plohman:
That is encouraging. It seems to
be logical that if the ministers and deputy ministers are making this a
priority, the staff in the delivery end of things are going to be taking a cue
from that and trying to perhaps be more open to integrating their services and
not so worried about protecting their turf. That is always one of the difficulties
when you are dealing with several departments.
The deputy minister knows that full well. We even discussed this on
Friday night at the meeting that we were participating in discussions with the
Liberal critic as well at that time.
I wanted to ask the minister, not about those
particular examples of success which I am interested in when we get to that
section of the department, but how she sees this deputy ministers' committee
developing in terms of a final proposal for cabinet approval? First of all, do we see it something like the
interministerial protocols for the provision of support services to schools in
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that the deputies' committee did look at what B.C. is doing, and
they also looked at what
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying that they are at a point of decision making by
the ministers. There are the different
routes to go with this and that has not been decided yet by the ministers or
taken to cabinet.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, the ministers involved will have to have a discussion about the
details of the report. We will have to
look at how to make the most effective use of even this first stage of information,
because what we have even in the first stage I believe is an important amount
of information, and then ministers will be making a decision about the further
direction and also any decisions on exactly what to do with what is provided so
far.
Mr. Plohman:
The chairperson of the committee is the Deputy Minister of Education,
who has provided this report to the minister, I take it. How long ago did the minister receive this
report from the deputy ministers?
Mrs. Vodrey:
One of my colleagues has just this evening finished the Estimates
process. Now I am in the Estimates
process, and another of my colleagues will be shortly going into the Estimates
process. So the important thing is that
now we as ministers need to make sure that we have been able to review this
with our departments and then also with each other, and we will be looking to
do that as quickly as possibly because we have recognized that the issues are
important. We have recognized they are
important to Manitobans, and they are issues on which we do have now some
information which may be able to help us make a difference.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, I realize the minister is extremely busy, although Estimates will
be coming up soon again too for next year, and so you have got to start somewhere
with this report. Do you expect to have this placed on hold while the Estimates
process in the Legislature is taking place, or are we going to see some
decisions made by the ministers prior to the completion of this legislative
session?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again,
we do not want to see this report go on hold.
We would like to get it to the committee of cabinet as quickly as
possible and then on for decision making by our other colleagues. I can tell the member, it will be done as
soon as possible. We are looking, and
again as we discuss this more fully, to make the very best use of the
information that has been provided to us by this working group and by the
deputies committee.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, would the minister want some help in sharing that report with the
opposition?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, at this point, the obligation that we have will be to
review the report as ministers and to review the report as a group of ministers
whose departments have done the work.
Mr. Plohman: I
am sure, in an important matter like this, the minister would not want to keep
a secret. When does she anticipate that
the report from the deputy ministers would be something that could be shared
with the Legislature?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, as I said, in terms of the process, and we have been using that
word this evening, the ministers whose departments have been working on this
will want the opportunity to view it.
Government will have some decisions to make, and then we will want to
make as quickly possible the decisions known.
* (2300)
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister give us an idea of some of the considerations that she
is undertaking now with this report so we have an idea of why this cannot be
shared with the Legislature?
Mrs. Vodrey:
This was a report where the work of the group was directed by the
ministers. The ministers themselves must
first have an opportunity to see the report, and to discuss the report, and to
look at the action that they will be making in terms of their decision process.
That is the stage that we are at now, but I
understand the member's interest in terms of this particular report, and in
terms of what the benefits will be to Manitobans. We, too, want to make sure that there are
benefits to Manitobans based on the information from this committee.
Mr. Plohman:
The joint group that made a presentation to the minister and to the
government of
Would the minister say that they are at the
point now of having that parallel recognition?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again in the process of this line of questioning, I have tried to show
the member that we certainly see this as an important initiative. We certainly recognize the desire on behalf
of Manitobans for this kind of co‑operation. The details of the report, I believe, would
be best discussed when we get to 16.2.
Mr. Plohman: I
understand that and I was not trying to get into too much detail. But I am exploring a bit the detail because I
want to know how important the minister feels this is. If she, as a minister, is not completely
cognizant of what is happening in this area and comfortable with it, then it
seems to me that maybe it is not getting the kind of priority that it should
get. So, there is an actual deliberate‑‑
An Honourable Member: Strategy.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, strategy on my part to question the minister at this point in time
because I think it is important. I would
think that there is room here to suggest to the minister that this has to
receive greater attention by her personally and her colleagues because if this
is not directed by the ministers, with all due consideration to the deputy
ministers, I think that it is doomed to failure, to take an awful long time and
perhaps no substantive action will come of it only because the political will
and direction must be there.
That has to be seen clearly by the staff and
by the various departments because there is so much at stake here for each
department and conventional ways of doing things. It is only, I believe, the ministers, and I
say this sincerely, that can ensure that this takes place and that the
political will is there to do it. That
is why I am exploring this with the minister.
I would like assurances from the minister that she has a timetable in
mind to complete this task. If she could
shed some light on that timetable, it might give us more comfort in how we
perceive the government's actions here.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, to start with the issue of why I think this is
important, in my work as a school psychologist in the years that I spent in the
schools, this was an issue of concern.
It was an issue of concern when the member's party was in
government. I certainly remember sitting
in the minister's office discussing this issue, at that time, when I was
working in the schools.
I would like to tell him, as I have told
Manitobans when I have been out speaking in
In terms of a timetable, I have said to him
that we have received the report as ministers and now we, as ministers, will be
taking the next step. We will be meeting
as soon as possible on the report. We
will be looking at decision points and the next steps that we might take, but
because there are other ministers involved as well, it would be very hard for
me to speak singly, at this point, until we have met on this report.
Again, in summary, I would like to assure him
of my interest. I think I have a record
in this province of particular interest in this area, and we will be looking,
as ministers, to deal with it as soon as possible.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then can we expect any action on this report
before the fall of this year?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, well, as I said to the member earlier, we do have
already some examples in which there is interdepartmental co‑operation. We understand too that there are other areas
in which that co‑operation can continue, and those are the areas that we,
as ministers, will be looking at.
When we do reach the section on 16.2, I will
be happy to talk with him about the number of co‑operative initiatives
which are currently taking place.
Just by way of example, the Department of
Education and Training, in collaboration with the Department of Family Services
and the Department of Health, has developed an interdepartmental crisis
resource committee on a pilot‑project basis, which supports local school
divisions and Child and Family Services agencies in developing appropriate 24‑hour
community‑based education treatment programs.
I can certainly tell the member that in the
time that I was working in the schools, that was an area of very strong
interest, particularly for children with any kind of special needs. We understood for some children there was a
great need for a sense of continuity throughout their lives, and this 24‑hour
planning was important. So I offer that
as one example to the member as an example of co‑operation.
Mr. Plohman: I
was not trying to substitute for the examples of co‑operation that the
minister wanted to talk about later which are encouraging and important. I think this kind of thing takes place when
there is a reflection of ministerial and deputy ministerial priorities. When it is shown to be a priority, it will
happen also in a parallel way.
So maybe that is taking place at the present
time to a certain degree, an isolated incident.
It is not formalized. Maybe it would even be ad hoc, as circumstances
happen to come together for a particular issue, but that is not good enough, is
it? It has to be planned, it has to be
formal and it has to be there all the time when these situations arise, or at
least to the extent that overall government resources make it possible.
We look at the situation in Flin Flon, some of
the questions that were asked today, and maybe we see an example where it did
not work. I am not in a position at this
point until we have had an opportunity to question in more detail exactly what
did happen in that case, of whether that is a good example where it did not
work, but it was questioned in the Legislature today, in the House by some of
our colleagues.
* (2310)
So there are many areas where it is not happening,
and I guess that is why the ministers and deputy ministers are looking at
it. That is as it should be.
My question is: What kind of a timetable did you have to
accomplish that task? Are you setting
yourself out a particular timetable to get to some type of ministerial protocol
for dealing with people in the school system, for co‑ordination of
services?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said to the member earlier, the ministers
now must meet and we must look at our position in terms of the information that
we have received. When we have had an
opportunity to review this as ministers, at that time maybe I will be able to
provide a more detailed timetable.
Again, as I have said to the member, this does
represent four ministries, and the four ministries must be able to speak then
in a comprehensive way. So I want to be
fair to my colleagues and say, first of all, the ministers must come together
and review what we have so far.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying that her colleagues do not have a full commitment
to this process?
Mrs. Vodrey:
No, and I hope the member did not interpret it that way, but I would not
like to speak on behalf of my colleagues specifically. I think they need to have the opportunity to
speak also about how a timetable will work within their ministries, and that is
what we will be endeavouring to do when we examine the report as ministers.
Mr. Plohman:
Is it this minister who is taking the initiative, the leadership role,
in accomplishing that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the Department of Education and myself, as minister, and
the deputy minister have been the lead department in terms of making sure that
the co‑ordinating committee was begun and was able to do its work. Now I will be looking to make sure that this
is seen on the agenda by the cabinet committee, by my colleagues and myself.
Mr. Plohman:
The colleagues the minister is talking about are the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard), the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae). Is that right?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Those are the departments which were represented on the committee.
Mr. Plohman:
So that is the deputy ministers then.
The ministers do not formally have a committee on this then. Is that what the minister is saying?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The ministers do have a cabinet committee. This cabinet committee, however, deals with a
number of issues, not only this single issue.
There are other ministers who also will participate on that committee,
who will also have an interest in this area.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister would not be giving away any secrets if she was to tell me
which committee of cabinet deals with this.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the committee is the Human Services Committee of
Cabinet.
Mr. Plohman:
Does she care to mention who sits on that committee?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I think that it would be important for the member to know that
all four of the ministers whose ministries have been involved sit on that
committee, and we do sit on that committee with other members who have
ministries which are involved in services to people.
Mr. Plohman:
We could ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), I guess, who else sits on that
committee if the minister feels uncomfortable answering that. I do not think that is a classified
secret. I do not think it should be, but
if the minister feels at all uneasy about mentioning the others, that is
fine. So we have at least the four sitting
on that committee.
I will leave that issue for now. It is a very important one, and one we want
to watch very closely. I want to assure
the minister that I would give her any assistance in moving this along that I
could, without, I am sure, the minister asking for some prodding in the House,
but anytime an issue like this is raised, it may increase the relative
importance that other ministers might give to something that the minister is
attempting to do.
I just want to offer that and to indicate that
we feel it is extremely important. I
know that we have not accomplished this over the years. That does not mean that there was not an
attempt made to co‑ordinate services, but I think it has really become a
recognition, at least for me, and for so many others I have talked to in the
school boards, recognizing this need.
I know, for example, the Dauphin Ochre school
board is extremely concerned about this.
They feel that very often the Department of Family Services, in
particular, and Health really are not providing the kind of support to the
educational system that is required.
There has to be more co‑ordination. They have raised this on numerous
occasions. Other school boards have
mentioned it as well and other people in the education community. So I think it is something now that everyone
is saying has to happen as quickly as possible.
I do not think that the minister has to
reinvent the wheel or the staff on this, because it has been done in other
areas. I just want to indicate to the
minister that we view this as one of the most important initiatives. If it is not accomplished over the next
couple of years, it will be one that undoubtedly will be focused on as a major
goal by future governments. So I hope we
do not have that as a platform item. I
hope it is done.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I have told the member of my personal
interests and experience in this area and that I too view this as an important
area for our government and for my department.
I too have spoken with school divisions on this issue. I have spoken with individual teachers and
parents on this issue. I understand how
wide reaching the interest, and that is why we did, this time, move ahead and
have the working committee and make a start.
Now we are at a point where we then, as ministers, now will have to look
at this.
Mr. Plohman: I
think this has been given some impetus by the fact that the major groups
involved in education have come together with their paper. I thought this was an excellent paper which
certainly describes quite well the problem and the need for action on the part
of government on an urgent basis.
I think the government is probably about a
year behind schedule, at least according to what was requested by this group,
if not two years. Well, it cannot be two
years, they just presented it two years ago but, certainly, things are not
moving as quickly as they had hoped.
I want to ask the minister whether she can
deal with some policies on Distance Education in this section? I know there is a line for it, but I would
like to find out from the minister whether her management staff has looked at a
major change in direction on Distance Education as a result of the initiative
that the minister outlined at the beginning of the Estimates today, when she
talked about some of the reports that were being done. I believe Distance Education was one of
those. I forget the name of the report
that was being done. Maybe the minister
could refresh my memory on that.
* (2320)
I am referring to the task force on Distance
Education and Technology. The minister
indicates she will be releasing the report on the third and final stage of the
task force shortly. That is what I am asking about.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the report on the task force and the details I will
be able to discuss more fully with the member when we get to 16.2(g), which is
the Distance Education section of the Estimates.
I would like to say that this has been another
area which school divisions across this province have expressed as an area of
interest, because they see a number of potential benefits, so I did create the
task force on Distance Education, and we did have staff members sitting on this
task force as well as interested Manitobans.
Because we saw this as a collaborative effort within our department, we
had staff members on from our policy area, from our admin and finance area,
from our PDSS area, the K‑12 area, and also from our post‑secondary
area.
Mr. Plohman:
Okay, this then would be the correct area to talk about the overall
thrust of the government's initiatives in Distance Education, it would seem to
me. [interjection] Well, those are the details.
I am talking about the overall priority again that it is given by the
minister and senior staff.
That is why I am asking these questions here,
because these are the people that make the decisions and give the direction to
the department along with the minister.
Since they as a management group deal with these issues, not in the fine
detail perhaps‑‑that is where the staff would be able to provide, I
guess, some of the details of 16.2(g), as the minister mentioned, but I am
interested in knowing whether there has been a major change in direction here
as a result of this minister's initiative or some senior staff's initiative together
as a team, whether there has been a major change or major thrust.
The minister says she created this task
force. Therefore it is important,
right? There is a task force created
here. Is the minister planning a major
initiative in this area, keeping in mind that there have been major staff cuts
in this area this year? I want to try
and get an understanding how this can be a major initiative when these cuts are
taking place. What is happening
here? How can we feel comfortable that
this indeed is getting the priority the minister says when she has made cuts
this year in staff? I have a few other
questions about it that I want to ask the minister.
Mrs. Vodrey:
This is an area of great interest to our department and to our
government because we recognize the school divisions have identified a
potential in the use of Distance Education, so we had the task force. The first report has been released. It was released to the public and to the
school divisions, and now I am preparing to release the final report of the
task force on Distance Education. This
task force examined a whole range of issues from the complete scope and
spectrum of Distance Education and Technology, and it also looked at, within
the technology, various types of technology, and it did a great deal of
detailed work.
So we do regard this task force and the whole
area of Distance Education as important, but when we get to the area of 16.2(g)
when we are looking at some of the staff changes, yes, there have been staff
changes and some of those speak to the fact that Distance Education is of such
importance that we do not necessarily see it as something separate from our
other curriculum services and curriculum development and the other parts of the
work of the K to 12 side of the department.
When we have an opportunity to speak about
that in detail, I will be able to explain to the member how there has been an
integration of the issues of Distance Education into the Department of
Education and Training, because we do see it as so important.
In addition, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in our
1993 funding formula we have provided for support of professional development
activities relating to the provision of courses using Distance Education
technology, because we have recognized that Distance Education with its
possibilities, it is important that it is fully understood in terms of how it
can be used.
Then, in addition, our Distance Education
programs and initiatives also include things like our Independent Study Program
which was moved to Winkler and also our Distance Education Development Program
which has developed a multiyear development plan to develop or to revise the
Independent Study Program courses and also the Teacher‑Mediation courses
to bring them in line with the
That is why I was saying to the member that
the committee that worked on this, the task force that worked on this involved
Manitobans, but also involved representatives from the staff of the Department
of Education which crossed divisions. It
had on it then members of our post‑secondary side of the department who
are able to look at the possibility and the potential and the post‑secondary
side and the training side, as well as people from our K to 12 side who could
look at the curriculum as well as people from our finance area, because there
will also be a cost attached to some of the initiatives as well as our policy
people.
Then we also wanted to look at issues such as
the emerging technologies. One thing
that we found in the Distance Education task force is that emerging
technologies were developing very quickly and there were changes on a regular
basis in terms of assessability or the technologies themselves.
So we have viewed it as important. It is an area which is also very
complex. So we have tried to view it
with as much expertise as we could have.
As I said, I am looking now to release the report on Distance Education.
Mr. Plohman: I
would anticipate that with the evaluation of different technologies and
understanding the changing technologies that the affordability of each would be
considered. Is this part of the report, the comparative costs of providing the
services with each different technology?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the costing is not in the report. What is in the report is the emerging
technologies and the different technologies with some information about how those
technologies might be used. The costing
will then become a factor to follow up what has been identified within the
report.
Mr. Plohman:
Has the minister made any determination at all about what technology
might be the way to go, or would it be a combination? I understand there is something called
Mrs. Vodrey:
The committee examined technologies.
The three technologies that they were the most interested in were the
fibre optics, the microwave and the radio.
