LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, May 25, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
The committee will resume
consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and
Training. When the committee last sat,
it had been considering item 1.(d)(1) on page 34. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we were last
together, I said that I would table this evening the departmental affirmative
action guidelines on recruitment and selection.
I would like to table those now.
They are interim guidelines.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I wanted to ask about the aboriginal
representation in the department, particularly the two areas where they are
concentrated, PDSS and PACE, and to ask the minister what kinds of positions those
people occupy.
* (2010)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am happy to start
discussing. On our K to 12 side, as the
member knows, we have a Native Education branch. The director of the Native Education branch,
Juliette Sabot, is a Metis. Then we have
a native awareness consultant, Garry Robson, who is a Status Indian, native
studies consultant Dan Thomas, who is also a native individual. We have an early childhood education
consultant, Florence Paynter, who is a Status Indian. We have also an English language development
consultant in Dauphin, Betty‑Ann McIvor, who is also Status. We have a community liaison consultant in
Dauphin, Lillian De la Fuente, who is Metis.
Then, in terms of our support staff, we have Nancy Trimble who is
Status, Ina Lynn who is Metis, Marcy Richard who is Metis, and Barb Sutherland,
in Dauphin, who is Metis.
In the Student Support Branch, we
also have one aboriginal consultant. I
will just take a moment for the information on the post‑secondary
side. Then, in the New Careers, we have
a regional co‑ordinator, Glen Cochrane, and also a trainer, Clayton
Sandy.
As I look at the information which
was tabled this evening, we have throughout the department, of those people who
have declared, 26 individuals who are of native background. However, we also, I am informed, have people,
particularly Metis, who have not necessarily declared their background.
Ms. Friesen: I
note that this is as of March 19, '93, so this predates, I assume, the
reorganization of the department.
Mrs. Vodrey:
No, this is after the reorganization.
I beg your pardon, but I am informed that the 26 number is before the
reorganization.
Ms. Friesen:
So the whole thing then, the 26, represents simply the addition of the
numbers in this column. Does it not?
Three, four, five. One, two‑‑yes‑‑25,
26.
* (2015)
Mrs. Vodrey:
The number, 26, is the number before the reorganization.
Ms. Friesen:
Does the department have the numbers after reorganization?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The number following reorganization is 21.
Ms. Friesen:
Does that mean 26 plus 21, or 21?
Mrs. Vodrey:
It is 21 totally.
Ms. Friesen:
So that in fact today in the department, after you have New Careers, you
have actually fewer aboriginal employees.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes,
according to that list and of those people who have declared, the number would
be fewer.
Ms. Friesen:
Well, could the minister then explain where the drop came?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the staff reduction was achieved or was carried
out according to the government employee master agreement, and according to
that master agreement, it is the most junior employees who then would be those
who are laid off. I understand that the
numbers did primarily come from the New Careers area.
* (2020)
Ms. Friesen: I
am really quite confused now. I wonder
if the minister would agree to table a real document that is up to date that
tells us how many aboriginal employees there are in the department, how many
there were before the reorganization, including the areas that people came
from.
It seems to me, first of all, we
have lost five right away out of this document.
Where did those five come from? [interjection] But that does not even add up. I mean, if you have got 26 and you lose five?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the number according to the document, which is
the latest compilation, and as the member will note on that document, it is not
just a compilation of employees who are of native background; it also includes
numbers which relate to other affirmative action programs also. I believe you are looking at the document
that looks at women and native people and disabled individuals. In that particular document, that was the
most up‑to‑date document we had relating to the affirmative action
issues which we had been discussing.
If we are looking at very
specifically any changes, yes, I can tell the member that there have been some
changes as a result of reorganization in the area of employment for native
people. As I was explaining, there has been a reduction of five from 26, with a
reduction of five to 21. I believe those
numbers do make sense and do add up in terms of the actual arithmetic.
The member asked where those five
aboriginal individuals, what part of the department they came from. I had just explained to her that they did
come from the post‑secondary side of the department. I am informed they came from the New Careers
area and that the layoffs occurred according to the government employee master
agreement which states that it is the junior members who will be laid off first
in this type of reduction.
* (2025)
Ms. Friesen: I
think we have got apples and oranges here.
The only column I am looking at is the column which says native, so the
minister's introduction really is not relevant.
I am only looking at the native column.
I am looking at a date which says March 19, which says there were 26
people of aboriginal‑declared descent.
Now, as I understand the minister, that was before anybody was
transferred. So on top of this 26, we
would expect to have people out of a variety of programs from Apprenticeship to
New Careers to a number of other programs transferred into the department. We also see a drop of five people.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am looking at the list that was tabled for the member. This list, as I said in my last answer, does
provide to March 19, 1993, the numbers of affirmative action employees who have
declared themselves to that date. Now,
the member has also said that with the changes and the restructuring in the
Department of Education and Training, with the introduction into Education and
Training of programs which were previously in the Department of Family Services
and which were in the Department of Labour, would these numbers have changed?
At the moment, I am informed that we
do not have the up‑to‑date numbers with those new changes. However, what I have explained to the member
is a change from the total number of 26, which was listed on here. However, if we could look to seeing if those
numbers would change and would be increased in total across all of those areas
of affirmative action, with the introduction of staff who have come from the
other programs which were previously housed in other departments, we do not
have that information at the moment.
Ms. Friesen:
Sorry, it is still not clear. On
March 19, 1993, before changes were made, there were 26 aboriginal‑declared
people in the department. Today, after
changes have been made and additional people have been brought into the
department from a wide variety of areas across the government, there are 21
aboriginal people. Do those numbers
still stand?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The number 21 does deal with changes which occurred in one area, in the
area of New Careers. However, in terms
of a total number, I am informed that we could certainly have that information
available for the member at the next sitting.
That would include then the inclusion of those people who had declared
aboriginal background in the programs which have just been included within the
Department of Education and Training.
Ms. Friesen:
We are still not clear, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. What does the number 21 refer to? Where does it come from?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the number 21 comes from a number of 26
on March 19 that is the total of those people who had declared themselves as
individuals of aboriginal background and five who, through the budgetary
process and then eventually the reorganization‑‑but if we look
strictly at where staff reductions came from in that particular area, five
individuals of aboriginal background from the number 26, bringing the number to
21, if we use that number of 26.
* (2030)
However, the member has also asked
us: With the introduction of programs
and with the introduction of areas which were previously housed within other
departments, will that number change again?
I have said to her that we will have a look at the people who have now
joined Education and Training from those other departments, and we will have
that information for her the next time that we are sitting.
Ms. Friesen:
This base line 26 refers to the department before any additions. So you cannot simply take away from that
additions which have not yet been made to the department. You are mixing apples and oranges here. You have 26 people in the department before
New Careers is added. You cannot simply
take the number of people‑‑[interjection] On March 19. That is what I asked at the beginning.
Mrs. Vodrey:
New Careers has been a part of the Department of Education and
Training. That was not a part of another
department, but there has been added, as the member knows, services which were
previously part of Family Services and also Department of Labour.
Ms. Friesen:
Okay. So I understand now. So the five that were lost were from New
Careers. They all came from that
program?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, using the No. 26, if we look at the
reduction of five, the five reductions did occur in the area of New Careers, as
I was explaining to the member, according to the government employee master
agreement. If we are to look at what the
total number is now as a result of reorganization, that number, I understand,
we will be able to have available; however, we are still, I am told, having the
transfer of files from the Department of Family Services and the Department of
Labour. So we are still looking at
exactly the background of individuals who have come over, but again, as the
member knows, not all individuals do declare.
Ms. Friesen: I
wonder if the minister could tell me why, when I asked her this same question
in the House on the loss of aboriginal staff in New Careers, she refused to
answer, because I asked this question specifically.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, the member has asked questions
that have related to staffing which it is obvious we are best dealing with here
in the Estimates process, when we are looking at the detailed number of staff,
where the staff have been employed and where changes have been made in terms of
staff.
Ms. Friesen: I
do not think that excuses the minister's response in the House. I asked specifically. There has been a loss of six people in the
New Careers Program. I identified the
line in the Estimates, and I asked, were all of those people aboriginal, or how
many‑‑in fact, I think my question was: How many of those people were aboriginal?
Well, it seems to me that the
minister knew how many were aboriginal or declared aboriginal and simply chose
not to answer that in the House. Now why
is that?
* (2035)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, the details of staffing and staffing decisions are best managed
and best discussed here in the Department of Education and Training's
Estimates, and we are discussing this line, the area of Human Resources. The details are available to provide the
information regarding the human resources and the staffing for the Department
of Education and Training.
Ms. Friesen: I
understand the minister has her staff here, and she does not have them in the
House. Would it not be more
straightforward and more appropriate in a legislative setting to say, I do not
know the answer to that and I will find out?
Why did she not do that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly the answers that have been
provided to the member in the House are answers to the questions. I have made every effort to provide her with
the information that she feels she would like to have and based on the questions
that she asks.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Well, after that revelation, I guess it is no
surprise that the answers in the legislative Chamber are very often unclear at
best and certainly not straightforward from the minister.
I think it is clear that she was
aware of this information and chose not to provide it in the House at that time
because it was rather embarrassing for herself and the government. Is that why the minister did not provide that
information?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Really, I wonder if this is a point of order of attempting to speculate
on motivation and attempting to attribute motives to a member.
I think it is very important for the
member to understand that answers that have been given in the House are answers
to questions and information which we believe will assist the member who is
answering the question.
Mr. Plohman: The more the minister says, the more
ridiculous it becomes. The answers to
the questions that are asked in the Legislature before the public‑‑although
the committee is public as well, it certainly does not have the same scrutiny
as the legislative Chamber.
The minister gives some garbled
answer about how these answers would be helpful to the member. The fact is that the minister has a
responsibility to the public to provide clear answers and straightforward and
honest answers to the public. That is her responsibility in the House, not to
try to cover up information and keep it from the public. If that is what the minister is saying she
did, well, then she can clarify.
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
On a point of order, I believe the member is making accusations about
the issue of honesty, and I think that is a point of order which I think is not
acceptable.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): On that point of order, the minister does not
have a point of order, but I would remind all members that we are all
honourable members and the implication of attitude and decorum should be
maintained at all times.
* * *
Mr. Plohman:
Well, then, is the minister saying she did not know at the time that she
answered the question in the House?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, the answers which were given in the
House were answers to the questions that were posed, and we now have an
opportunity in Estimates to look in further detail at some of the questions
which the member would like to ask. We
are attempting to provide the information to the member for the questions that
are being asked now.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying that she is trying to correct the record at
this time and hoping that we will accept that.
Is that correct, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson?
* (2040)
Mrs. Vodrey:
There is not a sense of correction.
There is an opportunity here to discuss at greater length the questions
which the members wish to pose, and we are making every effort to provide the
information that the members require, as has been done in the House at any time
that questions are asked by members.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying it would have required a lengthy answer to
indicate that those five were all aboriginal people that were laid off from New
Careers?
Mrs. Vodrey:
It seems to have taken us some time this evening to deal with the issue
of the numbers of aboriginal individuals who are employed in the Department of
Education and Training. This is our
opportunity for discussion around that issue so that there can be clarification
if the members are not clear on the answers given.
Mr. Plohman:
So is the minister now saying she did not understand the question in the
House when it was asked?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The questions which were posed were answered, and now we have an
opportunity to look at answering in more detail and to answering more questions
than we have at the time of Question Period.
This is an opportunity for our discussion and an opportunity for further
questioning. So the answers which are
being provided now are answers which I hope will provide the information that
the members are looking for.
Mr. Plohman:
Does what the minister means in more detail mean a little more
straightforwardly that she can now provide a little more straightforward
answers in committee?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The answers which have been provided in Question Period and which have
been covered over some time are answers to the questions which are posed, but
we do have an opportunity in the Estimates process to discuss more fully,
members on one side have the opportunity to ask a question and ask it again and
to discuss it, and we on this side have the opportunity to provide the answers,
to provide explanations should the members not understand the answers fully
that are presented to them. We have an
opportunity to provide clarification for them, and in the Estimates process
that is what has been happening over the past while, providing additional
information to the members and providing for their benefit clarification where
they require it.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, did I hear the minister correctly say
that there are answers that are covered over in the Chamber?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am not sure what the member is getting at with that question. The answers which have been covered within
the Chamber and the answers which have been given in every attempt to answer
the question, and as I look at the Hansard, I look at May 13, the question from
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). I
look at the answer which I gave, and I will quote from Hansard: "Mr.
Speaker, again, when we are in the Estimates of the Department of Education, I
will be happy to look in detail at the staffing of the New Careers section of
my department." So on the record
there was an answer provided to the member regarding staffing.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister gives a selective
quote. Is that the whole and total
answer that we are getting from the minister now?‑‑because we can
get that Hansard very quickly if the minister is omitting some important
information. If not, that is fine; she
has an opportunity now to clarify that, but we can get that answer.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Well, let me read the question from the member for Wolseley: "Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us
how many of those people who have already been," in her words, "cut
were aboriginal?"
My answer: "Mr. Speaker, again, when we are in the
Estimates of the Department of Education, I will be happy to look in detail at
the staffing of the New Careers section of my department."
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying now‑‑[interjection] Well, now we are
getting some talkative backbenchers and ministers here. I want to ask the minister whether she is now
saying that she did not know the answer on May 13.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, as I have been describing for the past while, the details of
staffing are often best covered within the Estimates process when we can look
very fully at the staffing across the department, and that was exactly what I
had recommended in that answer. That is
exactly the point that we are covering here this evening.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister chose an evasive tactic rather than answering this
question straightforward. Is that
correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
provided an answer for the member which described when we would be able to look
in detail at this particular issue, and that is exactly what we are doing this
evening.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell me how many
increments clinicians have on the pay scale that were laid off from the Child
Care and Development Branch?
Mrs. Vodrey:
For clinicians, they can make one step per year and there are a total of
seven steps in the scale based on merit.
Mr. Plohman: The minister is saying that there are seven
steps based on merit. So these are not
automatic increases, but must receive the endorsation or recommendation of the
superior.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister indicate whether the Human Resources branch has
received any information from school divisions as to whether they are hiring
graduating clinicians as opposed to those who are working with the department
who are obviously at a much higher pay scale in many cases?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as we discussed this afternoon, the
matter of hiring of clinicians has been a private matter between the clinicians
and the hiring authority. So clinicians
have not necessarily reported to us whether or not they are being employed by
school divisions.
* (2050)
In terms of reporting by school
divisions, school divisions are independent in terms of their hiring and they
will be making their decisions about whether they will be hiring new graduates
or clinicians who were previously employed.
Any information which we might have
at the moment is really hearsay information as we have not received direct
information, nor are people required to report that information to us.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, is the minister interested in surveying school divisions to find
out exactly what the situation is with regard to the hiring of clinicians? Does she intend to do anything, any follow‑up
there?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The matter of who school divisions hire as their clinician is in fact
their business as employers. We will
know that they do hire clinicians by virtue of their receiving funding through
our school funding formula.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is not particularly interested in finding out whether her
former staff who were laid off, who are going to be laid off effective June 30,
are hired or not hired by school divisions.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that our human resources
director has asked clinicians if they have been offered employment. The response has been from clinicians that
that is really a private matter for themselves and that they do not wish to
discuss it.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, I understand that. I was not
asking whether the minister was asking clinicians. I asked her whether she was interested in
following up with the school divisions to find out whether her staff, her
former staff, unceremoniously dumped as of June 30, were of any concern to her
as to whether they were still working in the school system in Manitoba.
Mrs. Vodrey:
First of all, the member is concerned about what he would see as a lack
of interest. I can certainly say to him
that in terms of any follow‑up with school divisions who are employers‑‑certainly
does not imply a lack of interest. In
fact, we have at the moment a process in place which will assist our staff in
the process of transition. So there
certainly is concern and interest on behalf of our staff.
We also will know in the fall the
names of the people who have been hired because they will be required to
receive certification through our certification branch, but some people may
already by certified. If it is someone
who is not certified, then we would certainly know the newly certified
individuals.
Some individuals who have not been hired
by school divisions or may, for whatever reasons, not wish to be hired by
school divisions, as we discussed this afternoon, they will be on our re‑employment
list. So we have the re‑employment
list in which we are attempting to assist staff, and we also have our
certification branch.
