LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, May 21, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs.
Carstairs). It complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS
the
WHEREAS
the Kimelman Report (1983), the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (1991) and the Suche
Report (1992) recommended that the province establish such an office reporting
directly to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, in a manner similar to that
of the Office of the Ombudsman; and
WHEREAS
pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act Standards, the agency worker is
to be the advocate for a child in care; and
WHEREAS
there is a major concern that child welfare workers, due to their vested
interest as employees within the service system, cannot perform an independent
advocacy role; and
WHEREAS
pure advocacy will only be obtained through an independent and external agency;
and
WHEREAS
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has unsatisfactorily dealt
with complaints lodged against child welfare agencies; and now
THEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* *
*
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for
The
petition of the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS
the Manitoba Heritage Federation has received and processed nearly 1,200 grant
applications and awarded and monitored almost 700 grants; and
WHEREAS
300 different organizations in 98 different communities representing every
region of the province have received grants through the efforts of the Manitoba
Heritage Federation; and
WHEREAS
the government has taken away the granting authority of the Manitoba Heritage
Federation and now plans to control the distribution of heritage grants; and
WHEREAS
this action appears to represent the politicization of the heritage granting
process; and
WHEREAS
it is unclear as to what the government's real commitment is to funding
heritage in the province; and
WHEREAS
the Board of the Heritage Federation is composed of urban and rural members
which represents a wealth of heritage experience from all over the province;
and
WHEREAS
this move will have a critical impact on the heritage community throughout the
province
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT AND TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement to
make, and I also want to table the agreement between Split Lake Cree, Canada,
Manitoba Hydro and the
I
wish to provide this House with additional information regarding the
comprehensive settlement agreement with the Split Lake
*
(1335)
On
May 4 of 1992, I informed the House that the negotiators for
Today
I am pleased to table in this House the agreement to which I have
referred. This agreement details exactly
how the obligations of each party will be fulfilled. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the members
through the settlement page by page, but rather offer a very brief summary of
the major components of particular interest in addressing the outstanding
obligations of the parties.
Compensation
Lands:
Fee
Simple Lands:
Resource
Management: A Resource Management Area
will be established and co‑managed by
Resource
Compensation: A trust fund will be
established to administer settlement monies in order to compensate for the past
adverse effects on the natural resource base.
Economic
and Social Development: A development
corporation will be established to promote a wide range of developments for
ongoing benefits of the members of the Split Lake Cree First Nation.
It is
important for this House to recognize that this settlement with the Split Lake
Cree will in no way infringe on the rights of the First Nations of Norway
House,
If
approved, the agreement assures that benefits will flow directly to the people
in the community affected. As provided
for in this $47‑million agreement, the agreement will be tabled with the
NFA arbitrator, the Northern Flood Agreement arbitrator, for an order which
will recognize the settlement as a full and final resolution of the NFA
obligation of the parties to Split Lake
Mr.
Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to this
statement by the Minister of Northern Affairs.
As
you know, this outstanding agreement has been in discussion for many years, and
we feel that the issues need to be addressed.
I know this is a major step for the members of the Split Lake Band, but
I know that the vote has not taken place. The community has to still assess the
agreement, and we do not want, in any way, to prejudice the outcome and say
this is a bad agreement. Certainly, that
is a decision that will be left to the people in that community.
I
must caution the minister and say that there are other bands who are concerned
about this agreement. I do not have the
details of the agreement itself, although the minister has stated that it would
not affect the other members. Any flooding
that is done in future Hydro developments in the North, Conawapa or other Hydro
sites, will impact the areas that have been flooded. So in a sense we cannot say that the
communities will not be affected. They will certainly be affected by such a
project.
There
are many other things that are contained in the agreement that may have an
impact, not necessarily in terms of affecting
We
have been concerned about the progress and the snail's pace of the whole
process. Of course, we are very
concerned about the costs of the whole process and who is actually benefitting
from the agreements. We have outrageous
examples of fees that are paid to consultants and lawyers, and no benefits are
derived for the people who are directly affected by the agreement.
I
hope that this agreement is one that we can look back at some time in the
future and look back at this agreement, that it is a good agreement. But we will have to reserve judgment on that
in the future. So I reserve comments
until this has been dealt with.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1340)
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the time that the minister first came forward
with his announcement that there was a deal in the works some time ago, we are
pleased to see the resolution and some hope for the future for the communities
in northern
With
respect to the details of the agreement, I am pleased that the minister is
tabling it today. I look forward to
reviewing it and going through it in some detail with the minister in the
upcoming Estimates. I am also pleased to
see that the contentious issue of fees which has been an issue in the public
and an issue that has raised concern is being referred to the arbitrator, I believe,
Mr. MacLean under the Northern Flood Agreement.