When they looked at those, they recognized
that there will be flowing from looking at those technologies an issue of cost,
and in addition to that they will have to look at regionally how they can be
adapted. We understand that some
technologies may not work so well in an area of hard rock, and other
technologies may be more suited for another area. So there were a number of considerations
which they attempted to outline and identify, and they did, as I said, mention
the three areas, the three technologies.
* (2330)
The member has spoken about interactive, and
interactive is a mechanism for both audio and visual transmission and that
might be accomplished through telephone, for instance. We also recognize the satellite and the value
of satellite, and satellite also has its place.
So the task force tried to look at what is available; what are we
currently using within
Mr. Plohman:
Would the minister characterize her own views on this, as one being very
pro Distance Education, as a solution to the inequities in education to the
remoter areas of the province at the present time? Would you characterize your view that this
would revolutionize the delivery of education services? I was really looking for the minister's
personal view as to whether she sees this as being a major, major change,
innovation in Education to provide equalization of opportunities or relatively
limited in what she sees with it.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Distance Education offers us a very strong
potential in
In addition, we have also been asked to look
at Distance Education at the post‑secondary level. I think that is another important way to look
at this initiative, because First Year Distance Education, for one, does not
dislocate a person in the first year of university and it does allow them to
experience some of the course work and decide if in fact it is really what they
want to do before they move away from their family or actually go to the
expense of moving from their community.
Another area that Distance Education has been
spoken about as very important is in the area of training and some short‑term
training courses, in that Manitobans have said, and this is around all of
Manitoba, that they would like to have access to, some that have been raised to
me are things like accounting courses.
In some of the rural areas people have said
that in some of the months when they are not actively farming, for instance, it
would be great for them if they could have access to some training programs which
might be provided by Distance Education and which would be helpful to them
within their businesses.
I also realize it would be important‑‑I
would want to be careful to say too that Distance Education may have its
application within the city of Winnipeg also, depending upon where some of the
material may come from. It may allow for
people to experience educational opportunities which they would not under other
circumstances experience.
I can tell the member that I personally see a
great deal of potential for Manitobans at a number of levels in the area of
Distance Education, not just for students at the K to 12 level but for
Manitobans interested in lifelong learning and continuing education. There may be some people who are interested
in taking a course for its own intrinsic value as well as for its value in
terms of application within their own life.
Mr. Plohman: I
appreciate the minister raising all of these possibilities. I was looking at it from my position as the
critic for K to 12. I know my colleague
is also very interested in this whole area.
Of course, when we get to it in the line she will be exploring some of
those other areas further with the minister.
I just want to see if I can get an idea of what
the future holds here in terms of Distance Education. This report will come in from the task force
and the minister is going to be making a statement on that in the next little
while. From there can we anticipate some
action on this in a substantive nature for next year's Estimates, or is it
further down the road in terms of any major developments in this area? Or is it just a rather gradual thing that
takes place every year?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We will be looking to release the report on Distance Education. That release will go to the field. We will be asking communities to look at
it. Government will also look at the
report, and, as we have discussed, government will have to look at the
financial implications.
We will also have to look at the programming
implications because when the member asked about Distance Education and staff
changes I was explaining to him that we wanted to be able to integrate some of
the curriculum development into our PDSS side, that in order to move ahead with
Distance Education we have to make sure that there is curriculum available that
can be taught by Distance Education.
One of the things that we have learned is that
it really does not work all that well to simply lift a curriculum that is
taught in the traditional classroom setting and simply put it into the Distance
Education format.
Government will be looking at the
implications, the program implications and the financial implications, of
Distance Education. But I can tell you
that I think it has the potential to be a very important initiative within
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister, I guess, is not just looking at
this as an extra cost but an area where efficiencies can be achieved, where
actually there can be cost savings. Is
that correct, or is that not one of the potential merits of using technology?
Mrs. Vodrey: The
issue may be some cost savings in some areas, but it is also, as we have been
speaking about, an issue of accessability.
I just wanted to mention to the member when he asked about how Distance
Education then would actually be developed and how we could see the effect, and
the task force itself had recommended a gradual influence of Distance
Education.
Mr. Plohman: I
would like to thank the minister for that answer. As far as the initial reports, it would
indicate then that we would not see any dramatic change in the use of new
technology for Distance Education, but rather‑‑if the task force is
still going in the same direction as they have been on the previous interim
reports, and if the government accepts that‑‑would be moving in a
gradual, increasing budget for this area.
Can I ask if the minister's move this year is consistent with that?
* (2340)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, we are looking at a gradual increase in
implementation. That was one of the
issues that the task force felt was important, again, for the reasons that I
have spoken to the member about. We have
to make sure, as we move into Distance Education, that we also have curriculum
available, and that that curriculum can be developed and that it will be
functional and do what we hope it will do.
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman: I
just want to ask the minister about her views on professional development. Obviously this had to be a matter of
discussion amongst herself and senior policy people. What is the view of the minister with regard
to professional development in the public education system as it has been
traditionally established?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Well, professional development is important, and we have, through our
funding model, maintained professional development within the Ed funding
model. Some of that professional
development would mean a teacher coming from school, with the department
assisting with substitute costs, and the training of that teacher in areas of
curriculum, for instance, and that teacher's ability to go back then and assist
colleagues. So we do value professional
development, and we also recognize that many teachers do undertake professional
development on their own time. Some do
that in the summertime. Some do it in courses where they wish to increase their
level, and some teachers also, as the member says, undertake some professional
development in the evenings.
Within the model, we have maintained our
commitment to professional development at $4 million.
Mr. Plohman: I
would ask the minister then whether she is subtracting from the $4 million the
savings that will be achieved through salary reductions as a result of Bill 22?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The answer is no.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, has the minister done any projections,
since we have the projections of 3.84 percent for the department itself with
regard to the shortened workweek, for the possible savings to the system of
Bill 22?
I know you cannot project with certainty which
divisions will be moving in this direction, but what are the projections, the
estimates?
Mrs. Vodrey: A
forecasted figure, if all divisions used the maximum number of days, the
savings could be in the range of $32 million.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that would be totally unrealistic
though. That would mean 10 days every
division going 10 days, reducing by 10 or eight?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Eight days.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman:
So we have a situation here where the department is providing a total $4
million for professional development.
What line in the budget would I find that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Line 16.5(d).
Mr. Plohman:
Okay. So we have the situation
where the department is providing $4 million in 16.5(d), and then is
forecasting a potential of $32 million being saved. Actually there is tremendous offset there,
eight times as much being eliminated potentially as a result of the actions of
Bill 22.
Can the minister still say then that she will
be giving any priority at all to professional development under that scenario?
As a matter of fact, if we even looked at a more realistic scenario, even one‑eighth
of that actually taking place, that nullifies completely the minister's budget
for professional development. Does that
in the minister's mind reflect any priority for professional development?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The projected $32 million is in a salary savings, and the $4 million is
in professional development cost assistance.
The two, I do not believe, are related as the member is attempting to
draw a line of relation.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, they are related in more ways than one. I mean, if you take away the professional
development days insofar as teachers being paid for them, the vast majority of the
professional development is not going to take place on those days. That is a realistic anticipation, I think.
The other thing is, if you have $4 million for
professional development and you do not provide any time for it, then, well,
you are not going to be able to spend the $4 million now.
So is the minister saying that the $4 million
is spent completely on days other than the eight or 10 professional development
days that are set aside each year, or is part of it spent on those 10 days? If so, what portion of it?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, the member said that I was taking
them away, professional development in‑service days. Again, I would like to clarify that that was
an option given to the employers who are the school divisions who will make the
decisions about whether or not they wish to use that option in terms of their
own plans for their division.
Then, in addition, the $4 million is money
which is given to school divisions, and school divisions will decide how they
wish to use the money. They may wish to
use the money to put on evening programs.
They may wish to use the money to send staff away to look at a
particular program. So it is not
necessarily that that money is tied to and only used on those in‑service
days that a division may decide that it does not wish, at this point, to
provide a salary for.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, that is really moving up in the world, is it not, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. You are being so polite.
I wanted to mention to the minister that the
fact is that the vast majority of the school divisions who use the options that
may be provided to them by Bill 22, should it pass in the Legislature, would do
so because there was really no choice because of their financial situation put
on by the squeeze of the 2 percent cut by the province, by the minister, and
the 2 percent cap by Bill 16. So it is
not a matter of choice. The minister
talks about choice. The choices that the
minister talks about are really increasing class sizes, cutting teachers, which
means increasing class sizes or cutting professional development days, and so I
do not think that they are realistic in terms of the choices. The minister likes to use the term option,
but I do not think it is a realistic option, and I take issue with that.
* (2350)
In any event, can the minister tell us how
much of that $4 million is actually spent?
Is there any knowledge of it? Is
it traced? How much of it is actually
spent by school divisions for professional development on the 10 professional
development days? How much of it is
spent for programming other than those 10 days?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the way that money is traced is through our
frame reporting system, and it is traced through an object code so we would be
able to tell.
Mr. Plohman:
So can we expect that when we deal with this in more detail under
16.5(d), we would be able to get the figures on last year's usage and the
previous year, for example, and perhaps the last two years, just to get an idea
of what would normally be projected?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will just remind the member that last year was
the first year of the funding formula, the new funding formula. So we will be able to give him the numbers
last year under the new funding formula where we would be able to trace this
amount of money.
Mr. Plohman:
But there was an allocation for professional development prior.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that in the past we would know by the funds that school divisions
allocated for professional development, but last year, under the new funding
formula, was the first year that there was money allocated by the province for
professional development.
Because his question was, was that money used,
we will be able to tell the member about the use of that money in the last year
or the first year of the funding formula.
Mr. Plohman: I
have to wonder why the minister would identify professional development days
for possible elimination insofar as teachers being paid for those days if she
believes that professional development is important. I have to ask then: Does the minister, in terms of the changing
educational needs, as we talked about changing technology and so on, does she
not feel that it is critical to have this time set aside, or does she envisage
a different kind of professional development?
If it is a priority and it is deemed to be a
necessary activity by teachers, which I think it is, why does she put forward
and defend a policy of the government that would see them eliminated?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I do see professional development as an
important aspect. Certainly, when I was
working in the schools, I did make use of professional development, but I also
did professional development on my own time, and I also did professional
development at my own expense.
I am aware that many teachers in this province
also do that where there are seminars, where there are workshops, and some of
those do occur on days other than school days or on days identified as
professional development days.
So I know that teachers do this, and we have
already discussed in our discussion on this point this evening that many
teachers also do this in the summertime.
They do it on their own time, and they do it at their own expense. I do believe that professional development is
important. I am also aware that there
are a number of ways in which people may engage in professional
development. I have experienced that
myself.
Mr. Plohman:
So what is the minister saying, that too much is being done for which
educators are being paid and they should be doing more on their own time?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, what I was saying was many teachers do this at the
present time, and I also did it in the time that I was in the schools.
I am also saying to the member that these are
very unusual times in terms of our financial situation. We have had to look at ways to deal with our
financial situation and ways that we believe will protect the integrity of the classroom
and not affect a student and class size specifically. We are looking at, then, other ways to deal
with our financial crisis.
This was one option which has been offered to
school divisions. It is an option
because all school divisions have not all in the same way applied this particular
option; they have taken different options.
We have looked at it in two ways: one to provide the option for the school
division, and, on the other hand, also recognizing that many teachers, many
people who are involved in education, take advantage of professional
development at times other than those specific professional development days.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying then, since they take advantage of professional
development opportunities at other than during the 10 days that were provided by
the department, through the regulation that was made each year, that that is
sufficient, that there is not a need for these days during the school year?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, Mr. Deputy Chair, the days will not be days that teachers will be
in the classroom. They are days which
would be available to teachers to take a professional development experience
and days that teachers are not being obligated to take part in their regular
work routine. So the days, the
availability of the time is still there under this option.
Mr. Plohman:
Did the minister change her mind between January 19, when she issued a
press release establishing the school year and the number of professional
development days, and February about the 19th?
I do not have the date of her press release. In that one month, did you change your mind
on the importance of professional development days?
* (0000)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, in that intervening time, we did receive some
information regarding our financial situation.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was very clear in outlining the
information he received from
Mr.
Plohman: Does the minister wish to
continue beyond 12? The agreement is
that we would adjourn at twelve o'clock, and I am prepared to do so if that is
the willingness of the committee.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to rise? Committee rise. Twelve o'clock.
AGRICULTURE
* (2000)
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 are on item 2.(a) Manitoba Crop Insurance
Corporation, page 14 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please take their places in the Chamber.
Shall item 2.(a) Administration pass?
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Just before we left, I was asking the minister
what his opinion was on the whole idea of capping the program. Many times we hear that the government does
not have enough money, cannot meet all the needs, but in this case, if we would
cap the amount that would be paid to each particular farmer‑‑the
minister had said that the cost of production formula was too difficult to work
out. I do not agree with him on that,
but specifically, I want to ask him about capping. Would he consider, seeing that he and many
other people say there are limited dollars and the whole area that we are
concerned about is the family farm and retaining people in the rural area, if
we could target that money more to sustain a level income for more people
rather than having large amounts of money go into larger operations?‑‑I
think that might be a more effective way of using the money.
I would ask the minister if that was ever
discussed when they were drawing up the first GRIP proposal, and whether or not
he would think that would be something to consider as he sets his department to
look at future plans on how we will meet the needs of farmers.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Well, going back to this afternoon, the
member had a broader question. She was
referring to offloading and the lack of a level playing field in the program, and
certainly there was offloading, and to think that the offloading will cease
beyond '95 is probably a pipe dream, so we know that there will be some call on
provincial treasuries in the future.
If there are calls on provincial treasuries,
each Department of Agriculture in each province will want to be sure that what
they offer is something that their producers want. We spoke loud and strong and continuously for
individuality and predictability. They
were issues that were of prime significance for
The idea of capping, it was on the table way
back when in the preliminary discussions leading into GRIP, but it did not stay
on the table very long, because my understanding is that most people looked at
it as something that would cause farms to split up into smaller units in order
to access the kind of maximum dollars, by doing something to be sure that they
were within the cap.
Another basic premise is that the support is
for crop‑on‑an‑acre basis, and the costs are basically the
same for every acre of crop. It does not
matter whether you grow 200 or you grow 1,200, generally the costs are the
same. Yes, you could say capital costs
are spread over more acres, but by and large, an acre is an acre is an acre.
So there was very little support for the
principle of capping initially. Whether
there would be support for capping in the future, it is hard to say. Personally, I would rather doubt it, but the
floor is completely open in terms of ideas and ways in which we can, as
government, assist producers in the game of survival in farming.
I think that everything is on the table for
discussion in my mind. I have no hang‑ups
in any particular thing that should or should not be there. I would like to see greater federal
participation, because there are 27 million of them and only one million of
us. There is a lot more tax base to work
on.
Everybody in
Ms. Wowchuk:
Well, I hope that it will go back to‑‑when you go back, the
minister goes back, or whoever he sends back to the table to discuss this
matter, and who prepares for the next round of negotiations, that that is not
written off right off the bat.
It is a way to support individual farmers to a
greater degree. I believe it is a good
way to go, and I would hope that the minister would see some merit or at least
explore that to see whether that is a possibility, because, as he has often
said, there are limited dollars. If we
can target them a little bit more to the family farm, to units, to give people
that base support for those families, they can continue in their operations and
also provide a standard of living for their families, because this is what it
is all about. If there is not a standard
of living there, people are not going to stay.
It is more difficult for them. So
I hope that he will consider that or give that direction to whoever is working
on the next step of what will replace GRIP.
Mr. Findlay:
Maybe at this time I might like to ask the critic a question. If you are going to target support to
farmers, how do you handle situations where one farm might live 100 percent on
the farm and where the next farm has 50 percent of the income that comes from
on the farm, 50 percent off, the next one is 75 percent off and 25 percent
on? Do you treat them all the same?
There are a lot of angles, a lot of ways to look at this. What is fair?
Ms. Wowchuk: I
guess that is why I am asking if the minister will put people in place to start
looking at this now and research all angles of it, so that we are not dealing
with this two years down the road from now when it is time to change a
program. We have to find a way, I
believe, to support the family unit, and that is what the concern is. Yes, there is a lot of off‑farm income
right now, but perhaps if the family unit was getting a fair enough base
income, there might not be so many of them working off the farm, and that might
be addressed.
That is what I am getting at, but I believe
that by more targeting it and with‑‑there is a lot of money going‑‑the
majority of the money, as I understand it, is going to very large operations
and the smaller family units are getting a smaller percentage of the
money. Those are the people that I am
concerned about; it is keeping a base income for a larger number of families so
that we can retain some base, some community in the rural area.
If we do not have a base income for those
people, more and more of them are going to leave, and that is a concern I have.
That is why I would encourage the minister to put people in place to research
all angles of that as soon as possible and see whether that is a valid thing to
consider. I believe it is. I would like to see some research done on
it. I do not have the staff to do it.