In terms of our assistance to
employees who have received layoff notices, where possible, case managers are
available to persons who have been notified as a layoff. This may include times outside of working
hours where individuals require assistance, and it also includes counselling
and referral services. It also may
include dealing with the counselling of family members as well.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
In addition, the efforts have been
made to place a person in a position of equal pay and classification and may
also look beyond pay issues in attempts to ensure that a person may in fact
gain from this process of change and may have an enhanced career path. They may learn some new skills, or they may
use talents and explore interests that had previously not been considered.
Our Human Resource Services is
committed to work as colleagues with other agencies for the benefits of those
who have received a layoff notice.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that. So she is
saying no surveys will be done.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have said two parts. I said, first of all, clinicians themselves
have told us that this is a matter between themselves and their employers and
they do not feel the need to give us a reporting of where they have been
hired. School divisions, as the member
knows, are also the employers and they are able to bring into their employ
those individuals that they wish, and our role would be to be sure that those
individuals are certified.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying she will not be doing any surveys with school
divisions to determine whether they have hired outside or from the clinicians
laid off by her department.
Mrs. Vodrey:
At the moment we do not have a plan to survey the school divisions about
who it is that they have hired, but as I have explained to the member, we will
know that clinicians have been hired because the funds will be accessed through
our ed funding formula.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister will not be following up to survey those school
divisions.
How many of the individual
clinicians have availed themselves of the counselling services that the
minister spoke about a few moments ago?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that out of 50 clinicians
approximately 35 have availed themselves of the counselling service, and also
divisions will be contacting us at the start of the school year if they have
not been able to hire a clinician by that time, because we did make the
commitment that we would assist divisions in the hiring of clinicians.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying that 35 asked for counselling services or that 35
contacted Human Resources to find out what their rights were with regard to
redeployment and salary severance and so on?
Are we talking about personal counselling services for individuals and
their families, 35?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Thirty‑five contacted Human Resources for a variety of reasons,
for a whole range of reasons.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I dare say that probably the number was quite
low insofar as the actual counselling.
The minister can clarify that if she wishes. How many indicated they wished to be
redeployed up to this point in time?
* (2100)
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that three individuals have been looking at redeployment to this
point.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, was this offered as an avenue to all employees? I know that this was pursued in some detail
this afternoon, but I am not sure that specific question was asked as to whether
there was an offer for redeployment or whether it was just a matter of
indicating that was one of the options if spaces were available and so on
somewhere else in the government. Was it
offered as a direct option for all employees?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, each of the employees and certainly any employee within our
department, these employees in particular, yes, did go on the redeployment
list, did have the offer.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the offer of going on the redeployment list a guarantee of a job
offer or is it just, we will do our best to find one for you?
Mrs. Vodrey:
When individuals go on the re‑employment list, there is not a 100
percent guarantee that individuals will become re‑employed. However, the government has a very good
record at re‑employment and, in addition, they are given priority, I am
informed, in terms of their job applications.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how many signed a letter of permanent layoff so
that they could get a severance package from the government, therefore
forfeiting any eligibility for re‑employment?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of the process, our clinicians have at the moment received
verbal notice. They will receive the
formal letter, I understand, on the 31st of May. Therefore, we cannot know until the 30th of
June how many will have signed the letter which the member has spoken about.
Mr. Plohman:
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister says they have a mandatory 30
days before they have to respond or they could respond in a week if they wish
to?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that the employees can respond, if they wish, as soon as they
receive the notification, or they may choose to wait for the four‑week
period.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister indicate when new employees are hired whether the
minister makes the final decision or the deputy minister?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Until the 1st of March it would have been the Civil Service Commission
who had the final say in the employment decisions, and as of the 1st of March,
1993, the Department of Education and Training appeared before the Civil
Service Commission and received its delegated hiring authority back. Under that
delegated hiring authority it is the deputy minister and/or the director of
Human Resources who will make the final decisions regarding the hiring.
Mr. Plohman: So
the hiring processes, what we could say, normalized for the Department of
Education after the Civil Service Commission removed the hiring jurisdiction
from the department a couple of years ago, I believe it was. Maybe the minister could tell us how long it
was in the hands of the Civil Service Commission exclusively. So the minister is saying now that there was
a presentation made and the department now has its own hiring authority back. Is this a permanent designation until further
notice? Is it a probationary thing or is
it something that will come up for a review in a six‑month or a year
period?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, the delegated hiring authority was removed from the
Department of Education and Training on November 25, 1991, and that delegated
hiring authority was returned to the Department of Education and Training March
1, 1993. It was returned under normal
conditions. There are no conditions
specific to the Department of Education and Training, and the hiring authority
will be reviewed annually as it is reviewed in all other departments.
* (2110)
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is saying that she has been told it is the deputy minister
or the director for Human Resources that makes the final decisions on hiring,
it is not the minister. The minister
could clarify whether that is the normal process for all departments at the
present time.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, under The Civil Service Act, obviously, the minister
is responsible for what happens within the department. However, it is a normal part of the process
that the decision making in terms of the hiring tends to rest with the deputy
minister and/or the director of Human Resources.
Mr. Plohman:
Does the minister prefer that personnel matters be kept out of her hands
and in the deputy minister's and the director of Human Resources' hands?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I can tell the member that I have a commitment to
follow the rules and to operate according to the rules. In addition, we have made a commitment to the
Civil Service Commission that we will in fact be following the rules, and that
is the way that this department is operating.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister understands the rules as that she, as minister, should
not be making the decisions on hiring as to who is hired and on other personnel
matters. Is that what I read from what
the minister said?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, let me say that I recognize as
minister that the minister is responsible for what happens within the
department. The minister is the ultimate
authority in terms of what happens in the department. However, my direction is that I am wanting
the Department of Education and Training to operate according to the rules,
that I have made a commitment that the Department of Education and Training
will operate according to the rules of the civil service and that is the way
that we have been proceeding.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying that the way the department is dealing with
personnel matters now is consistent with the rules of the Civil Service
Commission and consistent with the way all departments, as she understands it,
deal with personnel matters.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
can tell you in the Department of Education and Training that we are following
all acts regarding hiring, that we are following the provisions requiring
equity and fairness in hiring and I believe that we are operating according to
the rules of the civil service in our hiring practices.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, and could the minister add, and consistent with how she understands
other departments are dealing with these matters.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, it is very difficult to speak for departments other than my
department, the one for which I am directly responsible, and I can say though
that, as the member knows, departments are subject to audits by the civil
service and we are certainly subject to that, as are other departments, and
that would be a system of checks and balances.
I speak again with the greatest knowledge about the Department of
Education and Training.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, I would hope that the minister would speak with the greatest
knowledge about the department that she is now responsible for. I just asked the minister if it was consistent
with the way other departments handle personnel matters, as she understands
it. I asked the minister if that is
fact.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, I believe that to be true.
But again, I have to say to the member that the area where I am directly
responsible, and that is the Department of Education and Training, is the
department that I speak with, obviously, knowledge about.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, we kind of assumed that since we are on those Estimates, Madam
Acting Deputy Chairperson.
Is the minister talking about permanent
staff only, or is she talking also about term appointments in terms of the
procedures? Are they different with regard to what the civil service requires
of the department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member may know that some departments do have more delegate
authority in some areas than the Department of Education and Training, or than
the way in which we operate. In
addition, the Department of Education and Training operates somewhat
differently than other departments in that we do have secondments from school
divisions.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is very vague on her comment about delegated
authority. I asked specifically about
term appointments. Is the minister saying
that the department, under the newly delegated authority from the Civil Service
Commission, does not make any distinction between term appointments and
permanent employees?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed, and in response to a very specific question, the answer is that in
the Department of Education and Training we handle the term appointments in the
same way that we handle the permanent appointments.
Mr. Plohman: I
want to thank the minister for that clarification.
Can she tell me exactly how
secondments are handled?
* (2120)
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of secondments, I can tell the member that our secondments are
being done by competition and that by and large they are now always being done
by competition. I am informed that there
may be a case at some time where there is a very specific type of expertise which
is required, but we are, in terms of secondments, certainly now making every
effort to do those by competition.
Mr. Plohman:
How many secondments are there presently in the department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do not have the exact numbers of the secondments with us this
evening. We could have those numbers
available to the member at the next time that we are sitting together.
I can tell him that the secondments
occur in two areas of the Department of Education: the PDSS area and the BEF area. The first is the Program Development and
Support Services, and the second is BEF de bureau.
Mr. Plohman:
Just one other question for clarification. Did the minister indicate earlier that the
delegated authority for her department was not full and complete? In other words, some departments have more delegated
authority from the Civil Service Commission than the Department of Education.
So even though the Department of
Education now has delegated authority, it does not have as much delegated
authority as other departments. I assume
that that means limitations on term hirings as well in terms of the process.
So if I am correct, the minister
could indicate so.
Mrs. Vodrey:
We have the full and complete hiring authority which has been returned
to us. I understand, and I am informed
that in some departments‑‑and I am not able to provide the member
with a specific example‑‑there has been occasionally some further
delegated authority for day‑to‑day management within that
department. However, the delegated
authority which was returned to the Department of Education and Training is
that authority which would have been expected to have been returned to us.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that. Can the
minister indicate the status of the diagnostic centre? Is it now closed or will it be June 30, and what
is happening to the staff there?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The diagnostic learning centre is due to close on June 30. However, two staff will be retained, one to
look at emotionally behaviourally disordered young people and another, a
specialist in the area of learning. In
terms of the other staff, we have two of those staff who were seconded to the
Department of Education and Training.
They will return to their divisions. Three staff have been placed and
there is just one staff individual yet to be placed.
Mr. Plohman:
Are these all full‑time staff the minister is talking about?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The positions that the secondments were in were term positions. Though the individuals, during the time of
their placement with Education and Training, worked full time, the positions in
fact were term and, as I have said, those individuals now will return to their
home school divisions.
Mr. Plohman:
Two staff retained‑‑are they going to work out of that
centre or are they going to be housed somewhere else?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the two staff
who will be retained will work from the Child Care and Development branch from
the central office.
Mr. Plohman:
Did the minister say that they will be doing assessments of emotionally
disturbed or disordered young people?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The positions will ensure that the department is still able to provide
some leadership and assistance in these areas.
As I said, one will be retained to deal with emotionally, behaviourally
disordered young people. Another will be
a learning specialist, and they will become part of the core staff who will
remain in the Child Care & Development Branch.
As I said, one position will be
utilized to provide service to children with the most extreme learning
problems, and the other will be used to provide service to children with the
most severe emotional and behavioural disorders.
Mr. Plohman: I
guess I would ask, if it is appropriate here, are all of the staff being moved
out of the diagnostic centre? It is
being closed down and sold off, the equipment and so on or rented out to
somebody else‑‑is that the intention?
Mrs.
Vodrey: The diagnostic learning
centre, Diagnostic Support Centre, is housed within the building of the
* (2130)
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister indicate how many clients were being served by the eight
staff there?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, we are getting into some of the details which may be best covered
under the Child Care & Development Branch, but I do have the numbers. The total number is 79‑‑
Mr. Plohman:
Per year?
Mrs. Vodrey:
79 in this past year.
Mr. Plohman:
We will have an opportunity to deal with this, as the minister has said,
under the Child Care & Development Branch.
I just want to make one observation.
I find it kind of interesting that the minister says that out of 79 that
somehow one staff is going to be retained to deal with the most extreme
learning problems. It is going to be
interesting to find out whether the minister thinks that that kind of token
staffing is sufficient to deal with the worst situations out of the 79 that were
there, which are in themselves extreme situations. That is why they are there in the first
place, but I will not pursue that with the minister right now.
I wanted to ask the minister about
the staffing changes in Distance Education, how many were staff reductions,
what the fate of those staff is at the present time.
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of Distance Education, there were 11 people in the
reductions. There were 12
positions. One position was vacant. Two of those individuals received their
layoff notices, and their last day of work was April 26. They are currently laid off. In terms of the other nine individuals, they
will have a last day of work on June 30.
They have not yet received their layoff notices; however, I am informed
that six of those individuals are already placed in terms of a new position,
and there are three individuals who would, in fact, be laid off on June 30, who
are yet to be placed.
Mr. Plohman:
Does this mean that this branch and the expertise of these people are
lost to the department? Are they being
redeployed to areas where they will still deal with distance education?
Mrs. Vodrey:
As the member knows, we have been discussing the reorganization that is
taking place within the PDSS section of the department, and what we are looking
at is to reorganize again for efficiency and, through that reorganization, to
integrate the work that had previously been done by the Distance Education area
into the work being done by PDSS so that curriculum design and development, for
instance, is now done within PDSS with a consideration for the area of Distance
Education, and not to have Distance Education, as was seen before, as a
completely separate area where there was not necessarily the integration of the
concerns for Distance Education within the PDSS and the regular curriculum
design and development area, by way of example.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister did not answer the question. The six that are being placed, they have been
placed in the department, other departments, or are they being placed in areas
of curriculum development where their expertise can be utilized in an
integrated fashion, as the minister says, with the other PDSS staff?
* (2140)
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that one of the individuals has been placed within the Department
of Education and Training and the other individuals have been placed elsewhere
in government.
Mr. Plohman:
Still dealing with personnel matters, is the minister not concerned
about the‑‑it is one thing to disband a branch and say the service is
now going to be integrated into the department.
It is another thing to say that none of those staff that were the
experts in dealing with that whole area are going to be included except one,
and we do not even know yet whether that one is in the branch where they would
be working with their expertise that they have developed.
So I am rather shocked at the
minister's answer. I just wonder whether
the minister is concerned about the capacity of her staff to deal with an
initiative in this area in the Program Development section.
Mrs. Vodrey:
One of the individuals, the one individual who has been placed within
the Department of Education and Training, has been placed within the curriculum
area. Other members who have been
replaced are supports who have been employed within government; they are
support staff and have the skills which would allow them to move to other areas
of government, as also the media technician who has moved elsewhere in
government.
We certainly look through the
restructuring of this area to make sure that this area is, in fact, as
integrated and as efficient as it can be, and that it will provide, but in an
integrated manner, for the development of distance education as it is a part of
the work that is being done by PDSS.
Mr. Plohman:
What the minister has said then, I guess, and she can correct me if I am
wrong, is that of the six Professional/Technical people in this area, one has
been redeployed within the department, and five are gone. The Administrative Support people are all‑‑the
five there are gone as well. Only one of
the Professional/Technical people out of six has been redeployed in the
Curriculum Branch.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, some of those people, as the member has said, have been
redeployed, and they have been redeployed to other areas of government, but we
have been speaking about the restructuring.
We believe that the restructuring of branch programs will focus
resources on the integration of technology into the instructional process
across the curriculum. The technology
training for educators will be targeted to the needs identified at the school
level and delivered in the field using the school facilities.
Distance Education program
development and delivery services will be integrated with other curriculum
development and instructional support services of the Program Development and
Support Services division of the department.
This change in focus, we believe,
will better position the department to adapt to the rapidly changing
technologies, No. 1, and also to adapt these changing technologies to
educational instruction.
r. Plohman:
The minister has just said that she thinks this elimination of this
branch and the staff here, with their expertise, will better position the
department to deal with the changing technology. I find that hard to believe.
The minister‑‑could I
put words in her mouth, and she could indicate if she does not agree with
it. Is the minister saying that she does
not have any concerns about the ability of the department to be able to
initiate new challenges, new programs in this area, and she has no concern
about the ability of the department to do that without these experts?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member uses the term "elimination." What we have said is that this is an
integration. We have been looking at
integrating the services, the work that had previously been done separately by
Distance Education into the PDSS section of our department.
We will be looking to continue, as I
have just explained to him, under the restructuring, and how we will look to
focus our resources on the integration of technology into the instructional
process across all of curriculum.
Five areas of technology that
reflect current activities across the province are things such as computer‑assisted
learning and telecommunications, interactive instructional television,
satellite delivered courses, and newer, emerging applications of existing
technologies. As I said, the focus, as a
result of that, will be on enabling divisions to move ahead with the areas that
I have just spoken about.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is saying, then, that the loss of the five out of the six
Professional/Technical people in that area will not prove to be a problem for
any initiatives in this area.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, we believe that through this
restructuring it really will lead to very effective changes. We believe it will lead to a new
approach. We believe it will be
beneficial in terms of the work in the field.
We believe, as I have said several times, it will integrate the work of
distance education and the challenges of distance education into the challenges
which we are looking at in terms of our curriculum development and our
curriculum delivery and the use of technology.
