Home Care Program
APM Report Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).
On May 27, 1994, the Minister of Health said the work of APM with our department on home care projects arrived last year at certain recommendations. On April 15, 1996, the minister, when asked about the APM report said, I do not have it on me at this time. On April 17, the minister is now saying that there is no report, that it was just a process to, quote, facilitate decisions on home care.
I would like to ask the Premier, and I asked him yesterday in his Estimates and the day before in his Estimates, can the Premier please advise the people of Manitoba, when was the Minister of Health telling the truth? Was he telling the truth in 1994 when he said he had recommendations, or was he telling the truth in the last couple of days when he said there are no recommendations?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, indeed there was no APM report, as I have laid out for honourable members. The department Home Care program was involved in a project which was facilitated by the APM company and that project was to look at the Home Care program in the same way that the Price Waterhouse people looked at the Home Care program, in the same way that an element of the Home Care program was looked at by the Seven Oaks Hospital and We Care Home Health Services, and in the same way that it has been looked at in numerous ways by numerous people, including the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program and the department itself.
Madam Speaker, so that the honourable member and his colleagues will no longer be confused about this, I will table today the contract respecting the home care demonstration project and I will table also the final working group document presented to the steering committee.
Mr. Doer: I tabled the contract last week. I tabled it again on Monday, and it still does not explain the discrepancies from the government and the minister on this issue of recommendations.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in light of the fact that the contract that the minister may be tabling again today, in light of the fact that on 16 occasions, the contract says that it will present recommendations to the government on home care--on 19 occasions in the contract it says it will provide a report.
In fact, on page 3 it says a final report of the findings will be presented to the government. I would like to know how the minister has been able to tell us over the last couple of days that there is no report, when the contract clearly states on 19 occasions that the APM Connie Curran company is required to provide a report.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member has a legal mind sitting right next to him, and he can maybe tell him what the contract says. The contract does not call for a report from APM, and we did not get a report from APM. We received, through the process, the working documents that I have tabled today, which are generated by the Department of Health.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we want to get the reports and recommendations that were contained in a contract that the government signed--[interjection] If the Premier wants to answer the question and end this cover-up, I would be glad if he would stand up and answer the questions--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable Leader of the official opposition, please pose his question.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister, the First Minister who yesterday in Estimates said, I can neither confirm nor deny whether there is anything in writing, after we know his staff have been meeting with the Ministry of Health on this damage control strategy of covering up the documents that the people are entitled to, on a number of occasions.
My question to the Premier is, in light of the fact that this document also calls on the APM Connie Curran consultants on three occasions to produce a, quote, action plan to the government, will the Premier now order the Minister of Health to release the APM recommendations, the APM reports and the APM action plan which was required in this contract which the taxpayers paid close to $140,000 for? Will he please stop the cover-up and order the release of those documents?
Mr. McCrae: I have tabled today the work of the demonstration project, the report of the steering committee, which all our fellow Manitobans that were part of were on that project. I would ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to table all of the papers leading up to the release of the Price Waterhouse report, which the NDP commissioned, which calls for user fees and for cuts in services, Madam Speaker. I would like the members of the New Democratic Party--they like tabling things. Let them table the background documents behind the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1350)
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, Beauchesne’s Citation 417 is very clear that, “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.”
The question was directly in regard to the Connie Curran contract. We were asking the minister to clear up once and for all the confusion that is surrounding it, the cover-up related to this. It has nothing to do with the document he is now quoting from.
I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, you either ask him to answer the question or not to waste the time of this Legislature and sit down and allow us to ask further questions.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, the problem that the honourable members opposite have is they search in vain for statements that say this, that or the other thing. The point is they and their union boss buddies have their minds made up. It does not matter what any of the myriad reports say. There are numerous reports. All of them are out there; all of them can be looked at. Honourable members opposite have their minds made up. They do not want to be confused with any facts.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, the honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
How does the Premier explain the comments and actions of the Minister of Health who set up an advisory committee on home care, rejected their recommendations to hold public hearings on privatization, refuses to make the report public and then is completely contradicted in public by a member of that committee who says that privatization appears to be a political decision? How does the Premier explain those actions of his minister?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, it is now clear that the chair of the advisory committee on continuing care has no concern with the release of the comments made by the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program in March of 1996, and I table that today.