* (2010)
Mr. Findlay:
The member must not forget that 20 percent of the operations produce 80
percent of the product. You know, if you
put the cap in place, the cap on acres‑‑or I imagine it would be on
acres that would qualify‑‑and go back to the scenario I just gave
you, with a person that is 100 percent living off the farm, the cap hits him
first.
The person that lives on a farm within 10
miles of Winnipeg can have three quarters or one‑half of their income on
an off‑farm job because they are nice and close to all the jobs in
Winnipeg. The cap does not affect
him. So the person who lives close to
the city with acres under the cap gets a double bonus. He gets the off‑farm
job and he gets the full benefit of the stabilization program, while the person
living in
So there are a lot of angles to look at. To my mind, there are probably more negative
angles on some of these things than there are positives, if you look at all the
potential scenarios. If the scenario exists, somebody is going to work it real
well. I just throw that out, so look at it both ways.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The minister could have a valid point, but the other side is that there
are people working off‑farm now who are having income and are having
their farm income supported through GRIP, so it is still there. It does not mean that, if we put a cap on it‑‑and
that is not being addressed, so there is not any reason why it would be
different if we had a capping. We would
still have people working off the farm.
My only point is that, if we could sustain that family unit and raise
their level of income, we may end up having fewer people working off‑farm,
and if we were able to cap it, we might be able to give a larger portion to the‑‑increase
the amount that the smaller farmer is getting and maintain that family unit a
little longer.
Mr. Findlay: I
will just try to lay out the scenario:
you can have somebody, a full‑time farmer whose acres are over the
cap, who could be getting half the stabilization per acre, whereas the person
that is working off‑farm, maybe even a hobby farm, maybe even a doctor or
lawyer, gets the full stabilization per acre.
At least without caps, right now everybody
gets the same break, depending on their own ability through their IPI. So you create an inequity by trying to prevent
an inequity‑‑that is all I am trying to say.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
think we disagree on that one. I see a
value to it, and I would appreciate if there would be research done on it
because I really believe that that is one way that we might be able to increase
the level of income for individual farms and to sustain more people on the
land. That is really the goal, in my
opinion. If we believe in the rural
community, we want to be able to offer that support that we have liked for as
many people as possible because if we do not, we really have no real rural
community after we go to a certain point.
I want to go on to a couple of other areas
under Crop Insurance and GRIP, and I want to ask the minister about
lentils. Last year, there was a great
discussion on lentils, and there was a change made that upset a lot of
people. I want to ask the minister, what
was the result of that? What was the
decrease in the amount of lentils grown, and what was the saving that was
achieved by changing that coverage of lentils?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, the lentil question came to my attention last year in
very early April as producers and people that were contracting lentils started
to write letters saying that the number of acres that could be under contract
could absolutely explode.
In this province, prior to '91, around 35,000,
40,000 acres per year of lentils, in '91 it got up to 128,000 acres, and about
mid‑April, 20th of April of '92, there were projections that there could
be 400,000 to 500,000 acres of lentils, a threefold increase, which was totally
unsustainable. It was going to just
absolutely swamp the market and drive the price down and there may be no market
for a lot of those lentils. With the
support price of I believe it was around 21 cents a pound and a market price of
8 cents a pound, which was what the contracts got down to, you can see there is
tremendous liability for government of 13 cents a pound.
So we relayed that information to the national
GRIP signatories committee, who made a decision that in
The volume of lentils that were produced in
that were handled by the market quite well such that this year the contract
price is around 14 cents. So the market
absorbed the increase last year, which was reasonable, whereas the expected
increase was at least twice what we ended up with, and the 58 percent IMAP
stays in place for lentils.
The problem was that in the first I think it
was three years of the 15‑year IMAP‑‑it takes you way back
into the late '70s‑‑there were very high lentil prices. When that was averaged in, you got a high 15‑year
moving IMAP price. Had they just taken
12 years, it was a more reasonable period because then the volume of the acres
of lentils started to become significant and the actual market price started to
stabilize in a reasonable zone. When the
12 years were taken, you ended up with something more like the 58 percent or
17.5 cent support price.
So it worked well last year. Lentils were still grown, a 37 percent
increase. The coverage levels for most
producers would still be up in the $180‑an‑acre range, about $40
above what most people in the
So there was nothing magical about 70 percent
IMAP. It was all a function of whether
the 15‑year price scenario was realistic or it had quirks in it. Certainly, the lentils did have a quirk in
it.
Ms. Wowchuk:
That would appear to be one of the areas where farmers saw they could
make money and were farming the program.
Are there other areas the minister sees that
this can happen, or has all of that‑‑he says that there is an
increase in specialty crops. I know that
he will say he said there is an increase in specialty crops, because that is
what the demand is for, but I do not have my list of prices here, the return
that people can get for certain crops.
Are people moving to some of the specialty
crops because the coverage is better for them?
Are people farming the program in any way as they were under lentils?
Mr. Findlay:
Well, I think what most farmers looked at last year, if they priced out
wheat, they could see that with the support price minus their cost, they might,
and I am just going to pick figures out of the air, let us say they could make
$20 an acre over their full cost, and they look at lentils and they say, well,
the risks are higher, the costs are higher, but I could make $60 an acre. So they figure, heck, I can make $60 an acre,
and people are going around saying, they did not even have to harvest them, all
they had to do was put them in the ground. Well, they did not really understand
how we were going to address abuse, but they did catch on a little later.
* (2020)
What I see producers doing this year with
regard to increases in the acres of oats and barley and flaxseed and canola and
the special crops, they made those decisions.
At least 90 percent of those decisions were made before they knew what
the support prices were this year. They
had to get the contracts. They had to
make the commitments for seed and a chemical.
So I think farmers are looking at the market
primarily figuring out what they can produce, what it is going to cost them,
whether they will make a profit from the marketplace and can they market it in
a timely fashion. I think those are the
primary criteria they look at. Then they
look at GRIP as a risk‑protection mechanism, something to stabilize their
gross income. It certainly is helping
them dealing with their banker, too, to have the security that if something
goes wrong, the safety net program will step in and support not only the
farmer, but everybody he does business with in the town.
So whether there are other loopholes, clearly‑‑and
we looked at GRIP. There was that
potential if you sat back and looked at it.
Now if I can get coverage of $140 an acre and my real costs are $130 an
acre, let us shave my cost. Let us take
out fertilizer, just use less herbicides and maybe instead of making $10 an
acre, I can make $50 an acre. Well, yes,
that looks attractive, does it not?
So a person will think, aha, this program is
going to be around and I can farm it like heck for a couple of years and get my
debts paid off. They sat and looked at
it. Well, individual productivity
indexing, how is that going to affect me?
Suddenly, they realize that their coverage two years down the road is
going to go in the toilet. So, in fact,
hey, what is the right way to go? Do I
farm to keep my coverage up or do I farm to farm the program? In balance they are caught. Which way do I go? You are caught. If you try to farm the program, you can get
hurt later.
I think, in balance, the SMA was put there in
the first two years to help stimulate farmers to farm the land and to operate
normally. IPI works also in that
direction. I think IPI, in its third
year, can take over from SMA in giving that signal. When I see the statistics for intended acres
to be seeded, if people are going to farm the program, they would be growing a
lot more wheat instead of less wheat. I
think all the signals are basically right.
I am not saying 100 percent, but I think the checks and balances, the
stepping up of the audits and the looking for abuse and getting the signal out
and that to farmers is helping to realize that honesty is the best policy and
the program will serve you well if you do the right thing as a farmer. I am very pleased with their response.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, another area that I wanted to touch on was the
problems that were in Risk Area 12 last year. The producers there were not
happy with coverage and my understanding is they are still not happy with the
level of coverage. In fact, I believe
that there were some people in that area who were talking about suing the corporation
because they were not happy with what was happening and the level of coverage
that they were getting.
Can the minister tell us what has happened
with that? Has that whole area been
resolved? Has there been any adjustments
made to the producers in that area? Is
there a court case?
Mr. Findlay:
The issue in Risk Area 12 is an issue between what is called 12s and 32
soils. Twelve is what you would call
your normal soil, and 32 is a heavy clay that tends to be imperfectly
drained. The distinction between 12 and
32 soils has been in place for about 20 years, I believe, or thereabouts, and
producers in that area did not get, I guess, overly excited about it, although
they were not happy with it over all the years until revenue insurance came in. The difference was about six point some, 6.2
bushels or something like that, of wheat between 12 and 32 soils.
When the issue was brought to my attention, we
formed a committee chaired by one of our department people. It had producers on the committee, department
people and crop insurance people to analyze the question: Was there a difference? Was the approximately six‑bushel
difference that had been recorded by crop insurance the right difference? They commissioned a study by Daryl Kraft at
the university and another study by somebody that worked for the federal
Department of Agriculture, Dr. Onophrey.
The Kraft model was used to establish coverage in 1992. It narrowed the gap from 6.2 bushels to three
point something, 3.1 bushels, I think it was.
This was getting on into April, and producers were offered the coverage
at the narrower difference; between 12 and 32 is 3.1 bushels, on the Kraft
model.
I advocated that the premium would be the same
as it is on wheat right across the province at approximately 7 percent. The federal government wrote us and said that
they were insistent that a higher level of premium be charged on the people
that were to receive coverage on the higher level, on the 32 soils. This was late in the day, and that was their
demand. They ordered us to charge about
7.9 percent or something like that on the 32 soils. So our counterposition was: well, producers did not have a choice‑‑I
wanted to have a choice; they could choose to take the old coverage which was a
six‑bushel spread at the province‑wide premium, or they could take
the higher coverage which the narrowed the spread to 3.1 bushels and have to
pay the higher premium on the 32 soils.
I did not want farmers to be forced to take the higher option or forced
to take the lower option. We offered
them a choice. They had a choice to
choose one or the other.
Subsequent to the growing season, then
producers said, well, we were unfairly charged the higher premium. I would have to assume that is the basis on
which they think they want to launch a lawsuit, but our position was: we put the study in place, established the
narrower range; the federal government ordered us to put a higher premium on
it; and that higher premium is no longer in place for '93. It is the same percentage premium right
across the province. But producers at
least had an option ahead of time whether they wanted the higher coverage with
the higher premium or pay the lower premium for the lower coverage. Whether they will or will not proceed, I do
not know.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Then does the minister have any indication from the numbers that are
coming in whether people in that area are going to continue with GRIP, or are
they dropping out of the program? What is happening with that?
Mr. Findlay:
Certainly, in setting up the GRIP contract, one of the things that I was
adamant on was that producers would have exit options, and there are two exit
options in the contract. One is they can pay back the net benefits, and that
would have to be done before April 30 in order to get out of the program for
'93‑94; or they could give three years' notice by the end of April. We are not aware that there was any‑‑there
are always a few, here, there, scattered all over the province. There is no large number. There is no significant difference in the
* (2030)
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, just on that opt‑out then, the opt‑out
that people would have had to give this year was to opt out of the program in
three years' time, at the end of it. One
of the questions that was being asked was, is there going to be an opt‑out
next year? If they opted out this year,
they are out of the program at the end of '95, in three years' time?
Then are there any guidelines put down if
people who act next year change their mind and want to come back into the
program? Can they come back in, because that is going to come up next year? I am sure that there will be some who have
opted out who may want to come in. Is
that open, or once you are out of the program, are you out of it until the end
of '95?
Mr. Findlay:
Producers can re‑enter after two years, and then there is a re‑entry
penalty, 50 percent for one year, then 75 percent, and then 100 percent. So there is a bit of a penalty to make the
choice to get out. Otherwise, if you did
not have a waiting period to get out and a penalty to get back in, everybody
would opt out and everybody back and forth, and what do you do? Do you hire 50
staff? Do you lay 50 staff off? What do you do? If you are in, you have to
make a commitment, but there is the option.
There is the window there, but if once you make that choice, it is going
to be a long time to get back in for a full 100 percent benefit.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The minister talks about a 50 percent or 75 percent penalty. Does he mean then that if you are coming back
in after two years you would pay 50 percent of what, the premium that you did
not pay before? What would your penalty
be?
Mr. Findlay:
On the re‑entry phase where the re‑entry penalty is 50 and
75 percent, you pay 100 percent of the premium, and you get 50 percent of the
benefit the first year, 75 percent of the benefit in the second year, and the
third year back up to 100 percent.
Ms. Wowchuk:
There is just one other area of opt‑out that I want‑‑the
minister said two ways of opting out.
One is to pay back your premium, and the other one is giving a three‑year
notice. How is the opt‑out for
retiring farmers handled?
Supposing someone is in the program, has been
in since the beginning, but is this year retiring, what are the options for
that individual to opt out, and is there any penalty for him or her?
Mr. Findlay:
The farmer's premium that he pays any given year is on the acres that he
farms; in GRIP year, all your acres are in. If a farmer, let us say, farmed
1,000 acres last year, he farms 500 this year and then he pays the premium on
those 500; if he farms zero, he pays zero premium.
So effectively his contract is terminated if
he legitimately retires. If he comes
back in two years later, the contract is still there, and he is still obligated
to the contract. So, if you retire, you
walk away from the contract. If you try
to come back in, the contract is still waiting for you.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, I guess I do not really have many more questions on
this area‑‑oh, one more area.
I do have one more question.
It was something that I had asked the wrong
question on earlier. I was talking about
the different forage programs. There are two programs that the minister
mentioned, and one of them is, in fact, one of the programs that I wanted to
ask about, and that is the forage plan for crop insurance.
If the minister could just explain that
program‑‑is that the program where farmers can insure their hay
crop, and is that based on then a test area that is used as the average in
certain townships? The minister is
shaking head, so if he might just tell me what the forage plan is. I am not familiar with that. What is covered
under that program?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, the forage plan for crop insurance is an individual
program for alfalfa or alfalfa grass mixtures.
A person's coverage is established on what he has done.
He may enter the program with area average,
but each year of experience and what his production is establish his level of
coverage and, therefore, his premium on his own individual acreage that is in
either alfalfa or alfalfa grass mixture.
That is the one that I mentioned had 200 to 300 farmers enrolled in it.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Then I am going to ask for another one on clarification: the alfalfa hay test program. I am sorry I have to ask these questions, but
I am confused on what these programs are, so if you could just tell us about
the alfalfa hay test program as well.
Mr. Findlay:
The alfalfa hay test program is for those whom we may call the real
professional alfalfa producers, the people that produce for dehyd plants or a
dairy producer who has very precise records that the corporation can use over a
course of time to establish his coverage.
In some sense, you might say the two programs
are similar, but the second one here has got just‑‑it is offered in
limited areas and the discretion of the corporation as to whether they have
enough records, enough expertise, to be covered under the alfalfa hay test
program. The alfalfa hay test is more of
an experimental program, a pilot project at this point in time.
The forage plan has been in place for quite a
few years, since '76, so almost twenty years.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Administration.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
think I have asked most of the questions that I want to ask on this area, but I
just want to make a few comments on crop insurance and on the Gross Revenue
Insurance program.
Some of the concerns that have been raised
with me are the fact that the crop insurance program is being weakened with the
removal of the hail spot loss, and we have discussed that, and a concern that,
by removing those coverages and if there is not a Gross Revenue Insurance
program after this, crop insurance will not be the same program that it was
before. That is something I feel has to
be addressed.
Another area that has been raised was that
there were more options under crop insurance before GRIP than there is now.
There were three areas of coverage and now you do not have that ability to take
your choice of coverage. That, I
believe, is a problem. When we look at
all of GRIP, I guess the minister says, it has met the needs of farmers, and it
is true. It has put cash into the
farming community over the last two years.
* (2040)
Unfortunately, with the sliding average that we
are using, the return is going to be less over the next couple of years, and if
my understanding of it is right and what the farmers are saying is right, in
reality, in the next couple of years, they will not get any revenue from it. They will end up paying a premium, but
because the coverage is so low it will not be of any benefit to farmers. That is a concern.
We have said since this program has come in
that this program is not meeting the needs of farmers. It should be more targeted and more predictable,
and I hope that a better program will be devised to meet the needs of farmers.
In crop insurance‑‑I am going back
and forth because these are going to be probably my last comments here‑‑I
am concerned with some of the recommendations on the Crop Insurance Review that
are not being implemented. One that I
mentioned specifically was big game damage and the impact of that on the income
of farmers. I hope that issue can be
addressed as soon as possible or that the minister direct his staff to start
looking at how we are going to address the needs of farmers after the 1995
date. Basically, that is my final
comment on this section.
Mr. Findlay:
The member comments on the sliding IMAP.
Yes, IMAP is going down. It was
not a surprise. It was part of the
design. Originally, GRIP came in; it was
a five‑year period to bridge us from a GATT agreement to successful
recovery of international grain prices.
That has not happened, and it is not likely to happen in the five‑year
period. So now we are in a process of
adjusting to some market realities with or without a GATT deal; in some sense
we are going to have to live with what we have in terms of the grain prices we
get internationally.
The member says the farmers will not be
getting payments in the future; they will only be paying premiums. I would ask the member that when those
farmers say that, can they guarantee that there will not be a frost in '93 or
'94 or '95?
