LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, May 20, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* * *
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Glenn Hosea, Phyllis Tolsma, Grace McConkey and others requesting that the
* * *
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Odette Sabourin, Robert Cooper, Tony Rodrigues and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑1994 budget.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Jo‑Anne Bolduc, Dale McKinnon, Mervin Young and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Brenda Palmer, Doug Gray, Sandra Pearce and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the
removal of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation
with the board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member
advisory committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has
said that there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is
made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Chomiak). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing
plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Lathlin). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans
to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the
removal of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with
the board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory
committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has
said that there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is
made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing
plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Maloway). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing
plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Minnedosa
Collegiate, fifty Grade 11 students, under the direction of Ms. Jean Taylor and
Mr. Daniel Kiazyk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Student Social
Allowances Program
Elimination‑Cost
Benefits
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on March 16 the government
announced, among many other program cuts, the elimination of student social
allowance. We asked the government on
the cost‑effectiveness of this issue.
They stated in the House on March 17 that many of these young people
would be able to finish their high school; they could remain at home with their
parents, that others can have access to other support programs within the
Department of Education and other sources.
Two months after the cut, we are
already aware of estimates from the
The school board has asked the
government to reconsider, and I quote, their short‑term cost‑savings
in terms of the long‑term costs to our society.
I would like to ask the Premier
whether they are going to consider the long‑term costs of their short‑term
thinking on these budgets.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We, like all provinces and provincial
governments, think about the long‑term impact of the things we do. We do not have the luxury of being in opposition
where, from a position of irresponsibility, we just simply say, spend more, tax
more, place a greater burden of deficit on the people and crush their
opportunities and future by leaving that‑‑[interjection] Mr.
Speaker, the opposition obviously do not want to hear the answer.
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, it is the first time the Premier has risen on this issue, and I am
glad to say that he is trying to answer the question, because we asked him
before on cost‑benefit studies.
What we are looking at is the short‑term costs of a federal‑provincial
program, and the long‑term cost implications. So if the Premier is now
saying that they are considering in all their decisions the long‑term
implications of these programs, I would like the Premier to table that in the
House so we can see the data that he utilized to cut this program.
Mr. Speaker, there are now 500
students who must withdraw from the program in the Winnipeg School Division No.
1. The City of
I would like to ask the
Premier: How many people will have to go
on social assistance, totally, in this program, through the cutbacks that are
made by the province, and what have they really saved by denying education and
training and increasing costs in social assistance in the
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, nobody is being denied education and training. That remains freely available in our public
school system throughout
Mr. Speaker, as I started to say
earlier, we, like all provincial governments, have to look at the long‑term
implications of every decision we make.
We do not have the luxury of those members in opposition, who, from a
position of irresponsibility, say just simply spend more, spend more, spend
more. When we look, along with every
other province in
The reason is that they say the
education is provided free of charge.
The opportunities are there for people to either take part‑time
work, or, as well, to seek the resources of others in their community, their
families, the other support networks in their community, to ensure that they
can continue to live while they go to school.
These are the things that are done
by every single province in the country.
We are acting in no different manner than any province in the country‑‑New
Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, they are all following exactly the same
policy.
* (1340)
Funding Reinstatement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the social assistance numbers in
the city of
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the cost
to the City of
Programs that get people off of
social assistance have been pioneered in
Will the government now agree to
reinstate this program and to also look at the City of
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member
opposite does not do any research into what is happening elsewhere in the
country, so I will inform him that in places like
We, like everyone else, are doing
whatever can be done within the bounds of what we have available to us from the
people, the taxpayers, who work hard to earn the money that they entrust us
with. Those are the circumstances that
we face like every other province, and we make responsible decisions to ensure
that we spend those dollars as wisely as we possibly can.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative policy in
education is to take from those who have the least and for whom there is no
alternative. The list of such policy
choices is getting longer. In 1991‑92,
at
Yesterday I asked the minister for
an estimate of the cut for this coming year and got no reply, so I am asking
her again today: Will she tell us
whether her grant to
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, many of
these programs receive funding from the federal government and there has been a
decrease in funding from the federal government that has affected the courses
which are available at our community colleges.
However, I would remind the member,
as well, that we do provide for Adult Basic Education in addition to programs
at our community colleges through our literacy programs and also in our high
schools.
* (1345)
Program Reductions
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, again, a number of decisions
have been made, and I believe that other ministers may also be able to add to what
will be occurring in some of those areas, but in terms of the college and the
programs being offered specifically through the college, the answer does remain
the same. The federal government has
changed the way in which it is funding and where that funding will flow. The community colleges then have had to make
decisions.
We continue to offer support for
adults who wish to receive an education through our literacy programs and also
through programs available in our high schools.
Alternative Programs
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this minister funds those
colleges. These are
Will she tell us what alternatives
there are for those students with families who next year will not be able to
get that basic instruction which could set them on the path to enter high
school which might give them the opportunity to find a job?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, again, yes, we do provide
funding to our community colleges.
However, the community colleges also have received funding which flowed
from the federal government through the provincial government to not only fund
tuition but also to underwrite the cost of courses.
Now the federal government has made
a change in how it will be funding those programs. The community colleges are now able, Mr.
Speaker, to negotiate directly with the federal government to see if it is
possible to reinstate any of that funding directly funded to the community
colleges. That is one option. Because the colleges have moved to
governance, that is a benefit, that they can make that negotiation themselves.
In addition, I have explained to the
member the other kinds of programs which we do offer as a province, literacy
programs, which are community‑based, Mr. Speaker, which are offered at
times of the day which are convenient to community members who would like to
take part in them. We also offer
programs within our high schools.
Bankruptcy Statistics
Provincial Comparisons
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today the consumer bankruptcy
statistics were released for
Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) explain
why it has increased in the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of bankruptcies in total, I think the honourable Leader of
the second opposition party is well aware when we talk about business
bankruptcies that we have the second lowest rate in all of
Dealing with consumer bankruptcies,
obviously, to take one month, again, selective statistics, there is not
necessarily a fair and realistic comparison.
I think we will see, as the year performs, how well
The information we put on the record
before, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what the Conference Board of Canada indicated,
by freezing personal taxes, not increasing taxes for six budgets now, that over
the next two years there will be significant more dollars in the hands of
consumers here in
* (1350)
Bankruptcy Statistics
Provincial Comparisons
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it shows three
months of declining rates of bankruptcy in the
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Where were you in '92 when we were leading
the nation in that statistic?
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, obviously the Minister of Finance would
like to answer this question, so I will ask the Minister of Finance: How does he explain why
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the preamble from the member, I
question her, why, in 1992, when our trend was the most favourable compared to
every other province in the nation, there was not one question with respect to
bankruptcies?
So I can ask the very same question
in reverse, Mr. Speaker, and again, the member now is starting to fall upon the
same course of action by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) in the
selective statistics at the particular point in time, to try and give her an
opportunity to ask that type of question.
She has found one and she is going to ask it today.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, throughout all of 1992, we heard
from this government that this was a terrible recession, that this was not
quite the "D" word, but almost the "D" word, that this was
tough economic times, and look how well
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a
situation in which every other province seems to be coming out of the
recession, and we are not.
Will the Minister of Finance explain
clearly to the members of this House why the other provinces are seeing an
improvement and we are seeing a downward slide?
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, I have not analyzed all the sectorial input that would be
necessary to come to the final point, but again, I would refer the member to
the Investment Dealers' Association, who were in
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when one wants
to look at the reports, the report cards, when one wants to look at the
economic forecasts and when one wants to look into account, the support that we
put into still maintaining our capital level of spending with a government and
vis‑a‑vis across the land, I dare say that this province has been
given the highest marks as any province in
Jury Duty
Daily Per Diems
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Will the Minister of Justice tell
the House when The Jury Act was amended to eliminate this payment or when the
regulations were changed to eliminate these payments?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice
and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, The Jury Act has not been amended. No change has been made.
In looking at the requirements of
the Department of Justice in preparation for the budget, every single
expenditure made by government was examined.
As a matter of fact, the letter that the honourable member refers to has
gone out in error. The issue of jury
fees is still, as a matter of fact, being looked at. That decision has not been
taken.
Ms. Barrett:
Mr. Speaker, according to the information we have, individuals who are
on jury duty now are not receiving per diems or reimbursement for expenses that
are under the regulation supposed to be being given.
Will the Minister of Justice tell
the House today that not only is the letter in error, but the actual actions
that his department is undertaking with regard to jurors is in error as
well? Will he change that immediately?
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, the letter to which the honourable member refers is in
error. If any action is being taken
pursuant to that letter that ought not to be taken, that will be addressed just
as soon as we can to ensure that those who are presently serving as jurors will
receive that to which they are entitled.
The Jury Act
Amendments
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1355)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): The
matter raised by the honourable member is being looked at. There are people who
serve on juries and, through their collective agreements or through their
relationships with their employers, their wages continue. Those who‑‑[interjection] Yes,
many.
Those who do not enjoy that kind of
relationship or protection from their employers are the ones that we would be
most concerned about as we look at these issues. We see jury duty as a very noble public duty
that citizens in our country provide for their fellow citizens. We do not want to see people punished by
virtue of having to serve on a jury.
The issue is being looked at by my
department and by the government. The
honourable member seems not to understand that there are many people in our
society who, through collective agreements, or whatever, with their employers,
are indemnified for time spent away on jury duty. So those people do not need jury fees, but
others may well need that from the government.
Arni Thorsteinson
Property Holdings‑Mortgage
Payments
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the
Minister of Housing.
Yesterday, the Minister of Housing
stated, and I quote: We do not care
whether Mr. Thorsteinson or anybody else makes money or does not make money.
Now, this was his reaction after
sitting on the $6‑million debt that the PC Manitoba fundraiser has had
now for three years.
I want to ask the minister: Why did the minister allow the head of the PC
Manitoba Fund to collect over $55,000 a month rental payments during this
period when he was not making his mortgage payments?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, that occurred because it was the
former NDP government that entered into the contract‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Maloway: Mr.
Speaker, surely the minister does not think that over $663,000 a year is a
minor sum of money.
When did this minister finally seize
the rental payments?
Mr. Ernst:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable friend yesterday, the
situation occurred where, in this instance, CMHC is the guarantor of MHRC's
mortgage. CMHC has a National Housing
Act insurance fund which insures all kinds of mortgages, from single‑family
homes in
So, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the
matter is we take direction from that insurer.
When that insurer tells us to act, we act, and that is exactly what we
did.
Arni Thorsteinson
Property Holdings‑Provincial
Audit
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister will never
answer this question, and with that in mind‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
What is the question?
Mr. Maloway:
Will the Premier agree to refer this issue to the Provincial Auditor so
that we can get full and complete details on the transactions of this issue
which this minister refuses to give to the public?
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Firstly, I can assure the member opposite that
everything that should have been done under the circumstances was done under
the circumstances, and the Government of
Mr. Speaker, a legal process has to
be followed. That legal process is set
out in these matters, and the legal process was followed.
In addition to that, if there is any
shortfall between the value of the property and the mortgages that were granted
to it, that is not the responsibility of this administration. That is the responsibility of the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who, when he was Minister of Urban Affairs, signed
the agreement to place those federal and provincial government monies in that
building.
We have the asset; we followed the
process; we followed the foreclosure procedure, and, if there is any shortfall,
it is that person who‑‑[interjection] No problem, no problem. You did not take enough security.
Firearms Control
Acquisition Information
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to answer questions taken as notice by the Premier from the
honourable member for
The honourable member asked if
information on FACs is available to police officers in
We have struck a committee with
representatives from my department who have been working with the federal
government to adapt the CPIC system to allow restraining order and FAC
information to be available directly to the police. This should be accomplished by the end of
this year. In the meantime, the police
can obtain this information through the Law Enforcement Services division of my
department.
The honourable member also asked
what progress has been made to ensure that information that police require to
perform their jobs is accessible through current available technology. My department is currently developing a court
registry system for police to access this information 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. We hope to have this system
operational by midsummer.
The database will include
information on restraining orders, nonmolestation orders, peace bonds,
recognizance and probation orders. It
will provide police with the capability of searching for the offender's name,
conditions of the order, effective date of the order, and the names and/or
addresses of the complainant, as well as any other conditions which may be
relevant to noncommunication or firearms restrictions.
I can assure the House that this
government is taking all possible steps to protect the women and children of
Hemophiliacs
HIV Compensation Package
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
I understand the minister has met
with the Canadian Hemophilia Society this morning. It is a positive step, but we will ask the
minister if he will take another step and make a commitment for a compensation
package for these 25 patients who have contracted HIV through no fault. These families are asking desperately for
help.