The branch does continue to have
staff which does have some of this similar expertise, and it will allow us to
develop in this area, being conscious of Distance Education as a potential
application for our curriculum areas, for example. It will also, we believe, assist us to be
responsive to the field.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, well, we understand the integration approach that the minister is
talking about. That is not really what I
am questioning at all.
I am just wondering whether the
minister feels it is regrettable that she has to lose the staff, six staff,
with expertise in this area, and whether she will in fact be able to carry out
the mandate with this loss of expertise.
It seems that the minister does not want to deal with that very
sensitive issue, and that is her choice.
I want to ask the minister‑‑
* (2150)
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chair, just on a point of order, in terms of
carrying out the mandate, I believe that I have said over the past several
answers that I have given, that we certainly believe that we will be able to
carry out the mandate and we believe that this mandate will be carried out in a
very effective way.
* * *
Mr. Plohman:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the minister indicate, from her
staff, how many reclassifications have been made in the last year by her Human
Resources department? I understand that
position classification issues are a part of the jurisdiction of this branch of
her department and they are done in conjunction with the Civil Service
Commission.
Could the minister indicate how many
have been initiated and carried out, and of those, how many were
reclassifications upward and how many were reclassifications downward?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that there have been very few of those reclassifications initiated,
and I can have for the member when we are sitting together the next time the
exact number and the details.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, could the minister also include in that information any red‑circling,
so to speak, of staff, rather than those that were not reclassified downward
but red‑circled instead, as a result of transfers or whatever?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, we will provide that information the next time we are together, as
I said. I am informed that the number is
very few, where the reclassifications had been initiated, and extremely few in
the area of red‑circling.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, my colleague has some questions before we move on in this area,
Madam Acting Deputy Chair.
Ms. Friesen: I
wanted to get back to the loss of aboriginal personnel in the New Careers
Program.
Could the minister tell us how many
aboriginal people are left in the New Careers Program?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, it seems to me it is very difficult for
us to give an exact number at this point in terms of the number of people who
have declared. At this moment, I can say
that we would say that there are three individuals for sure who are of
aboriginal background remaining in the New Careers area. However, I did say that, when we were
discussing this area earlier, we would look at a reconciled list in terms of
the post‑secondary part of my department in the Advanced Education and
Skills Training area. Of the numbers of
aboriginal individuals, that would include only those people who have declared.
Ms. Friesen:
We can only deal with those who have declared. That is true.
So the minister is saying then that
here is a program which deals with approximately 70 percent aboriginal
clientele, that puts some store by peer counselling, in that sense, by
culturally sensitive counselling kind of programs in effect which the annual
reports and discussions of this program make a great deal of, and the minister
loses five out of eight of those aboriginal people in that program. This is not a program, in that sense, like
other programs, and the minister is still going to maintain that, when asked
that question in the House, she had no idea that all of the people she had
lost, or at least that five out of those, were aboriginal.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the layoffs, I can tell the
member again, as I have told her earlier this evening, that the layoffs were
conducted according to the rules. It was
the junior employees who were laid off.
We followed very carefully the rules of seniority which are laid out
within the collective agreement. That
process was one in which I know has been of importance to the member in terms
of the following of the rules of the collective agreement.
I would also say in terms of the New
Careers Program, one of the important features of that program has been that it
is a‑‑I would use the words‑‑community‑based
program in that individuals do have the opportunity to work within their home
communities and where individuals also receive support within their home
communities and in areas where they are also doing their work. That is the
feature that seems to be the distinguishing feature for the New Careers
Program.
The member is attempting to draw
another distinguishing feature, but the main distinguishing feature is, in
fact, that it is a community‑based program and that individuals have
received a great deal of the support from those areas in which they live and
they work.
Ms. Friesen:
Yes, I understand the minister was following the principles that are
laid out in the book, but here is a program which aims at further education and
job training for aboriginal people and depends to considerable extent upon
culturally sensitive counselling and training.
So could the minister tell us how
she weighed up that policy? How did she
decide in a program which aims at affirmative action and which had at least got
to the point where it had at least hired eight aboriginal people, all of a
sudden decides to get rid of five of them?
What entered that kind of policy decision?
* (2200)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is speaking very
particularly about New Careers as one program.
As I have said to her before, the layoffs, the reductions were done
according to the government employees master agreement, where seniority rules. The questioning this evening has been on a
line to determine if in fact we were following the rules set out by the civil
service. We have been discussing over
this evening that the Department of Education and Training, now that we have
received back our delegated authority, has been very careful to follow those
rules.
The member is now asking: Would this be a special circumstance in which
the rules would not be followed? I have
said to her that in this case we did follow the rules, but I think it would
also be important to let her know that within Advanced Education and Skills
Training there are still aboriginal staff who, I am informed, would be found in
all levels of the organization.
As I have said also, we will look to
provide her the next time that we are together with as much detailed
information as we are able regarding those people of aboriginal background who
are employed in this area.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs. Render): It is a little after 10 p.m. What is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: Carry on.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Carry on.
Okay.
Ms. Friesen:
The issue that I am addressing here is a policy issue on reduction. Why did the minister choose to reduce the
aboriginal staff in this area when they are such a high component of the entire
aboriginal staff of her department? I
mean, five people is a considerable number.
They are coming out of one program that is supposed to be culturally
sensitive and where they would presumably be an integral part of that program.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
The minister may choose to answer
it, to consider it, in another way. What
are the implications for that program of having lost such a high proportion of
their aboriginal counsellors?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, again I am informed that the union does not allow for
affirmative action under this section of the general employment master
agreement. Therefore, it does not allow
for us to look at the issue in terms of layoff, in terms of particular
affirmative action rights. So the
layoffs were done and the reductions were accomplished according to this
Section 23, and all of the employees did have less than four years of
seniority.
When we look at the staffing, the
staffing was done according to the rules, and according to the rules of the
collective agreement, and those are the ones that we are working within.
However, we also recognize, as does the member, in looking at the New Careers
Program that students do receive support in other areas. They may receive support in the places in
which they are working. They may receive
support in the areas of their home communities, and the distinguishing feature
of this program is that it is a community‑based program.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, it seems to make a mockery of affirmative
action if the minister‑‑and I am emphasizing this, not the
collective agreement but the minister‑‑chose to cut in this
area. I mean, that is the issue, is it
not?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, we did discuss under the policy area some of the changes
that occurred regarding New Careers Program and the restructuring which is
being done within the Advanced Education and Skills Training area.
So that section and that area have
been discussed partially, and I am sure the member may wish to discuss it again
when we actually get to that budget line.
Under the line that we are discussing now, which is the Human Resource
line, the member has been asking questions about how that was accomplished.
I have been letting her know
throughout the discussion this evening that under this line, Human Resources,
where it is very important for us to outline how we provide for staffing within
the Department of Education and Training and any changes in that staffing, we
have done so following the rules set out in the master agreement, the rules set
out according to the civil service, the rules set out according to the
collective agreement.
I have explained to her, those
reductions did occur in line with the master agreement, that that does not
provide for the issue of affirmative action, which I know that she would,
perhaps, like to see raised with the union.
It is not provided for.
In the area of policy decisions, I
also have described to her, and am prepared under the budget line specifically
for New Careers to discuss more fully, if she would like to go over those
answers again, the restructuring that is occurring in Advanced Education and
Skills Training. In addition to that, to
remind her, as I have said, there have been very difficult budget decisions
which have been made across government not only in the Department of Education
and Training but within this area of New Careers.
Yes, there has remained programming
in this area. There has remained funding
to support this particular program area, and there has been a continued support
through this budget line for this community‑based programming. I have discussed several times that that is
the distinguishing feature for this particular type of programming, and the
commitment has remained.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I was wondering if there might be the will of
the committee to take just a 10‑minute recess to stretch one's legs?
Mr. Plohman: If
we could just wait about five minutes, we will be finished with this area and
we can move to the next line, and then that would be an appropriate time.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That would be fine.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess what the minister is saying, then, is
that we as opposition and the people of
But the minister chose to cut an
area of her department which effectively purges years of affirmative
action. The minister made that decision,
not the collective agreement, not the union, but the minister, by her decision,
to eliminate five of eight positions that were affirmative action positions.
Would she not agree that this will
largely destroy the program because she has lost staff, critical staff, to this
culturally sensitive program?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, it was not my decision to specifically
reduce the positions or these particular people. Holding the position, however, the member
appears to be saying that he would like me to raise with my colleague the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), to raise at the next union negotiations that
there would be an affirmative action policy in relation to layoffs.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that might be a consideration, but the minister
is saying today that she did not even take into consideration the impact of her
decisions on cuts on affirmative action.
That is a shocking revelation by the minister.
I would hope that the minister would
have considered all ramifications of her decisions before these cuts were made,
instead of just hastily throwing them together as it seems the minister has
done, without any forward planning or consideration of the impacts.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said several times this evening, the
collective agreement does not provide for affirmative action in the area of
layoffs. Therefore, in this area of
reduction, we were not able to look at, particularly, issues of affirmative
action. The reductions were done
according to the collective agreement.
I think it is important that the
member understand that the collective agreement and its terms were respected in
this area. If he would have it any other way, then perhaps he should say so.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is being mischievous now.
Knowing this, that there is no affirmative action on the layoff side,
why did the minister choose to make the cuts in this area that effectively
destroy years of affirmative action efforts in her department?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I have explained that across government
there were difficult budgetary decisions which had to be made. We are looking at a restructuring in the Advanced
Education and Skills Training area. As
we were looking at that restructuring and the accommodation of the kinds of
skills training that Manitobans would require, we did have to look across all
of our programming.
But, as I have said, there are, and
there have been, some‑‑again, there has been this restructuring, which
is taking place now, but the distinguishing feature of this program has been
that it is community based. As the
member notices, there is still a budget line.
I have just received some
information from staff now which is an update in terms of the number. The update that I have now is that there are
seven aboriginal staff who are remaining in the area of New Careers.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister stated earlier that it
was not her intention to lay off affirmative action employees. That was not her intention.
Well, what kind of commitment did
she have to affirmative action if she did not even know that she was dealing
with affirmative action staff when she made the decision to cut these positions
in New Careers? What kind of commitment
can we interpret this minister has to affirmative action in her
department? Does she have any commitment
at all, or shall we interpret that she does not have a commitment, that this is
a low priority? As a matter of fact, it
is such a low priority, it is being reduced, not increased in terms of
affirmative action efforts in the Department of Education.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
have explained, during the course of the evening, the affirmative action which
is taking place in the area of the hiring, and I have also distributed, for the
member's information, the interim policy on the hiring in the areas of
affirmative action. We have also made a
commitment to the numbers to providing the most up‑to‑date numbers
in the area of affirmative action.
However, as we have spoken about
this evening, the collective agreement does not allow for affirmative action to
be considered in the area of layoffs, and, as I have said, if the member thinks
that is an important area and would like to have that raised to the union, then
that would be an important message to provide to my colleague the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik).
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, since the minister should have known that the
collective agreement does not allow for affirmative action insofar as layoffs
are concerned, and since the minister should have known that if she made the
decision to cut New Careers, she was going to target affirmative action
employees, why did she make that decision?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I can start at the beginning for the member in terms of saying
that there are, and there were, some very difficult budget decisions which had
to be made all across government. We did
look to the need to do that, but we also recognized the fact that we were
looking at restructuring in the area of Advanced Education and Skills Training,
so we had to make some decisions.
Some of those decisions were made
based on the kinds of programs which would be within the area of Advanced
Education and Skills Training. We did
look at the opportunity to restructure and to improve effectiveness. In doing that, yes, some staff were
affected. In terms of the staff
affected, we then had to look to the collective agreement as a way then to deal
with the staff who were affected.
As I have said to the member as
well, in the area of New Careers its distinguishing feature is that it is a
community‑based program, and we have retained the program. The member can look at the budget line. Yes, there were some difficult decisions to
be made in that program as there have been across government.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is nice to see that the minister always
manages to deal with the distinguishing feature. I do not know what we would do
with her answer if she did not have that distinguishing feature of this
program.
Now that it has been mentioned 15
times, or whatever, the fact is, what we have seen as the distinguishing
feature here of this program is that the minister cut the program without any
consideration for the impact it would have on affirmative action employees in
her department. She obviously has no
commitment to affirmative action if she could made this callous, hasty decision
without considering its impact on affirmative action, knowing that she would
not be able to protect those employees under the collective agreement. Obviously, the minister had no commitment to
the program, makes a farce of affirmative action in her department.
With one fell swoop in this
particular decision, it is crystal clear.
No matter how much she wants to say that black is white, or any other
colour, it is obviously clear that the minister has no commitment to
affirmative action. It is crystal clear
for all to see.
No amount of evasive discussion
about the redeeming features of this department will change the minds of the
public when they see this minister's decisions.
The implications are clear, crystal clear. The record shows that now. This minister has no commitment to the
program.
We can recess, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, if you would like, at this point for a short break.
* (2220)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me say, the member is wrong. One only has to look at the discussion that
has taken place this evening to see that the member is wrong.
The issue of the community‑based
distinguishing feature of the New Careers Program is important to raise,
because when the program was discussed by one of the other honourable members
in questioning, the issue of specific peer counselling within the program was
noted as a main feature. I just wanted
to make it clear that that program actually has another feature that is a very
important one.
We have gone around the issue. We have gone around the issue from the hiring
side. We have gone around the issue from
the side of affirmative action not being included within the layoff clauses for
the master agreement. We stand by the
fact that we look for the integration to provide continued support in the area
of New Careers, and we have retained a budget line in the area of New Careers.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The committee will recess for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed at 10:21 p.m.
After
Recess
The committee resumed at 10:34 p.m.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Bob Rose): Order, please. We will resume consideration of 1.(d) Human
Resource Services (1) Salaries $329,200‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $54,900‑‑pass.
1.(e) Financial and Administrative
Services (1) Salaries $903,800. Shall
the item pass?
Mr. Plohman:
The office of the assistant deputy minister being who‑‑the
minister introduced some of her staff.
Is she prepared to indicate whom the assistant deputy minister is, how
long he or she has been employed in this particular area, and what part of the
department or where did this person come from?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The person who is now in this position, Mr. Jim Glen, came into this
position from his previous position of director of Schools Finance. He has been the acting assistant deputy
minister for approximately six months, and he moved into this position because
the incumbent moved into the position of assistant deputy minister in the post‑secondary
area because that person had moved on to become a deputy minister in Industry,
Trade and Tourism.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman:
So the director of Schools Finance, is this an acting or is this a
permanent appointment?
Mrs. Vodrey:
This is an acting appointment at the moment, and currently there is a
competition underway.
Mr. Plohman:
Can the minister indicate when the department is planning to have this
completed?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The screening process has been initiated now. We expect to begin the interviewing shortly,
and we expect to have completion of the competition by the end of June. The current person who is holding this position
in an acting capacity is currently at the table.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the acting deputy minister going to apply for this position?
Mrs. Vodrey:
That is a private matter of the individual who is in this position in an
acting status, and he may choose to discuss whether or not he is applying for
the position.
Mr. Plohman: I
kind of wonder whether he would want to do that considering one of the Expected
Results in this area is: "Effective schools funding program meeting its
objectives, including program results, real and perceived equities, and
satisfaction of school divisions in other educational organizations." It would seem to me that he might have a
couple of strikes against him right now, and with that kind of an impossible
expected result at this point in time, he would want no part of that job.
Now that is said with tongue and
cheek, but I want to ask the minister about that particular expected
result. Would the minister not agree
that she is a far cry from meeting that particular expected result at the
present time, particularly the part about " . . . satisfaction of school
divisions and other educational organizations"?
* (2240)
Mrs. Vodrey:
The area of school funding has been a very important area, and part of the
work in that area has been with our new ed finance model, or the ed funding
formula. That ed funding formula, as we
said from the beginning, is one which will look to be a dynamic one, and this
year it did experience some changes.
Those changes came on the recommendation of the advisory committee. They made recommendations to assist and to
make that formula more responsive to school divisions, and we accepted their
six priority recommendations in that area.
So, in terms of the funding formula and the mechanism, we are in a
process which, we believe, provides much more certainty to school divisions
than the time without the funding formula and the time before the new funding
formula when there was not a degree of certainty and there was a great deal of
funding by way of an ad hoc method to school divisions at that time.