I mean, '92 in the area she comes from,
sizable, sizable payments went out because of an event that was never expected
or predicted. That does not mean that it
will never happen again. Maybe a disease will hit that will cause the same sort
of loss of production where crop insurance and revenue insurance will step in
and fill the gap. I do not think, no
matter what the support price is, that the need for risk protection will be any
less in '93, '94, and '95. Maybe the
payout might be a little less, but the need for risk protection will not be any
less.
If you can put $120‑$140 an acre into
each acre of that cereal or oilseed crop and end up with zip, because you do
not get any production or the production is unmarketable or whatever, the risk
protection program of GRIP is there to step in.
The member says, we should have it more targeted,
more predictable. I will put this
program in
Ms. Wowchuk: I
am not going to rebut what you said. I
just want to ask one more question.
When the announcement on GRIP came out this
year, in your statement you said that the price of grain was going to be
higher. In fact, the price of grain is
lower than what was predicted. If the
price of grain drops, is there going to be enough? Is it going to end up costing more for GRIP?
An Honourable Member: You mean the corporation?
Ms. Wowchuk:
Yes, will it end up being a bigger payout, and is there enough money set
aside? Is the money that is set aside
now based on a higher wheat price going to be what is required to meet the GRIP
payout, or is that not going to make a difference?
Mr. Findlay:
For '92 at one point we were projecting a payout of, well, around $250
million of payout for the '92 crop. Then
as prices have strengthened and strengthened and strengthened, the actual
payout we expect will be about $175 million.
That is basically a reflection of stronger prices.
So those stronger prices have been projected
forward in '93, '94 and '95 by the National Grains Bureau who does that price
projection. If they are wrong‑‑now
in the past they projected lower prices than they do today. A year ago they had much lower predictions
than they do today. If they are wrong it
will affect the final end balance of the GRIP program.
Right now we expect it to be basically break
even over the five years. That is the
projection that exists with the premiums and the market prices as we know them
and the acres that will be enrolled, but it is a projection. There is no guarantee we will hit it, but if‑‑a
year ago we were projecting a significant deficit at the end of five years, and
I am pleased to say at this point in time we are projecting basically a break
even.
It is on the strength of stronger prices that
have materialized and if you get the shift of acres from wheat into canola,
canola traditionally has been a nonpayout crop because market prices have been
good and wheat has been a pretty good high payout crop for the producers. So that shift has not been accounted for and
it is actually a positive shift in terms of reducing the liability on revenue
insurance.
All those factors keep unfolding, but so far,
all the surprises in the last couple of years have been more positive than
negative in terms of the potential end‑balance in revenue insurance.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, the minister just said that he had thought by the
time we got to 1995 that the program would be in a deficit. It was my understanding that the prediction
always was that the program would be revenue‑neutral by the end of the
five years. That was the understanding I
had. So if the minister could clarify
that.
Also, where is the line on GRIP now of the
amount that has been paid out versus what the premiums have been? Is it in a deficit situation or is there a
surplus? I doubt very much if there is a
surplus, but‑‑
Mr. Findlay:
Yes, way back when the design was to be revenue‑neutral. With that we are going back now two full
years. As the first year unfolded, the
payout was $320 million in the province with a premium collection of about $200
million.
Let me get back to where I was. I was saying that in the '90‑91 crop
$320 million was paid out and the premiums collected were $220 million, for
round figures. It left the province with
a deficit on its books of minus $38 million.
For the '92 crop, with premiums of $202 million and expected payout in
total, after the final payment, of $175 million, the province's net position is
plus $10 million. So you have minus $38
million in the first year and plus $10 million the second year, so the net position
of the province is minus $28 million going into '93.
* (2050)
Ms. Wowchuk: I
was going to say that even with the poor crop in the fall of 1992 and the high
payouts there was still a surplus of $10 million.
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, the reason is that, if you draw a line halfway
between 16 and No. 1, and you get south of that line, there was almost zero
payout‑‑almost zero. With
the corn and some of the special crops, yes, there was payout. Once you get north of that line, that is
where the payout was. So, just in round
figures, say, a third of the province received considerable payouts and two‑thirds
received little or none. So that is the
reason, and some of the area that received no payout had a high premium paying
area because they are a high‑producing area. Again, it is a good example.
I go back to what I said earlier; it is a good
example of a program targeted to where hurt was. In the old ad hoc program, the same payment
would have been done across the province, and it just would not have been
fair. So there were big payouts in
certain areas, and in other areas all they did was pay premiums. The net effect
was a positive balance for 1992. But way
back to about eight months ago we were projecting a payout of $250 million, and
it may end up at $175 million. So that
is all a function of a stronger market price.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Can the minister tell us then:
Has there been a lot of frustration in the people that are paying the
premiums, or is this accepted? What has
been the general feeling? I know that
there are some areas of‑‑these people are not making big money
either. I guess that is where I was
getting at when I was asking about dropout.
Have there been a lot of inquiries from the people in the southern part
of the province who are paying premiums but not getting any return and still
having the high cost of putting in a crop?
Are there many inquiries coming from those areas about the value of the
program, and is that where the frustration may be? I am not saying there is frustration. I am asking whether there has been a lot of
inquiries about the high costs of the program to that area.
Mr. Findlay: I
am a little surprised the member would take the position of getting no
return. When you buy risk protection,
you buy risk protection. You buy it in
advance, not after the fact. You are not buying a lottery.
Well, maybe it is buying a lottery
ticket. But I mean this is not a program
that has automatic payback. The farmer who
enters the program will, at the end of the program, zero his account out. If he has more in the account than he has
paid in premiums, he will zero his account out.
So the farmer cannot lose in this.
The farmer cannot lose. He has
risk protection all along the way. Just
like buying a load of fuel, he has bought something to use in the process of
running his farm, and to say he has no return is not right. He had risk protection. Whether he had to
call on it is another question.
It is like buying fire insurance on your house
or lightning insurance on your cattle.
At the end of the year, if you did not call on it, you do not even ask
about getting your premium back. I hope the member does not go around and advocate
that this program is not working because there was not a payout. It is not welfare. This is called doing business.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
think the minister missed the whole point of my last question. I asked him whether there were people in the
southern part of the province, whether there was a higher rate of people
dropping out. That is what I was asking
about.
Mr. Findlay:
Back to my answer about twenty minutes ago, there is no evidence of
higher dropout in any part of the province, even, you might say,
surprisingly. People may even want to
get out of it, but they sit down and look at the risk they take if something
happens, like the frost of '92 recurs or a disease outbreak, they are in big
trouble, so they see the benefit of paying a premium. And this year the premiums went down rather substantively
for some of the crops. Red spring wheat
premium was down 9 percent, durum down 25 percent, utility wheat down 15
percent, flax down 27 percent, rye down 26 percent, so you could actually buy
your coverage for considerably less premium cost.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The premium went down but the coverage went down too. They both went down, right? I am not arguing the point, I am just saying
that if the premium went down the coverage also went down.
Mr. Findlay:
The IMAP price went down, but the person's individual coverage depends
on what he did on his IPI. If he raised
his IPI, his coverage may be exactly the same.
It is bushels times dollars per bushel, and in that case his premium
still went down, and his risk protection is less in the future than it was in
the past.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Just a couple of other questions.
On the big game damage and the waterfowl damage, the amount of assessed
expenditure of our big game was $200,000 and for waterfowl, $150,000, and for
both years it stayed the same. What I
want to know is was that amount spent last year or were you under budget on
that one. What was the kind of coverage
you had to pay out under both big game and waterfowl damage?
Mr. Findlay:
The figures I gave you this afternoon on both wildlife and waterfowl
actually were significantly over budget. But I gave you the list of years for
both, and they were substantively above the norm. It is a cost that we have to incur, so we
were definitely over budget last year.
We are not projecting the same events for '93, no, and if it did happen,
we would be back in the same circumstance.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2. Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation
(a) Administration $4,497,500‑‑pass; (b) Premiums $12,800,000‑‑pass;
(c) Gross Revenue Insurance Plan $41,400,000‑‑pass; (d) Big Game
Damage Compensation $200,000‑‑pass; (e) Canada‑Manitoba
Waterfowl Damage Compensation Agreement $150,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $59,047,500 for Agriculture, Manitoba Crop Insurance
Corporation, $59,047,500, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1994‑‑pass.
Item 3.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
guess there are several areas that I want to ask questions about. I want to ask the minister again if it is
okay if we ask questions on the whole section and then pass all of it together.
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Okay. The first area of concern,
the announcement to reduce the rebate for young farmers, I would hope that we
would be trying to encourage as many young farmers to operate in
I guess I want to ask the minister: What was the reason for changing this when we
have other‑‑interest rates are going down. Why would we want to
have the young farmers pay more interest instead of assisting them at this
time?
* (2100)
Mr. Findlay: I
would like to introduce you to the staff who have just come into the
Chamber: Davetta Sheppard, Acting
Director of Finance and Administration; Charlene Kibbins, Morris Regional Credit
Manager; and Gill Shaw, General Manager.
The question, I think, if the member would
read what she just asked, she answered it at the end. She said interest rates are going down, and
that is exactly what has happened.
Let me give you a little history on what has
taken place with the Young Farmer Rebate program. In order for a farmer to qualify for the full
rebate, whether it is 4 percent or, in the future, 2 percent, they had to make
their payment within seven days of the 1st of November. Back in '88, 78 percent of young farmers were
eligible, for a total payout of $1.5 million.
In '89, 83 percent were eligible.
In 1990, 89 percent were eligible.
In 1991, 92 percent were eligible.
In '92, 94 percent were eligible.
The payout in the program for 1992 was $3.2 million. It went from $1.5 million in '88 to $3.2
million in 1992. So the amount of
dollars in terms of interest saving for farmers in
Over that course of time, the member well
knows that interest rates were quite a bit higher. You go back to 1989‑90 for the most
common mortgage of 15 to 20 years, farmers were paying 11.2 percent interest
rate, minus 4 percent, took you down to 7.2 percent. Right now, your interest rates are probably
9.5 percent‑‑Is that fair?‑‑for a 15‑year
mortgage, minus 2 percent is 7.5 percent.
So they end up paying pretty much the same interest rate because
interest rates have come down. If you
are paying 9.5 percent, minus 4 percent, that is cutting it in half, and you
take 4 percent off of 11.2 percent, you are taking one‑third of it off.
So, yes, interest rates have come down, and we
have doubled the expenditure on this line over the time that I have been
minister, of which I am very proud, but on the other side of the coin, the
interest rates have come down. So not
only should the farmer get some benefit of that, the government also has to
sort of stop the spiraling cost in this category because if farmers could pay
7.5 percent last year, they could pay 7.5 percent this year. That is about the net effect over the course
of the last three or four years, that minus‑2 percent today takes you
down to about the same percentage as minus‑4 percent three or four years
ago.
The rate at which farmers are paying their
mortgage on time in order to get maximum eligibility has increased rather
dramatically over the same time frame, so I think the program is working really
well.
The member failed to mention that back in '89,
we doubled the qualification amount. We
moved it from $50,000 per farmer up to $100,000, so we have doubled the
qualification. Yes, we have cut the
interest rate in half at a point in time when interest rates have come down by
a full 2 percent.
If you want to go back to '87 versus now in
what they qualify for, the interest rate is half, but the qualification amount
is double and, in balance, farmers are definitely using the program. They are using it, yes, and are participating
in it, put it that way, and getting the benefit of paying less interest. We expect next year that the amount‑‑because
the 2 percent will only start on new loans, and there are an awful lot of
people in the system that will still be at the 4 percent and the cost in this
next year will still remain over $3 million.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, the minister said, farmers are still using the program,
still borrowing money from the program, but my understanding from people that I
have talked to is that it is not that easy to borrow money from the program
right now. In fact, somebody said today
that to qualify to borrow $65,000, they just about had to have that much
collateral to back them up, that it is very difficult to borrow money from the
program.
Has something changed in the regulations, or
is the corporation being more stringent on how they are lending out money? Because, as I say, the comments that I have
been getting are that it in fact is quite difficult to get money from the
corporation.
Mr. Findlay:
If the member is referring to lending activities of 10 years ago, yes,
it is more difficult to get money because 10 years ago, loans were given out
where there were tremendous write‑offs encountered by the corporation.
This is not a program. This is a Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation
who lends money out and people sign that they will pay it back with the
appropriate interest rate. So it is not
a program. It is a lending institution‑‑pure
and simple‑‑it is a lending institution.
Every lending institution has changed its
principles of lending from collateral based to cash‑flow based. In other words, you take out a loan, can you
cash flow the repayment in the time frame of the loan, whether it is a five‑year
or 10 or 15 or 20, can you repay it? Can
you project through your business plan a cash‑flow repayment schedule and
make all your other expenses too, all your farm expenses, your living expenses,
your taxes, make all those payments? You
have to cash flow it.
Any institution you walk into today, you will
face exactly the same scrutiny. I will
tell you that maybe it was easier to get money 10 years ago, but many of those
people could not repay their loans, and the taxpayers of
Who did that help? Just think about it. Who did it help? The person who got the money
retired to
So it was bad lending practices back then that
caused the price of land to escalate because money was easy. Now the price of land has come down to a much
more realistic figure. I still do not
think it is low enough, but the lending practices now try to prevent somebody
from getting into trouble, doing everybody a service to say, yes, we believe
you can repay it. Your plan is
good. We will lend you the money and
they will go out and then they will do it.
They will go out there and operate their operation and, provided their
management stays on track, they will repay it.
Five or 10 or 15 years down the road they will
have it paid off. They will be better
producers and may be back in for another loan here or there and get on with
life and build a successful enterprise.
To take money out as they used to 10 years ago, particularly that 10 to
12 years ago period, and not be able to repay it did nobody any service at all.
* (2110)
Maybe those people have gone through Mediation
Board and debt restructuring and off the land and, oh, what a mess. The whole principle of lending today is to
avoid that. I think it is much more
responsible. It is the same in every
institution. I think that the write‑offs
that will happen down the road from loans given the last three or four years in
the corporation will be substantially less than occurred on the loans given 10
or 12 years ago.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, I guess my understanding of the corporation was that
it was when a young farmer could not borrow money from the bank that the
corporation would lend money. Although there had to be a sound financial plan
in place, it would be easier for a farmer to get money from the corporation
than it would be from a lending institute.
I am not saying free‑for‑all
money, but that there has to be a good financial plan in place, but the understanding
that I have right now is that it has become as difficult if not more difficult
to get financing from the corporation than it is from a bank.
A particular issue, a client again that I look
at said that he was renting the quarter of land and paying $2,000 cash for the
quarter for rent. So he was keeping
that. Per quarter he was paying out
$6,000 just in rents. He was renting
three quarters. His payment would have been $6,600 but, yet, he could not get
the financing.
He had proven he could make a living off
these. He was able to pay the rent for
some six years and, yet, when he came to the corporation to borrow the money,
they did not view that as sound management.
I do not see encouragement here.
In fact, I see discouragement when people come to borrow money to buy
land.
Mr. Findlay: I
would hope that the member for
You have to look at the whole picture. Did they pay their fertilizer, their fuel,
their taxes? How did they pay for their
living? The whole business plan of that farm
operation has to be on the cash flow balance sheet before they can make a
decision.
I would assure the member, in the process of
analysis, that was what was done. If it
did not work out that they could cash flow the repayment, then that is the basis
on which the decision was made.
Let us just pick a wild card out of the
air. They went and bought a tractor two
years ago on which they had high payments to make in the future that they did
not have in the past, or maybe just bought the tractor six months ago, with
$10,000 a year payments or $20,000 a year payments which they did not have
before. That changes the whole cash flow
substantively. It just blows it away, in
fact.
The member should ask those questions before
you get on that bandwagon of saying the program is not working, because the
level of lending is not changing appreciably year in and year out. So the corporation is still lending
substantive amounts of money, but they are going through a much more careful
analysis of the cash flow.
In the case that you gave, whoever it is, I
would suggest you inquire just to get the whole picture. I am not saying that what I have said is
right. I am just saying that it is a
potential, that is the sort of stuff that the corporation goes through in its
analysis in making its decisions.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, I want to assure the minister that we did talk about
the whole picture. I was just giving a
comparison of one line. Basically it was
a sound operation. He was able to meet
his commitments but yet was not able to get the financing that he needed. Again, I find that discouraging.
The minister says that money is being lent and
continues to be lent. I want to ask
then, how many applications for financing were made, and how many were approved?
Mr. Findlay:
In the year?
Ms. Wowchuk:
Yes, in the last year.
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chair, if we look at the direct loans program for the year ending
March 31, '93, there were 434 direct loans approved, for a total lending of
almost $24 million, and there were 21 declines.
Some of those appealed, and three of the appeals were granted.
Now in fairness, you know, in the process, if
somebody comes in to an agent, some may decide at that point not to fill out
the application and follow through, so those would be ones that would not enter
on the statistic I just gave you in terms of decline. These are formal
declines. It is an unknown as to how
many might have, for whatever reason, not bothered to go through the full
application process.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Chairperson, the minister mentioned
write‑offs in these loans, and he shows an Allowance for Doubtful
Accounts of $2.5 million. Is that the
amount that was actual for the year 1993?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, what that Allowance for Doubtful Accounts is, it
is a moving figure that shows up every year.