Can the minister, on a compassionate
basis, make sure that these families are being taken care of?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, my honourable friend is
correct; I did meet with the
Mr. Speaker, to give my honourable
friend the assurance he seeks, I can, because we are currently and will
continue to provide whatever supportive assistance we can, through my ministry
and other government departments, to assist those unfortunate Manitobans who
contracted AIDS through the provision of blood‑clotting agents.
But, Mr. Speaker, I had to inform
the members that the commitment or the position of the province had not changed
since we took that position at a federal‑provincial‑territorial
ministers meeting some three ago; however, Sir, I was able to indicate that we
intend to have discussions around that issue this September at the annual
ministers meeting.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, the
Can the Minister of Health tell us,
why not make a similar commitment to make sure these patients and their
families, who have no support system, should be protected because they have
contracted disease by no fault of their own?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is correct in that
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not one in
which I can currently change the position that I agreed to some two and a half
years ago. To my knowledge, the other
provinces that were present, with the exception of
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, I will request the minister again. In the meantime, what are these patients
supposed to do, and their families? They
have no other support system. There are
about 25 families who have to protect their families, and their time is very
limited.
Can the minister tell this House,
why not make some kind of compensation package available on the condition that
the federal government will put some money to make sure these people are
protected?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend might well know that the reason behind
the provincial ministry's decision taken some three years ago, or two and a
half years ago, was just that the federal government had provided, at the time,
the most substantial compensation package to hemophiliacs that was then in
existence in any country.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's
suggestion that the provinces ought to move in collaboration with the federal
government is an intriguing one. My
honourable friend must also be aware that one of the conditions the federal
government placed on their compensation package is that they then wash their
hands of any further assistance. I am
not certain, although my honourable friend makes a reasonable suggestion, that
the federal government has any particular interest at this stage of the game.
Pharmacare Revisions
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last year the provincial
government fundamentally changed the Pharmacare program by no longer including
in the formulae all drugs that were approved by the federal Department of
Health and Welfare and the agency.
Given the significant effect that
this is having on the public of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, in his
preamble, is not exactly being totally accurate. With regret I say that.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we made changes to
the Pharmacare program. Those changes in terms of formulary and policy were on
the advice of the Pharmacare Advisory Committee composed of professional
pharmacists, physicians and others. We
made those decisions to protect the integrity of being able to supply needed
drug therapy to Manitobans. Despite the
changes, our program remains amongst the most generous program in
It is significantly more generous,
Sir, than provinces to the east and to the west of us who have made similar
changes and the changes have made the programs in other provinces much less
supportive of families in
Mr. Chomiak:
Can
the minister explain why the public was not consulted prior to these changes,
and why were these changes not put in place with a time frame that would allow
for the changes to adequately work their way through the system so the public
was aware of the significant effect that this change has had on the whole
entire Pharmacare program?
Mr. Orchard:
My honourable friend brings up the issue of notification. Is my honourable friend suggesting that the
information package that was developed around the decisions recommended by the
Pharmacare Advisory Committee should have been sent to every household in
Had I sent that out to all
Manitobans, my honourable friend would have been standing on his hind legs
complaining about waste of money.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* (1410)
Mr. Chomiak:
They may not care, Mr. Speaker, but the public certainly does.
Can the minister explain why the
Registrar, at the last annual meeting of the pharmacists said, quote: No other event in the past year has caused as
much controversy. In these times of
fiscal restraint our predictions of chaos were ignored. Now, almost a year into the program, many
physicians are either ignorant or contemptuous of the rules and the pharmacists
are caught in the middle.
Can the minister explain why all the
professionals in this field had to hear this at a public meeting last month?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, I am quite intrigued with my honourable friend's‑‑again
I have to, with all due respect, conclude‑‑inaccurate conclusion as
to what he has just stated.
Sir, I had the privilege of speaking
to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association annual meeting this week, and I
presented‑‑and I want to thank the second opposition party for
giving me the pair so I could be there, the official opposition chose not to do
that.
I want to indicate to my honourable
friend that the comment that consistently comes from pharmacists across
One pharmacist in particular said, I
just wish that we could get to meet with our Minister of Health. That comment, Sir, was from a pharmacist in
the
Grain Transportation
Proposal
Method of Payment
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
He also said he has taken a position
on the method of payment; however, farmers have not heard his position.
Can the Minister of Agriculture,
today, state very clearly in this House his position on the method of
payment? Is he standing with
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): In case the member cannot read Hansard, I
will tell her again what the answer was. I said that in 1989, I realized this was
a significant issue. I formed a
minister's advisory council with broad representation from the Pools, UGG, KAP,
In case the member does not remember
what she said in Estimates, and I will read from page 3042, May 17, 1993: "I believe, yes, farmers and the
provinces are backed into a corner now where they have no choice"‑‑this
is the member for
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, farmers are blackmailed and this minister will not stand up
against Charlie Mayer on this.
How can the Minister of Agriculture
support a change to the method of payment or acceleration of rail line
abandonment? How can he say this is
going to save farmers money when a secret response by the National
Transportation Agency analyzing the western grain transportation's efficiency,
which I will table, indicates that changes, if implemented, will increase
farmers' costs by $500 million over the next eight years. It will not reduce farmers' costs.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Speaker, the member says the status quo should remain. I want to tell her what the status quo is,
the status quo for the last 12 years that farmers' costs have doubled in terms
of elevation costs, transportation costs to the shipper, costs on the Lakehead,
terminal costs. Those costs have
doubled, and the value of the commodity the farmer gets at the farm gate is cut
in half.
She says that is acceptable, that
should stay the way it is. It has happened in the last 12 years, but she says
it should happen again in the next 12 years.
So she says over the next 12 years farmers should have half the value of
the farm gate they have today, and she says that is acceptable.
I do not dream of that. I say it is unacceptable and everybody from
the farm gate on must reduce their costs so the farmer has a chance to
survive. I do not concur with her that
the status quo should remain in the future because the farmers will not survive
with that approach.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, this is a report by the NTA, and I quote: Many of the efficiencies proposed are not
workable if it is changed to pay the producer.
How can the minister say that this
is going to improve things for farmers?
The NTA is saying farmers are going to pay $500 million more, not less.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question.
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, that member wants to take a hysterical position. Four years ago, as I have told her, I set up
a process‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I really think
the use of the word "hysterical" is absolutely unacceptable. Certainly in the 1990s, I really wonder if
the member would have used that if he had been referring to a male member of
this House. I consider the word to be
offensive and sexist, and I would ask you to have that member withdraw that
word immediately.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I feel badly that the member has
to rise on the guise of some phony point of order to make some‑‑[interjection]
The most hysterical member in this House for the last number of days has been
the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I
do not know what gender he falls into, but I think it defeats his argument.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance's use of the word "hysterical" for the member for
Thompson in order to, quite frankly, gloat over the inappropriate use of that
word by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, "hysterical"
is a word that is used almost inevitably in reference to women and only in
reference to women. If the Minister of Agriculture did not mean it as a sexist
comment, I urge him to stand in his place and to indicate it was not meant as
such.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Speaker, if it is bothering anybody that I used the word, I would
withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I
would like to thank the honourable Minister of Agriculture.
* * *
Mr. Findlay:
In terms of this very difficult and broad question that is affecting grain
growers in western
I want to remind the House that the
member has very clearly put it on the record.
On May 17 she says it is time that the method of payment must be
changed. I want to give her all the
confidence in the world that we have gone through a very elaborate process to
do it constructively for the
Civil Service
Audit Implementation
Committee Chairperson
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, this government received the
civil service audit, which outlined serious concerns in the civil service on
fair treatment of women and racism, to name two. Although there was an untimely death of the
chair of the implementation committee, this minister has had ample time to
select another chair and to get a plan of action in place.
Can the Minister responsible for the
Civil Service tell this House, who is the chair of the implementation committee
and when can we expect a plan of action?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for
The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker,
certainly the death of the former chair, a former minister in this House,
Gerrie Hammond made things somewhat difficult for the work of the committee,
but the work of the committee has continued during the period since she passed
away and the work of the committee continues.
Mr. Speaker:
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House
resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the
Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member
for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply
please come to order.
This afternoon, this section of the
Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(c)(1) on
page 34 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we were last
together we spoke extensively about the issue of surveys. There had been a request to look at the kind
of surveys that the department sent out, so I would like to table today some
surveys. The first I would like to table
is a staff survey, staff referring to staff of a school. When this staff survey is done, when it is
developed, it is also developed with the assistance of school staff itself, not
simply by our own staff.
The second is a survey for school
demographic information for students at risk, which is done by our Student
Support branch. A third is a language
development program survey. It is a
parent questionnaire, a way for parents to take part in a survey. The next one is a teacher questionnaire for
reading assessment Grade 4, teacher questionnaire reading assessment Grade 11,
and a Grade 4 teacher survey results handout as well.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I thank the minister for this, but could I
just request which question these are supposed to answer? Were these from John, or were these ones from
the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)?
Mrs. Vodrey: They were in response to questions from the
member for Crescentwood.
Ms. Friesen:
Thank
you because I had been asking for evidence of research reports in the post‑secondary
area. The minister had mentioned some,
and I thought that there might be others.
We had also talked last time about
some ACCESS‑‑not surveys‑‑but material that the
department collected. I wonder if that
was available.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
understand the question that the member asked was some information regarding
rural and urban students and their attendance at post‑secondary
educational institutions. In that one we
are still compiling the data, and we would expect to have it for her by next
week.
Ms. Friesen:
Actually, it was ACCESS ones that I was mentioning. You had said that there were certain numbers
that you compiled in ACCESS, vis‑a‑vis nonaboriginal students, and
that you did not obviously have them with you, but that was something that was‑‑it
is too bad that we do not have Hansard on that yet; otherwise, I could‑‑
An Honourable Member: Do you want Monday's Hansard?
Ms. Friesen: I
do not know if it will be in there, but maybe I will borrow it, and we will
look at it.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Our recollection of that question was that we would be looking at that
in detail when we reached that line.
Ms. Friesen:
It is not crucial now. I just
thought we were getting reports and business carried over.
* (1440)
I wanted to continue with the
questions I was asking in the House which are about the Adult Basic Education
policy, and I know the minister has talked about a study that she has
underway. Yet, as I proceed to find out
more about what is happening in Adult Basic Education at Red River and hence in
the
Why are these cuts being made now
when there is a policy document in process?
It seems to me that, at the rate we are going, in two years from now
there will be no Adult Basic Education at
Mrs. Vodrey: I
have answered in the House a number of times some of the reasons for the changes
in the funding. There has been a change
in the way the federal government does provide its funding and also the federal
government's commitment. With that
change, that was a very significant factor in terms of what was available for
programming and this federal government's reduction of direct purchases and the
federal government's change of focus or, perhaps, an ongoing development of
their focus in emphasis on supporting the skills training programs over the
Adult Basic Education and the high school completion. So what we have had to deal with is the fact
that the federal government has signalled its change and has changed the way it
is funding and the kinds of programs that it had been willing to fund the old
way.
So what we had to do was then look
at the amount of money available, and when we looked at where the federal
government was not able to continue support, we had to look at if we could step
in and completely take over what the federal government had withdrawn. So we are, in fact, very committed to
improvements in the support and the delivery of Adult Basic Education over the
long term, and we do recognize how important high school completion is, and we
have made a number of short‑term adjustments to match our level of
program support but to do that within the realities of the fiscal situation of
Manitoba.
So, as I said in the House earlier,
we do attempt to offer for Manitobans first of all literacy programs as another
type of support. The literacy programs
would be in support of the basic education at the more basic levels, those
people who needed readiness and skills training in terms of reading and
numeracy. Then we also offer through our high schools continued programs within
the individual's home division that individuals are able to attend.
So we did have to look at some
fiscal realities and we also had to look at how we could continue to provide
support, but the member is right too. We
are in the process of continuing to develop our policy for Adult Basic
Education, and I have spoken about that.
I think it is important to look at the plan as an evolving one, as one
which is continuing to be shaped. It is
not one in which there is nothing being done and then we look for something to
be done.
In terms of the development of this plan,
as I said before, the next step is for the department to develop a framework
for the basic education policy. We are
looking through a review, and we are looking at the information that we have
available.
With that, along with other relevant
issues and recommendations that come from our other departmental initiatives
such as legislative reform and our Distance Education Task Force, then we will
be looking to further develop the policy and the actions in the area of Adult
Basic Education.