Mr. Plohman:
Would the minister characterize her 2 percent cut as effective school
funding?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, and we have discussed this, and it is a fact that is an important
one and perhaps needs to be restated that there were very difficult budget
decisions to be made in the past. When
difficult budget decisions were being made, Education and Training did not have
to experience the same reductions that other departments had to experience in
other years.
This year we had a great concern
regarding the deficit and regarding the debt and had certainly understood that
we had a responsibility to bring that under control. One of the ways that this government looked
to bring the deficit under control and the debt under control was to look at
controlling spending. When we looked at
controlling spending, we had to look at all areas of government, areas of
government which, in the past, had not had to look at any kinds of reductions,
whereas other departments had, in the past, looked at reductions.
This year Education and Training did
experience some reductions. They
experienced reductions as this government looked to control spending as one way
in which to look at controlling our deficit.
Mr. Plohman:
Notwithstanding the difficult decisions that the minister persists in
going over with members of the committee, I asked the question. The minister could alter her Expected Results
if that is what it would take to more accurately reflect what the minister has
done with her difficult decisions.
I am asking whether the 2 percent
cut constitutes effective school funding in the minister's eyes this year.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this government had to look at what the deficit
was in this province. We had to look at
where a continually increasing deficit would place this province. In looking at those concerns, we did make
decisions which, we believe, were difficult decisions. They were made to assist Manitobans.
One thing we had to do was look at
controlling our spending, so we did make decisions. Some of those decisions were made based on
controlling our spending. In the area of
Education and Training we had not, in the past, had to deal with that
area. We had, in fact, been receiving
increases while other departments were not receiving increases. So this year we did have to look at Education
and Training now, looking to control spending in order to reduce the deficit
and to reduce the debt.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wondered if I could
ask a question on the new funding formula as opposed to the old funding
formula.
The funding formula that existed
during the NDP years was‑‑the old funding formula, it seems to me,
was based on the theory that the more frugal the school division was, the less
money they got. I am wondering if there
has been a complete change in that funding formula so that the funding formula
more accurately reflects the size of the division and the needs of the
division.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, we believe that the new funding formula
does more accurately reflect the foundation of education expenses that
divisions encounter, and it does provide, also, a much greater degree of certainty
to divisions and does, in a much more accurate way, reflect and also ensure
that there is a way for divisions to access funding.
I look at the area of Library, and I
look at the area of Guidance and Counselling that in the past, when funding was
offered in a different way, we did not necessarily have any way to know if, in
fact, funding did go into those areas and now we are able to look at how the
funding flows and divisions are able to access funding under a number of
different areas.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Does the department have information on the
surpluses that school divisions have? I
ask that because I have seen in the media that some school divisions can
accommodate increased costs in the coming year through the surpluses that have
been accumulated over a number of years‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Plohman: I
am a little bit concerned about allowing this questioning, on a point of order,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I have to raise
this for the record whether the Chair rules in my favour or not, but I think
this is, from my experience, highly unorthodox that a minister of the
government would be questioning another minister on her spending
Estimates. It is just not done in
committee. Backbenchers have done it,
but ministers have not done it, to my recollection.
On that basis, I think that this
questioning should be ruled out of order as inappropriate by one minister to
another. It is just a waste of the
committee's time at the present time. We
will get to the issues that the Minister of Family Services is raising in due
course, but this is the opposition's time to question, and backbenchers on
occasion, but certainly not ministers of the Crown to question their
colleagues.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: It seems to me that the member for Dauphin is
a little testy this evening. I would
think he would be interested in the surpluses that exist throughout the
province, where school boards are indicating that they can fund this year's
increases and maybe even next year's increases with the surpluses that they
have accumulated.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, we are aware that school divisions do have surpluses. It does vary from school division to school
division. As of June 30, '92, we are
aware that surplus was in the area of $68 million, and that surplus amount of
money is available to be used by school divisions in terms of funding within
their own school division.
* (2250)
Mr. Plohman: Yes,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has persistently referred to the
Department of Education and Training not being subject to cuts in the past and
therefore was a candidate for reductions this year. We are not talking about the department at
this particular point in time. We are
talking about this funding to school divisions, which the assistant deputy
minister is responsible for. One of the
Expected Results is: "Effective
schools funding program meeting its objectives, including program results, real
and perceived equities, and satisfaction of school divisions and other
educational organizations."
I would think that the minister has
clearly failed to meet that expected result.
I want to just ask the minister to elaborate on how she feels she has
met that expected result, as she listed in her Supplementary Estimates book?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The new funding formula, we believe, does meet the needs of
students. It does identify a foundation of
education by which the department and which the government is able to flow
funds for those particular activities.
It also meets the equity of the taxpayer, and in addition, in the
development of that funding formula, the Department of Education and Training
and the government worked with the representative groups, the representative
educational partners, to arrive at that funding formula.
As I said, when that funding formula
was first put into use for the school year '92‑93, that funding formula
would then be looked upon for recommendations and revisions. School divisions, in the first year of
application, did submit to the advisory committee areas where they believed
that there could be changes and developments.
As I have said to the member, we did then look at adjusting the funding
formula. There have been six areas in
which there were recommendations accepted, six priority areas in which there
were recommendations accepted.
So we believe that, first of all, it
was developed to meet the needs of students.
It was developed to provide a greater degree of certainty. It was developed in conjunction with our
partners in education, and it remains as a dynamic model. The advisory committee does continue to work
on the recommendations that come forward from school divisions for their
consideration.
Mr. Plohman: I
think what was the key here in the question I asked the minister that she
seemed to avoid was the issue of the 2 percent cut, not the model, the 2
percent cut this year. This is what I
was speaking about. Maybe the minister
missed that portion of my question, and that is the 2 percent cut across the
board manifesting itself at three, four, five percent, six percent and even
higher in some school divisions.
How does that constitute in any way,
shape, or fashion, meeting the expected result the minister stated in her book?
Would she not have been more accurate to have just removed that expected result
under the circumstances for this year, considering that she was not even going
to come close to meeting it?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
believe the member's questions did look at the funding formula as a way of
accomplishing that funding. When we were
speaking specifically of the reduction, the reduction was, as was stated in the
announcement, a 2 percent reduction in the funding for the school year.
The funds available, then, had to
flow through the ed funding model to each school division, and how it was
applied in each school division would depend on a number of things, including
issues such as declining enrollment, and also the incorporation of the six
areas of change and priority that were requested by the advisory committee.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
So the actual funding was across the
board. The 2 percent reduction was in
the total amount of funds available, and then funds had to flow through the
funding formula, and were very dependent upon issues such as declining
enrollment or in areas where adjustments were made, in the areas where the
funding formula was modified.
In that way we still had, through
the use of the funding formula, looked at applying, in what we believe to be at
least a fair way, a way in which school divisions could at least look at a
reference point through the funding formula as a way of actually accessing the
funds.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think it might be appropriate at this
time to follow up on the minister's colleague's question about surpluses which
he raised.
Can the minister indicate how many
school divisions had surpluses? Out of
the $68 million, how many school divisions were included in those?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that all divisions except one had surpluses.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister might care to characterize the surpluses to make this
relevant. If a surplus of $100 or $1,000
or even $50,000 was present, it would be, generally, a very small portion of
the total budget, although some school divisions would have relatively small
budgets compared to others. In terms of significant
surpluses, say, over 5 percent of the total budget for the school division, how
many divisions would there be in that category?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that overall the surplus is approximately 6.4 percent of the
expenditures.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, and I asked if we want to use that figure, then 6.4 percent‑‑and
that is on total, how many individual school divisions would be at that average
or above?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that over 30 school
divisions exceed that number.
Mr. Plohman:
So the 6.4 percent figure, in addition to being the average, is almost
the median for school divisions in the province. There is about‑‑what?‑‑25
or more that have less than that?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the answer is yes.
* (2300)
Mr. Plohman:
So there is a point to be made here with regard to the surpluses. It is kind of misleading to bring out a
figure of $68 million. Is that the
figure? I think it was $68 million that
the minister answered to her colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) earlier, and when we explore it further we find that 30 divisions
have at least 6.4 percent of their expenditure budget in place as a reserve,
and the remaining divisions having varying amounts less than that.
Therefore, the ability of school
divisions to tap into that reserve to any degree is very limited for those
school divisions that have smaller than 6.4 percent. We could use a figure of 5 percent or
whatever relevant figure we want to use, but the fact is it is a small number
of dollars available to them, and it is misleading to talk about that money as
if it is equally available to everyone.
There are many school divisions that have significant reserves, others
who have very little reserves and some right in the middle.
So I would ask the minister to
clarify for the record, in light of her colleague's questions, this issue, that
in fact it distorts the ability of school divisions to draw upon other funds in
light of the minister's capping in Bill 16, and that many school divisions are
treated in an inequitable fashion as a result of this emphasis on reserves by
this government.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue of reserves was not ever characterized
by myself as equally available to all divisions.
The issue of surplus, however, has
been an issue which has been raised publicly on a number of occasions. There have been a number of Manitobans who, I
believe, have made inquiries of their school divisions regarding any surplus
that those school divisions may have.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister would agree then that it is unfair
and distorting of the facts to use a broad‑brush approach when talking
about reserves. Would the minister agree
with that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I think the point to be made here is there are a number of
issues which are to be considered in the funding for school divisions. The issue of surplus is one issue which has
been raised publicly. Another issue
which is to be considered is the phase‑in funding. We also are aware of certain exceptions to
the cap on the special requirement, depending upon enrollment also.
There are a number of areas in which
there is flexibility available to school divisions. The surplus is one area which was raised here
this evening which has been raised publicly.
There are others.
Mr. Plohman:
Could the minister just table the list of the divisions with surpluses
and those without; in other words, a list of all school divisions and their
status with regard to surpluses?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we believe that is information which the
divisions would wish to release and would themselves determine how they would
like to share that information.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister has it, and she answers questions on it. Why will she not provide it to the committee?
It is not providing it to any competitor here or some other sinister reason for
it. We would like to see what the
distribution is.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members in the
committee to choose their words very carefully?
So far I have had the words "distort, misleading" and now
"sinister."
It does start to lead us into a
little bit of a problem when it comes to the decorum of the committee when
members start to choose these words which are on the very borderline of
unparliamentary. I would ask the
honourable member to choose his words very carefully at this time.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Just in answer to the member's question.
He has been asking some broad and general questions, and I have been
answering him in terms of broad statements.
I have not released during our discussion, or we have not discussed this
evening, the specific numbers available within each specific school division,
and I believe, as I answered previously, that the specific amount within each
school division would be discussed by that particular school division.
Mr. Plohman: I
had indicated to the minister that it was not for sinister purposes that I
wanted to have this information. There
is certainly nothing wrong with using the term in that regard. I was not saying the minister was sinister or
anyone else was. I said, I was not
asking for the information for sinister purposes.
I believe it is important that the
minister be prepared to share all the information with regard to school
financing with the committee. There is
no logical reason why the minister has to feel that she has to hold back on any
traditional grounds or whatever other reasons for not providing full and
complete information to the committee.
Now is the minister drawing on some
precedent that she is getting in terms of advice from her staff that this
should not be provided? What is the
reason for not being complete and open with information with the committee? The sheet is right in her staff's book
there. I can see it from here. Just provide a copy of it to the committee. What is the problem?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do provide information on the revenue and expenditures of school
divisions and make every effort to provide as much information as possible
regarding the funding of school divisions and regarding information about
school divisions. However, we have not ever provided the surplus; that is
information which school divisions themselves will determine how they wish to
discuss that information publicly. There
have been times, I understand, where, based on the revenue and expenditures
information, various groups have attempted to calculate what the surplus would
be, but I think it is very important that the member understand the department
does receive information from school divisions.
We do work with school divisions.
School divisions do provide us with some information on trust.
What I am saying this evening is
that, if the member wishes to have that information regarding a surplus, it
would be important for the school divisions to release that particular
information. We are prepared, certainly
under the budget line, when we look at schools funding, to look at the
information which we do make public regarding the revenues and the expenditures
of school funding, and we are very prepared to speak about how that school
funding is distributed.
* (2310)
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not raise this issue. The minister's colleague the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) raised this issue about surpluses. Now I want to follow up on that
information. Since the Minister of
Family Services thought it so important that he asked his colleague about it,
even though he should have heard about it in cabinet or in Treasury Board or
wherever, he chose to ask it in committee.
So I would assume from that that the
minister has used this information to make decisions on funding. Therefore, it is completely within the
jurisdiction of this committee to ask for information upon which the minister
has based decisions. Now the minister
has utilized this information to justify the decision she has made with regard
to funding. She did it even tonight in
answer to her colleague's question when he asked about the surpluses. She referred to those surpluses and answered
the question that he asked in relationship to the financing of public schools
in
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's question, as I recall it, was simply
a question of, do school divisions have surpluses? That is information which has been put
forward in various news reports and so on, that divisions do retain
surpluses. Some school divisions have
chosen to release publicly if they have a surplus and what that surplus would
be. The answers that were given earlier
this evening simply focused on a very global, a very general question about
surpluses and a total surplus amount. Again,
I qualified the answer that I gave to my colleague based on a date. That date was not for this school year, but
rather at the end of last school year.
So the information that we have
discussed so far has been extremely global and also was based on figures from
last year. I, again, cannot speculate on the reasons for asking the questions,
why the questions were asked, other than to say that members of the public have
asked, do school divisions have surpluses?
The amount of the surplus, I have said to the member, is something which
school divisions would be discussing. However, I am more than prepared under
the Schools Finance line to look at issues of revenue and expenditures of
school divisions, and I know that the member has indicated that he will be
interested in looking at that regarding school divisions.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister's colleague raised this matter in the committee. The minister has referenced it in response to
questions that I have raised. The
minister used global figures, and it is misleading to the public and almost
irrelevant in terms of the arguments‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I think I have asked the honourable member to
choose his words carefully once now.
This is the second time, third time, fourth time the honourable member
has used the words "misleading to the public," and I would ask the
honourable member to withdraw that word from the record.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the Chairperson will consult with the rules
of the committee, he will understand that when a member accuses a minister or
any other member of deliberately misleading, there is, perhaps, a difficulty in
terms of parliamentary language. It is
not an issue when it is not deliberately misleading, and I have not accused the
minister, up to this point in time, of deliberately misleading. I just said it happens to be misleading to
the public to have global figures thrown around on surpluses‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. At this time, I am going to take the matter
under advisement, because just the other day the Speaker of the House had made
a ruling to the word "misleading."
I want to refer to exactly what the Speaker had ruled to on this one,
because it is at the option of the Chair to not only choose the words, but in
the way the words are chosen to be used.
I will be referring to the Speaker's Ruling, and I will come back to the
committee with that at that time.
I will ask the honourable member to
choose his words very carefully. It does
aid myself as the Chair in my job of keeping the decorum within a
committee. So, if the member would
choose his words carefully, I will bring back my ruling to this matter at a
later date.
The honourable member for Dauphin to
finish his question, please.
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I think I would, with all respect, also implore you to
consider, when you are looking at this ruling, for the record, that the context
of the statement is very important, and the Chair has to consider, I believe,
in considering this issue, whether, first of all, the member has accused the
minister of deliberately misleading or the minister of misleading. I did neither. I said, it is misleading.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I will thank the honourable member for that,
and, as I have told the member, I have taken this under advisement. Let us carry on with the committee meeting
tonight, and you can get on with your questioning.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Dauphin to
continue, please.
Mr. Plohman:
I would like to point out to the minister that by providing only partial
information, in other words, the global information, and not the total
information, a very different picture can be drawn, or conclusion, by the
public. So, if the minister says the
public is interested in knowing about this issue, about surpluses, then it is
important to provide it, division by division, not in a global sense, because
it has very little relevance and can lead to misconclusions, if I could. That
is why I used the term "misleading," because it leads to other
conclusions than that which should be drawn, with regard to the relevance of
surpluses.
So I think it is important that the
minister, if she wants to be forthright, and I do not know that‑‑well,
the Chair could say perhaps that is not a kind inference to the minister. I would say if she wants to be forthright
that she indeed should provide this information. I can tell her, we are going to ask for it
under the Schools Finance, under 16.5, in any event, and we were going to ask
it on other occasions as well. The
minister could make life easy for herself by providing the complete and total
information now.
Does the minister feel that this is
confidential information, that this is not public information that the public
should be aware of?