It is the anticipated potential write‑offs that will occur in the
fiscal year we are going into, in the year ahead. So it is an allowance ahead of time as
opposed to after the fact. You can be
over; you can be under on it. It is all
a matter of the speed with which you move on accounts as to whether it is fully
used or underused.
Mr. Gaudry:
Does the minister have a figure for the end of '92‑93?
Mr. Findlay:
In the past fiscal year, the actual write‑offs that occured are
$4.3 million, but I would have to say that the level of activity is anticipated
to be less in the coming year. There has
been a lot of cleanup of some long‑standing accounts over the last two or
three years, and I feel that we are getting closer to the end.
Mr. Gaudry:
How many accounts is that in regard to the amount of $4.5 million? How many farms that have gone under or
declared bankruptcy are in that?
Mr. Findlay:
We do not have the exact tabulation on the number of accounts here; we
just have the dollar figure, but if the member wants, they can source the
figure. For this figure, it does not mean
that every one of those clients went bankrupt or was off the farm. It is a combination of farmers who have gone
through quitclaiming, maybe foreclosure or bankruptcy. A lot of it is through the mediation process
where accounts would get settled with an appropriate write‑off. That is where a lot of the write‑offs
occur.
* (2120)
So it may mean that the producer is still
operating. He may even have leased the
land back in the process of the settlement, but the corporation has taken title
to the land in the majority of cases.
Mr. Gaudry:
Could the minister give just a brief of what the Manitoba Farm Mediation
does with the people who are having difficulties?
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I can speak for a long time or a short time, but
I will give the member a kind of brief idea of how the Mediation Board process
works.
The farmer can come into the mediation process
in one of two ways. The first way is
what is called a Part 3 process where he is under foreclosure or bankruptcy,
and he comes in for the mediation process.
Once he enters the mediation process, there is a period of delay of
further action under which a panel will be struck to mediate his case between
him and his lender. Or there is the Part
6 application, which is voluntary. The
farmer comes in and wants to restructure his debt and get some professional
advice from peers. They go through a
process of mediation. I just do not
recall off the top of my head the number of days involved, but I think it is
about a 90‑day period to come up with a resolution or it could end up in
court.
In the vast majority of cases there are some
voluntary resolutions, some agreement is arrived at in the mediation process
between the producer and the financial institution. It may be MACC is the institution or it may
the Royal Bank or it may be a credit institution.
So in the restructuring process, if a farm is
deemed to be viable and some guarantees can be put in place to guarantee
payments in the future, lease payments or capital payments for that producer,
the maximum amount of the guarantee is $10,000 per year or $50,000 over the
lifetime of the five‑year guarantee. The average amount of the guarantee
is just over $40,000 in each settlement, but the portion of the guarantee is
actually called on over the lifetime of the agreement. It is down around 25 percent. About five years ago they were calling on 80
or 90 percent of the guarantee.
What that means is that producers are actually
able to meet their commitments, whatever the guarantee was for, whatever kind
of payment it was for, they were actually able to cash flow the payment out of
their own money and do not have to call in the guarantee to the same extent
today as they used to.
So in essence it is a process of trying to
help the farmer work out his financial details so he can stay farming to the
greatest possible extent. Now the
natures of the resolutions are many and varied and, fair to say, every one is
different than the last one, but the Mediation Board consists of a board of‑‑what,
eight people, I believe it is‑‑eight people that I have appointed
who act as the board. There is a fairly
long roster of panel members who can sit two of them, two panel members with a
board member in each particular case.
I think it is fair to say that they become
very capable working out resolutions that farmers could not be, would not be
able to work out on their own. So I will
not say it saved every producer, but it saved more than 50 percent, kept them
farming in some reasonable fashion.
Mr. Gaudry:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have a farmer that contacted me a couple of
weeks ago, I guess. He had a guaranteed
loan for $80,000 in '86 and '87, and it was settled with the bank and the
credit union, I guess, through MACC.
Through his ag consultant and lawyer, he was advised to declare, file
for bankruptcy, and he did. Now he wants
to join the feeder association and he needed 10 percent. He could not join because MACC would not
guarantee the loan. He was told it was
because of the bankruptcy of '86 and '87, but he says the bankruptcy was
cleared in 1989. Why would he be refused
now?
Mr. Findlay:
Well, I think this is one of the cruel realities of the world. The individual had a bad credit rating. He had a write‑off with the
corporation, and we have had one bad experience with the individual and the
decision has been not to give a second chance at a bad experience. So those credit checks are done and everybody
who applies through the feeder loan association process, and people with bad
accounts are not accepted.
Mr. Gaudry:
Would that not be where the Mediation Board could be involved with
someone with those kind of difficulties, would MACC? Or it is not feasible for someone to approach
the board?
Mr. Findlay: I
do not know all the details of the particular case you are talking about, but
the net result of the individual's activities back in '86 was that the
corporation took a hit, lost money, entered his name on the write‑off
category, and that is, in the eyes of the corporation, a bad credit rating, and
they would just as soon not do business with him again in the future under the
feeder association.
Let us face it. The feeder association is a minimum of 15
members and any one member can bring the association down, so the association
will also screen people. They do not
want somebody who has had a bad credit rating in the past, and the corporation
and the financial institution they may get the loan from, also. There are three
people doing the screening. Any one or
maybe all three will have made the same decision.
In terms of putting the government guarantee
in behind that feeder association, we have made the determination that a bad
credit rating is a bad credit rating.
Whether the Mediation Board could have played a role in the past, if he
would have gone for voluntary debt restructuring, yes, it might have been able
to play a role, but if he did not, then the decision and the activities had
already taken place.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I wonder if the
Minister of Agriculture would allow me to‑‑or would he want to go
under Minister's Salary for a question relating to wildlife compensation?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Clif Evans: The honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry) is kind of getting a little upset today.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Is there leave of the committee to revert to
this section? [agreed]
* (2130)
Mr. Clif Evans: I have been in contact with the minister's
office last year and again this year with respect to the situation that farmers
who produce Robust barley in the northern Interlake region, Riverton region
have been receiving a fair amount of damage to their crops. The question out there is: Why is there no policy for the Robust barley
producers?
I understand there are some technicalities as
far as registration of that particular crop, what not. Where does the minister stand on that? What can we do to compensate these farmers
who are losing an awful lot of money on this?
Mr. Findlay:
The member for Interlake says there is no policy. I have to tell him
there is a policy. The Crop Insurance
Corporation covers all crops which are licensed. Robust barley is not licensed for production
in the
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the facts, though, on
it, if a farmer is producing Robust barley in one section, on one side where he
is compensated under the Natural Resources act, across the way, he may not be
compensable under Natural Resources. Why
is there no protection for farmers within miles of each other as far as the
Robust barley situation? One is getting
it, and one is not.
Under Natural Resources, they get compensation
for, I guess‑‑what do you call it?‑‑a drop‑off or
where the geese come in. It is a natural
stopping point, so they will be compensated for it, but the next section over,
the next quarter over, that is not a designated spot. They do not get any type of compensation for
it. Why is that?
Mr. Findlay: Well,
the member will have to ask the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns). This is the Department of Agriculture's
Estimates we are dealing with. As I
said, we can only operate under the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation where,
first, the crop is not registered in the province and is not approved by board
order, and that is always done before the crop season. So every farmer with every variety he grows,
if he wants to have crop insurance, has to check to be sure it is on one of
those two lists.
This year, a producer was sent a list of all
the crops that are covered, and it is six or seven or eight pages long with all
the lists of all the canola varieties, all the wheat varieties, all the barley
varieties. If the one you are growing is
not on the list, you know that ahead of time.
So if Natural Resources is doing something somewhere out in the province
in this area or not in that area, that is a Natural Resources issue. They will deal with it as they see fit.
We are operating under The Crop Insurance Act
and these rules and regulations and guidelines have been in place for a long
time as to what varieties are covered and which are not covered. To the best of my knowledge, unless I have
missed something, Robust barley is not licensed and it is not approved by board
order, therefore, it is not compensable.
It is not a surprise to the producer, because it was done before the
year started and it is done every year that way. It has been that way for years with the
corporation they have operated. You have
to have it in one of those two categories.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am sure there are
other crops that are not registered and licensed that are perhaps more
profitable than others. Would the
minister indicate to me, so it can go back to these people who keep producing,
who are taking a chance to produce that crop, obviously, if it is not on the
list, what in fact can be done to get this crop on the list?
Mr. Findlay:
There is a long process to get a crop registered. There is an established
process which has been in place in the province for a long time. It goes through co‑op trials across the
province. An expert committee approves
every year, January or February‑‑I think it is February‑‑under
the Seed Growers' Association or seed growers act, the registered or licensed
varieties. Then, if it is not on the
list and there is interest in the crop, make application to the Crop Insurance
Corporation to have it on the list of board order approved varieties. Well, maybe I will find out what the factors
are as to why they are saying no.
The corporation is going to take a look at it
in the next year to determine why it is being grown in the Interlake area and
see if there is agronomic factors there that make it a crop that can do well in
that area where, obviously, it has not passed spec when it has gone through, if
it has gone through the co‑op trials in the past. We do not know the answer to that, but I
would have to assume it has been investigated in the co‑op trials because
they investigate or screen every variety that ever comes forward or even that
people want to import into the country.
So I have to assume it has gone through and
has not passed for whatever the reason was‑‑disease or comparative
yield or length of season. I am also
going to investigate with Natural Resources why they use Robust barley as a
lure crop. If they are using it as a
lure crop, obviously it is a lure crop.
In an area that is subjected to potential waterfowl migration, it is not
a crop to grow. It is kind of strange
why so many people want to grow it. It
must have some agronomic reason that they see as attractive.
The other thing to keep in mind is that in the
Interlake area, over the course of quite a few years, the enrollment in crop
insurance has not been that high. There
has not been a lot of producers enrolled, and I would have to assume a lot of
producers did not bother to pay attention to the regulations and guidelines in
crop insurance. That is fair ball. If people do not want to enroll in the
program, they get on with life and do their own thing. They do not pay their premiums and take the
risk.
Now we are finding one particular crop comes
out of that area as being damaged by waterfowl and maybe it is because it is a
lure crop. Maybe it is attractive to
wildlife, more attractive than say other barleys. If that is the case, it is a high‑risk
crop to grow in that region. I am just
surmising. The issue has come forward,
and there is nothing we can do retroactively, because the decision time for the
'92 crop was prior to the '92 crop or the decision time for the '93 crop was
prior to the '93 crop. The best we can
do is look forward to the corporation doing an appropriate investigation to
determine if it should be approved by board order for the '94 crop, if it is a
crop that a lot of producers want to grow up there and they want to insure.
There has been no change in process,
regulation or anything relating to Robust barley. It just happens that they are growing it
there and waterfowl have been consuming it, obviously, because they like
it. It is one of those unfortunate
circumstances, but the guidelines have been very clear and they have been
followed to the letter.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that answer.
In talking
to the farmers, the producers that do grow Robust barley there, they say
economically it is a very good producer. I guess perhaps if the minister, the
department, could find a way perhaps to do some further investigating into
that, No. 1, why are they, besides the economic, and No. 2, if it is right in
retrospect with being part of a lure crop.
Of course, I am sure the minister is aware that we do get a fair amount
of birds coming through. It would be
interesting. It seems that the farmers,
there are probably a half dozen out there, and I know that in conversation with
them there would be more in that area that would grow it mainly because of the
situation with the fowl and what not.
Economically, from my understanding and the minister has to appreciate,
I know that he and I would not do something if we knew that basically it was
not making any money for them or was not a good crop.
* (2140)
Mr. Findlay: I
will just make a comment of what this points out. I am a little bit off the track now, but what
it points out is that co‑operative tests that are done on varieties have
not been done in a wide enough area across the province. Say five or six years ago, tests were only
done in two or three sites. We expanded
the number of sites to 10, because different crops do better in some localities
of the province than others. You get the
south high heat unit versus the Interlake with cooler, more moisture, lower
heat units versus the drier regions in the west, and back up to Swan River you
get longer frost‑free days. So
different varieties perform differently in different locations.
So it is fair to say that I said in the co‑op
test, Robust barley maybe did not pass.
But I almost guarantee you, the sites probably did not include the Interlake
back in the years when that might have been done. So what it points out, that more broadly
based testing needs to be done. It is
hard to figure out how Robust ever got started in there. I think that somebody must have brought it
in, did their own experimentation‑‑yes, it is performing well‑‑and
from there the idea spread.
Now, if it is doing well there, yes, the
corporation is going to investigate to determine why it has grown, is it doing
well and should it be approved by board order for that region. It is not going to help the situation for the
past or the immediate present, but it may well help the situation for the
future.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would like to at this time, just finishing
off on this particular‑‑I just want to say that I have spoken to
the minister's office about it, and I am sure that he is aware that I have, and
there is supposed to be a letter coming to me explaining some of the situation
to me about Robust barleys, so that in fact I do have the constituents in my
area who are waiting for some of these answers, from Hansard and that. I think what we will probably do is get
together with them and perhaps ask the minister to meet with them and discuss
the Robust barley situation in the Interlake area.
I know the minister's office has been
absolutely‑‑and I must say this‑‑very, very, very good
with me on situations, issues in the Interlake, staff has been tremendously co‑operative
and I appreciate that, and I want to say that on record. I would like that letter, I know it is forthcoming,
I would like that letter. So he can appreciate it, I am getting calls and
letters constantly about this, so I want to deal with it so that we can try and
resolve it if we can. I will look
forward to the letter that his staff has indicated will be coming to me,
hopefully this week. It has been over a
month that we have discussed this.
Well, further, I would like to bring to the
minister's attention, back to MACC, if we can go back and forth. I just have one situation‑‑[interjection]
Yes, I have to get over there. I have a
situation with a constituent that I brought to the attention of your
office. It is with regards to Mr. Nigel
Sigurdson from Arborg.
Now, I took this file, I took my file,
actually, and brought the file to your office, whatever I had, and I spoke with
Mr. Sigurdson just again last week, he is in dire straits. He is in a situation, Mr. Minister, where it
will be two years in July, Mr. Sigurdson not only farmed and dealt with MACC,
he also worked part‑time with the Wheat Control, and had the unfortunate
accident of being sprayed within his cab.
It will be two years in July.
Since then, he has been to numerous
doctors. He has been everywhere‑‑the
compensation board, his insurance people.
He is in a situation where at times, he cannot do anything. There are times where he can do
something. He has already given up some
land. He did not farm at all last year because
his health just did not allow it. I know
he is dealing with MACC, and I have a letter here dated April 21 with regard to
his 1993 lease fee. Mr. Sigurdson has had a tough almost two years. With respect to inquiries, a hard‑working
farmer, not a big farm, a family, and trying to offset some of the income with
working with weed control. He has not
done that since his accident.
Again, a little over a month ago I brought the
file to the minister's office, and I would certainly appreciate the minister's
department‑‑and there are other cases I am sure throughout the
province. But I would appreciate
attention, personal attention perhaps, by the minister's staff into looking
into this and perhaps arranging as soon as possible a meeting with senior
staff, Mr. Sigurdson and myself on this and see where we can assist this
particular case. Perhaps the minister,
his office or his department knows more than I do, but I would say that the
situation right now for this gentleman is that (a) he has no income of any
kind, and (b) he cannot do anything to produce an income whether it be on the
farm or whether it be on his part‑time job, and that part‑time job
is gone since he has been sprayed with the chemical. I would appreciate a response from the
minister on this file, and appreciate getting together with his senior staff as
soon as possible.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, as the member has outlined, it is certainly a
very difficult case. There are a lot of
extenuating circumstances. I think a lot
of what the member for the Interlake has indicated would indicate that the
person needs assistance from social agencies, and he has used the resources of
agriculture over the course of the last few years. He has sourced money from MACC both as a
mortgage and he has been leasing land from MACC. He has been through the Mediation Board
process where a guarantee was in place for him, and over the course of three
years he drew almost $23,000 in guarantee payments to support him.
Now, in the process of receiving that
guarantee, he had signed a contract and the Mediation Board looked at the
activities over the course of those three years and determined that he had
violated the contract in some fashion, and the guarantee is no longer in place.
So he has been through the process. He has used the Mediation Board. A guarantee was in place, and it is
unfortunate that the decisions have unfolded the way they have. The description that the member for Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans) has given would indicate that the person certainly needs
assistance from the various social safety nets that exist. Considerable consideration has been received
from Agriculture over the period of a few years, and it is extremely
unfortunate that the person is in the situation that he is in.
* (2150)
Honestly, I do not know what more the
Department of Agriculture, MACC, or the Mediation Board can do unless it was
the Mediation Board to hear his case again, but that I cannot guarantee, nor am
I in a position to say they should or should not.