So the part of the policy is an
ongoing process of development, but we were also faced at the same time with
the reality of a change in the funding by the federal government. So at this point,
So there are several issues at work
at the same time, and that is, at this point, the information from the several
fronts that are involved.
Ms. Friesen:
Well, can we start at the back and work forward? The minister says that
the federal government, that the colleges are now able to negotiate with the
federal government for these types of programs should the colleges decide that
that is what is significant, yet the minister on the other hand just said the
federal government is moving to skill training and to the senior high school
levels. So presumably, that policy is
going to be no different in dealing with the college than it is with the
government. So what is the point in
arguing that? This college is going to
have no greater success than the government would.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the differences also that is at work here
is that the federal government does not wish to go through the province at this
time, wishes to negotiate and will have the opportunity now to negotiate
directly through the colleges. They will
also be able to negotiate whether or not they wish their students to be part of
a fee‑payer system which looks only at the tuition or whether or not they
will in fact underwrite the real costs of the course.
Though the federal government has
indicated that they wish to move towards more skills training, it is still
possible for the community college to negotiate with the federal government and
to look at how this kind of a course might be paid, how it might be paid for
and how they might wish to underwrite it.
In addition, the CEIC, or the Canada Employment and Immigration offices,
may also approach the colleges where they determine that there is a need to
negotiate directly with the colleges rather than through the provincial
government.
So there is a two‑way
possibility in terms of whether or not these courses may still be made
available, depending on the requirements that present themselves to the Canada
Employment and Immigration offices. I
should just say that the federal government does still have direct government‑to‑government
purchases for skills training in areas such as apprenticeship.
That is not completely gone. However, with board governance, there is now
the opportunity in some of the other skills trainings or market‑driven
training courses for the community colleges to negotiate directly with
CEIC. The feds are going, as I said, to
more indirect and other training courses rather than Adult Basic
Education. It has been the indication
that we have had, but again, that is still open for negotiation.
* (1450)
Ms. Friesen:
Then what would propel
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, well, one of the reasons that might prompt the
colleges to speak directly to CEIC regarding funding in the area of Adult Basic
Education would be first of all as a source of revenue. It would provide some revenue to the
colleges, and they might also want to tie this to their mission.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The committee will have to adjourn for just a few minutes. We are being called in for a formal vote in
the Chamber.
* * *
The committee recessed at 2:52 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 3:27 p.m.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Shirley Render): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please
come to order.
This afternoon this section of the
Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(c)(1) on page
34 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Friesen: I
was trying, before we were called away, to reconcile what seemed to me the
irreconcilable, the minister's statement, on the one hand, that the federal
government is withdrawing from Adult Basic Education in favour of skill
training and high school education with her statement, on the other hand, that
* (1530)
I wonder if she could still answer
the irreconcilable, why, on the one hand, they will not do it with governments
and, on the other hand, she thinks they can do it with community colleges. Is
there evidence from other jurisdictions where there has been community college
negotiation with the federal government in the past year where they have moved to
basic education courses? Is there any
hope?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I left off in our discussion, there
may be, in fact, some demand from Canada Employment on their side, because
Canada Employment is able to make some decisions regarding the kinds of courses
which they would like to offer. They do
have, I am led to believe, some flexibility in how they would like to use their
funds.
I understand that during 1993‑94,
With that ability now of the Canada
Employment Centres to have some decision making around how that funding will
flow, and with the colleges now on a governance model able to negotiate with
Canada Employment directly, and this not having to come through government‑to‑government
process which is somewhat more time consuming as well, then there certainly may
be the opportunity and the desire on the part of Canada Employment to flow some
training funds, depending on the demand that has been presented to the
councillors, there.
The member asked about the colleges
and why they might continue to be interested in this area. They may continue to be interested because
their mission does encompass issues such as equity and access. They may decide then, if approached by CEIC,
that they wish to offer the courses or they may approach CEIC in order to look
at the demand.
In terms of the governance, just to
speak to that side again, the purpose of governance is to strengthen the
flexibility and the responsiveness of the colleges within the communities and
the regions that they serve. They will
look at the demand on their side. CEIC
will look at the demand on their side.
CEIC is now able to determine how the funds will flow.
Ms. Friesen:
CEIC is already decentralized.
They already have those in this past year, that considerable
flexibility. I do not quite see how the
evidence the minister has put down so far would give us any expectation.
Where we have already
decentralization and when we have had three years of consistent cutting at
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the information we have from the
colleges is that the president of
In terms of the information that I
have, it is information based on our own localized area, our own regional area
and the will of the people in that area to have some discussion on this matter.
Ms. Friesen:
Why do we see a policy coming from the community colleges of decreasing
Adult Basic Education in the Red River College region and to some extent in the
We are seeing three different
policies, different degrees of policies from the three community colleges. Now why is this?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that the numbers may vary based on the number of programs which are
funded, which have been funded by CEIC at the community colleges. Then, with that number of programs which are
being funded and with the indication of the change in the way funds would be
spent, then obviously it will be somewhat different for each of the colleges.
Ms. Friesen:
Yes, but the point I am making is the relative change over a series of
years. I am going from a
What are the differences in those
community college policies over the past two or three years and how does that
reflect what policy the government has?
Where does that fit with the study that the government is supposed to be
doing on Adult Basic Education, and why are these decisions being made in
advance of that study again?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The federal government has indicated over a 10‑year period that
they would like to move to a strategy from direct purchase to indirect
purchase. That, first of all, is the
first matter which has affected how many of the courses may be available. Secondly, I am also informed that the federal
government has indicated that there is a willingness on their part to speak
directly to the colleges about some of these courses, and they will then look
at the demand within their area.
They are prepared to negotiate with
the colleges directly and not to proceed through the previous method of going
through the provincial government. In
terms of their withdrawal from the funding which came through the provincial
government, the provincial government cannot continue to pick up where the
federal government has made these changes, and also where the federal
government has indicated that there is a willingness on their part to have some
discussion with the community colleges directly.
* (1540)
Ms. Friesen:
But I still do not see how it matters who is speaking to whom and
through whom if the federal government is moving away from Adult Basic
Education. I mean, that is the basic
issue, is it not? Whether they are doing
a whole changeover of variety of policies in 10 years, if their basic policy is
to move away from Adult Education, why does it matter who is speaking to them?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Let me clarify then in case there was any confusion around an answer
that I gave earlier. The federal
government has indicated that they will be moving away from this indirect
purchase for the Adult Basic Education programs.
They will be maintaining a process
of direct purchase through skills training programs, and so it is a matter of
how the funding flows to the particular program.
So in the area of direct skills
training, that will still flow through the provincial government, government‑to‑government
purchase. In the area of the Adult Basic
Education, the federal government has indicated that it would like to work
through the indirect purchase mechanism and that they are prepared to speak to
the colleges directly about that particular type of program, not the skills
training program, but the Adult Basic Education program.
Ms. Friesen:
So the federal government is not withdrawing from Adult Basic Education
then?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
cannot speak for the federal government in terms of their long‑range
plans. However, I can give you the
information that has been indicated to us.
The indication that has been given to us is that the federal government
would be willing to enter into some discussions directly with the community colleges.
There may be a number of factors
which would influence whether or not the federal government in each region
would be interested in funding Adult Basic Education specifically.
However, as I have said, they have
indicated that they are willing to speak to the colleges. In addition to that, I have explained that
the president of
Ms. Friesen:
Thank you. There are quite a few
other questions I would like to ask on that, but I think that other people want
to ask questions, so I will leave it for now.
Mr. Plohman: I
wanted to ask the minister about an area of policy that has just come into her
department and, hopefully, she will have some of the information on it. That involves the Human Resource
We will have an opportunity under
Employment Enhancement to discuss this in more detail but, from a policy point
of view, I want to ask the minister whether she has access or has read the
analysis that was done by the Policy and Planning Branch I guess of the
Executive Council‑‑I am not sure, and perhaps she can clarify‑‑a
report that was done on November 5, '92, on the Human Resource Opportunity
Program centres in the province.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the
Chair)
The report was done by, I believe,
Prairie Partnership, but was done for Policy and Planning branch of Executive
Council. I do not think it would have
been done by the Department of Education at that time because the minister was
not responsible for this program, unless it was the Policy and Planning branch
of the Department of Family Services.
In any event, I have a copy of the
report. I want to know whether the
minister has seen that report and analyzed it, had her staff analyze it since
she has taken over responsibility for the Human Resource Opportunity Centres
and programs.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my department is in the process of reviewing
that particular report, but, as the member knows, there has been a
reorganization now of those programs. Those Employability Enhancement Programs
have moved from the Department of Family Services into the Department of
Education and Training. That does put
those programs now within a spectrum of programs where we can look at a series
of training kinds of programs for Manitobans.
I have explained to the member on a number of occasions that we are now,
through this reorganization in our department, looking at exactly what the
areas of availability are and the areas of need are.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Well, the minister is a part of a cut to a
program while she is busy re‑evaluating the program, which seems like it
is a backward process in terms of how things should be done. We had a very successful Human Resources
Opportunity Program and centres in place in the
Mrs. Vodrey: I
know that the reductions were made and this particular reduction, as with
reductions across all of government, were very difficult. They were extremely difficult decisions, and they
were made with a great deal of difficulty but also, again, consideration and
thinking. The member will know when he
looks at the budget line, now that this has moved into the Department of
Education and Training, we have made every effort to preserve some of the
service which is available, and we certainly have looked at providing it in a
number of places to make sure that this particular program does continue to
exist.
Mr. Plohman: I
know they were difficult, the question is were they arbitrary? Was there justification for the cuts, or was
it simply a matter of finding it somewhere in an arbitrary decision without any
study or analysis to determine what should be a high priority and what should
be a low priority?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In looking at the decisions that have been made across all of
government, they were made looking at ways to continue to preserve service to
Manitobans and also to look at trying to manage the deficit and the debt that
we have in
Mr. Plohman:
That would indicate, that last comment by the minister, that the
minister is even less familiar with what is going on here in this area than I
had hoped. Our critics were unable to
get any definitive information from the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) on this area, because he said it had been transferred to the
Department of Education and Training.
Therefore, he is no longer responsible.
So we are going to have to give the
minister notice that we need to have in‑depth answers from this minister,
who is now responsible, on this program, whether it was her analysis at the
time or not or her recommendation or not at the time to have these programs
cut. She will have to explain and defend
them, because there is no other minister that is prepared to do it, and under
the system we have, she is responsible.
* (1550)
Why I said I was concerned about the
last comments was that the minister said we have maintained the service. So she is looking at an across‑the‑board
viewpoint to it and saying, well, a 10 percent cut, we have maintained a
considerable level of service. The point
is that there is a certain area of the province that has been eliminated
completely from service.
The minister on April 16 said that,
and this is a quote in Hansard: "We
are now looking at how we can best assist the people of the
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's questions focused on service in
general. He is now speaking about a
specific area of the province, but his questions until this time have focused
on the service in general and if it is being offered within this province. My answers have focused on the fact that we
have been able to maintain service in this province in a number of areas.
I know when we get to that
particular budget line, we will be able to talk very specifically about the
human resource programs which remain available and also the centres which
continue to be available. So, in that
way, the answers have been to say that, yes, there has been a continued
commitment, and there has been an effort to continue to address these needs
across
The member wants to speak about the
In addition, I make the point again
that I made when we spoke about the reorganization. We are looking at our reorganization and we
want to, as we look at all of our programs and we organize them, and I have
been using the term spectrum of programming, because it is a spectrum. It is a series of programs which involve, at
one end, literacy programs, literacy being the community‑based programs
which do provide people with some basic skills, and it is available to them at
generally various times of the day with a great deal of flexibility and
support. So we provide, starting at that
end, and then a series of programs through the spectrum right through to the
skills training programs and our college‑level programming.
I would like to stress, first of
all, the picture across the province, that this service is not being withdrawn,
has not been totally withdrawn. There
has been an effort to, even in these difficult times, make sure that there is
at least a level of the service maintained.
In the Parkland area, as I have said and will remind him again, the
Single Parent Job Access Program does remain available, and we are looking at
servicing the people of the Parkland from the
Mr. Plohman:
We will see how this spectrum assists the people of the
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member is asking for some very detailed information on a particular
Employability Enhancement Program in a particular part of
He is also asking us specifically
for statistics, and I am not sure whether he believes that is the only way a
decision may be made, strictly based on statistics, or if he believes that
perhaps, also, some of the discussion held within communities and also among
service providers may also be of assistance in looking at how the service may
be provided.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister is just waffling on the questions, because I just
asked her about either statistical or any other supporting evidence that would
justify the decisions made. So it was a
broad question, not just based on statistical information.