Mrs. Vodrey:
This evening, in an effort to be as clear as possible on this matter, I
did discuss the global total, which again I qualified by saying it was a total
as of June '92. I did also say that we
are aware, and I have been informed, that a total of 52 of 53 divisions have a
surplus. Also during questioning, I
discussed the fact that approximately 30 divisions have surpluses in excess of
6 percent of their budget.
This is a fair amount of information
which I think would allow individuals, who wanted to put the issue of surplus
into the mix of the other issues affecting school funding, a way and a context
in which to do this. However, I would
say that school divisions do reveal to us some information, but their process
and the direct information which they reveal to us is theirs. It is information which I believe the member
should approach school divisions with and to ask school divisions regarding
their process and their numbers.
* (2320)
What I have been able to speak about
this evening is again more global numbers, however numbers which I believe do
provide some background and some context to the issue of surplus. I have been willing to speak about it in this
more global way, but I have been able to speak about it, as I have said, in
relation to other factors as well.
Surplus is one area. I have also
spoken abut the issue of phase‑in.
I have also spoken about other reasons in which there may be an
exemption in some area to the 2 percent cap on the special requirement.
I could provide for the member, if
this would be helpful on Thursday or the next time that we discuss this budget
line, the number of divisions in percentage ranges, those number of divisions
in the range of zero to 2 percent of surplus and 2 to 5 percent, 5 to 7 percent,
and so on, but I am of the belief that the specific names of divisions, the
information by name of division should be released by the division itself.
However, if the numbers are
important in terms of constructing a picture, I am prepared to look at the
numbers of divisions within certain ranges.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister is bordering on playing games with the committee here in
terms of providing availed information.
The minister's reluctance to provide this information perhaps tells us a
great deal, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
I can only ask the minister why
would she want to hide this information from the committee?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am not sure why the member believes that he needs a specific division
name. I have offered him what I believe
to be a very good picture and I am prepared to offer him some additional detail
in terms of numbers of divisions who have surpluses within certain percentage
ranges.
I believe that in our discussion of
schools funding that this may be the information which would be helpful to him
in terms of looking at a context and looking at the use of funds.
Mr. Plohman:
Would the minister just provide the list to the committee without the
names of the school divisions then?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am able to provide to the member a list of the percentages by divisions if that
would help, without the names of the division, without the division number
attached, because as I have said that the information specific to the process
of each division is information which I believe that the division should be
able to provide and should provide to the member should he believe that that is
what he needs.
However, I have offered through this
process to look at the numbers of divisions in certain ranges and if the member
believes it would be helpful, to offer him a list of percentages.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is a step in the right direction, but why
will the minister not include the actual dollar amounts for each of those
divisions as well?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
believe that the percentage relating to the expenditures would be helpful in
terms of what the member is asking and in terms of looking at what the surplus
is. That is how we also began to look at
the issue. That is where his initial
questions had focused in terms of percentage in relation to expenditures, and
that is the information that I am able to provide him.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is obviously wanting to withhold
public information on these details, and the record will show that.
Would the minister‑‑
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. This information is public when the school
divisions decide that they will make it public.
In terms of our funding to schools, this is not information which specifically
is ours to provide in a public way. What
I have said to the member is that I will look at the percentages and the
percentages of expenditures which may be helpful to him as he looks at the
issue of surplus in relation to school funding.
However, again, the information, as I said, would be made public by the
school divisions if the school divisions wish to do so.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: I
thought the minister was answering the question. I did not realize that she was
attempting to make a point of order there.
Can the minister indicate what kinds
of information she considers to be private information or information she cannot
divulge unless she has the permission of the school divisions? I mean this is rather novel of the minister
to be protecting the privacy of the school divisions in the province on this
issue. Why this issue of the surpluses?
What other issues or pieces of financial information does she feel falls
into the same category?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do make public anything which is published under the frame reporting
and that, as I have explained to the member, is details of revenue and
expenditures. However, that frame
reporting does not include a release of information regarding assets and
surpluses of school divisions, and that information is available through the
school divisions themselves. Other
information which we do not release publicly is information about specific
students and also specific personnel information, information regarding
specific salary lines, that there is some information which again is part of
the working on behalf of students within the Department of Education. But as I have said, that we do publish under
frame certain details, and that information we are certainly able to discuss
and able to provide information to the member.
We will certainly do so.
Mr. Plohman: I
imagine the minister is saying that specific salary lines and personnel matters
dealing with specific students, that kind of thing, is not released in
committee. Of course, I would not be
asking about the specific students or personnel matters of that nature. What we are asking is financial information,
and is the minister saying the only financial information that she would
exclude from the committee because of the past practice that traditionally the
school divisions' assets and surpluses have not been released?‑‑that
seems to be the only reason. I do not
think the minister is indicating she would get sued by a school division if she
released this information. So I can only
assume that she wants to abide by past practice. Is that the only piece of financial
information that falls within that category?
* (2330)
Mrs. Vodrey:
The issue of the surplus does not affect how funding is flowed to school
divisions under the school's funding formula.
I know that is an area that the member would like to speak about, and I
believe we will speak about more fully when we reach that budget line. The surplus issue is information which school
divisions use within their divisions in terms of making their decisions
regarding the setting of their mill rate and so on. That is why that particular information is
internal to the school division, and the school divisions are the best ones to
speak about any surplus which that division may have.
Yes, it is a matter of past practice
that we do not release that information, but we do release the information
which we publish under frame, and that some information, again, which is
provided to us by some school divisions is in fact information which the school
division themselves would be the one who would release further and to a wider
group than simply to the Department of Education and Training. So it is a past practice. It was a past
practice when the honourable member's party was in power also, and it is a
practice that currently we are respecting.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister indicating that she would be violating some element of
trust with the school divisions if she did provide this information or released
it to the committee?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
will tell the member that I do have some concern around a breach of confidence
with the school divisions based on past practice. The past practice has not been to release
that information and there has not been an expectation by the school divisions
that that information would be released.
I would feel that there may be this
breach of confidence to simply release it without informing the school divisions
or without allowing the school divisions the options that they may wish to
release this information themselves on behalf of their school trustees and to
their own taxpayers.
Mr. Plohman:
Then the minister has no plans to release this publicly and in any other
format either. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I have said that the past practice has been not to release this
information and that the school divisions have by past practice not expected us
to release this, though they may themselves wish to release it. The information which we release is
information according to the frame budgeting.
In terms of discussing school funding, we will be happy to provide the
member with as much information as possible.
However, in order to assist the
member, I have also made the offer that I could release to the member on
percentages of expenditures what the surplus is. I could release it to him in categories of
numbers of divisions based on, for example, zero to 2 percent, 2 percent to 5
percent or, as the member has asked, a list of percentages of expenditures by
school division. However, it would be
without the school division's name and number.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that summary, once again, of her answers up to this
point in time. Can I draw from that that
the minister will not be releasing the information I have asked for for this
committee in terms of the precise dollars for each school division of the
surpluses in any other format as well, that she is not intending to release
this in another forum?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not intending to release the actual
dollar amount in another forum. The
member may know that certain amounts were released not by government, but by
another organization who did some calculations around this issue. School divisions have then been the ones who
have responded to those calculations.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying that her department has not been the source of
specific information as to the dollar value of reserves for any specific school
divisions in the province?
* (2340)
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do not supply those numbers to other organizations, though through
the information that is released through the frame, which is public
information, some other organizations have been able to do some calculations
which have led them to some numbers which may be the surpluses of various
school divisions.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is saying that the information that has been made
available by organizations has been quite accurate insofar as surplus is
concerned?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in total the amount was somewhat accurate, the
total amount which was released by another organization, not by the Department
of Education and Training. In terms of the specific school divisions and the
amounts, again, it would be up to the school divisions to confirm if that was
in fact the amount of a surplus within their division.
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister attempting in any way to claw back these surpluses?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
can say to the member that certainly today the surpluses have not been taken
into account in terms of our funding policy.
They were not considered in terms of the funding which was announced by
this government in terms of schools funding.
Mr. Plohman:
It seemed the minister's colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) thought they were pretty significant. That is why he asked the question here. I cannot attribute any other motives to it.
Is the minister saying that they
were not of any consequence in decision making for funding for school divisions
in the province?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is very hard for me to speak completely
specifically on behalf of my colleague and his reasons for bringing forward the
surplus issue. However, that amount was
released, as the member knows. The issue
of surpluses was raised, as the member knows, by another organization; it was
not raised by the Department of Education and Training or by the government.
However, when the issue of surplus
was raised, it was raised within a context.
As the member is aware, the context it was raised in, the member was
speaking of what he believed to have been an underfunding of education and my
colleague raised the issue which occurred to him that, in a case where there is
underfunding, was there in fact a surplus retained by school divisions?
Mr. Plohman:
If the minister has indicated here tonight that the surpluses were not
considered in the funding announcements or level‑of‑funding
announcements for school divisions up to this point in time, then I have to ask
the minister whether she is considering or planning to include the surpluses in
future funding announcements. By
include, I mean consider the surpluses when she arrives at a funding level in
future years.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, I can tell the member that these have not been
considered as part of the funding announcements in the past. They were not considered as part of the
funding announcement this year.
It is very hard to predict the future. I am not sure what the future will hold. However, at the moment we have not considered
the issue of surpluses held by divisions in the matter of school funding.
Mr. Plohman:
So, as they exist right now, does the minister consider them terribly
significant or even relevant to the issue of funding?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of considering the issue of surpluses,
certainly taxpayers may ask the question about surpluses, and school divisions
may answer in terms of how they have achieved a surplus and why a surplus would
be seen as important by school divisions and what level individual school
divisions may decide that they wish to retain surpluses and why they have
chosen that number. Surpluses may be
indicative of the spending patterns of school divisions. They may also be a sign of the type of
funding which has been provided to school divisions and which was not expended.
So the issue of surpluses is one
that, again, school divisions may be the best ones to comment on, because they
will have an understanding of how they have arrived at that surplus and how
they have arrived at a number which they might determine is an important
surplus, and whether or not their surplus at the moment is over or above that
particular amount of money.
I think it is important to note,
again, when the member speaks of the issue of underfunding‑‑my
colleague did mention the issue of surpluses‑‑to say that in a case
where the member has been concerned about underfunding, that in speaking in a
very global way, 30 divisions had what the member, by the use of a percentage,
would have considered to be a fairly significant surplus. We are aware, too, that since this government
came into power that there has been an increase in surpluses for school
divisions in terms of a global number of funds available.
In terms of surpluses for individual
divisions, as I have said, they may be indicative of a number of issues and a
number of reasons. That particular
school division may be the best one to describe how it is that there is that
surplus within that division.
Mr. Plohman: I
would submit to the minister that school divisions probably sensed that the
squeeze was still to come, and that is why they were very careful to ensure
there were some surpluses, not because the minister was overfunding over the
last couple of years.
She is certainly trying to leave
that impression that there was more funding even than required by the school
divisions. Surely the minister does not consider surplus as a factor primarily
of provincial funding. Does she not
believe it to be more a function of management decisions at the local school
level? Is that not a major factor here?
* (2350)
Why would she try to leave on the
record that the surpluses are due to some generosity in surplus funding, extra
funding, additional funding beyond what was required to provide the education
at the local level by the provincial government, by her government? Surely that is not representing an accurate
picture here.
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member has been leaving on the record an issue which he is concerned
about‑‑underfunding.
Therefore, the issue of surpluses was raised by another member who was
observing in the committee this evening, and who raised the issue. But each time I have spoken about the issue
of surpluses, I have said that they may be a result of several issues I have
spoken about, and the member can check the record, spending patterns within
school divisions, efficiencies within school divisions. They also may reflect the funding that flowed
to that school division.
There have been, as I have said each
time, a number of reasons which may account for the surplus. I have also said to the member that the
amount of the surplus may vary according to school division depending upon what
that school division determined would be a surplus that is important for it to
maintain, whether or not the amount of money is above or below that amount of
surplus.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, yes, as long as the minister does not try to leave the impression
here that the primary factor is provincial funding. I would not think that would have a great
deal of credibility amongst school divisions in this province if she were to go
out and say that. I think she knows
that, so it is better to play that one down quite a bit in this committee,
rather than playing it up as a major factor, if any factor at all, insofar as
the school divisions, ensuring that they had surpluses.
I think what is much more a factor
here is the fact that school divisions were wary of this government, wary of
future cuts in education funding, and preparing themselves as best they could
to guard against a major deficit in funding from the provincial
government. That was probably a much
greater factor in surpluses being developed by school divisions over the last
number of years. It seems that the
minister now is attempting to grab that surplus and to reduce it or to
eliminate it.
I get the impression, the minister
can correct me if she wishes, that she is almost of the opinion that surpluses
are not appropriate, that school divisions should not have surpluses
whatsoever, and she would like to have them disappear before she would stop
using them as a consideration in the overall funding to school divisions
publicly, because I know the minister has mentioned the issue of surpluses,
just as her colleague did. That is why I have been pursuing this.
The Minister of Family Services
nicely opened the door on the issue, but I intended to pursue this matter with
the minister in any event because she has used in speeches the issue when
dealing with finance of education and comments to the media and to the public,
the issue of surpluses, to somehow imply that things were fine with regard to
funding of the public school system in this province. So I caution her, because I know that the
minister will not have a great deal of credibility with the school divisions in
this province if she uses that.
Would the minister indicate whether
she could provide at this time the sheets from the frame budget reports that
would indicate the annual proportionate value of direct provincial operating
support in relation to total budgetary operating expenditures by school
divisions and districts for the '91‑92 and '92‑93 school years?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just have to address the first part of the
member's question. First of all, around
the issue of surplus, the issue was not raised by myself this evening, and in
fact I did not at any time imply that I was, as the member said, grabbing the
surplus, nor did I indicate that the surplus was a factor in the area of
funding. I have not at any time implied
that surpluses were inappropriate. What
I have said to the member is that surpluses may be a result of a number of
issues within school divisions, and certainly the explanation of the surplus
would fall to the individual school division. They may wish to make that
explanation to their taxpayers who may ask the question regarding surpluses and
may ask the question regarding educational funding.
My explanation has focused upon how
the funding and how the money available to Manitobans is flowed through the ed
funding formula and is made available to school divisions and that an
accounting for that money is made back to the department through the frame
accounting system and that, through that frame accounting system, we are able
to give information regarding the expenditures and the revenues of school
divisions. So we have spoken about the
process of government funding to school divisions.
However, we recognize that school
divisions do have the option to raise funds independently. They have the opportunity to raise funds
through the special levy, and school divisions have through perhaps several
mechanisms been able to accumulate a surplus.
Divisions will determine how much of a surplus they believe they need
and they will determine how they wish to spend the funds within their school
division. So the issue of surpluses, as
the member knows, has been one not in which I have relied in answers to discuss
the issue of surpluses.
In fact, the issue of surpluses was
never raised by myself in the beginning.
It was raised by information which was released by another
organization. That organization chose to
do some calculations which led them to looking at the issue of potential
surpluses and then to look at some estimates of surpluses of school divisions
across this province. So that issue was
not one which was raised by the government.
It was not raised by myself as minister.
Now the issue has been raised by
another organization, Manitobans have asked some questions of their school
divisions, and school divisions will decide how they will be able to answer
within their individual divisions about their surplus, the amount of surplus
that they have within their school division at the moment.
The member has also requested some
additional information, and it relates to percentages of government
funding. Yes, I am able to provide the
information to him, and it would best be provided under the budget line of 16.5
where we can consider it in more detail.
Mr. Plohman:
Sorry, I interrupt the minister there.
Did the minister say she will be providing that information for the '91‑92
and '92‑93 years? Is that what I
heard?
Mrs.
Vodrey: I have said that we are able
to look at that information, and we can provide the information. It is best provided under the budget line
16.5, and so as we approach that line, I will be prepared to see the member
gets that information.
* (0000)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 12 midnight, what is the will
of the committee?
Mr. Plohman:
Just carry on, Mr. Deputy Chair.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Okay.
Mr. Plohman: I
do not want to carry on long. I just had
one or two more questions, if that is okay with the minister, and then we can
close.
I wanted to just ask the minister
whether this will be provided on a division‑by‑division basis,
because that is my anticipation in asking the question?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, I can provide that on a division‑by‑division basis.
Mr. Plohman:
For the total percentages there.