Mr. Clif Evans: Is the minister saying that just within the
last couple of years that the constituent‑‑last couple of years can
mean from two to 50 years. How many
years has the constituent been in the situation that he is right now with the
Department of Agriculture, with MACC?
Has it gone over the last two, three, four years, or has it just been in
the last couple of years since he has been in this physical situation?
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, with this particular account there have been
ongoing default throughout the latter 1980s such that the individual ended up
in front of the Mediation Board in 1989.
Then the agreement was structured in '89‑90 so that the guarantees
that were paid out on his behalf were paid in 1990, 1991 and 1992. The financial problems did not occur in the
last couple of years as the member has talked about. They seem to have occurred throughout the
'80s or particularly mid‑'80s to late‑'80s, ongoing account
problems with MACC.
Mr. Clif Evans: I just have a little bit of a problem with
understanding the whole situation, and speaking to Mr. Sigurdson countless
times, he feels as if he has been misled at times.
My feeling is that I would ask the minister
that because of the circumstances now that Mr. Sigurdson be allowed to present
his case, whether it be to the Mediation Board or discuss the issue with senior
staff people with myself and/or some other representative present, to hear his
side of the story and to hear the Department of Agriculture's story.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want the member to be very clear that
department staff, corporation staff and Mediation Board personnel have met and
talked with Mr. Sigurdson on many, many occasions.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
So I think that an awful lot of staff time in
total has been given to Mr. Sigurdson, but no resolution has come forward. Now, if Mr. Sigurdson has a new plan or a new
process or something new he wants to bring forward, the Mediation Board is the
appropriate entry point for him because he has a financial problem, a debt
problem, a meeting‑obligation problem.
That is what the Mediation Board is set up to do. The Mediation Board has done a very good job
over the course of time to work these problems out.
Also the member must realize there are certain
circumstances that maybe are unresolvable.
This might be one of them, but if the member thinks it would be
constructive to meet again with the Mediation Board, we could ask that that be
done. To say that senior staff should go
over the top of the Mediation Board, that would be an inappropriate action, and
it is not the way that I operate or that my office has ever operated.
There is due process in place, and there are
appropriate entry points and professional people who can deal with these
circumstances. To bring him to the
minister's office or another group of people who are not professionally trained
or have the experience, that would not be fair to him or to the existing staff
people that are doing those kinds of jobs, because this is not an easy
process. There is not always a good‑news‑ending
story.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Chair, I do not think I indicated that
the minister or his immediate staff should oversee one body of his department
or not. I did not indicate that. What I did request was, whether it be through
meeting with senior staff or dealing with MACC or dealing with the Mediation
Board, a direction from the minister's office, a direction as to which way we
can go and whom we should deal with, whom would be more appropriate to deal
with, even if it is doing it again.
The minister indicates that the problem has
been ongoing over the past so many years.
The issue has been brought to my attention only in the past‑‑actually
just since Mr. Sigurdson came to me with the issue of being sprayed with the
chemical. So one thing led to another.
What I am saying is, now, can I have a direction,
too, to be able to deal with Mr. Sigurdson's situation so that I am better
aware of it in dealing with it? What
went on in the past, again, let us bring it all out then, but let us do it,
perhaps, with me present or representatives so that we can get it done.
I say, whatever problems there were with Mr.
Sigurdson in the past, right now, he is destitute. So we need some direction. We need to sit down with someone and discuss
it.
Mr. Findlay:
There are two ways to look at it.
The member for the Interlake says he just entered this scenario more
recently as opposed to the longer term of which this case has been ongoing. If
he wants to have the staff's side of the story so he has the full story, I am
more than willing to have him sit down with whoever from staff would be
appropriate to give him some idea of the history and how it has unfolded to
where it is so he has our side of the story.
If he wants the person to sit down with the
Mediation Board again, that could probably be arranged. I cannot guarantee it because I do not order
staff to do things. They have a process
to follow and appropriate decisions to make, and I give them the credit to be
able to make those decisions. I think
personally it would be most constructive if the member was to sit down with
somebody from my staff who knows the whole history and give the member for the
Interlake an understanding of what has taken place so he can then judge what is
the appropriate thing, in consultation with my staff, for his constituent.
Mr. Clif Evans: I want to thank the minister for those
responses and I will be in touch with his office and Mr. Sigurdson probably
tomorrow to see just where we can go with this.
I appreciate that.
Madam Chairperson: The hour being 10 p.m., what is the will of
the committee? My understanding is the
committee is prepared to continue.
* (2200)
Ms. Wowchuk:
Just getting back to the comments I was making earlier on the MACC
lending practices, I guess I am disappointed that the minister talks about MACC
being the same as a bank because I think farmers need strong agricultural
financing programs. Sometimes those
programs, the financing they need just cannot be met by banks. Sometimes the banks just do not recognize
what the needs are for farmers.
The provincial Agricultural Credit Corporation
should have a different mandate and should recognize that banks do not always
meet the needs of young farmers. They
have a high need for capital, a high need for financing, and this corporation
should recognize that their role is more than the role of the bank. There is a
need for a different kind of financing.
Sometimes banks are not prepared to go to that extent, and I would hope
that the corporation has not just turned into another bank, that they do recognize
that there are special needs.
With that, I want to ask, the corporation has
been in place for many years now, just as the Crop Insurance corporation was in
place for many years. The minister saw
the need to do a review of the Crop Insurance corporation.
Would the minister consider or has he given
any thought to reviewing the mandate of the Agricultural Credit Corporation
just to review and to see whether this corporation is also meeting the needs of
farmers?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, certainly there are benefits to the MACC program that
are not available from the credit unions, caisses populaires, and other
financial institutions, FCC. When I
talked earlier about being a financial institution, we are a financial
institution so far as money is loaned out on policies, cash flow, and then the
money has to be repaid. On that basis we
are exactly the same as a financial institution. I do not think the member could ever ask us
to be any different than that. How we
are different is that we still are a lender of maybe last resort for some
people, but certainly a lender of first resort for young farmers. Some of the criteria we use in the operation
is there is no prepayment penalty for a loan.
You can pay it off early without a penalty. I do not know where else you can get that.
The Young Farmer Rebate has been in place, and
as I said earlier, last year the total benefit to the farm community was $3.2
million. We have 30‑year fixed
interest rate mortgages, and you can get a mortgage for five years, 10 years,
15, 20 and 30 years. I do not know of
any financial institution that will give you more than three or maximum five‑year
interest rate now, and we will give you the fixed for the entire lifetime of
the mortgage. Our interest is compounded
annually instead of semiannually, so it is less costly. We have a cap on the net worth for people we
lend to of $250,000. Many institutions
want to start with people that have a net worth in excess of $250,000. So we are working with the people of lower
net worth, the younger farmer, and we have a number of characteristics to our
policy that are not available anywhere else, the Young Farmer Rebate, 30‑year
fixed mortgage, no prepayment penalty, just to mention a few. So we are different than the financial
institution in the way we operate the lending programs of MACC, but at the end
of the day the principle is, money borrowed has to be repaid.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
did not hear the minister. Has any
consideration been given to review the mandate of the corporation? Has this ever been done since the corporation
came into existence? As I said, just as
Crop Insurance was reviewed to see whether it was meeting the needs of people,
has any consideration been given to review the mandate, the operations and the activities
that are carried on through MACC?
Mr. Findlay:
Well, in terms of a full‑scale review similar to the crop
insurance, no, it has not been done that I am aware of, and, no, it is not
planned at this time. Certainly I
receive input through different farm organizations who come and talk to me
about the different aspects of MACC, certain programs. Certainly there was a
fair bit of input that came to me and to the corporation when the expansion of
Ayerst was going on about lending policies, PMU operations. So there is an ongoing so‑called review
of programs and efficiency of operating the program, whether it is serving
young farmers or not. When I see the
increased usage of the Young Farmer program and the high percentage of people
paying their loans on time, I think we are obviously responding to client
need. The corporation is constantly
reviewing what they are doing. They are
constantly in contact with their clients on an ongoing basis. So I do not see this as exactly the same as
Crop Insurance in terms of needing to do that kind of review.
You know, it is an ongoing thing, and I
constantly get recommendations, say, from KAP, as an example, of how we should
be operating the corporation. Back when
we were talking about the Crop Insurance Review, a couple of key catchwords
that came out at the end were to be more user friendly. I think it is fair to say that MACC, in their
operation of their corporation, is trying to the best of their ability to be
user friendly. Now, when you have to say
no at certain points, it is not seen to be user friendly, but those are the
decisions of the business world. People
on the receiving end of the bad news have to respect that business is business. I would have to admit that I do not see a
need to do that kind of review, because I do not think that it would lead to
much different than what we have now.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
guess that there would be those farmers out there who would say that it is not
user friendly, and I agree that you cannot satisfy everyone.
I wanted to ask the minister: Just on the operations of MACC, has there
been a decline in staff, or has the staff been consistent? Has there been a reduction in staff?
Mr. Findlay:
The MACC program staff complement is 49.
It has not changed. Now the fish loan
portion was transferred over to CEDF April '92, a year ago. At that point in time, six staff went with
the fish program, but the people who are actually working for the MACC
component, there were 49 before that happened, and there are 49 after.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
would just like to ask a couple of specific questions on how land is sold or
how leasing of land‑‑I am thinking about a specific case. When somebody is leasing a piece of land and
it comes up for sale, does that person, the person who is leasing the land,
have the first option to buy, or does it go out on tender?
* (2210)
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, I have to assume the member for
In the process of the settlement, the person
may end up with a one‑year lease.
If that is the case, there will be no option to purchase in the lease,
but the more general situation is that they get a three‑year lease or a
five‑year lease. Normally in that
lease, there is the option to purchase.
In other words, the lessee can purchase the land at any time, one month
after they take out the lease or at the end of the term, whatever it is, offer
to purchase it at the appraised market value.
Whenever somebody wants to exercise that
option, an appraisal will be done and then the price is set, and the person has
the right to say yes or no on the option to purchase. If a person has a lease, if they have the
option to purchase there, they have the right to purchase it during the
lease. If the lease is five years and it
expires and they do not exercise the option, the land goes back, so the
corporation can either offer it for sale or offer it for lease again by public
tender.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, I want to deal with a specific piece of land that is
causing a fair amount of frustration in the Miniota area, if that would be
okay. This particular piece is a half
section of land that was rented. It came
up for rent. It was not a leaseback. It came up for rent, and this one gentleman
was renting it and had the first option to purchase it. He purchased it and then the next day resold
it to someone else right after. He was a
retiring farmer, but he purchased it, then very quickly turned it over to
somebody else.
The other concern is the price of the land
that it sold for. People in the community are very concerned that it should
have sold for a much higher price. Other
land in the area is selling for a higher price.
I can give you a specific land description and the person's name if that
will help. The land was purchased by a
Joe Harrison. The land description is
the west half of 29‑14‑26.
He purchased it for $16,000 and people in the area just cannot
understand why it sold for such a low price when they feel that it should have
sold for about $30,000.00.
I want to ask how the land price was set in
comparison to other land in the area, and whether it is legitimate or right to
be selling land to somebody and then he can just turn it over quickly in a few
days just for a profit.
Mr. Findlay: I
am not too sure what the member is trying to get at here. Land sells at all kinds of values. You can walk across
I have to assume, in this particular case,
that the normal procedures were followed.
We will investigate to be sure that they were, but values are
established according to the procedures of the Appraisal Institute of
Canada. That is usually comparable
values in the area, and sometimes it is surprising what those values are. Sometimes they are higher than you expect,
sometimes they are lower. Maybe the
party that bought it, that is a person‑to‑person business
transaction.
We are not a social agency, we are selling
land, and if it was offered by public tender, highest bidder gets it. Those are the procedures used. We will look at the specifics, but to say
that we should have any say in what the person does with it after he buys it
from us, no. We cannot do that.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
do not know whether the minister understood. MACC land was sold. It was not a private sale, and I guess the‑‑
Mr. Findlay:
Once MACC sold it, it is in private hands. It is out of our hands. We have no more strings on it, no more say in
what happens to it. We respect privacy
of that transaction once we sell it, and if the person that buys it from us
wants to sell it to somebody else, that is his choice; and if somebody that is
a third party wants to buy it at a potentially inflated price, that is his
decision. That is the freedom of
democracy.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The concern by the local people is that this half‑section of land
was sold by MACC for $16,000, but there is another quarter of land very close
by that is equivalent land, I am told but I have not seen the land, but it is
being advertised for $30,000, and that is the question I am asking, and I
realize the minister does not have the answers here.
If we could have this looked into, and the
reason I am asking this be looked into is because there are doubts in the
community as to why this particular half‑section of land was sold for
such a low price and then the other quarter of land which is the northeast
quarter of 30‑14‑26 is being listed at $30,000. Is there any reason why this one is not being
written down?
There is a feeling that the one parcel of land
was written down to an unusually low price and that is causing concern. I do not know the answers, and I am not
saying that there was something improper that went on, but there is a lot of
discussion and a lot of concern in the community about how this happened.
On the other side of it, I was just asking for
clarification whether there was any control when somebody got a piece of land
from MACC and the next day turned it over to somebody else. If this happens, is it just somebody
speculating? Is there any control on
that? I can see as I ask the question
that it is pretty difficult to‑‑
What I am seeing in this one is manipulation,
somebody buying the land and then passing it over to somebody else instead of
it going out to public tender, because the guy who was leasing the land,
although he was retiring, he bought the land and then sold it off to somebody
else, so he just prevented it from going to public tender is what happened
here. That is a concern as well, but I
can see where the minister says you do not have any control on that.
Anyway, if you would look into the situation and
get that back to me at another point, I will take it back to those people that
raised it with me.
Mr. Findlay:
To get the legal discriptions right, the half was the west half of 29‑14‑26,
and the quarter was the northeast of 30‑14‑26.
Ms. Wowchuk:
That is right.
Mr. Findlay:
We will investigate it. I mean,
there may be a difference of no buildings on the half and some buildings on the
quarter. Maybe the quality of land was
considerably different. Those things can happen. It does not matter whether you are a half
mile or two hundred miles, the quality of land could be quite different.
* (2220)
If you are in Miniota, the half may have been
on the valley bank and the quarter up on the highland. So we will definitely check it out and see
what the differences were, but I can assure you that the corporation follows a
consistent process of procedure. Whether
it was an option to purchase, it is at the appraised price. If it was not an option to purchase, it was
tendered. If it is tendered, there is still
a reserve bid and otherwise you take the highest bid. That is the procedure the corporation uses.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, I look forward to that answer so I can forward it on
and I do not know the lay of the land, but it is the people of the area who
know the lay of the land and are suspicious, if that may be the right word, or
concerned. I think the best thing we
could do is find the reason for it and get that information to them.
I wanted to continue on the Mediation Board
and just ask the minister what is happening.
Again, there are groups who feel that the Mediation Board is not
fulfilling the needs of farmers. I want to ask the minister, first of all, how
many people have appeared before the Mediation Board this year, and of those
how many are staying on the farms?
Mr. Findlay: I
am sure the member knows that the applications to the Mediation Board come
under two categories: Part 3 which is
under foreclosure, and Part 6 is voluntary.
Back in '88‑89, the number of cases that
came forward was 318; in '92‑93, in the year just completed, 161; so
basically half as many cases coming forward now as five years ago.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, the minister indicates that there are a lot less people
applying. Does he believe that it is
because the financial situation has improved or have farmers given up and are
not using the process?‑‑because there are still people out there in
trouble. I guess I ask him, is it that
the Mediation Board is not doing its job and the farmers are just not using
that process? Does he believe the
situation has improved out there and there are fewer people that have need for
that process?
Mr. Findlay:
My belief is that the process has worked exceedingly well, and that
there are less people in the kind of difficulty that they were in five years
ago. There are less really difficult
cases in existence over the course of time. With 318, 319, 195 or 161 cases,
each of the last five years, there are quite a number of cases that have come
forward over time.
To me it means as more and more of the more
difficult cases get resolved‑‑and the staff just reminded me that a
financial institution that wants to foreclose, they cannot foreclose without
going through Part 3. In the Part 3
case, '89‑90 there were a 181 cases; this past year, 90 cases. There are less people going through the
action of attempting to foreclose.
I have had individual farmers come up to me,
say, at Brandon Winter Fair and say, thank you very much for the help I got
through the Mediation Board. People that
I did not know and had never seen before came up and wanted to express extreme
thanks for the professional nature in which they got treated.
They said:
Without going through that process, I would not be farming today‑‑was
the common statement‑‑because they helped me get my financial house
in order. They showed me how to do
things I had never heard of before, and I was just heading down the wrong
path. They helped me restructure what I
was doing and get a better handle financially‑‑and probably not
only restructured them but maybe put them in contact with a financial advisor
or maybe a farm management specialist from the department to help them manage
themselves on into the future.
I have had several people say that. So I have to say that people respect‑‑although
they got into a very difficult circumstance.