If she feels that she is in a position
to answer that from that point of view, I would certainly welcome it. The minister would have to admit, I would
think, and I would ask her if she would at this point, that there is no
spectrum of services or continuum of services in this area available in the
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the spectrum of service does exist. We are looking, however, through our
integration of our department, which has really been quite extensive, at how we
can now make sure that that is the most accessible to Manitobans.
There most certainly does exist‑‑and
I point to literacy programs specifically as a starting point, because a number
of the individuals who may in fact wish to use the Human Resource Opportunity
Program may be individuals who need assistance with a skill level or may be
individuals who need assistance in re‑entering also a program where they
will have confidence to enter into the workforce.
We do have literacy programs around
this province which look at trying to help individuals take advantage of
additional types of training or a re‑entry into the educational
system. Also, we do have programs at our
Parkland campus of
I do believe that the spectrum of
programming is available. As we look at the reorganization within my
department, I look to make sure that there is the most accessible kinds of
programming for Manitobans.
* (1600)
Mr. Plohman:
The minister talks about a spectrum and then talks at the beginning with
literacy and the other end of the spectrum, the community colleges. She mentions one program dealing with Single
Parent Job Access, which now will not have access to the program, the Human
Resource Opportunity Centre in the
She talks about both ends of the
spectrum. What we have seen though is
the middle of the spectrum being lost.
The continuum is gone, is ripped apart by the arbitrary decision to cut
out of it a major program.
I wonder how the minister can talk
about a continuum of services if, in the middle of that spectrum, a large part
of it has been eliminated by way of the cuts that were made in at least one
area of the province and the reductions in the other areas of the province. What justification can she have to do that
prior to an evaluation to see how it fits into this so‑called continuum
of service? How can she justify a cut
prior to the kind of evaluation that would see where this fits in and whether
it is needed or not? Is the minister
saying that it is not needed?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member thinks back on the answers that I
have given this afternoon, he will also know that I have spoken about the
commitment from the Westman area of itinerant service into the Parkland area,
so the area is not completely without service, and the people of the Parkland
are not being asked in this way to completely go into the Westman area, into
Brandon. They are looking at having
itinerant people go from Westman into the
So when we look at the continuum of
service which is currently available, then we do look at literacy programming,
we do look at Single Parent Job Access programming, we do look at the itinerant
service being available for the Human Resources Opportunity Program, and we do
look at the service available through the Parkland campus of Assiniboine
Community College.
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we could use the minister's argument and she could have all
of the programs provided from
Mrs. Vodrey:
Well, again, the member really does not seem to have understood. We have made sure that there is service to
the Parkland area by
Then I also point to the fact that
the Single Parent Job Access program continues to be offered from the Parkland
area and we look to, as we examine the service and the integration of service
within my department, serve Manitobans as well as we are able with this
continuum of service which is available.
Mr. Plohman:
Is it the minister's position that the community colleges can offer the
kind of programming that Human Resource Opportunity Centre was offering in the
Mrs. Vodrey:
The
Mr. Plohman:
So what the minister is now saying is that it is an irrelevant argument
to the issue about Human Resource Opportunity Centre. That is what I said in the first place. Do not give answers about other services. I want to know about this service. What is going to replace the service she has
cut from the
Mrs. Vodrey:
The Human Resources Opportunity Program service has been reduced. The service will be available on an itinerant
basis from
Mr. Plohman: Surely
the minister is not serious about that when she talks about itinerant workers
providing this service in the Parkland from
I mean, it makes a great difference
in terms of the distances involved.
Anyone who has been through there knows that. If you are driving in the mountains you talk
in terms of hours, you do not talk in terms of distance even. It is totally impractical.
Is the minister saying it is
satisfactory to have single parents who are going to be referred for training
to now be referred from the Parkland area, to leave their homes, uproot their
kids and go to
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member had asked for examples of a variety of service, and so what I
have been providing him with in the past several answers that I have been
giving him is a variety of service which we are providing through the
Department of Education and Training.
Also when we look at the
reorganization and the integration of these programs into our department, we
are looking at strengthening the program complementarity. We would also like to have a better co‑ordination
of the continuum of programs. That is
the objective of the reorganization.
As I have said all afternoon, the
staff in the program of the Single Parent Job Access Program do remain in
Dauphin, and they are looking after their active cases there. From the Human Resource Opportunity Programs
they will be dealt with, and the clients will receive counselling and placement
and follow‑up services, and there will be an itinerant service which will
come into the
When we look at the work experience
programs from the Human Resource Opportunity Centres, those placements are
being organized from the Westman region.
However, we will look at the needs of the particular client, and where
there would be need for an itinerant service to follow up, then we will look at
how to accommodate that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Brandon‑‑Dauphin.
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Actually, they are quite close together,
about a 45‑minute drive.
* (1610)
Mr. Plohman:
It is interesting that the Liberal critic says, actually they are quite
close together, about a 45‑minute drive. Now there is another example of
a person who does not know what is going on in rural
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister
does not seem to be familiar with how the program works when she talks about
the Single Parent Job Access. Does the
minister realize that Single Parent Job Access refers people for their
training, support counselling, and services to the Human Resources
Opportunities Centres? Does the minister
realize that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, I do understand how these programs work. [interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to wait
till the minister has finished her answer before answering back.
Mr. Plohman:
Certainly, I will be very pleased to do that.
I find it preposterous, though, that
the minister says she understands, and she keeps talking about the program
being maintained, Single Parent Job Access, but there is no place for them to
go now in terms of the referrals.
Is the minister saying that she
understands how the program works, that they are referred to the Human
Resources Opportunity Centres? Where
will they now be referred?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, in terms of the service which would be offered then by the Human
Resources Opportunity program, we have maintained an itinerant service. An itinerant service will be able to work
with the Single Parent Job Access Program.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister trying to say that there is somebody who is going to
come out from Brandon, and is going to serve the needs of the single parents
who are attempting to break out of a cycle of poverty and social assistance
and, in many cases, a lack of confidence in themselves, low self‑esteem,
attempting to break out of the cycle of despair and hopelessness, that they are
going to get this kind of service from a travelling counsellor, who sees them‑‑when?‑‑once
a month, once a week. What are we talking about here? It seems ridiculous.
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I have said from the beginning, there are itinerant workers who will
be coming to the Parkland area, and those counsellors will be able to work with
the people of the Parkland area and, in particular, his concern to assist the
Single Parent Job Access clients, and to act as a support. So we will look at how frequently the need is
there, and we will be able to look at exactly what the needs are of the
clients.
But I should also let him know that
the Single Parent Job Access Program has developed a number of partnerships
with community‑based and private and public education and training
programs in the community. They are also
working together with this Single Parent Job Access Program to jointly develop
and deliver training to meet the participant's need and also the local labour
market conditions.
There are close links that are
established with local employers throughout all regions of the province to
facilitate program delivery and to promote the employment opportunities for the
single parent job access trainees.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, where are the staff coming from and how are they
going to be able to provide any degree of service if it is the same people that
have been there servicing large areas of the province already up to now? Is the minister saying that they did not have
a full load, there were great inefficiencies, too many staff and not enough
work for them so now she is finally going to give them a full workload?
Mrs. Vodrey:
First of all, I know that it is the responsibility of individual
counsellors to organize their caseloads and to organize their time among their
clients and how they will look to provide the best service that they are able
to. I would say that those counsellors
who are working now on an itinerant basis to the Parkland area will look at
organizing their caseloads to providing the service to make sure that they
provide the service to the people of the
Having worked in a field where I did
have to organize a very large caseload on a regular basis I know that it is
done and I know that you look at those people who are part of your caseload for
a long time. You look at incoming people
in your caseload and you look at those people who then move off your
caseload. So I know that the counsellors
will make every effort to organize their caseload as effectively as they can
and also to deal with the itinerant needs of their clients, and we will see how
it is that those can be most effectively managed, because the counsellors
themselves may have a way in which they believe that they can best service the
needs.
As the member may know, counsellors
do operate in different ways. Some
counsellors like to work in blocks of times.
Other counsellors work with their clients better on an intermittent
basis. So we will have to look at and
those counsellors will look at how they will provide the service to their
clients in those areas.
Mr. Plohman:
So in other words the minister is saying she is centralizing the service
in
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, as the member well knows that there were, again, and I
go back over it again, a number of very difficult decisions and in the process
of those difficult budget decisions we did make a very strong effort to
certainly maintain service. In this
particular area that we are now having the counsellors‑‑yes, they
will be working from the
Mr. Plohman:
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is saying that this reflects
the government's and her, as part of this government, commitment to
decentralization. This is the kind of
decisions that we see. If the people are
cynical about the government's commitment to decentralization, I guess this is
one of the best examples we could point to about this government's commitment
or lack of commitment to decentralization.
How does the minister reconcile that
policy that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has stated so loudly over the last couple
of years, and her colleagues? How does
she reconcile this decision with that policy?
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the government policy of decentralization has
been spoken about several times by my colleague the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach). It does fall
within his area, and I know that during the process of his Estimates he will
have some very strong figures which support this government's position on
decentralization and the action on decentralization.
Certainly, the Department of
Education and Training has also been doing their share in terms of supporting
the decentralization initiative. Our
record, I believe, is very good, and we will certainly be able to talk about
that further as we reach other budget lines, if that is what the member would like.
However, the one centre, which the
member has been speaking about, again, was part of a series of very difficult
budget decisions in this particular fiscal year. However, we have made an effort to make sure
that the service is still available, and we have spoken about the itinerant
service available. We are not asking
people to make the trip from the
As I have said also, counsellors
will look at organizing their caseloads to do the best and most effective job
with their clients that they are able to.
That is the work of counsellors in the field.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am absolutely positive that the counsellors
and the staff are going to do the very best to make an unworkable situation
work, because they have no choice. I
mean, they have a job to do and they are going to try and do it. That does not make it any easier and any more
possible. It is up to the minister to
determine and her senior management in this branch to ensure that there is a
practical way of delivering these services, if she is committed to them.
Otherwise, say we are banning them,
we cannot afford them. If that is the case, then say that, but do not try and
make out it is the same service. It is
clearly not. Has the minister added
staff to provide this service to the
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there has not been an addition of staff in the
Westman area; however, as we have spoken about, I do believe that there will be
an organization of caseload. I am
concerned that the member is only speaking about the negative view that he
holds. He has not been able to look at
any of the positives, which will be available and which we strongly believe
will be available to the people of
We have spoken today about the kinds
of areas of programming and services to people which will be reorganized within
the Department of Education and Training to allow that access. In the past, this service of the
Employability Enhancement Programs was offered in the Department of Family
Services, and those clients did not always have the opportunity to know what
the other programs were that were available within the Department of Education
and Training.
Now, through the reorganization, we
believe that it will be a much more efficient and accessible service for the
people of
Mr. Plohman: I
cannot even believe the minister believes what she is saying. This is so difficult for me to believe that
the minister actually believes this is going to be a more efficient and a
better service for the people of all areas of this province, when, in fact, if
she has studied this report and has her staff studying the report, she would
know that the report done by her own government, which should have been a basis
for any decisions with regard to this program, says that the payback is $16 for
every $1 spent on this program‑‑$16.
Is the minister going to design
another method of delivery that is going to be more efficient than that, when
there is a payback 16 times for every dollar spent? How can the minister say that seriously? It is in the recommendations and the review.
Surely, the minister has looked at
this. Now she is in a position with her
department, Planning and Policy Development group, to assess whether a mistake
has been made, rather than talking about this continuum of service and all of
the benefits that are going to accrue from counsellors running around from
It is a very cumbersome area to
govern, even as a region, never mind adding it to the Westman region. I want the minister to be able to retain some
creditability in her statements here. Surely, she is not telling us, or did she
not know there is this kind of payback done by her own report? Sixteen dollars for every $1‑‑a
very efficient and effective and humane delivery of service for single parents
in the
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member is examining a report again not done by the Department of
Education and Training. That report is a
single area he would like to examine in isolation, and with that report he
would like to just completely look at a very narrow focus. That is the focus that we have heard all
afternoon and there has been, as I have explained to him now that the
Employability Enhancement Programs have been moved into the Department of
Education, a need to articulate many, many programs, not just to look at a
single program in isolation.
Through this new reorganization of
this particular division, we do believe that we will be able to meet the needs
of Manitobans better, because we will provide stronger links between the skills
development that they need and the economic development strategies of
regions. We do believe that there will
be a better co‑ordination of the skills training incentives.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested. This section of the Committee of Supply will
now proceed to the Chamber for the formal vote.