Then can the minister indicate whether the information on school grants,
in other words a breakdown of this total line when we get to 16.5. We do not
have to pursue it too far at this point, but a breakdown of the total amount
including the school grants and other assistance, the amount to private
schools, the amount to public schools, the total operating support for the
public schools paid under the SFP, the second year phase‑in support for
the Schools Finance Program, totals of appropriation for public schools then,
the general support grants, Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund and
miscellaneous grants, to get the total.
Does the minister have that information as well?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is information that we have been willing to
provide in the past and, yes, we will be willing to provide that this year.
Mr. Plohman:
The only reason I referred to all of that tonight was to ensure that it
could avoid delays later.
Mrs. Vodrey:
As I have said, that is information which has been provided in the past,
and which we are prepared to provide under that particular budget line.
Mr. Plohman:
Committee rise.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being after twelve o'clock,
committee rise.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. Would the First Minister's staff
please enter the Chamber.
We are on item 1.(b), page 12, of
the Estimates manual.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to continue on with a few more
questions I have on federal‑provincial relations. The
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The lead consultant chosen jointly by us and
our Russian partners is Caribou Ventures.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you for the answer.
Can the Premier indicate the
situation for ships in this shipping year, please?
Mr. Filmon: I
am sure the member opposite can appreciate that I have not been personally
involved in much of these discussions, but I understand that a good deal of
discussion has taken place with the Canadian Wheat Board and with Ports Canada,
and Ports Canada is supportive of obtaining greater tonnage through the port to
reduce their unit costs and to make their expenditures more productive. The Canadian Wheat Board indicates that they
continue to seek opportunities to put grain through the port, but no
commitments. We cannot give any
indication of numbers of ships.
Mr. Doer: The
Premier indicated that they have other contingency plans for the proposal on
the spaceport at Churchill, they authorized an Order‑in‑Council
that expired March 31, 1993. Could the Premier indicate the status of that
proposal with the‑‑we have had the denial of the Western
Diversification. The Premier was going
to take that a step further. Has he
discussed this with the federal minister responsible? Has the change in the funding formula from
the federal government announced last week affected this proposal? What is the status of proceeding with the
spaceport?
Mr. Filmon: I
indicated last week we are following up on that. A letter is in the final
stages of draft for my signature to pursue this with the Western Economic
Diversification minister. I spoke earlier today with Mr. Richardson, who is
principally the private sector money source, and intend to follow up with him
as early as perhaps tomorrow. The issue
of the date, in which the Order‑in‑Council committing our $75,000
expired, was a matter of it being committed for the last fiscal year which we
could not commit it for a future fiscal year, so it is just a matter of us
repassing the authority for the funding.
As I said publicly, our funding remains
committed.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I would just like to draw to the attention of
all members of this committee that it is not necessary to stand. It is if you so desire‑‑[interjection]
As long as you can get the attention of the Chair, you may remain seated.
Mr. Doer: The
further question is dealing with CN Rail and its less than strong commitment to
the rail line. We see cement cars of
certain tonnage being able to operate on those tracks right up to Gillam. We see other cars of greater capacity
operating right to Churchill, yet there is a great deal of reluctance from that
railway to give the
Has the Premier had any
discussions? I know in the past he has
indicated he has had meetings with the chair of the board of CN. Are there any discussions that have gone on
between the Premier and the federal government, Jean Corbeil or the new head of
Canadian National?
Mr. Filmon: I
think there are several yeses that I should be giving the leader of the
opposition. Yes, I have spoken on a
number of occasions with the chair of the board of CN, and we will be seeing
him again, I am not sure if it is next week or the week after. I guess it is next week.
I have had discussions with the new
CEO, Mr. Tellier, whom I have met and had dealings with on numerous occasions
during the constitutional debates, and expressed very strongly our desire not
to see a reduction of service to Manitoba and our desire to preserve that line.
The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer)
has accurately, I think, portrayed the reluctance, as he called it, of CN to
make any long‑term commitments or to invest in any particular upgrading.
There does appear to be a bias
against a continuing to provide for service on that line. So it is a struggle in which we have to
utilize all of the contacts, all of the lobbying strength that we have, whether
it be through the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), who
regularly raises the issue, or whether it be through myself and contacts that I
make directly with respect to CN and the people who are accessible to us.
Mr. Doer: What
impact will the change in method of payment have for the
Mr. Filmon:
Our information is that the method of payment should have a neutral
effect in terms of ports and lines of transportation. Obviously, there are many studies that
suggest the method of payment can have a positive effect in terms of secondary
agricultural processing development in
Mr. Doer: The
second part of the question was the impact on railway jobs in
Mr. Filmon: I
have no information to indicate any negative impact on the railroad jobs in
Mr. Doer: The
previous study that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) tabled in the
House indicated a cost on highways to the province. We have already talked about the federal
offloading and a reduction in the number of jobs on the railways. Is that no longer the current thinking of the
provincial government on the change in the grain transportation changes?
* (2010)
Mr. Filmon:
In all due respect, I would have to ask the member to discuss that with
the Minister of Agriculture. I do not
have the study. It is not something that
comes directly under my responsibilities.
If he wants to debate that, he should debate it with the Minister of
Agriculture.
Mr. Doer: Given
the original mandate of the new cabinet secretariat, the new economic
structure, as announced November 8, 1991, to evaluate the impact of certain
development activity, to have a central role in government between departments,
this body would not be evaluating those kinds of changes and its impact on
Manitoba, providing a kind of clearinghouse impact which was the impression I
had from reading the original statement from the Premier on the bill in 1991
and the announcement that was made shortly before that.
Mr. Filmon:
If you were to take that to its ridiculous extreme there would be no
need then to have much of the work of the Department of Transportation, of
Industry, Trade and Tourism, of Agriculture, anything done by those
departments.
The member opposite knows full well,
although he thinks there are too many people in the Secretariat of the Economic
Development Board, there are not the staff to be able to conduct those kinds of
in‑depth analyses.
So within the ambit of this
government those continue to be responsibilities of line departments, and the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has been in a position to debate and
discuss that with the Leader of the Opposition before. I suggest that he continue to seek that
avenue for detail on this matter.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you, and I would have thought that in some place in government, when there are
changes in agriculture having impact on producers and changes in transportation
policy that may have impact on jobs, that there would be some way of analyzing
these initiatives.
I have asked the Premier these
questions before, and the Minister of Agriculture has been the one answering
it. But there are impacts on other
industries, and I was hoping that we could find out tonight just whether there
is any impact or not. I guess if we do
not know, we do not know, and that is too bad.
I want to move on to the airline
industry, Madam Chairperson. I wrote the
Premier earlier on another key area of transportation, the airline
industry. Can the Premier advise on the
status of that issue? We have again
different departments, Transportation, Industry and Trade, the economic
committee dealing with this issue. We
expect an announcement this week. It is obviously crucial to
We have more people employed in the
airline industry in
Mr. Filmon:
As the member knows, it is a federally regulated industry area. We are in a position which might be described
as between the devil and the deep blue sea, having fairly significant
complements of staff in both major airlines.
About 1,800 prior to some of the layoffs, about 1,800 in Air Canada;
about one‑quarter of that, 450 in Canadian Air Lines; Gemini with 175, I
believe or something in that range of 100 to 150.
Every potential move within the
airlines industry also carries with it the potential for loss of jobs. If you take the scenario of a combination of
Air
If you take the proposal that is
being put forward by Canadian Airlines of their alliance with American, which
would undoubtedly trigger an Air Canada alliance with an American carrier,
there might be a different set of losses, perhaps more losses on the Gemini
side, less losses on the operating side.
It is a very difficult
situation. We also have to be mindful of
the potential loss of service. We are in
a situation in which recently we have been working very diligently to try and
increase service here, try and find‑‑and I have been lobbying for
additional air connections into the
All of these things have involved
meetings that I have had in the past, even in the past six months, with Claude
Taylor, Jack Fraser, who is the Winnipeg or Manitoba representative on the
board of Air Canada, Mr. Morrow [phonetic], who is on the board of Canadian
Airlines, direct discussions that I have had with the CEO, Mr. Eyton and so on.
We have had some staff directly
involved with any and all of the meetings that have been taking place with
respect to the restructuring of Canadian Airlines. In all these things, what we are attempting
to do is be as knowledgeable as we can about what is happening, what the
potential impacts are and play an honest‑broker role in protecting
I cannot give the member opposite
any definitive figures. In fact, if you listen
to the figures from the two competing airlines, they give you different
figures. Each one has a different
scenario that paints their own position in their best interest.
I think it is very difficult to do
anything other than stay as close to the situation as we have and try and offer
whatever encouragement we can to find a solution that preserves jobs here in
Mr. Doer: Moving
on to another federal‑provincial issue, that is, the issue of the
proposed NAFTA agreement with
* (2020)
Mr. Filmon: I
will not go into the lengthy discussion of
As the member knows, there are, of
those six conditions, probably three key and substantive issues that are
outstanding; one being a parallel accord on labour; second, a parallel accord
on environment; and thirdly, commitment to federal adjustment measures.
We have indicated throughout the
discussions, even in the past few months that Minister Stefanson has had on
behalf of the government, that those three issues must be addressed before we
could indicate whether or not we supported a NAFTA agreement or any
implementing legislation.
Certainly, given that parallel
accords, parallel agreements are still being negotiated, one could argue that
the federal implementing legislation is premature. On the other hand, the same could have been
argued about the federal government's original signature on NAFTA without
legislative authority.
So I do not think it is news to
anyone that the federal government is committed to the NAFTA agreement and is
going to do everything in their power to see it completed by the time of the
next election whenever that might be federally.
That, I am told, is well understood
and also that they have provisions so that should there be parallel accords on
these issues, particularly labour standards and the environment, they would be
able to be implemented along with the legislation that they are proposing to
pass in the House of Commons.
Mr. Doer: I
noticed the Premier answered the question in third‑party terms. One could argue that it is premature, which
is very unusual for the Premier to answer a question with such language. Does the Premier himself believe that it is
premature to ratify it?
Has he formally indicated to the
federal government in his capacity as Minister of Federal‑Provincial
Relations that he and his government are opposed to proceeding with the
ratification prior to the final deal being known?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chair, I have not written to the federal government, and the position
that I take is that we have put pretty clearly on the record what our desires
are with respect to having parallel accords on labour standards, on the
environment.
As I said, I think, the last time
that the member opposite asked the question in Question Period, I am confident
that, because of the position of President Clinton, NAFTA will not proceed
without those parallel accords on labour standards and the environment.
So I think that we have a big
brother out there who is going to probably ensure that the things that we have
been arguing for are going to be part of that overall agreement. That says to me that we are probably in a
stronger position than trying to argue with the federal government not to proceed
with an issue that they have been committed to.
Mr. Doer: Madam
Chairperson, I guess on issues like triple transformation and other issues that
are of importance to
I would like to see us try to
influence more the federal Conservative government and therefore hopefully get
some of
Mr. Filmon:
Can I just indicate that, again, we are dealing with this in the context
of discussion on Executive Council Estimates.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), who is
sitting right behind me, has spent hours and hours with his federal counterpart
making known the concerns that we have about triple transformation and all
those specific issues on Manitoba.
Those things are in writing, both in
letters that he has written and letters that I have written, and they remain areas
of concern that we hope will be dealt with by the federal government. It is not for lack of articulation of our
position on it or pressure on our part to the federal government to get the job
done.
They are very, very much familiar
with our position and, in fact, I know very sensitive to it because the
minister responsible has phoned directly on numerous occasions to try and get
the unequivocal support of this government, talked to the minister and talked
to myself about it. We are not budging
from our concerns that have to be dealt with in order for us to give support.
Mr. Doer: Moving
on to another federal‑provincial item, the government in the 1990
election indicated they were going to negotiate an immigration agreement with
Ottawa and negotiate delegated authority in that regard, a position that not
all of us agreed with at the time and, subsequently, this matter was more
formally in the constitutional proposal.
Has the government changed its
position, given the fact that the Constitution, not just for that reason but
for a number of other reasons, was rejected in
Mr. Filmon:
No, Madam Chairperson, in fact we still think that the rationale for us
having a greater influence is strong. In
fact, the member opposite talked earlier in the preamble to our discussions
about our population not growing as rapidly as it did in the early '80s, and
one of the major differences of course is in the proportionate share that we
have gotten of Canadian immigrants coming to Manitoba which has dropped to a
third of what it was in the early '80s.
We are not going to have an
opportunity to get a greater share of immigrants. We are not going to have an opportunity to
get a greater share of independent immigrants who may have the skills that we
are needing for particular growth and development areas in our economy or
entreprenurial immigrants who come here with business skills and the capital
with which to start a business, if we do not have this agreement. With all of the work that has been done to
try and influence the federal system, we are absolutely convinced that we need
to have that direct influence by way of a federal‑provincial
agreement. We continue to work towards
it and, I dare say, are making some progress.
There is a unit within the Department
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship who have responsibility for negotiating
the agreement who are reporting some substantial progress in recent
months. I would hope that the next time
that we are debating these Estimates we will have an agreement in place.
Mr. Doer: Madam
Chairperson, we have a disagreement about this, but it has been three years
since the government announced this during the election‑‑almost
three years‑‑he says by the next time we are debating the
Estimates, it could be a couple of months away, it could be 12 months away, et
cetera. When does the Premier expect to
conclude a promise, I believe, he made in August of 1990?
* (2030)
Mr. Filmon:
The member can probably appreciate that it was almost impossible to get
any real negotiations underway with the federal government while the
constitutional matter was in process.
They simply did not want to deal with it, I assume because they wanted
it dealt with under the constitutional package.
Only since the failure of that constitutional package have we had
meaningful negotiations and real progress on the matter.
I think it is safe to say that with
the progress we have made in the last six months, we are optimistic that, as I say,
if we are debating these Estimates somewhere close to a year from now, we will
have an agreement in place.
Mr. Doer: Just on
a related topic, I attended a meeting of the Indo‑Canadian Association of
Manitoba recently. I think we all attend
a lot of multicultural events, it is one of the joys that we have in our jobs
as Leaders and MLAs. I was absolutely
astounded to hear Mr. Neth [phonetic], the president of the association from
It was raised in terms of we want
tourism, we want economic activity, yet when we have an opportunity to it, we
are reticent to proceed. Apparently this
has been raised with the federal Minister of Immigration.
I was absolutely moved when I
listened to a number of Manitobans from all walks of life who could not have
visitations from their families notwithstanding the fact that they were
Canadian citizens. The point was raised
to me‑‑I was asked the question, I could not answer it‑‑would
this be the same if it was families from
Has the Premier been made aware of
this immigration issue? I know this may
be a question that may be more appropriate for the minister. Has he raised this at all with his minister
or the federal minister responsible for immigration in
Mr. Filmon:
Yes and yes.
Mr. Doer:
Okay. I want to proceed to some
other issues, interprovincial issues on the Premier's Estimates. I ask the Premier this question every year,
on
I also understand the Consolidated
mine proposal is not even proceeding at this time in Ontario due to an
environmental assessment, but I think we were all disappointed that a mining
exploration grant was provided by Ontario, which appears to be inconsistent
with the basin‑wide management strategy.
I know that probably is a feeling the Premier has as well. Can the Premier advise us on those
negotiations?
Mr. Filmon:
We were disappointed with the
I will say that I do not necessarily
agree with the extent to which the players at the table are increasing, because
I think that is going to make it more difficult for us to get any understanding
and approval on the watershed management plan, the basin management plan. I thought that we had an agreement to proceed
in a particular way last fall, and then earlier this year it appeared as though
we were going to go forth in a plan that Premier Rae asked me to hold back
because of his own discussions and negotiations with First Nations.
As far as I can see, the matter is
stalled. I am concerned because as long
as we have no agreed upon basin management plan then we run the risk of an ad
hoc decision being made, whether that is on a land development, whether that is
on a mining proposal or anything else, an ad hoc decision that could have
dramatic negative impacts on the city of Winnipeg's water supply.
Having said that, Premier Rae, I
believe, is acting in good faith, even to the extent of sending a personal note
to me from time to time to let me know the status of what is going on, so the
communication lines continue to be open and healthy. But I am starting to become quite concerned
about the length of time it is taking us to get to the table with the various
players and work out a basin management plan.