I look forward to a full hearing on the merits of that issue at that
time.
Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the agreement itself and the bare‑bones analysis
the minister has given here, I am particularly pleased to see, and will be
interested to read, the details on the economic and social development
clauses. Anyone who has visited these
communities, communities like this in the North, knows that they are in
desperate need of leadership and of the ability to put into place economic and
social plans for the future. That is
desperately required in these communities.
I am pleased to see that there may be some hope for this community at
long last after many, many years to develop a social and economic plan for the
future and future generations, so that these communities can thrive in the
future, rather than suffer the consequences of economic deprivation.
Mr.
Speaker, the point I wish to leave members of the House with on this occasion
is that if there is one lesson from this coming so many years after the damage
was done, it is that consistently in this province and in this nation, we have
underestimated the cost of this type of development. We have underestimated in terms of not only
financial cost and social cost, but human cost in these communities and the
communities that this type of development affects. That is the legacy of the development which
took place and led to this agreement and the Northern Flood Agreement in
general.
Mr.
Speaker, as we head into a further development, this government, unfortunately,
appears not to have learned from that lesson and appears to be repeating again
the failure of the former governments, former administration, to adequately and
accurately predict what the real cost is to these communities.
Today,
this government is pushing forward full speed ahead and looking to meet
unrealistic time lines with respect to the Conawapa project, having built in a
penalty clause with the
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister, on this day when he is with pride announcing a
resolution at long last for this one community, to reflect on the legacy of the
past and to learn from it.
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table
the Annual Report for the year ending June 30, 1991, of The Public Schools
Finance Board.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the
gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Nellie McClung
Collegiate, thirty Grade 11 students, and they are under the direction of Terri‑Lynn
Mitchel. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Federal Environmental Assessment
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, western
One
has been, of course, the Rafferty‑Alameda dam that we thought, and all
the evidence that was produced, was a very, very harmful project for the people
of
A
second project, Mr. Speaker, that is now being ruled on today is the
*
(1345)
Given
the fact that the
Hon.
James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I hardly think the Leader of the
Opposition is using a fair comparison as to using the
Let
me conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this government is
doing the responsible thing through the Department of Environment, through the
Department of Natural Resources and all those people responsible for making
sure any work activity in this area is carried out under a thorough and normal
process.
Mr.
Doer: I did
not ask the Deputy Premier that question.
I asked the Deputy Premier, will he now, in light of the precedents that
have developed, agree that there should be a federal environmental
assessment. Will he now state
unequivocally that he and his government support a federal environmental
assessment, rather than having the province proceed and the federal government
coming in after, dealing with federal jurisdictions, being very critical and
rendering the project useless in terms of the taxpayers' money and in terms of
the stewardship of our water and our most precious resources?
Mr.
Downey: Mr.
Speaker, I have a difficulty in understanding where the Leader of the New
Democratic Party comes from.
We
have just announced today a major compensation package that is being worked on,
of which he and his government of the past were responsible for creating, no
environmental reviews taking place under the northern development of the
As
far as the work on the water system that he is referring to, Mr. Speaker, I
will take the specifics as to what is being carried out as notice for my
colleague, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings).
Mr.
Doer: A number
of communities now and a number of aboriginal communities that are affected by
this project are asking the provincial government to have a federal environmental
impact study. On April 12, 1991, in this
House, the Deputy Premier stated:
"Let me make it clear that our caucus clearly represents the areas
of which we are talking about . . .".
No
caucus and no member represents all the interests of all Manitobans, Mr.
Speaker. It is not a purview of only the
Conservative caucus and the Conservative government.
I
would ask again, in light of the recommendations from the City of
Mr.
Downey: Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure the members of this House and the people of
We
are working, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that all parties that are going to be
influenced or affected by any activities that are carried out, whether it is
with water, whether it is with Hydro development, as has been indicated has not
been done in the past, that those considerations are taken into account before
activities are carried out.
Crow Benefit Payment Plan
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture did not remember that
he had vetoed a democratic decision that had been made by potato producers in
this province. Today, he will probably
wish that he could forget about his statements made about the payment of the
Crow benefit after the ministerial meeting that was held recently.