Thank you.
AGRICULTURE
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture.
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Chairperson, I rise on a matter of
privilege and, in accordance with our rules, it will be followed by a motion
and a referral to the House for consideration.
Madam Chairperson, it is with regret
that I bring this matter forward, but it is not without precedent in this House
as I shall explain in terms of the concern that I have, and members of our
caucus have, about proceedings Monday night that relate to what we feel is the
failure by the Chair to ensure the right of all members to speak.
[interjection! For the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger),
this will be followed by a motion which is the appropriate way of dealing with
such matters.
I would like to outline our concern
in this regard. As I said it relates to
proceedings Monday night during which we had moved a motion. I attempted to be recognized to speak at the
time. It was very clear the government's
intention was to speak the matter out until after ten o'clock, at which time no
formal vote can be taken. It has to be referred
to another day. Despite repeated attempts to be recognized, I was ignored.
I rose at that time on a point of
order, an attempt to appeal once again to the clear tradition in this House of,
in this case, allowing opposition members to be recognized at least as equally
as government members.
I, Madam Chairperson, in attempting
to appeal to the House had no success with the government, which not only did
not support the matter of order, but also refused to even show the courtesy of
allowing me to speak at that point in time.
For the purpose as a matter of
privilege, I want to point out the sequence of events because our rules require
this matter be raised in the committee of the House, not in the House itself,
at the first opportunity.
I point out that this matter rose at
10:11 p.m. A recorded vote was
requested. That recorded vote was held
over to another day. Obviously, if there
had been a change in terms of the ruling and I had been recognized, the concern
would not have continued, but what happened was we came back into the House on
a vote on the Tuesday, when we convened again to Committee of Supply.
At that point in time, since there
was a vote in progress, it was not an appropriate time to raise the matter of
privilege. The vote was taken. The
committee adjourned, since it was past five o'clock.
This then is the first opportunity I
have had, following the resolution of the point of order on the Monday, to rise
on what I think is clearly a matter of privilege.
Madam Chairperson, this is not the
first time that opposition members have raised the matter of privilege in
regard to concerns about activities by the Chair. I refer, and some members of this House will
recall Monday the 13th of December, 1982, in which the then‑Leader of the
Opposition Sterling Lyon rose on a matter of privilege in regard to a series of
proceedings that had involved accusations that the Speaker, at that point in
time, had changed a ruling under pressure from government members.
At that point in time, I would point
out that after hearing submissions from a number of individuals in the House at
the time, such as Roland Penner, Brian Ransom and Andy Anstett, Sterling Lyon,
the decision of the Chair at that time was to accept the motion, put it to
consideration by the House and indeed a vote was taken on the motion. The motion at that time was to express lack
of confidence in the presiding officer.
That is indeed the most appropriate way to deal with a concern related
to this matter.
I would just note in speaking that
Sterling Lyon was very eloquent in talking about the need for the House and for
officers of the House to respect, not only the role of the majority, but also
the rights of the minority, in this particular case, the opposition party, and
was very clear in terms of his concern about what he perceived and what
opposition members at the time perceived to be a clear case of lack of fairness
being shown to the opposition and concern that there was an impact on the
Speaker because of interventions by members of the government at the time.
My concern, Madam Chairperson, is
indeed very much similar. I point out that in looking at the role of the
Speaker, in Beauchesne, Citation 168, the Speaker's office in particular, it is
indicated very clearly the need for impartiality of the Speaker. Indeed, there are various citations. I have mentioned Citation 168, which makes it
very clear that the office of Speaker in the House of Commons, which also
applies to the Legislature, the key elements, the chief characteristics are
authority and impartiality.
Indeed, if one also looks at
Beauchesne, in the House of Commons, the tradition is very clear in terms of
Deputy Speaker, that similar powers and responsibilities are vested in the
Deputy Speaker. While there are some
differences in practice between participation, for example, of the Deputy
Speaker in debates and in caucus affairs between the House of Commons, where
there is generally limited involvement in political party functions by the
Deputy Speaker, and limited involvement in debate; in this House, despite the
fact that Deputy Speakers have traditionally participated in party functions
and in debate, the requirement of impartiality of the Deputy Speaker, as indeed
of the committee Chairs, is fairly clearly established by precedent.
* (1430)
That is indeed our concern in this
particular case. I would say that if one
looks again at Beauchesne, it is unfortunate that we have to take the time of
this committee, and indeed we will have to take the time of the House, when
this matter is referred to the committee, as it will appropriately be done, that
we deal with this matter. In fact,
Beauchesne Citation 760 refers to a specific Speaker's ruling in which the
Speaker felt it necessary to write to Chairs of committee at the time in regard
to matters that were raised in terms of privilege and grievance related
specifically to proceedings in committee.
It is unfortunate this has to be
raised in this particular manner. Well,
Madam Chairperson, I feel, though, regret that we have to raise this particular
matter. I feel that it was very clear on
Monday that the question of impartiality and partiality became very
apparent. I am very concerned, not only
in terms of what happened, in terms of the failure, as I have indicated, to
ensure the ability of opposition members to speak, but also the fact that it was
so clearly tied into the concern of the government to avoid a vote at a
particular point in time.
Madam Chairperson, indeed, that is
very much in keeping with the precedent established in 1982, where the matter
was accepted for disposition by the House, and a vote was taken by the House on
the matter of privilege moved by Sterling Lyon.
Our concern is a serious one.
This is not just a matter of simple procedure; it is a matter of
privilege.
What can be considered more
fundamental in this House than the ability of a member, regardless of their
political affiliation‑‑I want to emphasize that, regardless of
their political affiliation‑‑to be able to participate fairly and
equally in the debates of this House and to be able to have the assurance that
the Chair shall not be partial and shall not be influenced to be partial? My concern in this particular matter relates
both to the element of being partial and the element of the pressure on the
Chairs to be partial. That is why I
really believe there is no question, as was clearly established in the
precedent of 1982, that this is a matter of privilege.
The way to deal with this, Madam
Chairperson, is to have this matter referred to the House. That indeed will be part of my motion. In fact, that is very clear in Beauchesne's
Citations 822, 825 and 894 that such matters have to be referred to the
House. I would suggest that it be
referred to the House immediately, certainly today at the adjournment of the
Committee of Supply. But the Chair may
wish to consider referring this matter immediately to the House so that we can
deal with it in the House.
It is indeed with regret, given the
circumstances which we feel on our side were clear evidence of partiality and
attempts‑‑I am not just talking here about the Chair‑‑but
in terms of the government to influence the Chair to be partial in terms of
recognition of members, as is proven by the fact that three Conservative
members were recognized in a row despite the fact‑‑and I want to
refer to this in terms of the discussions that took place on the point of order‑‑that
I had made it very clear that I intended to speak. I had signalled from my seat repeatedly from
the beginning. In fact, I ended up with
the Clerk of the House and the Page in the House coming over at the point in
time because I was so visibly signalling the Chair and, at that particular
point in time, making it very clear that I was trying to make sure that I had
the opportunity to speak.
In fact, after the second
Conservative speaker was recognized in a row, I made it very clear from my seat
that I wished to be recognized, and recalling again that we are now in a
situation in the House where we can speak from our seat and the way to signal
in a committee, where one is able to signal in one's seat, is by indicating
with one's hands, which I did on repeated occasions. Then after having risen on
a third occasion‑‑and recalling this is Committee of Supply, and
that, for example, the member for
Those were very clear attempts,
Madam Chairperson, and I feel there was a deliberate attempt by the government to
prevent me from speaking because of concern that a vote might be taken on the
resolution that was before the House on the Minister's Salary, and that that
vote might be taken before ten o'clock, recognizing that the vote, if it was
called after ten o'clock, would be referred to a subsequent day.
This is a very serious matter, and
it is with regret that I move that this committee express its concern that the
Deputy Speaker in Committee of Supply on Monday, May 17, 1993, showed bias in
failing to ensure the right of all members to speak, and that this matter be
reported to the House for consideration.
Madam Chairperson: In accordance with Beauchesne's Citation 107,
this committee has no power to deal with a matter of privilege. Such matters
can only be dealt with by the House itself on receiving a report from the
committee. Therefore, I am prepared to
entertain a motion to report the matter of privilege to the House.
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On a point of order, yes, I fully understand
that ultimately this point of privilege may have to be referred to the
House. I have no trouble with that, but,
Madam Chairperson, certainly the Rules of the House, when a member rises on a
matter of privilege, other parties are given an opportunity to make
representation. If the member is saying
that has to be done in the House as compared to being done now, then I did not
take the interpretation of Section 107 of Beauchesne to mean that we were
prevented from making our representation as other parties at this point in
time.
Mr. Ashton:
On the same point of order to the government House leader, indeed all
the parties and all members wishing to make representation on the matter of
privilege will be able to do so upon the report of the committee. The Committee of‑‑
Madam Chairperson: No.
Order, please. On the point of
order, I was about to read the motion to the committee. That motion is debatable and indeed all
parties in the House will have an opportunity to speak to that motion once the
motion has been read into the record in this Committee of Supply.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: The motion before the committee is that this
committee express its concern that the Deputy Speaker in Committee of Supply on
Monday, May 17, 1993, showed bias in failing to ensure the right of all members
to speak and that the matter be reported to the House for consideration.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Chairperson, a matter of privilege is a
very serious nature, and I think that none of us in this Chamber should take it
in a frivolous way whatsoever. The
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has indicated that he believes that his rights
as a member of this Chamber have been violated.
* (1440)
I have been in this Chamber since
1986. When I came to this Chamber in
1986, I was a lone member. My experience
at Estimates was quite different than what has been related by the Finance
minister in his response to the member for Thompson's point of order on page
3111 of Hansard. At no time have I ever
experienced anything except a rotation between members of this Chamber, even
when I did not have official party status.
It was clear that a member of the government would be recognized, or a
member of the official opposition would be recognized, but so, too, was a
member of a third party, even though that third party had no status.
So to recognize in the Estimates
process in Committee of Supply, one, two and three representatives of one
political party when it is clear that other political parties want to make
representation, I think, quite frankly, is in violation of the rules of this
House. I think that as a matter of
privilege there is a legitimate matter of privilege here, and I would recommend
that it go speedily to the Chamber.
Mr. Manness: I
want to indicate that I could not be in further disagreement with the Leader of
the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) and, indeed, the House leader for the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Ashton).
Madam Chairperson, I take seriously
also the motion brought forward and, indeed, the preamble leading to the motion
by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
I do not feel for one second that he does not personally feel aggrieved
with respect to events of the other night.
But I must protest, as I said just
briefly the other evening, that having been in this House since 1981, and
certainly since 1988 having been at the head of the table at various committee
hearings, either defending bills of the government and/or being at Standing
Committee of Public Accounts and watching the Chairs of the moment conduct
their affairs and their responsibilities, I am always mindful that there has
always been a note pad beside and quite often a pencil in hand which has
recorded names as they come forward, put down in order without reference to
parties, because we are all equal members at these committees.
Now in the House it is a different
matter. In the House on Budget Debate,
and certainly on throne speech debate, it is a different matter. The convention always has been, government,
opposition; government, opposition, not by rule, certainly not by rules because
I have scanned the rule books and have never seen it, but by convention.
But in committee we are all equal
members. As a matter of fact, quite
often members on the government side will be the people who will be the
strongest critics of their own ministers, and they are not government
members. They are members in their own
right of this Legislature.
So there is no such thing as
government opposition in committee. It
does not exist in rules; it does not exist in convention. It does not exist.
The member may find fault, and I
have not discussed this with my colleague the Chair of Committees, indeed the
Deputy Speaker, but I remember what happened the other night. As soon as the member moved the motion, I saw
it coming, I hit my fist on the table with some false bravado, and I know there
were two members from this side that stood.
I know the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and myself stood at the same
time. I sensed the Chair seeing that
also, that under the rules‑‑not under the rules, under convention,
under convention sense, there were two members on her list that were going to
speak first.
That is ultimately what
happened. I can understand how the
member was exercised that night; I saw him.
But what happened after that, when their third member stood here, that
member, and I do not know whether I can say that, was not in the House when the
third member on this side stood to speak.
An Honourable Member: He was here.
Mr. Manness:
No. He was not in his chair. I saw it.
I was sitting here all night. I
saw it.