Mr. Doer: The
Premier mentioned he was concerned about the, quote, number of players "at
the table." Is he concerned about
the City of
Mr. Filmon:
Well, specifically, there is I think a desire to have, not only the
city, but‑‑well, I am not even sure that the city is one of the
people that Premier Rae feels should be at the table‑‑but it is the
federal government, the two provinces, and two First Nations.
To be honest with you, one of the
proposals that we preferred was to jointly appoint a mediator and have that
person work out all of the things, because I think that all of us independently
at the table are not going to arrive at a plan that is acceptable. I do think it is a job for an independently
appointed mediator. But we do not even
have agreement on whether or not that is the best route to go, so at this point
it is just something that will remain as a proposal for
Mr. Doer: The
second water project that I asked in previous years, and you probably know what
it is‑‑the
* (2040)
I also asked the minister, the
government and the Premier last week about any discussions with the
Mr. Filmon:
Well, to the extent that it does not impact on any flows or have any
consequences to the
We are not in a situation such as
Rafferty and
Mr. Doer: Does the
Premier not feel that, first of all,
Mr. Filmon:
Any calculations as to available flows, minimum available flows, would
be based on what is the minimum available to us. Regardless of whether or not
Mr. Doer: Well,
again, I think we are going to agree to disagree on the whole basin‑wide
review and the need for data for the review to take place. With credibility in Manitoba, I think the
government‑‑I have stated this before‑‑is not doing the
environmental process any value at all to have such lack of credibility on the
data available on the Assiniboine River and the fact that the data has so
little credibility with a number of people upstream and downstream, including
the community of Brandon, the community of Portage, the community of Winnipeg,
the community of Selkirk.
I guess we will just continue to
agree to disagree on the way the government is proceeding on this matter and
will continue to oppose the manner in which they are proceeding. I do not agree with the Premier totally on
the issue of
Mr. Filmon:
There are two things. One is that
the member opposite is one who is choosing to go on a political basis of
placing his own interpretation on what data is available and what is not
available. The proponents who are going
to go before the Clean Environment Commission are the ones who have to be
concerned that they have sufficient data with which to make their case for the
diversion. If they do not, then the
Clean Environment Commission is not going to make a favourable decision,
obviously. So they have everything to
lose and nothing to gain by virtue of not having sufficient data, as the member
opposite suggests.
Whether or not the member opposite
knows and understands the proposal, knows and understands the data that is
available, is another issue. But he is
not the one who is going to have to be satisfied. It is going to be an independent impartial
commission with the advice of experts and the ability to have consulting
engineers, water hydrologists and river basin experts and so on available to
them. The other issue is that he, again,
has not shown me any basis upon which there will be any change to the
We are not assuming anything but the
minimum flows that we are entitled to under Saskatchewan's agreement, so should
they choose to take their full 50 percent of their flows, that will not alter
and affect the project because it was already being put forward on the basis of
an assumption that they will take, at some point in the future, all of the
flows to which they are entitled.
There is no basis that I can see for
involving the
Mr. Doer: We simply
do not agree with the Premier and so be it‑‑[interjection] Well, I
am not going to get back into that debate.
I think the Premier is proceeding
with this project. It has no credibility
at all with the people upstream in the community of
* (2050)
We think the way in which they are
proceeding is wrong. The way in which
they are proceeding with not complete information is wrong. The original proposal has even been changed
with an agreement made by the community of
I believe, quote, thousands of
Manitobans disagree with this Premier on this proposal as well. That is why there is differences of opinion
on this issue.
I want to ask another question of
the Premier, moving into the specific line in Estimates, some lines in
Estimates is his own Estimates process.
Travel for the Premier's Office in 1987 and '88, according to Public
Accounts, was $75,000 per year. In '91‑92,
the last year available, it was $131,000 from Public Accounts.
Can the Premier indicate the travel
for the '92‑93 fiscal year, and what is projected in his budget for the
'93‑94 fiscal year?
Mr. Filmon:
If the member opposite would just repeat the question so that I can try
and turn to some detail.
Mr. Doer: Our
numbers indicate in the last year of Public Accounts, $131,000 for travel,
transportation of Executive Council. I
wonder what the number is for the '92‑93 fiscal year and what is
projected in the '93‑94 fiscal year.
Mr. Filmon:
The figure for '92‑93‑‑and it is not quite finalized,
but it is very close to being finalized‑‑is $190,000, and that is
for '92‑93; and for '93‑94 it is estimated, we have budgeted for
$172,000.
The member will appreciate that in
'92‑93, the travel that was associated with 35 days or 36 days of
constitutional meetings involved, for instance, the Deputy Minister of Federal‑Provincial
Relations going to virtually every one of those meetings whether it be with
myself or with the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
On a number of the occasions, we would
have three of the four at the table here who were on those trips. Even when the Minister of Justice was
representing our province, there would likely have been, not only the Deputy
Minister of Federal‑Provincial Relations, but also a member of the staff
of the Communications Secretariat as well.
Mr. Doer: Madam
Chairperson, in terms of travel, do all travel expenses for the Premier come
out of this Executive Council? Are there
any bills processed through the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism out
of the economic development group?
Mr. Filmon: I
am told that, in all cases, my hotel bills and my travel costs‑‑that
is, airfare and taxis and whatever have you‑‑are all shown out of
my budget.
The only time that there might be
some meal expenses paid is that, if a banquet or a dinner is put on by I, T and
T as part of a trade promotion and I happen to be the featured speaker or the
featured host, it would show up as an expense of I, T and T.
Mr. Doer: The
Premier mentioned the federal‑provincial discussions that went on last
year, even this year, the '93‑94 year.
The $172,000 estimate is considerably above $100,000 in '88‑89. But I want to deal with some of the issues of
travel that have been a bit controversial between the Premier and ourselves. I think we have raised these before.
It used to be, as I understood it,
the policy of the Premier of the province when he travelled internationally to
issue a press release on the itinerary of the trip. Usually, as I recall it, there used to be
press conferences with a cost breakdown of who also would be accompanying the
Premier and how much it would cost.
It seems to us that this issue that
was rather routine has fallen by the wayside in the '92‑93 fiscal
year. There was some international
travel that was accompanied by a press release and a statement of how many
people would be going and how much it would cost, and other trips, et cetera,
were not accompanied by that kind of information.
When we went later for freedom of
information on it, we were given this mushy response with very little
breakdown, which is very inconsistent with any other premier in any other
province. We have done some checking on that.
So is it the policy that the Premier
issues a press release and also stating whom they are going to visit, what is
the goal, the objective in terms of trade, and who is going to accompany the
Premier, and how much it will cost, or is that kind of hit‑and‑miss?
I remember that there was a press
conference in the '92‑93 fiscal year on
Of course,
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, I think that may be the first time that the member
opposite has criticized me for too little publicity on any of the efforts that
we have made.
One of the difficulties‑‑and
I do not recall a detailed itinerary being put out by previous ministers and
previous Premiers with respect to trips‑‑yes, press releases, no
question. I think, by and large, we
attempted to do that, as the member opposite indicates. I held a news conference to announce the
* (2100)
One of the difficulties with respect
to getting into detail is the sharing of commercial information on things like
our trip to
Secondly, the trip to Asia which,
again, results have come forward vis‑a‑vis the establishment of a
contract for Feed‑Rite mills to build a feed mill in
The purpose, of course, of these is
to develop investment and trade opportunities for
We have had results from each and
every mission. I can point to specific
successes that have arisen out of every time we have gone. I would say that when one spends a bit of money
with respect to $10,000 or something on a particular mission in which some of
your mission members get several million dollars worth of work, I think that
that is not a bad investment for
I was, for instance, looking at some
data with respect to the
We, of course, aside from the office
in Hong Kong and a contractual agreement that we have with a person in
I will tell very openly the Leader
of the Opposition that there is no question that the profile that you can get,
the publicity that you can get is probably five times higher when you have the
Premier leading the mission versus having a minister. I am allowing myself to be utilized in this
respect to create a greater profile and greater attention on the investment and
trade promotion mission for the
Mr. Doer: I would
just like to go through it, just to get the exact numbers. Can the Premier indicate the cost of going to
Mr. Filmon:
For the three it would be a total of about $15,000. I might indicate
that as a result of the contacts, the networking and the profile that was
created there,
We also attended the dinner with the
International Institute for Sustainable Development. Again I sat with Dr. Strong and again the
various people who were there as guests, people such as Sir Shridith Ranfold
[phonetic], who wrote the book that was distributed at the Earth Summit, was a
guest and mentioned Manitoba and our commitment to the establishment and our
funding commitment to the international institute who had cosponsored his book
that was distributed at the conference.
We of course, and I may have
mentioned this in speaking to the House last year, talked about the fact that
one of the things that we did was add three days to the time spent there so I
could go and visit MCIC projects in Brazil, and I am told that I am the first
Premier who has gone to visit any of their projects. There was publicity not only throughout
Since then, of course, having
participated last week in the Sustainable Development Conference that the
United Nations put on, having met people who are aware of our activities, there
have been a couple of opportunities that have been proposed to me. One is
potentially to meet with Vice‑President Gore and another is to go on an
international board with Vice‑President Gore in issues dealing with
sustainable development.
* (2110)
I would say that all of these
emanate from the contacts that were made through a series of initiatives, not
only the International Institute for Sustainable Development, but people we met
and were in contact with in Rio de Janeiro, so for that investment of some
$15,000 I think there are some long‑term benefits to the province of
Manitoba in terms of keeping our leadership in sustainable development first
and foremost.
Mr. Doer: In
September 1992 the Premier visited the
Mr. Filmon:
On that particular trip the expenses would have involved approximately
$4,500 for my costs, approximately $4,500 for the costs of the Clerk of the
Executive Council who was there as well.
There would have been a similar cost which does not show up in my budget
for one I, T and T senior staff on the investment promotion side who
accompanied on that trip.
Just so that the Leader of the
Opposition has some idea of what other Premiers spend on these kinds of
initiatives, Premier Rae, who overlapped with my trip to
Mr. Doer: Yes, and
these reports are readily available from the media and from FOI information,
but we cannot get the same information.
I do not like to go through these things with the Premier. We have written before.
The trip to
Mr. Filmon:
That trip in November involved the Clerk of the Executive Council and
myself from Executive Council with an approximate cost of about $6,500 each for
all travel, hotels and meals. The
Minister of I, T and T also was there with one of his staff members. The Minister and Deputy Minister of Finance
were there as well.
The member may recall that was when
we signed one agreement for, I believe it was, a $300‑million loan in the
Japanese market at 3.83 percent interest and also made the agreements for
another syndicated loan with another insurance company that was signed about 10
days after our return. That was part and
parcel of the reason why the Finance minister was there.
We, of course, did have a number of
objectives of trying to utilize the long‑term relationship that
Mr. Doer: Moving
along to later, I think February or so of '93, the end of January '93 the Davos
session in
Mr. Filmon:
In discussion with the Clerk of the Executive Council I have been told
that one of the difficulties is the way in which information is being sought by
the member opposite. A member of his
caucus did ask for the information, but the information that was asked for was
give the costs for travel for the Premier's Office for 1992‑93.
If they wanted it on a trip‑by‑trip
basis, they could have asked for it and we could have generated the information
on a trip‑by‑trip basis. We
would be happy to do that if that is what the member opposite is asking for,
then we would be happy to try and do it that way.
All of the information was generated
based on what the request was for and it did not specify on a trip‑by‑trip
basis which is why the member is now asking for the breakdown.
The trip to Davos has been
recommended to the
However, from my discussions with
the Premiers of Quebec, particularly, and British Columbia, have been told time
and time again that it is the best source of information on the world's
economic trends that they have ever participated in, so finally, this year,
made plans to be able to attend in Davos.
There is no question that it
probably was the most enlightening analysis of the world's economic trends that
I have seen and participated in. They
had the foremost minds in the world from the areas of academia and, of course,
the areas of major businesses of the world.
At this particular meeting the great focus was on the new administration
in
* (2120)
My costs were $7,774 for
attendance. We were granted the good
fortune of not having to pay for any of our delegation. There was a 15,000
franc fee for every private sector person who attended who was not an invited
guest. There were about 600 invited
guests, I believe, and about 1,500 fee‑paying people there, and we were
among the 600 invited guests as were the Premiers of the other provinces who
were there.
All of us were put on notice though
that in future that they were not going to be liberal in allowing that because
some of the Premiers have been there every year for six or seven years, and they
feel that they cannot justify inviting them back if they do not pay some
portion of the costs. So in future years
there will likely be a charge for the attendance of anyone including the
Premiers.
As I say, my costs were $7,774. I was accompanied at that time by the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey), by the CEO of the Economic Innovation and Technology
Council, Mr. Bessey, and the Clerk of the Executive Council, and our total
costs were $31,000.
We also visited the people in
I might say that the comparison is
that Premier Harcourt with his entourage spent $100,000. The member opposite will know some of the
members of that entourage including Mr. Parasiuk and others who were there.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you. I am just trying to recall the
press clippings through my mind on
The last question on the trip to
Mr. Filmon:
Nobody else from government attended with the Premier. It was paid for by the Pan Am committee. I put $168 of miscellaneous meal expenses in
from my budget.
Mr. Doer: Thank
you very much for those breakdowns. We
note that the government is going through every item with a fine‑tooth
comb. The Premier himself in past years
has asked questions of that very, very frugal Premier that preceded him on
spending and travel, and I think it is important this item in the budget has
gone up from $131,000 to potentially $190,000; $172,000 represents a major
increase from when they came into office.
One could ask, you know, I guess
everything in its own merit can be defended, but we know that there is such
tightening of the belt going on all across government. I remember just a brief conversation once
with Howard Pawley when he was talking about international missions. He used to say that one year he would have
trade missions to Europe, the other year would be trade missions to
Some of the other Premiers that the
Premier had mentioned had combined the trip to
I believe, on international trade
travel, no matter who is the Premier, that the Premier should have a press
conference ahead of time indicating the objectives. I believe that the Premier should report back
to the public when the Premier comes back about what the results were, the
costs, who went, and everything should be upfront. I just believe that is a much better way to
do business. I just leave that with the
Premier. That has happened on some occasions.
That has not happened on other occasions.
I was trying to answer questions
about where the Premier was in the middle of the constitutional debate and
federal Tories were spreading rumours about the Premier over in
We have a tradition of frugality all
throughout this government in
I hope to underspend my budget this
year in my own Estimates, if I can, because I think that should be the goal of
all of us in this Chamber even though it is a much more modest, by definition,
budget than other potential lines in these Estimates.
I want to proceed with one last
question to the Premier, because I know that the Leader of the Second
Opposition does want to raise some issues as well. I have one more set of questions and that is
it.
Mr. Filmon:
Firstly, I will say two things. I
do not think that any comparisons can be made between the activity of Executive
Council now versus what it was under Howard Pawley, because I have consciously
taken on the responsibility to go out there and be, shall we say, the lead
marketer or the lead salesman for the province on investment and trade
promotion. If I am going to do that job,
I cannot do it sitting in my office back home.
We spend almost nothing by way of international presence. We have closed down the office that was in
I have to say to the Leader of the
Opposition that we cannot go into a situation of saying that you come back from
a trip and you have in hand contracts that you have received. These things take time. All I can do is open the doors that allow the
private sector people to go to work on them and to bring them to fruition.
I give him an example that he does
not even know about because I took one day off from the Legislature last June
and went down to speak in Kansas City, at the invitation of the mayor of Kansas
City, to an international trade seminar.
In going down there, I met earlier
in the day with Black & Veatch, a major international consulting firm, and
the next day travelled to
The result of that was an announcement
in November of the Centre of Excellence that Black & Veatch have set up
here in Winnipeg in partnership with UMA Engineering‑‑a minimum of
45, and a maximum of 100 high‑tech engineering jobs in the field of power
engineering‑‑and the announcement that was made then in February by
Monsanto to locate their dry Glyphosate or dry Roundup plant here.
In both cases, I would have been
unable to respond as to what we were doing there because of the high
sensitivity. We were, in fact, competing
against other provinces for both of those particular investments. I would not have revealed what we were doing
down there or who we visited with, because it took, in both cases, six to nine
months of hard work by the private sector people and our department in bringing
those investments to Manitoba. But I am
satisfied that in going down there my time was well spent and the opening up of
the doors right to the top executive suites in each case facilitated the
ultimate sale.