I also table a letter written by two members of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program, Myrna Fichett and Joyce Rose, members of the advisory committee on continuing care who say the following: Dear Mr. McCrae: We as members of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program are concerned with media reports regarding the committee’s--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, honourable members opposite might condone threatening and intimidating actions against home care workers, but they will not threaten or intimidate me.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, no one is threatening or intimidating the Minister of Health. I do not know what delusions the Minister of Health is suffering from at this point in time. We were simply asking the Minister of Health to answer a question.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to have him withdraw his comments which are not only unparliamentary but are completely untrue. We were not in any way doing anything other than asking him to finally answer some of our questions.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order?
Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, these sanctimonious members opposite would try to shout me down and then stand up under the guise of a point of order to talk about the way I answer their questions. These people cannot be bullies like we see out on the streets of Winnipeg, Madam Speaker. They cannot get away with that in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
* (1355)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. During the course of Question Period over this last week, I have on several occasions requested all members in this Chamber to show more courtesy and more respect.
The Speaker cannot always hear the remarks, the insulting and inflammatory remarks, that are being exchanged across the Chamber. However, those comments are unrequired and they do indeed provoke debate, provoke emotions and cause severe disruption to the proceedings of Question Period. This is a very sensitive issue, and I would request that all members posing their questions do so within the guidelines provided and that all members opposite respond according to the guidelines provided.
Now, on the point of order. I will take the point of order under advisement, I will review Hansard and I will report back to the Chamber, if necessary.
Now, I would like to remind all honourable members that the next time there is, in my opinion, an unnecessary disruption in Question Period, the House will be recessed until such time as members can be recalled and conduct Question Period in an appropriate manner to which all the public would prefer.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, to pose a supplementary question.
Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Point of Order
Mr. McCrae: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was in the middle of an answer when honourable members interrupted to raise a point of order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has decided that the response to that question is adequate and sufficient because a point of order was raised on it, on which I must report back to the House.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: My supplementary question is to the Premier.
Will the Premier finally step in, as we face a weekend where hospitals will be overloaded, where patient care will suffer, will he finally step in, put an end to this government policy of privatization and allow the patients--who we, after all, work for in this Chamber--to get access to the best quality health care?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, regrettably, the decision to withdraw services from those who need them most in this province has been made by the union representing the workers.
Madam Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand how you can help those who are most in need by withdrawing services from them when they need it. Those are circumstances that have been decided by others who are involved in this dispute. It has been said by their leadership at the bargaining table that this is strictly a philosophical issue, that it is one that clearly is supported by members opposite. If blind ideology is driving them to oppose any opportunity for providing competition, flexibility and opportunity to have services when people require them on a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day basis, I find that extremely regrettable.
I find it even more regrettable that the unions will not consider putting forth an emergency services agreement that would allow those most in need, those whose only option is to be hospitalized or put in personal care homes, to be provided that kind of service through the Home Care program. But if the members opposite want to support that kind of treatment and that kind of action, that is their problem and their decision and they will have to live with it.
Home Care Program
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Premier: How can the Premier, who has absolutely no studies, no reports, no recommendations, no advice, no committees that recommend privatization, continue this mad course to privatization? Will he now do at least what his own committee on home care recommended and hold public hearings on the privatization, so that we can get back to having proper home care in this province?
* (1400)
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, this is a government that continues to wish to resolve this issue. I would like to point out the union negotiating on the other side is a union that sent the government of Manitoba a letter setting out a negotiating schedule, and then did not show up. Instead, the union took a strike vote and withdrew essential services.
This is a union that will not provide an essential services agreement, giving only essential services to less than 1 percent of these vulnerable people who need assistance from the government, and they have withdrawn the usual caregivers. The government is now providing these services in a reasonable manner as best as we can.