Madam Chairperson, this is obviously
an important issue, and I take it very seriously also. Of course, you are in no position to defend
yourself. I mean the rules of the House
do not allow for that, and we have a motion of privilege in front of us. I say, yes, if whatever the process is that
we deal with this particular motion, obviously, it has to be followed by our
rules, but I certainly say the member was not denied his right to speak. We are still in Agriculture Estimates. We are still in the same Estimates Thursday
that we were in Monday night. We were in
the same Estimates. Nothing has changed.
So I make my point. There is no convention, No. 1. I say the member does not have a prima facie
case. I call into question even the
interpretation under 107 whether indeed we are talking about the privileges,
individual of members, and we are talking about committees, because I would
question whether or not he has not had the right to bring that as a member
right to the floor of the House. I would
say, therefore, he has moved; he has missed that opportunity; but certainly he
does not have a prima facie case.
Mr. Ashton: I
will save further comments for when this matter is raised in the House, but I
do take offence at the comments from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
The Minister of Finance should
review what happened, should also review my comments in terms of the fact that
I expressed concern in terms of partial decisions that were made and also
influence in terms of partial decisions.
I would appreciate it if the Minister of Finance would address that
question as well, using the same precedent that was used in 1982 by Sterling
Lyon. In fact, he may recall that. He
was a member of this House at the time.
Quite frankly, the minister would do
well to reflect on the events at the time, and other members of the House at
the time would also do well to reflect on the particular motion that has been
moved, which is certainly not the same motion that was moved under similar
circumstances in 1982.
Perhaps, instead of attempting to
suggest that I was somehow absent, which is not true‑‑it is
recorded in Hansard that I rose; the matter was dealt with initially at that
time at 10:11 on the third occasion‑‑the Minister of Finance should
be careful with reflecting on the facts.
The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) should also recognize, and I want to place this very clearly on the
record, and I have chaired committees, that there has never been in any
committee any formal or informal recognition in terms of speaking list as the
Minister of Finance in error talked about on Monday, or as he has again
referred to in this House. Perhaps the
Minister of Finance should recall that, in terms of the normal procedures, the
Leader of the Liberal Party is quite correct; and, beyond the question of
recognition, the real question in dealing with this matter is the question of
partiality. It is something that I think
needs to be dealt with in the House, not only in the context of the actions of
the Chair because that, indeed, would not be a fair recognition of what had
happened at the time, but also the actions of government members.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) at that point in time would like to indicate whether there was any
attempt on behalf of government members to influence the recognition of members
in this House by the Chair to prevent a vote from taking place before ten
o'clock. It is very clear on the basis
of the events that the government itself had one agenda, and the government's
agenda was to prevent a vote. In doing
so, it wished to prevent the possibility that I as a member might rise, having
been recognized, and call for an immediate vote on the question.
The ironic thing is, Madam
Chairperson, I wanted to rise on the motion, not to call an immediate vote, but
to respond to some of the comments that had been made by the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) at that particular time.
But I think that we should deal with this matter in the House in the
context not only of the actions of the Chair on that particular day, but also
of government members and the very serious questions raised about partiality of
the Chair and the degree to which government members feel that they can go and
talk to the Chair at any time and attempt to influence the decision of this or
any other Chair in this committee. That
is the root of this matter of privilege.
Thank you.
* (1450)
Madam Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee is: Shall the motion be referred to the the
House?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton:
On a point of order, Madam Chairperson, is the ruling of the Chair that
the motion requires a vote, and that no matter of privilege will be reported
unless there is a vote in favour of the particular motion?
Madam Chairperson: Absolutely.
The committee must adopt the motion.
That is the correct interpretation by this Chair as advised by the
Clerk.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: I
would ask for a recorded vote.
Madam Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The question before the committee is
that the matter of privilege be reported to the House for consideration. All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas 22, Nays 27.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The motion is accordingly defeated.
The question before the committee is
that the Minister's Salary be reduced to $10,300 because of the Minister of
Agriculture's (Mr. Findlay) refusal to stand with Manitoba farmers who are
opposed to the recommendations in the Carter report, and the minister's refusal
to lobby the federal government to hold a plebiscite on how barley should be
sold to the United States. Is the
committee ready for the question?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Chairperson, I wish to speak on
this. I had intended to speak on this on
Monday night. It is unfortunate we have
had to spend so much time in committee the last period of time to even get to
the point where we are available to participate in this debate.
The reason I rose on Monday night
was to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in
his half‑hour filibuster on the motion moved by the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk) and respond to some of the inaccurate comments that the Minister
of Finance and the subsequent Tory speakers put on the record in their
desperate attempt to filibuster a resolution before this committee.
The bottom line is this government's
arrogance in dealing with motions and members of the opposition and concerns
expressed by Manitobans could not be more clear than it was expressed on Monday
night. One of the reasons indeed, as the
Minister of Finance said, that I was frustrated on Monday night was being
unable to be recognized in time‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that debate is to be relevant to the motion. The motion before the committee is: Shall the Minister's Salary be reduced to
$10,300?
Mr. Ashton:
Madam Chairperson, I am talking about the debate on Monday night. I am indeed referring to the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) and his comments that took place on Monday night, and
what could be more relevant than trying to correct the inaccurate information
that was put on the record by the Minister of Finance on Monday night.
I find it incredible that this
government is so sensitive when a member of the opposition, in this case, the
member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), raises an issue that is being recognized
as a significant issue by many Manitoba farmers, and raises it repeatedly in
the House, has to deal with the kind of response that we saw again today from
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay).
We saw it on Monday night when she had to get to the point of moving a
reduction in the Minister's Salary because of the fact the Minister of
Agriculture will not deal with the concerns expressed by
I want to respond to the comments
put on the record by the Minister of Finance.
He said that the government was not going to be steamrolled into taking
a position on this particular issue.
Madam Chairperson, they were not going to be steamrolled into taking a
position on this issue? I mean, is it
not legitimate for farmers or for members of the opposition to ask them to have
a stand on this particular issue, what they feel in terms of the Carter report,
the recommendations?
Is it not legitimate in this case
for the member for
I heard comments from the Minister
of Finance talking about what is being talked about‑‑and barley
supported in southern areas of the province.
Well, indeed, perhaps it is.
Indeed, but the Minister of Finance should have a broader perspective
than talking just about one part of the province in terms of farmers.
I noticed again, the question came
up about the plebiscite when the member for
How do you define what a real farmer
is over there? Do you have to live in a
certain region of the province? The
Minister of Finance talked about the South.
Do you have to produce a certain amount of barley? Do you have to produce a certain amount of
any particular grain? I mean is that the
concern? Is it a geographic one? Do you have to vote the right way?
I mean, you know, I hate to raise
this but we have heard that before in this House, that if you happen to be from
a certain area of the province‑‑and the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) talks about, you did not vote the right way. I mean, is that the concern in this
particular case? Perhaps when we talk in
terms of the
I found it interesting, Madam
Chairperson, in their desperation to filibuster this resolution, and in their
lack of preparedness, we probably got some more forthrightness and candor from
these members than we might do if they were carefully scripted. I would say, it would be interesting for
Manitobans to read through the comments that took place, and I will leave out
the member for Emerson's (Mr. Penner) talk about letting my people go. I give him credit, he was the most
inventive. When we start getting into
these biblical visions of the member, of letting my people go, I was not quite
sure who he was referring to in terms of "my people."
You know, the barley producers of
this province, Madam Chairperson, what I found particularly incredible is that
he went into a lecture about the evils of interfering in the market
process. Of course, some of us sat there
and we thought, wait a second! Is this
not the same member that only a few weeks ago in the House was getting up on
the sugar beet industry and asking that we have‑‑oh, my God!‑‑interference
in the market process for sugar beet producers, a program put in place? We know that Conservatives are not
necessarily known to be consistent and I think this debate has proved it.
* (1530)
The bottom line is this resolution
is clear. This resolution, and it is the
only way we can get the message across to the Minister of Agriculture, is that
the member for Swan River, our caucus, in consultation with many farmers, have
expressed concern about this issue. The
Minister of Agriculture knows a significant number of farmers have expressed
concern about the issue. Even he would
not question that. I know that to be a
fact.
The bottom line is, Madam Chairperson,
we have suggested in the House there be a plebiscite on the issue and there be
an opportunity for farmers who are directly affected by this to discuss this
particular matter.
It is not a question, as the
government put it, of change or no change.
We need no lectures from this government on change. I mean, the
Conservative Party is not known as exactly the party that has dealt with change
over the years‑‑Progressive Conservative. We see that time in, time out; we see from
all members from the opposition. They
forget which decade we are in repeatedly when they talk about social issues and
economic issues. Madam Chairperson, let
us not have any lectures about change from this caucus.
The bottom line is, this is a very
straightforward issue. We did not need
to get into what happened Monday night.
If the government had been willing at that time to listen to the debate
on the motion‑‑
An Honourable Member: Why did you move the motion?
Mr. Ashton:
We moved the motion because we wanted to express the concerns of the
farmers who have called for a plebiscite, and our position as a party
supporting that call. We did not need to
get into what subsequently happened. We
did not need a filibuster. All I wanted to do as a member of this House on
Monday night was do what I am doing now, which is to respond to some of the
comments which I quite frankly found close to offensive in some cases,
particularly the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) comments about geographic
region and the rest.
Perhaps there are farmers in certain
areas of the province that do support the recommendations. Perhaps there are some that oppose. That is the democratic process. That is the point, Madam Chairperson. Let them speak through a plebiscite. Let us have some indication from the
government where it is going, because I think that is important, to take a
position. I mean, let us not forget, in
this case, they are not only not taking a position, they are not allowing
farmers to express their concerns through a plebiscite. That is a legitimate issue.
I find it unfortunate that it had to
come up in terms of this motion. I know
the member for
It is the traditional way, and I do
believe the minister may recall other times when such resolutions were made by
members of that party when they were in opposition. It was not a personal attack on the minister. It was a question of policy. It was the only item we could reduce in the
Estimates of the Department of Agriculture that would not affect farmers
directly. Quite frankly, it would have
been unnecessary if the minister had supported the call for a plebiscite and if
the minister would take a stand on this very vital issue to the many farmers
who are affected by it.
So those were the things that I
would have said on Monday night. I am
glad I finally got the opportunity here on Thursday afternoon to raise it, and
I hope, Madam Chairperson, that the members of the government next time, on
issues such as this, will not be so defensive, will not be so fearful of taking
a stand, will not be so fearful of the concerns of Manitoba farmers, will not
be so fearful of the concerns we are expressing as members of the opposition on
their behalf in this House, and will allow proper debate on these issues and
indeed at some point in time perhaps will listen, and listen to Manitoba
farmers through a plebiscite, as we have called for in this House and as we are
calling for in this resolution.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Chairperson, when we were close to
finishing the Estimates, when we were into the Minister's Salary, there were
many concerns that we had, concerns that had been raised through the Estimates
period, through Question Period that I and members of my caucus and farmers did
not feel were being addressed adequately.
For that reason, we brought in a motion signifying that we were not
happy with some of the answers.
Indeed, as the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) just indicated, the motion could have been much stronger. The members from government will remember
when they were in opposition and they brought in resolutions such as reducing the
Minister's Salary to a bucket of asphalt, I think. There were motions like that that came from
the other side. We could have done that.
In fact, the member for Thompson
also indicated that the suggestion I was making was that perhaps we could
withhold the Minister's Salary until such time as he stood by farmers. That was the suggestion that I made, but that
would not have been in order.
We just wanted to send a message
that we were not happy with the answers we were getting, and we were
disappointed with the position the minister had taken on a few issues. That was the reason for bringing in the
motion. A motion that is, as I
understand, quite traditional if you want to send a message to government on
their position.
Madam Chairperson, farmers are not
happy with the proposed changes to the barley‑‑the removal of
barley from the Wheat Board.
An Honourable Member: Nobody is talking about removing barley.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The member says nobody is talking about removing barley from the Wheat
Board. The proposal is to move to a
continental market, to weaken the Wheat Board, and that is the concern. It is a move to open up a continental market
and this, farmers feel, will tremendously weaken the Wheat Board, and it will
cause a lot of unfairness. All farmers
will not be treated equally.
This government chooses not to
listen to farmers, because the majority of
The farmers in
An Honourable Member: You have heard, and you have heard rumours.
Ms. Wowchuk:
The member says, rumours. It was
very clearly stated by people who were on that committee. People were not allowed to make
representation at that committee hearing.
Madam Chairperson, all we are asking
is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) have a plebiscite here in
There are other issues that farmers
are concerned about. Farmers are concerned about this minister's lack of
position on the method of payment. The
minister has not taken a position.
The minister referred this afternoon
to my answer in Hansard, and it is right here.