* (2130)
The same thing was true in the trip
to
Quite honestly, I do not think that
is in our interest to, shall we say, blow the work that is being done by our
private sector people by reporting publicly as to who we are visiting with and
what is the nature of the investment that we are chasing. But in every case, I can say months down the
line, we can point to the results of each and every trip. I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) that we have to be circumspect if we are serious about getting these
investments.
In the meeting in
The other aspect of it is that in
terms of value for money spent, the member opposite probably knows that there
were not always examples of frugality in his predecessor government, particularly
as it relates to the pursuit of potash investment. We have figures from the
files of various people who were involved in that pursuit of potash investment
that would say that a million and a half dollars of fees that were paid to the
companies that were represented by Messrs. Dumbowski and Messer [phonetic], one
Matrix and Newmarket [phonetic], some $600,000 or $700,000 of that was in
travel and entertainment expense over a space of about four years. Those things did not show up in the accounts
of the ministers of the day who were on those trips, but, again, it is not too
difficult to go through the archives to find out who those ministers were.
There was a lot of money spent. I can justify every nickel that we have spent
and say that we have been frugal and we will continue to be frugal. If we are going to do anything by way of
overseas investment development and trade promotion, we have to do at least
what we are doing. In fact, by most
standards across the country today, we are probably being exceptionally frugal.
Mr. Doer: During
the last provincial election, the Premier, in the election debate, and I
quote: We are offering the people of
Does the Premier feel in the last budget
that (a) he raised taxes, and (b) does he feel the tax changes or raise in
taxes was fair?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, firstly, one has to know the preamble and the context
to that. Throughout all of the
discussions, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) even corrected
me, saying, all your Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has committed to is not
to raise personal income taxes. We broadened that throughout our discussions to
say that we would do our level best not to raise personal, corporate income
taxes and the sales tax. We have done
better than that, as the member knows, managing to reduce selectively in the
area of personal income taxes and, as well, in the area of the payroll tax.
I will say this, that we have not
raised the rates of any of those principal areas of taxation. We never did talk about gasoline tax within
that context. At no time did we ever
talk about the gasoline taxes being one of those taxes that was sacred. That happens to be an area in which some
would argue that it is a user fee concept.
If we are going to be putting money into the building and maintenance of
highways, we have to continue to keep it.
We have raised, in the six budgets
we have been in office, the gasoline tax less than almost every other province
going to the point where we were second or third highest. We are now third lowest in terms of gasoline
tax across the country. We have not
relied heavily on increases to the gasoline tax throughout our period in
office, but, yes, indeed, we did add a cent a litre in this year's budget.
We did not increase the rate of the
sales tax but, as I note, virtually every other province has done‑‑it
has been broadened, as New Brunswick has done, as Ontario as done, as Quebec
has done, I believe P.E.I. and Saskatchewan, the base upon which it is applied
has been broadened which brought in something in the range of about $40
million. The member might want to
compare what is regarded as tax increases in this country in an article that is
in The Globe and Mail, I think today, in which we have comparisons of increases
by way of revenue changes in all the budgets of
I would argue that we compare
exceedingly favourably with every other provincial budget that has been brought
down thus far. I will give him those
figures in just a second, but the reality is that this government has done
exceptionally well in keeping to its commitments to the people of
Even if you throw in the changes to
the property tax credits, and call them tax increases, they are, of course,
reductions in the property tax rebates that people had gotten previously, but
if you want to say that they have the same effect as raising taxes, the total
amount that we have increased by way of revenue changes in this budget,
according to the independent analysis in The Globe and Mail, is $92
million. As a percentage of GDP, it is
less than all of the other provincial budgets that have been brought in.
For instance, the same analysis done
on the
So we certainly have done, by all
yardsticks, a better job of trying to keep the tax load down in all of the
measures that we have put in, even if you include the property tax changes, as
I said.
Mr. Doer: Just so
I understand when the Premier makes future promises, and I am just going by
memory on The Globe and Mail article, it did not include gasoline taxes and it
did have other provinces that did not raise taxes. I believe
I just want to get back to the
fundamental point of fairness and taxation.
Does the Premier consider a reduction in the property tax credits to
people, does he consider that an increase in taxes?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, the
He, in fact right at the end of the
year, announced an increase in the rate for personal income tax that was
retroactive all the way back to January 1.
So that is where their increases were, but they obviously are tax increases,
and substantial tax increases, not in the way of ours.
* (2140)
Just so that the member knows that
the marginal personal income tax rates in
Mr. Doer: The
Premier will know that taxation has a number of features to it.
It was because of three
elements. One was the property tax
credit system; two was the fact that Manitobans did not pay for a medicare
premium; and three, the family tax credits on the provincial side. So there are a number of other studies that
indicate progressivity and fairness in the tax system.
I come back to my fundamental
point. Does the Premier consider it an
increase in taxes when the property tax credit is reduced for Manitobans? Is that an increase in taxes, yes or no?
Mr. Filmon: I
want to talk about that progressivity because in fact we have done nothing, of
course, to change the lack of premiums.
We have improved the family tax credits since we have been in
office. Thirdly, our adjustments vis‑a‑vis
families on property tax credits have been income tested so that those who are
in low‑income situations are not affected by that reduction of the
minimum from $325 to $250. They are still
eligible for the maximums based on their income and their need. So we have retained, without question, the
progressivity and the fairness in
The member opposite can say that
that is a tax increase if he wants. I
would choose not to say that because I believe that what we have done is income
tested it so that those who cannot afford to pay more are not asked to pay
more, and those that can will pay more.
So, indeed, those are not tax
changes. Those are not changes that go
across the board and hit everybody. They
are ones that alter people's credits based on their ability to pay. I think that that preserves
Mr. Doer: I feel
like I am part of the flat earth society debate, Madam Chairperson. I mean, why can the Premier not say it is a
tax increase? [interjection] Well, you
know, I guess in the next election or the next period of time the Premier seeks
a mandate, when he goes around saying, I will not read my lips, I will not
increase taxes; we can say, well, but hold on to your wallets in terms of the
$250 property tax credit because the Premier does not consider that a part of
their taxation.
I would just like to ask the second
question on fairness. The Premier says that it is not a tax increase. Most homeowners‑‑well, you know,
I consider it a tax increase. The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) I think has indirectly stated‑‑[interjection]
I beg your pardon?
Mr. Filmon:
You are being political about it, so we understand where you are coming
from.
Mr. Doer: It is
not political. I pay my property
taxes. It is an increase in taxes. Why can the Premier not have the honesty to
say‑‑[interjection] I beg your pardon?
An Honourable Member: You are an upper‑income person. You should not get as big of a credit.
Mr. Doer: Madam
Chairperson, does the Premier consider it fair that somebody making $150,000 a
year and living in Tuxedo with an average house in Tuxedo is paying 1.3 percent
more in property taxes, and somebody making $30,000 a year and living in
Elmwood is paying 10 percent more? Is
that what the Premier considers to be a fair taxation policy?
Mr. Filmon:
These cutoffs pertain, no matter how you set them up, where the member opposite
when he was in government, when they applied surtaxes to people's incomes, they
clicked in at a certain level. It did
not matter, quite honestly, whether the person was a dollar above or a dollar
below, the surtax clicked in. It is an
arbitrary decision line.
The same thing is true of the
figures that were set up, for instance, for applying subsidies on daycare or
anything else. Once a line is chosen as to where it applies, it becomes an
arbitrary decision. In this particular case,
property tax credits, minimum property tax credits have always prevailed
regardless of whether your income was $30,000 or whether it was $200,000. Those property tax credits were $325 as a
minimum, now they have been reduced slightly to $250.
We did everything possible to ensure
that we maintained as much of a property tax credit as we could possibly
do. That reduction, yes, of $75 is not
something that anybody wants to pay. But
we think that it is a small price to pay for trying to keep intact government
services that people depend upon, and at the same time maintain one of the,
now, lower structures of taxation in the country.
We were, after all, when we took
office, the second highest overall tax regime in the country. We are now down to fifth or sixth and getting
better with every passing budget including this one, as we have maintained a
hold on the tax increases and others continue to increase them well beyond
Mr. Doer: On this
point, the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) own briefing note, as I understand it,
indicated that the revenue changes, the equivalent would be, as I recall it‑‑the
Premier knows that every percent of increase on the personal income tax side in
Well, you know, the Premier may want
to live‑‑maybe he has been in his office too long. Maybe he has been getting totally out of
touch with what people are paying. But I
can tell the Premier, the calls we were getting and the information we know of
outside of this building tell us that people know that a $75 amount increase on
a property tax is a much higher burden for somebody with lower assets in the
form of a house than it is for somebody with a very high asset. Therefore, the percentage increase is
completely different.
The Premier can deny that is
happening, but that does not change the reality of it. The Premier's own briefing note was probably
more forthright, and we should all keep it in our pockets than some of the
information the Premier gives us in the House.
The revenue changes were equivalent to 5.7 percent increase in the
I am not going to ask any more
questions of the Premier because he wants to deny reality. Bottom line is, we believe it was applied in
a very unfair way, and we also believe it was inconsistent with the promise the
Premier made to the people of
These tax tables by the way, I am
surprised the Premier would even go with them, have
* (2150)
I saw the other day that somebody
was saying you could save X percent moving from
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): I have a couple of general questions, and
then I will get back to the tax question.
It has been traditional for the
Premier to indicate, at this time, the staff in his office and the appropriate
salary ranges. Do we have that available to the critics? The other thing in the way of documentation
that I would like, I would like the listing, and perhaps I have to have it for
last year rather than this year, of the international development programs that
received support from the International Development Program that comes under
this particular Estimates process?
Mr. Filmon: I
would be happy to provide both for the Leader of the Liberal Party. Because I do not think she was here for the
beginning of my comments, I will just point out to her that I indicated that
Executive Council's budget is the lowest it has been since we took office. Our staff complement is now 44, which is 25
percent less than the 59 it was when we took office. Just as preamble to that, I have the MCIC
list of projects that our money went to in the 1992‑93 fiscal year. There are two copies, one for the Clerk and
one for each of the Leaders, and also the list of salaries and all of the staff
in Executive Council.
I point out just for the record that
all of these salaries will be reduced by 3.8 percent as per the agreement of
reduction of the workweek throughout the course of the year.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is that 3.8 percent less than the money that
is there, or that money listed includes the 3.8 percent?
Mr. Filmon:
It has to be now reduced by 3.8 percent to show what they actually will
be receiving this year.
Mrs. Carstairs: I would like to get back to the whole concept
of fair taxation. The Premier in his
magical way of dealing with the tax increase because, like the Leader of the
official opposition, I cannot understand how you make $75 an increase any more
than a tax. I mean, obviously, the First
Minister does not realize that, but surely he recognizes that $75 on someone
with $27,500 represents less disposable income that they are going to have than
somebody who owns a $400,000 house and ends up paying exactly the same
$75. In essence, the impact of that
change, whatever the Premier wants to call it, is far more severe on the person
at $27,500 in income than the person at $150,000 or $200,000 in income.
Mr. Filmon: All
of a sudden, we have the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal
Party trying to argue the fairness of property taxation. I was in British Columbia for the imposition
of that provincial budget, where that New Democratic government decided in its
wisdom or lack of same to bring in wholesale changes by way of surtaxes on
property taxes, the assumption being that somebody who is living in a house in
the older district of Vancouver, like Kerrisdale, somebody who had bought that
house 30 years ago when it was worth $60,000 and today, because of its location
and its attractiveness in proximity to downtown, an older very modest house
that was now valued at $900,000, that person was going to receive an increase
in taxation by virtue of the policy that was being brought in of firstly
stripping away property tax credits and, secondly, imposing a high‑value
surtax, an increase of $4,500 overnight. It turned out that those people were
retired, on fixed incomes, seniors who had bought the house 30 years earlier.
Another case that was publicized on
the front page of the newspaper, a person who said he was a lifelong New
Democrat who was teaching at a community college earning $57,000 a year and
living in a home that had gone up in value from $85,000 when he bought it to
$950,000 today, 25 years later, that somehow because he had this asset that was
worth a lot of money that it was fair to slap the taxes on that asset because
this person was a wealthy person.
So property taxes bear no relation
to ability to pay. Persons can be living in houses with a fixed income that is
quite modest and be paying much higher taxes than people with higher incomes
and they are living in a smaller house.
We are into this whole area that I do not think is terribly productive.
Mrs. Carstairs: The Premier makes my point. Property taxes of course are not fair. They are not based on an ability to pay and
neither, quite frankly, when you decide that you are going to give $75 more in
taxation to that same base of property taxes, neither is that fair. There is only one progressive form of
taxation and that is the income tax.
That is the only progressive, genuinely progressive, tax.
Now, the government made some
decisions. He said, for example, that
they still had the medicare premium‑‑was not present in the
So what we have as a result of the
changes that have been made to a tax system‑‑no matter what you
want to talk about it, it is a tax system because it takes money from
people. It is a tax system that is not
based on ability to pay. It treats the
patient who is living on a large income exactly the same as the patient who is
living on a very small fixed income, and I do not understand how this
government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
can say that the budget they brought in was fair. Because when I look at all of the changes
that they have made, none of them are based on income. All of them are going to hurt those in lower
incomes much more than they are going to hurt those in upper incomes. I want to know how the Premier defines that
as fair.
Mr. Filmon:
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to relieve.
Madam Chairperson, when you now say
that changes in the Pharmacare program are tax changes we are really off into
an area of never‑never land.
* (2200)
So when you start to criticize us
for getting back into line with other provinces and then call that a tax, well,
I think we are into a very, very complex area, that I just simply do not agree
with the Leader of the Opposition that every time that there is a change in
which we, the government, say we cannot afford any longer to cover those
particular costs, that is now said to be a tax increase. I just do not accept it. The other thing is that the Leader of the
Opposition has suggested is that somehow we are making low‑income people
pay more. That is the whole point of
this is that low‑income people do not get hit by this property tax credit
adjustment. The low‑income people
will continue to get their full property tax credit.
Mrs. Carstairs: If I have a stroke tonight and I go home and
I am handicapped, nothing is going to prevent me from buying a walker‑‑nothing. If I need three of them in three rooms of the
house, I am going to go out at three hundred bucks a crack and I am going to
buy them. There is no question that I am
going to do that. But if I live on a
fixed income and I am now told that I have to have a walker and I do not have
that immediate money at my disposal, I am not going to be able to do that.
By the changes that this government made
in terms of the home care supplies, like a walker, which used to be free and is
no longer, by saying they are going to change the rule in exactly the same way
no matter what the income level, surely the Premier understands that if a
person on a small fixed income has that kind of debilitating thing happen to
them they are going to be penalized in a way that I am simply not going to be
penalized. That is what I mean when I talk about fairness.
When you institute a whole series of
changes, whether it is to Pharmacare deductible, whether it is to home care
equipment, whether it is to the property change, whether it is to new items
that have never been part of the provincial sales tax before; you have to
accept that you have hurt those on lower incomes to a far greater degree than
those of us who are not. If the
government cannot understand that, then I guess I have to accept that as Tory
philosophy.
I also feel compelled that I have to
make the point that it is not the same for everybody. As a result of these changes, some people are
far less well off in our province than others of us. They are going to be living at a
disadvantage. In particular, in some of
the changes in Pharmacare and in some of the changes in home care, what I have
real concerns about is that people are going to do without. They are not going to get the therapy they
are going to need for that fractured hip because we have cut down on
physiotherapy services. They are not
going to have the equipment which is going to get them out moving around and
making them more mobile. They are going
to end up in the long run with greater cost to the health care system, because
they have not had the kind of treatment that they needed.
I am not going to belabour it
because there is no point. I had to make
the point that I think we have a lot of Manitobans that are going to be
seriously disadvantaged. I do see it as
a change in the tax system, and I see it as extraordinarily regressive.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Management and Administration (1)
Salaries $1,634,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $486,900‑‑pass.
Item 1.(c) Intergovernmental
Relations Secretariat (1) Salaries $302,600‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $66,500‑‑pass.
Item 1.(d) Government Hospitality
$10,000‑‑pass.
Item 1.(e) International Development
Program $450,000‑‑pass.
At this time I would ask that the
First Minister's staff please leave the Chamber.
Item 1.(a) Premier and President of
the Council's Salary $26,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 2.1: RESOLVED that there by granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,976,700 for Executive Council, General Administration,
$2,976,700 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for
Executive Council. The hour being after
10 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. This House is adjourned and stands adjourned
until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).