I would like to table the government’s position in respect of what we propose as a reasonable essential services agreement and contrast that with the Manitoba Government Employees’ Union’s position, and let the public decide who is being reasonable.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, every economist who comments on the American health care system notes that administration, advertising and profit are the major causes for the big difference between their costs and ours. One of the major costs, of course, is advertising, such as this nice document which was delivered throughout south Winnipeg in the last day or so from We Care, the We Care News.
Could the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) tell the House why he is prepared to spend millions of Manitoban’s scarce dollars to support private companies’ greed in advertising instead of supporting the family incomes of already low-paid, dedicated home care workers?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, this is a government that is prepared to negotiate with the union. If the union believes that it can provide services in a more effective manner, in a cost-efficient way, in a flexible manner, this government is prepared to sit down and discuss it with them and, indeed, prepared to consider bids from the union as well.
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe Beauchesne says that ministers do not have to answer the questions, but the question posed bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the minister’s response. I believe if you look in Beauchesne’s, it indicates the minister does not have to answer the question, but if the minister does not want to answer the question, which was about We Care and profit in the health care industry, then the minister ought to sit down.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: On a point of order, the issue that has been raised in this House is the issue of private companies providing home care. What I am stating in the course of my answer, Madam Speaker, is that we have not limited this to private companies who are similarly profit motivated. That is the response and I believe it is right on point.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell the House why he supports private greed in the delivery of what he himself calls core health care services in the community when Canadians have long agreed that core services should be delivered by not-for-profit institutions, including all of Manitoba’s hospitals, the VON, Arthritis Society and others?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, honourable members opposite have done it again. Twice in the last week or so they have totally insulted the Victorian Order of Nurses, a private organization--albeit without tender--delivering nursing services to patients in the city of Winnipeg. Shame on the honourable members for the disparaging comments they make about the Victorian Order of Nurses.
A little while ago before honourable members shouted me down, I was tabling the report of March ’96 of the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program. In addition, I have an addendum to that because two of its members have written to me, and I will read the letter. Hopefully, honourable members do not want to shout down Myrna Fichett and Joyce Rose who are participants in the Advisory Committee to the Continuing Care Program. They say: Dear Mr. McCrae--and it is dated today, Madam Speaker. [interjection] Unless it fits with their union bosses friends’ agenda, they do not want to hear it.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I could ask for the co-operation of the honourable Minister of Health in summarizing quickly the contents of that letter that he wishes to table.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I would like very much to comply with what you are asking for, but I am not able to summarize what Myrna Fichett and Joyce Rose have said in two or three words. It is not a long letter.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, two days ago you stood up five times and the Minister of Health continued on in his statements. You have just advised him of what was in order and he rejected your instructions with the word “but.”
I would ask you to call the minister to order so that we can get order in this Chamber and ask direct questions and get direct answers, because Manitobans are very interested in finding out the cost, the quality of service and other issues related to the service to clients in this very important home care area.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order, the Leader of the official opposition indeed does have a point of order. The Speaker had requested the honourable Minister of Health to quickly summarize the contents of the letter or simply table it.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, if I had the necessary skill to summarize somebody else’s comments, I would do that, but I am not able to do that and do justice to Myrna Fichett and Joyce Rose who are members of the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the Minister of Health just then table the document, please.
Mr. McCrae: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here is the other report.
Core Services
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, is the minister prepared today to table a detailed list of core home care services which will be guaranteed to all Manitobans, without user fees, delivered under the intent and criteria of the Canada Health Act?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I think the honourable member mentioned the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act, for his information, does not govern the Home Care program.
Minister of Labour
Great-West Life Position
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Labour was an influential employee with Great-West Life Assurance Co. prior to his election last year. I would like to ask what the Minister of Labour’s current status is vis-à-vis Great-West Life?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I understand the question to be as to what my relationship with the Great-West Life company is. I am an employee on leave from the Great-West Life company, and I am here to serve the public of Manitoba.