I said, yes, farmers are being blackmailed. Farmers are being pushed into the corner.
I have said blackmailed many times
in this House and the minister knows full well that I oppose the change to the
method of payment, but he has not taken a position. I have stated very clearly that I am opposed
to it because I do not think it will be fair to farmers. He looks at one quotation in Hansard where I
have said, there is not going to be a choice because he will not stand up to
the federal government and take Manitoba's position there that Manitoba farmers
do not want a change in method of payment.
Other governments have. The Saskatchewan government has taken that
position If he would stand with the
Saskatchewan government and stand up to Charlie Mayer and the federal
government, farmers might have a chance in this to retain the method of
payment, but he will not take a position.
He hides behind his advisory committee and says that they will make the
decision. He will not listen to the
farmers. There is nothing that he will
stand up for for farmers. That was the
reason.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) accuses me of getting hysterical about this issue. Quite frankly, I do not think that I have
gotten hysterical about it. I am quite
calm about this, and I have never taken attack from the minister
personally. There are many times when I
could, maybe, use words such as hysterical.
I choose not to. I think we
should respect one another for it.
The point of all of this is that
this minister will not take a position, will not stand with farmers on the
whole issue of the continental market.
He will not make his position known.
He says he has taken a position on the method of payment, but he has
not. Farmers have asked him, come out to
meetings, talk to us about the method of payment, tell us how you are going to
lobby the federal government. He has not
done that.
*
(1540)
He has not taken a position on
barley. He continues to say that he is
going to look at studies. Well, when we
look at studies that have come forward, and the one I referred to today, the
response from the National Transportation Agency of Canada says, if we move
towards changing the method of payment and introducing all of these
efficiencies that he talks about that are going to be so good for farmers,
farmers' costs are going to go up $500 million over the next eight years.
How can he say he is standing up for
farmers, that it is going to be better for farmers, we are going to have better
prices at the farm gate, when the National Transportation Agency themselves say
that these kinds of changes are going to only increase farm costs? There is not going to be a benefit. Farmers
are going to pay out more.
Who is going to benefit from
this? The minister saw these studies,
but yet he has never made it clear that these kinds of changes are going to
make things worse for farmers.
An Honourable Member: What do farm organizations say?
Ms. Wowchuk:
The member talks about farm organizations. Yes, farm organizations have taken a position
and farmers have taken a position. He
should go out there and listen to farmers, all farmers. Farmers have taken a position. Public meetings were held across the province
last year‑‑manipulated, controlled meetings that tried to give
farmers unfair, inaccurate information, trying to persuade farmers that the
method of payment should be changed and it would be to their benefit.
The number of farmers who wanted the
method of payment to stay the same was greater than those who wanted it
changed, but yet the government, both federal and provincial, have refused to
listen to those numbers.
Madam Chairperson, those are the
reasons that we are concerned with the lack of action by this Minister of
Agriculture. He has not taken a position
and he will not stand up for farmers on these issues.
The member continues to refer to the
Farmers Union. The Farmers Union has
taken a position. They have taken a very
clear position that they are opposed to change in the method of payment. They have come out, and they are farmers, and
they are people, and they have a right to their say just as everybody else
does. But I guess they are the wrong
class of people. The Premier (Mr.
Filmon) talked about classes of people.
Perhaps that is a class of people that their voice should not
count. You know, as government
representatives, you should listen to all people, not only those that you
choose to listen to. The Farmers Union
is a credible group of people who have ideas as well, and you should not
discredit their views just because you may not believe in all of them. You should listen to all people; they have
the right to have a say.
That is why we are asking that there
be a plebiscite, that all people, all producers, have input into this
matter. If the member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner) is so sure that he is going to win on this one and those that are in
favour of the method of these changes will go his way, then he should not
oppose a plebiscite. [interjection] That is right, they have not taken a
position either. Is that what you are
telling me? [interjection]
The minister wants us to take
sides. The real issue here is the method
of payment and how things are going to change in this country if the method of
payment changes to pay the producer. What is going to happen to services in
rural communities? What is going to
happen to the transportation lines? What
is going to happen to the patterns of agriculture? The minister continues to talk about change,
and he wants the best return at the farm gate.
We have not had one point here telling us that the farm gate price is
going to improve. This study tells us
that farmers are going to pay more money, but the minister chooses to ignore
it.
The same thing applies to the barley
situation, Madam Chairperson. Farmers are
telling us, the majority of farm groups are saying that changing to a
continental market will do nothing to the return for the farmer. Farmers will grow more barley, but they will
sell it for a lower price. The minister
shakes his head, but the studies are telling us that, that farmers will not be
the winners in this. All we ask is that
the minister give the farmers the opportunity to have a say. That is all we want from this.
I do not know what happened the
other night, why we were so afraid to go forward. There was a motion put on the floor to end
the Agriculture Estimates, and as we looked at this, as I looked back at some
of the older years back at Estimates, there did not seem to be a problem with
voting on the Minister's Salary. I do
not know why there was such a big to‑do about it the other night. We could have finished the Estimates. We were basically trying to make a point of
the fact, to send the minister a message to listen more to the views of
Madam Chairperson, the member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner) talks about letting his people go. That is a really interesting comment. I think what we have to be thinking about and
what government has to be thinking about is what is fair for all people. The minister talks about change, but we have
to look at each change that can be influenced by government. We have to look at the implications of that
change and how is the whole picture of agriculture going to change. Is it going to be fair for everyone? Will everybody benefit from this change, or
is it just going to be a small group of people that are going to get the
benefit of it?
We want fairness for all
people. We should not have policies that
are going to benefit a small group of people, but other people not have any
benefit from it. By changing the system,
and I go back to the issue of the Wheat Board, the member has said that this is
not going to weaken the Wheat Board and we are not taking anything away from
the Wheat Board, but it will weaken it.
The other point is that those
farmers who choose to sell into the
We have to look at a fair return for
all farmers. The changes that the
minister is proposing, these changes, changing to a continental market will be
better for farmers, we on this side of the House do not agree with him. We believe that this is going to hurt the
farming community. They will be growing
more for less money, and what is the point?
What is the point of growing more if you are not going to get a fair
return at the farm gate? [interjection]
The minister says he would like
change, but what will be the benefit of the change? Who will‑‑[interjection] The
minister talks about opportunities, and those opportunities are there now. There is no need to move to a continental
market.
We talked about the Wheat Board, and
he had talked about the Wheat Board having to make some changes. The Wheat Board has made some changes. They had increased their sales. They are prepared to look at how they can
sell more into the
We talked the other day about all
the increasing markets, the opportunities in
* (1550)
I just want to emphasize the reason
for moving the motion on lowering the Minister's Salary was to send a message
on behalf of farmers that farmers are not happy with his lack of position on
both the barley issue and on the method of payment. We chose the barley issue because that is one
that they have requested a plebiscite on.
The minister, as I say, should not
have taken such great offence, or nor should his colleagues have taken such
great offence to a move to reduce the Minister's Salary because it is something
that is done traditionally. I am sure
that if we look back through the records, each one of those members at some
point, and I would not be surprised if maybe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay), when he was in opposition, at some point moved a reduction of the
Minister's Salary, and that is nothing to take such offence to. We did not ask for the elimination of the
salary. We asked for a reduction of a
salary as a signal that this is what we were looking at, but there are serious
concerns in the farming community.
The two of them that cause us the
greatest concern right now is the lack of position by this minister on the
whole issue of barley. He says he
continues to study the matter and will not take a position. He has to take a position so that farmers
know where he is going. He has not taken
a position on the method of payment. He
implies that I have taken a position, when I said that we were backed into the
corner. Yes, I believe farmers are being
backed into the corner by the decisions of this federal government. This Minister of Agriculture is not standing
up and lobbying the federal government to delay or review what they are doing
with the method of payment.
He is not listening to
The member across the way names Ken
Sigurdson. Well, I want to tell the
member that, yes, Ken Sigurdson is a resident of my constituency. He is a very successful farmer and has some‑‑
An Honourable Member: And campaign manager.
Ms. Wowchuk: In
fact, no, he is not my campaign manager.
He is a very successful farmer, and I think the reason the member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner) dislikes him so much is the fact that he belongs to the
Farmers Union.
Point of Order
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): The honourable member for
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Emerson did not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Ms. Wowchuk:
The member has‑‑[interjection] We are having a discussion on
Ken Sigurdson. The member says he knows
Ken Sigurdson. From the remarks he was
making from his chair, I assumed that they were not positive remarks and that
is why I assumed he disliked him.
I want to say that I think Ken
Sigurdson is a very credible person, and if the member for Emerson says he
knows him and respects him, I appreciate that, because every person is entitled
to their views. [interjection] That is right.
The member says we do not have to agree on it. We each as individuals have a right to our
opinion and I respect those farmers who belong to different farm organizations. I respect their view. I think it is only fair that we all respect
the views of one Ken Sigurdson, who may have different views from the member
for Emerson.
Whether we hear comments about the
Farmers Union, the Farmers Union has some very good ideas about what should be
happening and so does KAP and so do other groups. I think that the minister and his caucus
should listen to the comments of all of those people and from there hear the
views of all Manitobans.
Madam Chairperson, these are serious
issues, and some of the members may not take Agriculture as seriously as other
members do. I know the Minister of
Agriculture does take the whole agricultural industry very seriously. It is a very important part of our
economy. That is why it is very
important that we look at what changes are happening and evaluate whether the
changes that are coming about will have a negative or positive effect on our
industry.
In my opinion, some of the changes
that are being proposed right now will have a negative impact in particular
parts of the province. Other members have
different opinions, but we have to look at what is best. Right now it is the opinion of a large
portion of Manitoba farmers, farm organizations‑‑large numbers of
farmers, the farm groups in Manitoba spoke out against the recommendations in
the Carter report, and the members across the way are well aware of that, that
the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Farmers Union, Pools and other
organizations disagreed with the recommendations of the Carter report.
They do not believe that they will
be beneficial to the farm producers, and they want a chance to have input. Nor do they agree with the proposals. Not all farm organizations agree with the
proposals. The majority of
All we are asking is that the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) listen to those farmers and take the best
possible position he can and state very clearly to the farmers where he is on
these matters so that they will know in what direction he is going. He has not stated clearly where he is on
either of those issues. That is the
concern that we have raised with this government. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairperson: Is the House ready for the question?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chairperson, I would like a few moments
to comment on what the member just put on the record. I take great offence to her position that her
position is the only position.
There are many farm organizations
and many farmers that have expressed opinions, and they are on both sides of
the issue. They are in between the two poles on all those issues. The member says that only her position, only
the people who have spoken to her should be listened to. I beg her to have a broader way of looking at
things.
She says that I do not listen to
farmers. She has repeated that about 10
times in the last 40 minutes. I have
told her that the position we took in 1989 was absolutely to listen to
farmers. That is why we appointed the
advisory committee which had representation from Keystone Agricultural
Producers, from Manitoba Pool, from UGG, another co‑operative in
* (1600)
So, Madam Chairperson, I think the
member would be well advised to listen to the people that these various
organizations represent and listen to what they have said and are going to be
saying in the future.
The member says, implications of
change, is it going to affect small groups or is it going to benefit larger
groups? I would like her to pay
attention to the barley round table which consisted of some 19 people. She says people opposed the process. They opposed the Carter report. They opposed the conclusions, but I want to
remind her that a press release came out signed by 11 of the 19 people saying,
and I will read directly, 11 out of the 19 people on the barley task force said
that they did endorse the process to examine the potential of marketing Canadian
barley in North America. They said that
Mr. Carter, Dr. Carter, did an admirable job of addressing their questions‑‑11
out of the 19. That is a majority in my
mind.
She refuses to recognize that. She says she is interested in the highest
value at the farm gate. I am absolutely
interested in that, and I have repeated that many times. I would like her to be aware of some more
information which I am sure she will refuse to read, but if she wants it, I
will give her a copy of it.
I will read from this analysis that
came to my attention today, talking about the Andy Schmidt [phonetic] study,
the one commissioned by the Pool, which is designed to take the opposite
position to what she says the Carter report says. Andy Schmidt's report concluded that the Wheat
Board is the best system for selling.
These are statistics. I am not saying I agree with them, I condone
them, but this is somebody's analysis and she should take these into
account. The study, meaning the Schmidt study,
shows that over the last 10 years the
They go on further to say, if they
also factor in the Wheat Board deficits in the same years, that the
I say, as I told her the other day,
this whole issue is not black and white because one economist does this study
and shows this, the next economist does a study and shows this, and then they
do analyses of each other and you get all kinds of different conclusions. So it is not black and white.