They respected the help they got, and they knew that had they not gone
for that help they would have been long gone from the land. Yes, maybe they are on the land with a
smaller operation than they had at the beginning, but at least it is viable now
and it has got a future. Whereas what
they had before was not viable and had no future
So I think the process has worked, and it is a
tribute to the board members, the panel members and the staff to have made it
work. I have had financial institutions
say it is working well, too. It gives
them a third party, an impartial group to mediate a situation whereas they
could not mediate it by themselves.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, the minister said, last year it was 318 cases?
Mr. Findlay: I
said that back in '88‑89 it was 318 cases, down to 161 in '92‑93. What I gave you is the number of cases each
year along the way, 318, then 308, then 219, then 195, then 161 this last
year. So I gave you the last five years.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, the minister does not have to go back over the five
years but it might be interesting for comparisons. Of the cases that were heard and dealt with,
what percentage of those would still be on the farm? What percentage were able to reorganize their
affairs in order to be able to stay on the farm?
Mr. Findlay: I
have one particular year in front of me.
In '91‑92, in 76 percent of the cases, settlement was achieved and
in 24 percent, settlement was not achieved.
So three to one in favour of settlement.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Can the minister clarify, when he says a settlement was achieved, does
that mean that those people were able to re‑establish themselves and
continue on in farming, or did they take some kind of settlement and go on?
Mr. Findlay:
Yes, that is what settlement means, that they stayed on the farm.
Ms. Wowchuk:
In that case, the 24 percent who were not able to continue on farming,
what kind of settlement is made with those people? What supports are put in place? I am not quite sure what happens to these
people. Do they fall into the program,
the federal rural transition program?
What happens?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, yes, some of the people that do not achieve a
settlement do go through rural transition, but it is fair to say the majority
get on with life and find another job or go do something else, but certainly
some do use the rural transition process to get retrained or get a level of
education that will facilitate their getting a job.
* (2230)
Ms. Wowchuk:
This is a very difficult time to have to change your operation and to
lose a whole way of life for many people. What I am looking for is, and I know
it is not perhaps the Mediation Board's role to do this, but is there anywhere
in the department or is there any communication with other departments to offer
supports for these people? I am just
thinking about how difficult it would be to be in that situation where you have
lost your way of life.
I do not understand, if you have been through
the mediation process, the minister talks about a settlement on one side, if it
works out; on the other side, if it cannot be mediated, is there any kind of
settlement for them? I am not quite sure
what happens with the mediation process.
Are they left high and dry? Is there any kind of assistance for them?
Mr. Findlay:
In the process of arriving at a settlement in these circumstances, every
case is undoubtedly different. There are
people that get into a situation where they love farming. But as financial difficulties start to eat
away at their desire to farm over a period of two, three, five, six years, they
get to this point sometimes and say, heck, I have had enough of this. I have lost all my interest because it just
is not working out.
They will voluntarily go through the process
for awhile to see that there is no quick solution; there is no instant fix for
them and say, enough of this, enough is enough, and get on with life. They make quitclaim or the foreclosure
process may follow through, but some decision eventually occurs.
If you have lost your will and desire to farm,
in most cases, you are better off to get on with something you can start to
feel more comfortable with, rather than the pain and the agony of this
financial burden you have got into in the farming situation.
I think I relayed to the member previously a
case where somebody wrote me a letter profusely thanking me for actions of my
staff in helping them, a young family, work out a seemingly hopeless situation. You could tell by the tone of the letter that
they had gone from hopelessness to extreme hope. They had got sort of restructured onto a path
that they had a lot of comfort with.
They felt that now they could face the world. They knew how to handle
circumstances where they were totally up against a wall before they got the
professional assistance.
The staff of the department work in a wide
variety of different ways in dealing with younger couples or older couples in
these sorts of circumstances. There is
no clunk, clunk, turn the handle and you get a magic fix out the end. Nothing like that happens. I think the process has evolved quite
constructively over the last few years to the point that wherever there is a
potential mediation, I am sure it is found in the process that either the
farmer gives up and says, enough, and quitclaims or says, take it, I do not
want any more part of it, or the financial institution says, we will work with
you.
All those kinds of scenarios start to unfold
over time, but it is a third party coming in, getting involved where there
might have been confrontation, to try to get away from the confrontation, to
try to strike an arrangement or an understanding or a deal that both sides can
live with. It takes give and take on both
sides. Sometimes if one side will not
give, it is probably impossible to mediate.
There has to be give on all sides to get to a solution, a resolution.
I have known many people that went through
this process. They just decided enough is enough, and they get on with life.
Five years later, they are just zinging right along. They have forgotten all about farming and
started to enjoy life again.
I know that is not a nice thing to say, but
you know, if you get into a debt burden on the farm, it is not all that much
fun anymore.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
cannot believe that the minister would say that there is life after
farming. For many people, they do not
really believe that. That was not being
serious.
Has the staff that deals with the Mediation Board
remained the same, or has there been a reduction in staff?
Mr. Findlay:
The maximum number of employees there was seven. There were six full‑time
staff plus one seconded staff for seven.
The total number of staff now is four, somewhat reflecting the lower
level of caseload.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
want to continue on in another area. The
member for St. Boniface talked about the guaranteed operating loan. I do not know whether we are talking about
the same person‑‑I do not think so‑‑but a very similar
situation, where someone had a guaranteed operating loan. His understanding was somewhere that this did
not all have to be paid back. He thought
that there was some forgiveness in this.
He applied under feeder for the feeder association. He was one of the people who applied for the
feeder association program and then found out that there was no forgiveness
loan in this.
His comments were: You know, if I would have declared
bankruptcy, which I could have, then the government would have had to absorb
all this cost. I have survived, and I am
now wanting to expand further, but this is a black mark against me because I
have not paid off all of my guaranteed operating loan.
I want to ask the minister: Has there ever been a portion of these loans
that was forgiven, or have they always been‑‑
* (2240)
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, just so the member is aware of how a GOL operates,
the financial institution does the lending, whether it is the Royal Bank or
Bank of Montreal. They do the
lending. We guarantee 12.5 percent of
that portfolio. Let us say they have a
hundred GOLs in existence in 1993. We
will guarantee 12.5 percent of that total portfolio. If there is a default under that 12.5 percent
cap, they will bring that individual's name forward to the corporation in the
process of the write‑off. That is
when that person's name enters the bad debt list.
Staff tell me that if that individual wants to
clear his name, he can pay the amount of the write‑off that the
corporation encountered on his behalf, that there was never any forgiveness in
the process of a GOL loan, never.
Because you actually loan the money from a bank. Credit unions have not participated.
[interjection] Yes, a few caisses populaires have participated, but credit
unions have not. The primary operators
of the GOL have been the banks, and they do the lending. Then if there is a default then the lender
comes to the government for the guarantee, and then the name is recorded. As I said, that person, if his name was on
that list, can have it removed if he repays the default.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Can the minister indicate then, this program came in in 1983, have there
been a lot of defaults? Are there a lot
of people on the black list as far as this program goes or has it been a
program that has served a good purpose for the farmers and farmers have repaid?
Mr. Findlay:
While staff are looking up the numbers, if they can find them here, I
will just say that for many farmers they could not obtain operating loan money
if they did not enroll in the program.
The banks have used it as a risk protection for them so that they can
lend to people that otherwise they would not want to take the risk with. So it has served a very good purpose in terms
of allowing people of high risk to access operating money which they otherwise
could not access. The program is renewed
every three years, and I think the next anniversary is at the end of 1994. We are in the second year of the current
three‑year agreement.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
just want to tell the minister, it is not necessary to have specific
numbers. You do not have to look it
up. I was asking for generalities on the
program, whether it was a program that government lost a lot of money on or it
was one that served its need by providing the farmers the financing when they
were in a high‑risk situation and they in turn paid it off. There is no
need for specific numbers.
Mr. Findlay:
Let me just say that, certainly, in recent years very few write‑offs
occur. In the earlier years, yes, there
were some. One could ask the question,
why, but I prefer not to comment on them.
As the program became understood both by banks and by producers and
managed by government, it has ended up that the risk has been adequately looked
after from the standpoint of the banks to be able to lend, and the number of
defaults have been very, very small because producers understand, they do not
want to have a bad credit rating either with their bank or with the government,
and it has worked quite well.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just
going on then, the particular individual that I was talking about had indicated
that because of his default of his guaranteed operating loan he was not able to
participate in the feeder association loan program.
I want to ask the minister about the feeder
association program, how successful it is and whether there are many
applications. I look at the reports here
and he says that there are only two associations formed so far as of March
1992. Since then has there been a
general interest? Have many groups been
declined? What kind of take‑up
rate is there?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, there are currently eight feeder associations in
operation in the province. I am sure the
member is aware that there has to be at least 15 members in the association. Once they set the association up they
certainly have the power of a co‑operative, I guess we would say, in
terms of accessing money at a lower interest rate than what any individual
could by himself. They have group buying
power and group selling power. I think
in the course of the operating association everybody will gain somewhat from
the experience of the other person and bring people together in terms of
managing their operations and making the decisions of how they operate.
The majority of the members, at least two‑thirds,
have to be actively involved in farming and operating land. Up to one‑third can be nonlandowners
who are in the process of feeding cattle.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Is this the section where I can ask questions on the Farm Lands Ownership
branch, or does that fall under another section?
Mr. Findlay: I
prefer to do it under Vote 6.
Ms. Wowchuk:
One area under this MACC is the fish farming loans. As I looked through the report it was quite
new to me. I was not aware of it. The report says that two loans have been
approved as of '90‑91. How
aggressively or what work is being done or how much advertising is being done
to encourage fish farming? In what parts
of the province is this being done?
I am wondering whether anything is being done
to encourage fish farming in the aboriginal communities. We have a very high unemployment rate in
these areas. We have people who are
skilled fishermen who need alternate employment. I want to know what the take‑up is and
what is being done to advertise this program.
Is it being encouraged in any of the aboriginal communities in any way?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, I think the member can see by the number of people
who have sourced loans under this program, there is a very low level of interest. It is not an easy thing to do. It is a lot easier to lend money on land or a
building or something you can see. You
put fish into a body of water, they can disappear pretty quick, so it is a
pretty high risk.
There is a certain process that successful
fish farming must follow, and I do not know that we have it here in
* (2250)
Ms. Wowchuk:
Can the minister then tell me what got this loan going? Is it just basically for recreational
purposes or does the department see the possibility of raising fish as a
commercial product? Are the resources
there to help people or is it just sort of we will lend you the money and you
take your chances at it? Is there anywhere
in the department that the advisory staff, that the support staff, would be
there to help anybody setting up an operation like this?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, there are two loans there, but it is to one
individual, and this one individual has demonstrated a very high level of
management. Basically, he has learned
the business on his own and has convinced the corporation that he is that kind
of manager, worthy of taking a risk on in terms of continuing the loans. We do not have any extension staff in the
department that I am aware of that specialize in fish farming. We are dealing
with one farmer who has learned the management on his own.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Is it a success?
Mr. Findlay:
We determine success as meeting his payments, and he has done that. Beyond that, we cannot comment.
Ms. Wowchuk:
In what part of the province is this fish operation located in? Is it somewhere close to the city where he
would have access to markets, or where is the operation?
Mr. Findlay:
It is rainbow trout. He is in the
southeast part of the province.
Apparently, he has looked at Arctic char, but it is rainbow trout, we
understand, that he is raising in the southeast part.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, just one other area that I wanted to talk about and that
was on the beef stabilization loans. Are
those loans still in existence? Are
there loans being made under the beef stabilization program, or is that a
program that is not in existence anymore?
Mr. Findlay:
Over the course of my being minister, we have had the occasion to clean
up a couple of bad programs that were in by the previous administration, if I
might say so. The old BIAP, Beef Income
Assurance Plan, goes back a couple of administrations ago, maybe even three,
and then the beef commission was terminated on June 30 of 1989.
There has been a long process of trying to
clean up a large number of outstanding accounts. A number of people arrived at settlements in
the process of trying to meet their financial obligations of outstanding
debt. Some of them restructured on the
basis of paying so much a month over a course of time or so much a year over a
course of time, and that is probably what is involved here. I think there are six particular loans that
are in the process of an ongoing commitment to meet financial obligations.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Well, the minister said he had to clean up some programs that he did not
agree with under the previous administration, but I also want to say that
perhaps there is a need for a beef program, for some kind of financial
support. I know the minister is going to
say the price of cattle is great right now.
I do not disagree with that at all, but we have to look at what is
happening to the beef industry in
I think, as the Minister of Agriculture, he
has that responsibility to figure out how we can go farther and keep more of
the cattle in the province to a further stage, finishing off the cattle, and
also how we can get some processing and some of the value‑added
jobs. He talks many times about the
value‑added jobs that we can get in different products. I think that we should be looking at how we
can have the value‑added jobs in the beef industry. He may say it was bad programs that we had
under previous administration, but he has not addressed that whole issue of how
we can have the value‑added jobs and retain the cattle in the province
longer.
I want to ask the minister if he has any plans
and what his proposal is to deal with that.
How can we get the extra jobs in this province?
Mr. Findlay:
Well, I maybe overstated when I said bad programs, just the cleanup was
not very nice. When there are all these
bad accounts left at the end, it does not end up with a good taste in your
mouth I can assure you.
The Beef Commission was essentially replaced
by enrolling in tripartite. The biggest
shortcoming of the Beef Commission was it did not support producers who were in
the feedlot business. How could you expect to have a beef industry if you were
going to say you would not give any stabilization to the feedlot industry? You are only going to give stabilization on a
cow‑calf side, and only if you finish them do you get the finished
stabilization. By moving to tripartite,
there is stabilization for the cow‑calf producer, for the backgrounder
and for the finisher and that is stabilization.
It has paid out some pretty good money in
certain quarters a couple of years ago.
Now, of course, the market is so strong there has been no payout for at
least a year in the slaughter end, and there has never been any payout in the
cow‑calf side because calf prices have been so strong for so long.
It is always interesting when somebody gets
into this discussion about we are losing in the beef industry. If you look at the cow numbers, we are
continuing to grow and that is the profit end of the beef industry.
I am interested in farmers. First and foremost, farmers have to survive,
and they have to have a good black bottom line in whatever sector they are
involved in. Cow‑calf business is
very profitable. Yes, I would like to
see them carry them through, background them or finish them to add more value
in the province. It would be great if
some private sector individual came in and invested in a slaughter operation in
* (2300)
In hogs, we are now producing over 2 million
slaughter hogs, basically all being slaughtered in the province of Manitoba,
four slaughtering operations, high value‑added in this hog industry. Do
not forget that we are very successful on the hog side in terms of production,
growth of production, finishing and slaughtering, all in the
On the cattle side, because of events over the
course of the last 15 years, decisions were made to close plants. Now we can argue forever who is to blame. I do not think that is constructive, but the
decision was made not to invest in that industry. I can tell you that is a cutthroat
business. This large plant in
In the future, there is always a possibility
somebody will see
If we have the lowest feed grain costs in the
country, I think this is the place to finish hogs and the place to finish
cattle. I would think slaughter
facilities would locate close to where the animals are finished. Maybe that is another reason why
Other than tripartite stabilization, we do not
have very much government money right now in the cattle business. Yet that is the most profitable sector of
agriculture right now, the cattle business.
Whether you are selling calves or whether you are selling finished
animals, the prices are fantastic, to put it mildly.
Yes, I would like to see all the value‑added
jobs on the cattle side here. We do have
them in the hogs. We have them in
poultry, too. If you are looking at all
livestock, the balance sheet is not all that bad. If you look only at cattle, you say, oh, we
do not have the processing jobs, but all livestock‑‑several poultry
processors, we have four hog processors and all kinds of small slaughterhouses
all across the province.
There is a lot of good news there, as well as
a little bit of a hole that we would like to see filled. But to think that we will fill it with
government money‑‑not as long as I am here.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, I have to agree with the minister. We cannot buy an industry to come into the
province, but government has the responsibility to look at every way to attract
the industry. Sometimes there is a need
to offer some incentive, and it will work.
Certainly I do not think we can afford to
offer what
I am pleased that the price of cattle is where
it is, because that is certainly an asset to many farmers in the province. That is what is keeping them going.
I just have one more question on this area and
that is on board structure. When we
began the Estimates, the minister had indicated that the percentage of women in
the department was very high in comparison to the other departments. I am pleased about that. I indicated also that I hoped that would go
into other departments as well. I wonder
whether the minister has addressed that in the structure of his boards.
Is there any direction being given to get more
gender balance on to various boards, whether it be the board of‑‑we
talked about the Crop Insurance Board, MACC Board, the Farm Lands Ownership
Board? Is there any direction or
encouragement given to get more gender balance in boards as there has been? Although the minister said it has not been
under direction, it has just happened within the department where there is a
balance now of male and female staff, but under that board that is a little
different. That is by appointment. Has that issue been addressed?
Mr. Findlay:
Well, that is a broad, sweeping question.
In the process of filling the board
appointments, it has been very difficult to get women to serve. I am quite blunt about it. I think it is fair to say that I have one or
more women on every board. I think I
have two on one and maybe even three on another. But in the process of initially filling these
appointments, the comment that came back to me far too often was: Well, I am very busy. I am a spouse; I am a mother; I am a partner
in the farm, and I do volunteer work. I
cannot take on any more. Ask my husband.