Conflict of Interest
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, given that the 1995 Great-West Life annual report states that, and I quote, growth opportunities are being created by the shifting of health care costs, in particular, to the private sector in Canada--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. This is a supplementary question. Would the honourable member please pose her question now.
Ms. Barrett: Does the Premier not agree that there is indeed a clear conflict of interest for the Minister of Labour?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, rather than engage in desperate, low-level politics, I invite the member for Wellington to put forth an allegation or a complaint under our legislation that governs our actions here. We have a conflict of interest act with guidelines that govern the actions of each and every one of our members, and I can assure her that we take that seriously. We do not look upon it just for political cheap shots. So I invite her to make her allegations and to try and make her case. It is open to her, as it is to any citizen of Manitoba.
We Care Home Health Services
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, in this government’s drive to privatize home care services, earlier we asked in terms of if the government would be prepared to give special consideration to nonprofit groups, only to find out recently that there is preferential treatment. We Care is publicly financed or subsidized for training their employees.
My question to the government: How much money has We Care been given in order to train its employees to work for We Care?
* (1410)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will take that question under advisement. I do not know, but I will check any records we might have to see if there is any information that might be pertinent to the member.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would refer the minister to look at Hansard, June 16, 1995, page 1853.
My question is to the minister: Why are we paying these companies to train their workers and then continue to pay them in order to provide home care services?
Mrs. McIntosh: I think the member might be referring to the fact that we had a Workforce 2000 program, which was making training available for companies all across Manitoba. As the member knows, of course, that has been altered now so that we are doing sectoral training as opposed to individual firm training. I do not know if the firm he is referring to was one of the--some hundreds of thousands of people who received training under Workforce 2000, but I can have the records examined to see if they were one of the firms and let him know.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Minister of Health is: Is the minister aware that We Care is receiving public dollars to train its workers?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am aware that we have a public school system that is publicly financed and finances the education of the children in our public schools. I am aware that anybody who takes higher education, in one way or another, gets subsidized by government in their various training programs, and those programs are available. We do not discriminate against people in our education system.
The honourable member suggested the other day that there be some kind of uneven playing field when we get into tendering for projects in this province. It is an interesting concept. I certainly have not lent my support to it as yet, but the honourable member might try to convince me that it is the right thing to do.
TransCanada Pipelines
Stress Corrosion Testing
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Given the seriousness of the two gas explosions in Manitoba in the last few months, has the minister requested TransCanada Pipelines to expand the scope of the test program to test the entire system to ensure that stress corrosion cracking has not occurred in areas of high population density or in areas that would dictate the use of higher thickness pipe?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, the interprovincial gas pipeline falls under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, were holding hearings in Calgary to discuss that exact issue, the question of stress corrosion cracking in the pipeline system, the level of safety that the current system provides, plus whatever they can do to ensure that the pipeline is safe within the jurisdictions that it falls in Canada.
Mr. Maloway: My supplementary to the same minister is this: Could the minister release copies of all stress corrosion cracks semiannual reports that are available in the past three years dealing with Class 2, 3 and 4 locations in Manitoba?
Mr. Ernst: I will have to look into the question of whether those reports are available. If they are available--I am presuming they are coming from the National Energy Board--I am sure they are available to anyone.
Mr. Maloway: My final supplementary to the same minister is this: Since this recent incident occurred using the thicker class of pipe, has the minister decided to have staff conduct an independent investigation?
Mr. Ernst: We have the National Energy Board with all of their experts looking into this matter. We have the transport safety committee, another federal agency, with all of their experts also looking into this matter.
Madam Speaker, that kind of irresponsible statement by the member opposite is exactly why he is on that side of the House, because for us to check up on the experts of the other two federal agencies would cost the Province of Manitoba a minimum of at least $250,000, and I do not think that is a very effective use of money.
Domestic Violence
Case Prosecutions
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday at the commission of inquiry into the Lavoie murder-suicide some very disturbing new evidence was presented by Professor Jane Ursel of the Criminology Research Centre about the percentage of domestic violence cases her department, the minister's department, has been prepared to fold or stay between 1990 and 1994.