*
(1350)
I
want to reference very briefly a couple of minor quotes from the Hansard that
are relevant to my question. On May 12,
I asked the Minister of Agriculture about his statement that
Mr.
Speaker, in view of the fact that the Western Producer has indicated that, in
fact, 11 meetings favoured the current method of payment and only six meetings
favoured a change in the method of payment, how can this minister say that this
is a 50‑50 split? Is this what
this minister calls too close to call?
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.
Speaker, the member has already given us two different questions in his
comments to the House here this afternoon.
I
would like to remind him from the question yesterday, that back in February
1989‑‑I am sorry, in June 1988‑‑a national vote was
held, and the producers of
An
Honourable Member: You got the wrong one.
Mr.
Findlay: Okay, Mr.
Speaker, the member just indicated I got the wrong one. Well, he was unable yesterday to determine
which one he wanted to talk about. I
presume the one he wanted to talk about was, in February 1989, the provincial
processing potato producers wanted to have a price‑setting
mechanism. They came to me with various
proposals, and through a process of six to seven months of discussion, they
were able to enter into the first‑ever two‑year contract with the
processing companies in
Everything
has been resolved very, very well for the good of the processing potato
producers in the
Mr.
Plohman: Well,
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not, with all due respect, answer the question I
asked of him today. He has conveniently
not mentioned the 68 percent in the vote that was taken and that he
vetoed. Okay, I will deal with the issue
of the 50‑50 split and the method of payment.
I
want to ask the minister: Will he
indicate what his motivation was for suggesting, for saying, for proposing at
the minister's meeting that the method of payment should be made differently to
different provinces and even differently to different producers? Why did he make that kind of ill‑conceived
proposal?
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, it is too bad that member cannot be present at these meetings. He might actually know what is going on. The member now wants to hear from me
again. The member just read from Hansard
the exact answer I am going to give him again, and he says he wants to hear it
from me. I will tell him for the second
time.
The
consultant‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Apologize for misleading the House.
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, I reject categorically what that member just said across the
House. To the ministers, the consultants
reported that
Mr.
Speaker, I will read further from the report:
The fact that opinion is divided on some points is clearly a matter of
concern.
Yes,
it is a matter of concern. If any
changes are to be made, the starting point should be built on the areas of
general agreement that do exist, and there is agreement in
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, this minister is calling 11 meetings to six 50‑50 again. Can he not read?
Will
the minister now withdraw his ill‑conceived proposal that was made at the
minister's meeting, since it was almost universally rejected by all farm groups
in this country?
*
(1355)
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, you know, I am tempted to call this member quite irresponsible in the
way he just quotes from a paper 11 to six.
The paper does not have access to the information that the consultants
took from the meetings. There were
verbal statements made, but not everybody in the meetings spoke. Everybody in
the meetings had the right to fill in a form which the consultants took from
the meetings and did their analysis and report.
I would recommend that the member read the actual document submitted by
Peat Marwick, the consultants who did the study, not listen to somebody's
interpretation in the press who did not have the information that the
consultants were bringing forward.
I am
very disappointed this member says that his way is the only way, and he refuses
the farmers of
Health Care System
Computerized Health Smart Card
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister
of Health.
Part
of the new thinking on health and well‑being is that it consists of more
than hospitals and doctors. Individual
citizens must and can indeed become more active participants in their own good
health. They must know facts about how
to stay healthy, and they must learn how to prevent illness. They must know facts about what makes a
healthy lifestyle, and they must have facts about the most appropriate and
effective ways to use the health care system.
The
studies have shown that we pay a high price for the inappropriate use of the
system as it presently exists for nonemergencies in emergency wards and for
overmedication and for duplication of tests and procedures.
Mr.
Speaker, today we issued a press release asking the government to implement, as
soon as possible, a computerized Health Smart Card. Will the minister today tell the House when
this government is going to begin the implementation of such a Health Smart
Card in the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to listen to
good ideas and to expand them into better ideas. You might recall that the Leader of the
Liberal Party has been proposing, over a number of years, a pharmacard for use
in the Pharmacare system.
I
have taken the initiative in
Mr.
Speaker, I have made that comment to a number of groups over the past six to
eight months, and I am pleased now to see that my honourable friends are saying
to not narrow a plastic card technology to Pharmacare program but to expand it
across the system as we have been contemplating as a result of the conference
we hosted in
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, when we made our Pharmacare card suggestion, we did it as an initial
step in seeing if the Smart Card would work.