It was frustrating to get that comment of that
general nature. Oh, gee, you should talk
to my husband. I said, it is you I want;
I think you have a role to play. Well,
then she gives me how busy she is. I am
sure it is very legitimate. Most people
are very busy. But we have a number of
women serving. I would dare say my
boards‑‑and I am just sort of trying to pick a figure here that
represents in general where we are, but probably 25 to 30 percent of my boards
are women. I could be off by 5
percent. But it has been very difficult,
because women who are involved, are very involved. A lot feel that they are so committed in
their family life and their work life that they cannot take on the
responsibility.
Another answer I got, well, when my children
grow up, I will be freer to do it. So it
means that they may in the future but not right now. Again, well, my husband is able, that does
not help me in my gender balance. I am
very pleased with the quality of women we have serving, but I would like to see
it more, I can assure you.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
guess I can appreciate where the minister is coming from. I have run into that same situation many
times. It is true, women are very, very
busy with many responsibilities, but I hope that the minister will not be
discouraged by those comments and will continue to pursue and encourage women
to participate at the board level even though they might tell you to go and ask
their husbands.
Encourage them, because I firmly believe that
women have just as much to offer as men do and bring a whole different
perspective, and I would like to see a balance.
There was an article in the paper earlier on about women representation,
and that was exactly the comment, that women many times felt that they did not
have the time or felt that their spouses might have more to offer than they
did. I think that we have to continue to
encourage them to participate, and I hope the minister will do that.
Mr. Findlay:
Well, the member can rest assured that we continue to do that and will
continue to do that. I wish I could
claim more success than I had, but I just hope you understand the
circumstances, as we all try to understand.
Madam Chairperson: 3.
*
(2310)
Resolution 3.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $10,260,400 for Agriculture, Manitoba Agricultural Credit
Corporation, $10,260,400, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1994‑‑pass.
Item 4.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Can I just ask how long are we expected to go on with this, or is there
a time that we are looking at? [interjection] Well, I would be happy to quit
now.
Mr. Findlay:
Just on the note of the last discussion, I hope that the member for
Ms. Wowchuk:
As the staff is leaving the table, I hope they will know what that was
referring to. The minister was being
chastised for not having any women advising him at the table, and it is nice to
see more of you here.
Madam Chair, as we look at this section here,
I have several questions that I would like to ask the minister with regard to
Animal Industry in particular and the Veterinary Services section on it. The Veterinary Services section was
privatized two years ago, a year ago?‑‑and I want to ask the
minister just the progress on that.
There was a tremendous amount of concern on what was going to be
happening, how the services would be provided, that there would be an increase
in cost of services to the farming community.
I would like the minister to just give us an update on what has happened
in that and whether he feels that the services are adequate and the needs of
farmers are being met.
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, the privatization of the drug lab, as far as we are
concerned, has gone very, very smoothly. The vets set up a co‑op. I happened to encounter a vet on
Saturday. I had to call his services,
and one thing he wanted to talk about was the drug lab, and he had nothing but
high praise for the process that was used.
Although they had a few growing pains as they
got the co‑op together, as a veterinarian he feels that the services
improved the range of drugs he can have available to him, the speed at which
you can get them has all improved as they have learned to operate their own
business.
So he had high praise for how it is
operating. I am not aware of complaints
from producers of any nature. Maybe the
stronger cattle prices help the cattle industry to not worry about drug cost or
whatever, but I have heard nothing but the positives that I heard from the vet
the other day.
Ms. Wowchuk:
One of the concerns was that when the change was being made that there
would be an increase in drug costs. Some
people were concerned that this was one of the things that might happen. Can the minister give any indication or has
there been any tracking done of anything like this, whether or not there has
been a substantial increase or whether prices have been retained at the same
level as they were before or within reason?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chair, I would like to introduce the staff that have entered.
Mr. John Taylor, director of Animal Industry;
Mr. Joe Meek, field veterinarian.
The markup, which is the only figure I can
give you‑‑we had a markup, as government, of 6 percent. The co‑op is now marking up drugs at 12
percent. Now we cannot comment on what
they are buying at. They might be buying
them in bulk at a lower cost to what government was. We think the industry is quite competitive
and they probably are buying them at pretty good prices. So the 12 percent might be a smaller figure
than the 6 percent was. So whether the
farmer is paying more or not in total is, I think, very difficult to compare.
I am not aware that there is any problem with
services or availability of drugs, and that is really what‑‑when a
farmer is in difficulty, he needs something, he wants it. If it is there, that is his first line of
interest.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
want to talk briefly about the prevention of livestock disease. One of the concerns that has been raised in
the last little while is the lack of inspection at auction marts. I am told that in
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, to the best of our knowledge,
In
Ms. Wowchuk:
Then I will go back to the person that talked to me about this because
the information I have is that there is a concern about diseased animals, and
that there is a system in
* (2320)
Mr. Findlay:
The member must be aware that any abattoir where the animals are killed
there is federal disease inspection at that point, but that is not the same
thing.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Just continuing on with livestock diseases, last year there was quite an
outbreak of tuberculosis. I should not
say quite an outbreak, a few spots where there was TB in cattle and a great
amount of concern in the delay it was taking to get settlement and the amount
of compensation that these people were getting.
I realize that the compensation comes under federal jurisdiction; that
is a federal program. However, it is
impacting on people here in Manitoba, so I want to ask the minister whether he
is aware, whether those cases, all of that has been settled‑‑and
that is in the Rossburn area where there was a problem‑‑and whether
there has been any additional outbreaks of tuberculosis in the province or
whether that was isolated to that particular area.
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, the member has recognized that it is under federal
jurisdiction and handled by federal veterinarians. In the process, yes, there was, it would seem
to the average individual, an inordinate period of time to go through the
testing process and determine positives and confirm positives, but I have
written to the federal minister. I have
raised it with him personally. The
general response is the testing procedure is long and difficult and there is
just no quicker process of determining positive reactors.
In the course of the investigation there were
several herds identified in Rossburn municipality. We understand that approximately 800 animals
were slaughtered and for which compensation was paid to the producers. There was in the end something like six
positives‑‑confirmed positives.
For all we know at this point in time, all the
positive reactors were cleaned out and there are no more outbreaks that we are
aware of at this time. I would have to
tell the member I lived fairly close to there and we are not, sort of, on‑the‑road
kind of conversation, there is no understanding that‑‑I have heard
nothing that there are any further problems.
The veterinarians have said nothing.
I have asked them and they say, oh, we just do not know of any more.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, one of the concerns was at the time, the length of
time it took for compensation, but also the level of compensation. Again, it is federal jurisdiction, but I want
to know whether or not the minister or his staff have in any way lobbied the
federal government or taken any steps to encourage the federal government to
increase that level of compensation.
As the minister is aware, that was a very,
very stressful time for some of those people in that area who had to have their
whole herd disbursed, then had the costs of clean‑up and all of that had
to be out‑of‑pocket money for a long time. Then the level, they felt‑‑as did
many other people‑‑the level of compensation was just not adequate
to today's costs. Is there anything
being done to address that vis‑a‑vis the provincial government to
the federal government?
Mr. Findlay:
We raised that issue in our correspondence with the federal
government. My understanding in talking
with one of the producers involved, although the compensation on the surface
did not look very attractive, he was very pleased with the appraisal process,
as to how he was handled in the end.
Many of those producers, there was a high
level of uncertainty as the process was going on and it was dragging on and
dragging on, and I do not think that the people at the other end fully
understood the impact, as you mention, the disposing of the herd. It took many, many years to build it up and
you are satisfied with it, then the clean‑up procedures, and then in many
cases, they lost a whole year, lost a whole cycle, the calf crop.
I do not know how they have made out,
truthfully, in terms of replacing their herds with the money once they received
it. It is fair to say that the price of
cows has gone up. I hope that they did
their buying a year ago as opposed to the last six months, but we have raised
all the issues with the federal people.
One of the fears of doing that, of course, is
they say, you can appreciate what they might say. If you want higher assessments, it is time
for you to chip in. Again, they will use
the offload angle on you. The member can
rest assured we have raised the issues both by letter and in personal contact.
I suppose if the area has been totally cleaned
up, it is very good news for the cattle industry in total in the province. It may be very unfortunate for the people who
just by chance got caught up in what was happening there. Many of those herds that were cleaned out,
they had little or no reactors in the herds, and if they did have a reactor it
was because of fence‑line contact, not because they bought an animal that
was contaminated, or diseased I should say.
Ms. Wowchuk:
One of the issues that arose at that time in that area was a concern
that the contamination may have come from wildlife, and there was a concern
that the location of some of the baiting for hunting, and the concern was that
there was tuberculosis in the elk in the area.
Is the minister aware of any‑‑this
may be a Natural Resources question, but it relates to Agriculture as well‑‑wild
game that had TB in it that could have spread to the livestock? It is a big problem in
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, it is difficult to comment on the wildlife
allegations or suspicions. To the best
of our knowledge, the positive reactor that caused all the trouble in the
Rossburn area was purchased at a sale and the animal originated from the
* (2330)
Ms. Wowchuk: I
appreciate that because
Mr. Findlay:
We are not aware of any contamination in wildlife. If there is, we are
not aware of it.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
want to move on to the Soils and Crops section. Under the Soils and Crops
section, I want to ask the minister, what work is being done in crops and in
soils management. Is there any work
being done to promote or research organic farming?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chairperson, the Organic Producers Association of Manitoba,
otherwise known as OPAM, has been in existence for several years, primarily
located in the Virden area. That is
where it initially started. Kent Flour
Mills in Virden do a lot of the flour milling, processing of the organic grains
that are exported.
In terms of the department involvement,
certainly staff have worked with the association, particularly the Ag rep in
Virden, John Hollinger. John Dean and
the head office staff worked with the association in a wide variety of areas
and ways, worked with them in terms of putting out a production manual and in
the process of attempting to get national certification in place for organic
produced food products. In terms of
specific research, we are not involved in specific research, but we are
involved in working with the association on a number of areas, particularly the
manual and the certification.
Ms. Wowchuk: When
I talk about organic farming, there is a lot of concern by some people about
the amounts of chemicals, the amounts of fertilizers that are being used by
farmers and the impact this has on water supply.
There are those people who think that we
should be using much less of these chemicals.
Is there any research being done or documentation on the impacts of use
of fertilizers and chemicals? Does the
minister have any concern that there are areas of the province where our water
supply is being contaminated by use of chemicals and fertilizers?
Mr. Findlay:
The member is coming at a fairly strange angle. Farmers, in terms if
they are going to survive, have to use the inputs of chemicals and
fertilizers. Without the use of those inputs,
they cannot all produce organic food products.
There is not a market for everybody to do that.
In terms of evidence, I think the evidence is
fairly straightforward. Canadian
farmers,
All chemicals and fertilizers go through a
registration process. There are
guidelines for the application and use of chemicals, crops in which they are to
be used, crops in which they are not to be used, waiting periods from time of
application to the harvest. All that is
laid out. I have the highest level of
confidence that farmers abide by all those guidelines and regulations that are
laid down in the registration process, particularly for pesticides.
There is a little bit of monitoring going on
in water to determine if what the member says in terms of higher nitrate levels
or chemical levels, whether they do exist.
In general, the answer is there is nothing to be alarmed about. There are natural levels of nitrates in water
in certain locations in the province.
Mother Nature puts them there, so you cannot attribute the use of
chemicals or the presence of a feedlot to some of the locations where there are
nitrate levels.
My memory tells me that somewhere up in the
We are certainly involved in integrated pest
management on the leafy spurge and nodding thistle, biological control, and
working with the vegetable growers on integrated pest management. Certainly wherever, whenever possible, particularly
for economic reasons, we are trying to use less and less chemicals, but to
think that we will ever see a day when you do not use some, it is not going to
happen.
* (2340)
You know, if you grow a crop of wheat and you
remove the kernels from the field, you are taking nutrients away from the
field, so you have to put them back into the field. I think the process of how we manage our
crops and how we put those nutrients back is very responsible.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The minister says that I am coming at this from a strange angle. Well, I do not mean to be coming at it from a
strange angle, but I think that we have a responsibility. We as farmers are using the soil. We have to be sure that it is there for the
next generation to use as well, and that we use sound practices.
The minister often talks about sustainable
agriculture, and sustainable agriculture to me means leaving it there for the
next generation. We have those people
who are concerned with what farmers are doing with the amount of chemical that
is being applied, with the amount of fertilizer that is being applied, and we
have to be sure what we are doing is right.
That is what I was looking for.
There will always be those people who are on
the other side of the issue as well. We
have to find a balance between the two.
As I look at sustainable development, I wonder
where does the minister see that being thought in the agricultural facilities
that we have now? Does he feel that we
are providing enough education, enough information for sustainable
agriculture? Are the courses that are
being taught right now at the universities adequately addressing sustainable
agriculture?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chair, the question is whether universities are adequately
training and educating people. I think
there is a better understanding in all of society about the principles of
sustainability. Farmers are
understanding it.
The Soil Conservation Agreement that we have
in place, the Farming for Tomorrow process, I think, has elevated people's
understanding of sustainable handling of our land to a much higher level than
it ever was before.
Certainly, The Green Plan that is in the
process of replacing the soil accord is going to raise that level of awareness
even higher.
It is fair to say that at the university there
is pretty good understanding of the role of sustainable development. I cannot say that I know of any particular
courses that are designed for that per se, but I am pretty confident that in
various courses, elements of the principle are being taught.
I just happened to have the radio on early
yesterday morning, and they were interviewing Dr. Clay Gilson who is on the
International Institute for Sustainable Development here in Winnipeg, and he
was commenting that the successful farms of the future are those who adapt in
an ongoing way over the next few years to understanding the principles of
sustainable agriculture. Those regions
of the world or those farmers that ignore that will in the long term be the
losers, because either the industry will voluntarily understand that the public
at large wants more sustainable activities in agriculture, or if farmers do not
respond they will be legislated, which would be very costly for the farming
community.
If you think of such regions as
I see a tremendous change in attitude of
farmers over the last four or five years as the Farming for Tomorrow process
has been working at the grassroots level.
I have been to two or three different evening banquets across the
province where this is, you know, the highlight of the year for the Farming for
Tomorrow committee. They get good
turnouts and good attitude and some very positive things going on in the
different regions and communities of the province. It is catching on, and it is catching on at
the right level, at the grassroots level.
To hear Clay Gilson say that about the farmers of the future, the more
people say that the more people will understand it is not just a fad that is
passing. It is a real fact of life in
terms of using the environment for food production.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, the minister talks about one university professor who
talked about sustainable agriculture, but there are other people who are
critical of some farming practices. One
of them in particular is the use of anhydrous ammonia and the negative impacts
of that. There is a university professor
from Brandon who has spoken out against that practice, and I wonder what follow‑up‑‑I
have here a letter where the minister has expressed concern about this
professor speaking out against the practice, criticizing it.
The minister was not happy with the statements
made by Dr. Paton and felt that his comments were unsubstantiated, but I think
we are always going to have those people who have a different view. I do not think that we can restrict, and I
want to ask the minister, was he trying to restrict the comments of people who
are on staff within the universities speaking out and expressing their views on
particular agricultural practices, if they may not been in line with the
minister's thinking?
Mr. Findlay:
Evidence, please, scientific evidence, please, that is all we are
asking. The Manitoba Institute of
Agrologists asked the same thing. Sir,
if you have got evidence, if you are a practising agrologist or whoever you
are, if you have got evidence, just supply the evidence. That is all that we want.
Statements of that nature could harm the
industry, and it is difficult to defend yourself. Please, supply some evidence that is
scientifically based and reviewed by the scientific community, particularly the
practising agrologists of this province.
Let them scrutinize the scientific information. That is all we ask.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Then I guess I want to ask the minister, when these comments were made,
is the minister saying that there was nothing to substantiate those particular
comments that the effect of ammonia on field conditions and the other comments
that he made‑‑is the minister saying, agrologists also said that
there was nothing to substantiate these facts made by this?
Mr. Findlay: I
do not have the exact letter in front of me, but the Manitoba Institute of
Agrologists wrote a similar comment in the subsequent letter that they put in
the paper, saying: Where is the
evidence? We need evidence to
substantiate the claim.
* (2350)
It is the same thing as happened at
Christmastime about four years ago, when there was salmonella found in the eggs
in
Just because salmonella might happen in eggs
in
I just say, evidence, please, and
scientifically scrutinized by people who are practising agrologists so that
everybody has a chance to clear the air on what are the facts.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, we do have to have evidence on all of these, but the
department also has to have and must have information available on various
products that are used. I was just
asking that particular question because I was asking whether the minister
objected to people speaking out. It is
just a matter of being able to‑‑[interjection].
Madam Chairperson, I am wondering whether we
might be able to call it twelve o'clock.
Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to call it
twelve o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 12 a.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. The hour being after 10 p.m., this House is adjourned
and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).