My question to the minister is, how can the minister reconcile this puffery from her publication called Stop the Violence which says, No margin will be afforded to abusers; the prosecutors have been so instructed and conduct themselves accordingly, with Ms. Ursel's evidence that there has been an increase of 114 percent of the percentage of cases her department has been willing to fold or stay?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I have met with Professor Jane Ursel a number of times, examined her work, which is in fact extremely positive to the working of the Domestic Violence Court in Manitoba.
Let me remind the member, I think perhaps he has forgotten that, thanks to the efforts of the now honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) when he was Minister of Justice, he led this country in the establishment of the very first Domestic Violence Court in this country, which still is the only court dedicated to the areas of family violence. With that Family Violence Court, I can tell you that cases are vigorously prosecuted, and evidence is required in order to complete that prosecution.
The evidence the member did not speak about that was testified yesterday by Professor Jane Ursel is the dramatic increase as well in the number of cases. Recent Stats Canada statistics also said that in Manitoba more women are likely to report cases of sexual assault than any other place in Canada because of the action they receive.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister then explain why, although women may report and while the police are generally bringing these abusers to her department, her department is then just sending away about one-half of the cases being referred? Her department is doing what she told the police not to do.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member seems to have an extremely limited understanding of what occurs in the area of domestic violence. Let me just tell him that a number of individuals who have been victims of domestic violence do not wish to testify. The member across the way, members of the NDP, might find it important to revictimize victims and require them to testify, subpoena them to court, have them refuse to testify, have them found in contempt. The member across the way would like to revictimize victims.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, if the minister is saying that there has been an increase of 114 percent in the women unwilling to testify--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his question.
Mr. Mackintosh: The question to the minister is, if the minister is so concerned about victims, why is she now putting the onus on the women as to whether a case proceeds or not, which means then that the abusers know where to go if they are going to get their case to fold?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member continues to indicate how very little he knows about the issue of domestic violence. We, Madam Speaker, have commissioned the inquiry into the Lavoie murder-suicide. We are looking for ways to continue to improve our system. However, there is a reality in that many of the victims do not, for whatever their reasons, wish to testify. However, the zero tolerance policy established by this government is one which immediately allows the police to attend, to attend seriously to the incident, to separate the participants at that time and to provide safety for the woman. At times, there is not evidence readily available if the individual is not prepared to testify. However, the police work vigorously and our Crown attorneys vigorously prosecute and the courts vigorously attend to it.
* (1420)
Family Dispute Agencies
Funding
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, yesterday at the Lavoie inquiry Ron Thorne-Finch, co-ordinator of the EVOLVE program, testified regarding the effects of the 2 percent cuts to family disputes funded agencies. He said the cuts would result in less access to service, increased staff burnout, an inability to cope with clients’ needs, both those of the abused and the abusers, and an end to the necessary program expansion.
In view of the deleterious and potentially tragic results of these cuts, I ask the Minister of Family Services to reconsider cuts to family dispute agencies.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow me the opportunity to indicate that decisions that were made in the Department of Family Services were made in order to protect those who needed the protection most. If we look at our welfare reform announcements, we know that we have protected the rights for those who are in abuse shelters and their children, for single parents with children under the age of six, for seniors and for the disabled.
Also, on the issue of abuse and shelters and services provided to women and children who have been abused, we are second to none across the country with the support that we have developed and put in place and stabilized in this province. Since we took government in 1988, we have a formula in place that does allow for the services to be provided much better than anywhere else across the country, and we will continue to improve upon those services.
Ms. McGifford: Cutting funds is an interesting--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) how she, as self-proclaimed champion of ending violence and promoting women, can at the same time by her presence in the cabinet sanction a decision which might have deadly results for Manitoba women.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the preamble, I do thank my honourable friend for that question, because we as a government have taken the issue of wife abuse very seriously.
If you will look at the funding for abuse shelters, the change that was made was a very small change in the operating grant, 2 percent of the operating grant only, no change in the welfare payment supports for abused women and children, no change in the per diems for the shelters in order to serve those women. In discussion and dialogue with the shelters throughout the province of Manitoba, they believe that they will be able to manage because with the funding formula that we have put in place, the money can flow based on the priorities of the shelters and the services that they need to provide for women and children.