It think it is imperative that we
look at what is in front of us as information and try to determine how we can
maximize the return at the farm gate and maximize a penetration of the
market. So the member talks about us
concentrating only on the
I told her in Estimates that the
amount of western Canadian barley that has gone to the
So, Madam Chairperson, these are
controversial issues. We all fully
realize that. I take exception to her
saying I do not listen to farmers because clearly I do. We may listen to different groups of farmers
more than other groups, and people have a right to have different
opinions. Just because she does not
agree with the majority of farmers which, I believe, are saying the things that
I have just reflected, that does not mean that I am a bad minister.
I will tell her I do not take
offence to her motion. Yes, it is a
traditional motion. I take no offence to
it. This is the first time I have risen
since the motion was put. We will agree
to disagree on certain things, but please do not say that because certain
people tell you it is black, it is black or somebody will say it is white, it
is white, do not ignore all the other information that is coming out.
I am not going to say what is right
or wrong on the barley issue because every time you turn around, there are more
statistics flowing out, more information.
The big question is: What is right?
I have told her I have written to
the Wheat Board. I have asked them to
give me some reason to have greater confidence that they have done the best job
possible. They have written back and
said, there are ways in which we can improve the way we do business, and that
is good because no matter what was done in the past, there is always a better
way. That is called progress; that is
called adapting to change.
The member must reflect on some of
the things she said in Estimates and the questions she has asked in this
House. She is always opposed to
addressing change. Everything she says
is opposed to addressing. She will not
accept that there might be anything positive.
She always says change is negative.
If she looks back in history, in Agriculture, we have only progressed
because we have been able to adapt and accept change. Change is going to happen whether that member
wants it to happen or not. It is going to happen.
She says
Things have changed, and we have to
adapt, but the member should reflect on what she says over and over again. I say, her comments are in Hansard very
clearly. Maybe it was a momentary lapse,
but they are there. She says the time
has come. I will read the whole
paragraph: "I believe, yes, farmers
and provinces are backed into a corner now where they have no choice but to
accept changing the payment to the farmer . . ."‑‑that is
pretty clear‑‑" . . . because of the actions that the federal
government has taken."‑‑also very clear. Then the next sentence: "It has to come."‑‑a
sentence all by itself: "It has to
come."
She paused in the House. She said that with conviction. Change, it has
to come. That was a momentary pause when
she really gave us what she felt, and it is an important statement. She
says: "The minister did not take a
position prior to that."
Now I am not sure what she was
referring to by "that," but I said I took a position of listening to
farmers, broadly, carefully, and we used a process in order to do that. The member, I guess, will refuse to accept
that, but I think I will stand by what we have done in terms of process.
I think, in the final analysis,
however decisions will unfold on this issue and other issues, we are well
positioned to defend the interests of the vast majority of farmers in
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Madam Chairperson, I want
to take this occasion just to very briefly approach the Department of
Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) on an issue that I
believe is of import and will be of considerable import in the future.
Madam Chair and members of the committee,
the taxpayers in
There are reasons other than just
the very serious budgetary reasons why those have to change. Our Minister of Agriculture has been I think
very forward, very direct, in the comments that he has made to farm communities
in the last year with respect to the long‑term futures of such programs
like GRIP that commits this province and the taxpayers of this province to some
$50 million‑plus in direct support.
* (1610)
We recognize and we have to
recognize in the farm community that when the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard),
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), all the problems in our social
programs they are faced with, that will be subject to scrutiny and likely to
considerable downsizing. I think the
Minister of Agriculture has served our farmers well by not leading them to
believe that a program like GRIP was there forever. I believe we are getting the same message
from the federal government.
Madam Chairperson, as Minister of
Natural Resources I simply want to take this occasion to encourage those involved,
both on the opposition side and in government side, that have the welfare of
rural Manitoba at heart, that there are alternatives that can and should, in my
judgment, be considered, alternatives that do several things.
First of all, make support to rural
Secondly, that kind of direction for
a more equitable marketing structure is something that we cannot control just
within our boundaries here in
We have led in this field, initially
in the minister's own backyard with a help program, for instance, which helped
provide some dollars to set aside land in an environmentally friendly way,
environmentally friendly to the landscape in terms of soil erosion, in terms of
water erosion, in terms of wind erosion, in terms of, from my perspective,
wildlife, you know, protection and the protection of habitat.
We have expanded that by moving into
the North American Waterfowl Management program that now encompasses, I do not
know how many, but a host of the southwestern part of the province's
municipalities that has targeted that internationally famous pothole country: Shoal Lake, Minnedosa, Virden and Killarney.
We are putting into rural
I do not care where they come from,
but they are doing two things, they are making our landscape more
environmentally friendly, greener. They
are doing things for our long‑term soil problems. Again, as Minister of Natural Resources, they
are helping to re‑establish and maintain badly needed wildlife stocks.
I am suggesting to the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), on his Minister's Salary, that we have a time frame
over the next two years as we look at how we manage and the kind of pressures
that we may get from the federal treasury with respect to their continued
commitment to that $6 billion of current agricultural subsidies, that we shift
some of that‑‑and I will be very candid with it, just as we had to
be because of our budgetary situation.
We were very candid with our VLT lottery funds. We made that commitment and everybody in this
caucus and, I think, most Manitobans agree with it, that a bulk of that goes to
reduce the No. 1 problem that we all face, budgetary problems, deficit
reduction.
We have said, and kept our
commitment that some of it will go to economic development in rural
I am suggesting to my colleague the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)‑‑but I take this occasion
because it takes the kind of understanding and co‑operation from members
opposite to make this a policy that gets that kind of general acclaim. If and when that downsizing of the current level
of agricultural subsidies takes place, that we transfer some of that, a good
portion of it‑‑if we took $1 billion, $2 billion of that, to
Manitoba it would mean a $100 million program that we could provide to farmers,
to rural people in Manitoba to farm in an environmentally more friendly way,
zero till, delayed harvest of forage.
Programs that put cash money, just
as we are doing in the North American Waterfowl program, $10, $15, $20 an acre
if need be on long‑term leases that puts these kinds of monies back into
rural Manitoba, that could do so much for our natural environment.
It is inconceivable to me that both
the federal government or the provincial government would back away totally
from that commitment to rural Manitoba that is currently there in outright
subsidization of growing wheat, barley, and oats that is essentially the GRIP
program as we know it.
That kind of subsidy is under
constant and growing attack because of the international obligations that we
are under. There are heads thinking that we ought to think about transferring
some of those subsidies and pay them in a different way, in an environmental
way under a green plan which then all of a sudden becomes acceptable, or at
least not attackable by our international trading partners. The result would be the same as the farmers
in the southwestern part of
So I leave those few comments on the
record, because I think they are worthwhile pursuing, they are long‑term
objectives, but we are on some notice in the agricultural community, and I
think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has not shied away from
speaking about this himself, that there will come a day when the current
agricultural support programs may not be in place. Just as he and the member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk) are currently debating the very real fact that the transportation
subsidies currently in place are not there for all day, and we have to come to
grips with how that will be changed. We
do our farmers, we do our rural constituents, no favour if we simply refuse to
accept new and innovative ways of doing it.
What we want to do is to maximize those opportunities open to us when
this change takes place.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chair, I would just like to ask the minister a couple of questions
on his comments if that is okay at this point.
The minister outlined the people on
his advisory committee, and earlier on the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) made
several references to the Farmers Union.
I wonder if the minister has representation from the Farmers Union on
his committee, and if he has, who that person is. If he has not, why is that committee not
represented on his advisory committee?
Mr. Findlay:
Madam Chair, in terms of determining membership, Keystone Agricultural
Producers has roughly 12,000 members in
She is talking about the National
Farmers Union. They have about 565
members, so it is relatively small in membership. Everybody who is a National
Farmers Union member has a clear opportunity to be a member of Keystone
Agricultural Producers, and I would have to think many of them are. But Keystone is the general farm organization
that represents all
* (1620)
Ms. Wowchuk: I
find that interesting because there are farmers who choose not to‑‑the
minister says they have the opportunity to belong to Keystone Agricultural
Producers, but they choose not to be the members of that organization. I guess my feeling is that if we want to hear
the views of all producers and people who have varying opinions, I would think
that the minister would want people from all views on his advisory
committee. That is what I was looking at
to see whether there was, and if there was not, why? The minister has given his answer. I think on an advisory committee it would be
useful to have broader representation, people who may have different views, to
get a broader representation of all farmers.
Mr. Findlay:
For the member's information, I will tell her that I have met with
National Farmers Union. About once a
year they request a meeting. We
meet. We talk about many issues.
Clearly, the transportation issue is obviously on the agenda every time.
Last November, a discussion document
was agreed to at a meeting in
The National Farmers Union was invited
along with every farm organization, whether they were in grain or they were not
in grain, to be at that meeting and to have an understanding of the discussion
document. I asked them all to comment on
it, to give me input on the discussion paper and they did. So they have been involved in a variety of
ways, the National Farmers Union along with many other farm organizations, in
an ongoing process.
So I reflect, we listen, we listen,
we listen. I think
Ms. Wowchuk:
Madam Chairperson, I only have one more question on this. The minister talked about the barley
committee and the vote being 11 to 19, that the majority did vote in favour of
the report, but will the minister admit that there were people on that
committee who spoke publicly about their dissatisfaction of the way the
committee operated?
I was at a meeting where I heard people
say that they did not believe that the report reflected their views and they
did not believe that the process of the committee reflected their views. I am
not sure whether it was the 11 that voted in favour of the report or those who
chose to vote against it, but is the minister aware that those people who were
on the committee were not happy with the process and that it did not reflect
their views and in some cases they did not have real opportunity to have input
into the committee?
Mr. Findlay: I
was not present at the committee meeting, so I can only comment on what I have
been told. I have been told that of the
19 people, the 11 that I referred to and the others that she refers to, all 19
people had one or two meetings. They
decided they wanted to hire a consultant.
They put out a proposal call.
Everybody, the 19 members were there when they determined the terms of
reference for that study that was to be done.
They all agreed that Dr. Carter was
the person to do the study. They were
all asked to give input, information for him to use. Then he put out the report. That is my understanding of the process and I
do not think she is fully right in saying the other people did not have their
chance for input.
They were part of the process to
establish the terms of reference. They
were there as part of the process to determine the successful consultant to be
used and they had opportunity to feed information into that consultant. That is my understanding and yes, they
disagreed with the end result.
They were very clearly there at the
front of the process and at the end, five or six groups said they did not want
to be associated with it and 11 said, as I reflected, they concurred with the
process, they agreed to the conclusions and now we are getting all kinds of
analyses of reports by opposite sides.
I said to her the other day, I have
nervousness about assumptions and conclusions because I do not think they are
as definitive as each study would have them be.
To say where the black and the white is in this whole issue is very
difficult, but constant reflection on my behalf is, what process gives the
farmer the best return at the farm gate and maximizes their access to
markets. It is clearly the only
principle I will make decisions on and this issue‑‑I want all
farmers to have a chance to understand that.
The Wheat Board has indicated that
they are going to make a greater effort to have farmers understand the
marketing process that the Wheat Board is involved in, and I think that is
crucial because I do not think farmers have understood over the years how the
Wheat Board has functioned and operated, and I think farmers have a right to
know that so that they have the level of confidence they need in their
marketing agency.
Ms. Wowchuk: I
was just making the point of what I had heard at the press conference where
there were groups who were not happy with the process. There are people who have disassociated
themselves from the report right now.
The minister said his goal is to get
the best return at the farm gate, and I hope that by working together and by
working with farmers, we can come up with some way that we will see a better
return for farmers and more prosperity in the rural communities than we have
seen over the last few years.
Madam Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee is should
the Minister's Salary be reduced to $10,300.
All those in favour of the question,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Yeas and Nays, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested.
Call in the members.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The question before committee is the motion
of the honourable member for
A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows: Yeas 18, Nays 30.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Chairperson: On division.
Item 1.(a) is accordingly passed.
Resolution 3.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,818,300 for Agriculture, Administration and Finance, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Manness:
Let us call in the Speaker, Madam Chair.
I would like to make an announcement at that time. Then there might be a willingness, I suppose,
to call it six o'clock.
Madam Chairperson: Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an
announcement dealing with House business for next Tuesday. I would ask leave of the House that we sit
Monday hours on Tuesday so that indeed Estimates would be considered at 8 p.m.
in the evening.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave of the House to consider next Tuesday as a Monday, Monday
sitting hours? [agreed]
Is it the will of the House to call
it six o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).