Enhanced Crop Insurance Program
Benefit Reduction
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture recently announced an enhanced crop insurance which is supposed to be better, but in fact producers are finding when they look at the costs and benefits of the 70 to 80 percent coverage, there is very little benefit for the cost and they are opting for the 50 percent coverage.
Will the minister agree that there is very little improvement in this enhanced crop insurance program, and instead of moving forward with coverage, we are moving backward with protection for farmers in crop insurance?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, what is evident in the first instance is that through those years that grain farmers faced extremely low grain prices, this government, my predecessor, brought forward a program to help tide grain farmers through that period. That program was a revenue insurance program known as GRIP. It paid out in excess of $800 million to Manitoba grain producers during the five years of its operation. It should not be confused with the basic crop insurance program that is, and always has been, offered to Manitoba farmers.
Thankfully, the recovery in grain prices is such that that insurance or that government support for poor grain prices is no longer necessary. I am satisfied that the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program that is being offered, and by its reception by producers, demonstrates that it is among the best in the country.
Wildlife Damage
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I would like to ask the minister if he realizes that farmers are being penalized on their premium and their coverage because of wildlife damage, over which they have no control, and in fact are being denied the 80 percent coverage? What steps is the minister going to take to correct this problem which farmers have no control over?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Well, Madam Speaker, I knew that if I just gave the honourable member sufficient time, there would be an issue that she and I could both agree on. I do accept the premise that while society, all of us, like to see healthy wildlife herds, whether it is ducks or geese or big game, deer or elk, it ought not to be done so at the expense of the farmer, and over the years, we have introduced support programs. The crop insurance people have the program under review. The current support price covers upwards to 75 percent of the actual loss suffered by farmers. I would like to see it moved somewhat higher and will work towards that end.
I do not support the concept of 100 percent coverage because there has to be some ongoing onus or responsibility on the part of the farmer to help minimize or to help manage the loss. These are discussions that are taking place with Ottawa; Ottawa shares in some of the programs. It cannot be done overnight.
Ms. Wowchuk: Will the minister agree that farmers should not have their IPI reduced because of wildlife damage which is happening now? Will he take steps to ensure that those producers who are feeding wildlife on their land do not have their IPI reduced because of claims of wildlife damage?
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice and consult with Manitoba crop officials if in fact that is taking place.
I remind the honourable member that my understanding is that our Estimates of the department are coming up sooner, rather than later, and the officials of the corporation, of course, will be present for her to ask these questions directly of them.
Post-Secondary Education
Enrollment
* (1430)
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Education told us that she believed that enrollments at universities and colleges in Manitoba were increasing. Yet, a couple of weeks ago, on April 3, in the Winnipeg Free Press, she is quoted as saying, in reference to her cut to universities: I think a 2 percent cut, given that the enrollment is down, is not out of line.
Could the minister tell us whether enrollments are going up or down?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I believe the member has misquoted me because I indicated yesterday colleges, and there is a difference between a college and a university. However, I would indicate to the member, that which I have already stated probably, that enrollments at universities right across this nation, the trend is downward in terms of year over year and, in many cases, that is because of increased job creation. In Manitoba’s case, the enrollment at the university is down slightly this year, and as I indicated and I have indicated in the past, that is because of two factors, one, more job opportunities in the economy and increased interest in the courses and training being taken at colleges and in the workforce itself.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister confirm for us today that prospective enrollments at the universities in Manitoba are down comparable to last year in the region of 20 percent? Could she tell us whether there will be a comparable 20 percent increase in community college enrollments?
Mrs. McIntosh: No, I cannot give those figures today, Madam Speaker. I know the member does, though, if she is trying to link it to funding, which I believe is her ultimate intent, that she knows, as we know, the amount of money we are putting into new scholarships and those types of things, and she is fully aware of the mammoth impact of the federal transfer cuts to health and education in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.