We now know that the technology is capable of broadening it to many more
areas. The Minister of Health indicates
that he is still contemplating it, and he is still considering it.
Can
he tell us what kind of collaborative efforts he has entered into with
Ministers of Health across the nation for a national implementation of such a
Smart Card with the technology being borne in cost by all 10 provincial Health
ministries?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, there has been no discussion at the ministers' level in terms of a
national implementation of Smart Card.
Other provinces have varying forms and degrees of implementation of
smart‑card type technology; all of them new, some of them with growing
pains.
Mr.
Speaker, I will indicate to my honourable friend where we see an advantage and
a benefit for a system‑wide introduction of plastic card technology in
the
Building
on the strength of that scientific excellence, which is leading in
*
(1400)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, one other province that is looking very carefully at a smart‑card
technology is the
Can
the minister tell this House what specific studies and analysis are being done
in this province? When will he have
clear information available for this House as to when we could implement such a
smart‑card technology in the
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, we may have some clearer implementation strategies including costs and
implementation time frame later on this year.
Northern Health Care System
Mammography‑Chemotherapy Services
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
My
question to the minister is: Given the
valuable service provided by the mammography technology and the chemotherapy in
Thompson, can he give us any assurances that these community‑based
services will not be lost to Thompson or the northern region?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the issue first off of
mammography in Thompson, my honourable friend will surely want to acknowledge,
if she has such close communication with her colleague the MLA for Thompson,
that the mammography program was introduced without approval for funding by the
provincial government. That issue is
very much in discussion with the
Mr.
Speaker, to deal with the issue of chemotherapy, it is my understanding that
discussions are ongoing with the Thompson
Regional Facility
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I am
wondering if he could answer the question around the issue of Thompson being
considered as a regional hospital, since it has now dramatically increased the
number of specialists in that area. Is
this minister now prepared to fund
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend with her
broad knowledge of funding will know that there is no specific funding policy
for regional hospitals. We simply do not have that, and that policy does not
exist.
I
want to tell my honourable friend that that is exactly why, in 1989 when
Thompson had faced, I believe, six doctors for the entire community, this
government aided by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) and all
members of this government, proactively worked through the Standing Committee
on Medical Manpower‑‑whose budget we doubled, Sir, just to provide
these kinds of services‑‑with the
That
is exactly why we have encouraged through policy initiatives, through changes
in the Northern Patient Transportation Program, policies which we hope will
encourage the use of those services in Thompson, instead of having people
flying to
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: The notion of funding hospitals on a regional
basis may not be government policy, but it is a recommendation to the minister
in the northern health care task force report going back to October 11, 1991.
I am
wondering if the minister is prepared, on the basis of this report, to
recommend funding for Thompson as a regional hospital, thereby dealing with
some of these difficult problems pertaining to mammography and chemotherapy
services.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, without having a definitive policy describing hospitals as regional
hospitals or otherwise, the province undertakes the delivery of specialist
programs in areas of the province outside of the city of
Rural Economic Growth
Employment Creation Strategy
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
Statistics
I
want to ask the Minister of Rural Development:
When is he going to convince his colleagues to put their money where
their mouth is and start investing in real jobs in rural
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to answer
this question.
First
of all, let me assure the member that this government has taken some very
significant steps towards revitalizing the rural economy. Mr. Speaker, allow me an opportunity to just
explain a couple of the initiatives that have been implemented.
The
member speaks about decentralization, Mr. Speaker. As of today, we have decentralized some 520
positions into rural
Mr.
Speaker, additionally, we have implemented the Grow Bond program. Just the day before yesterday, we announced a
new Grow Bond sale in Teulon. A company
that will come into Teulon will create 50 new jobs‑‑50 new jobs in
rural
Decentralization
Status Report
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. Your question has been put.
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): The reality is that we have decentralized 520
positions currently to rural
Mr.
Speaker, what the member does not realize is that this province has been in a
recession in terms of the rural economy. What has been happening to the
farms? That is why this government went
into the GRIP program, to assist farmers and to ensure that the economy can be
stimulated in rural
So
let not the member indicate to this House that nothing has happened from this
government.
Regional Development Corporations
Funding
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
My
final question to the Minister of Rural Development is: If he is offering such
supports for rural communities, can he tell us why he has allowed the funding
for RDCs to drop to a level lower than it was when the NDP was in government? In 1987, the funding was at $609
million. It is now down to $593 million.
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are spending
$500 million on RDCs.
If
the former administration had not left this province the legacy of a debt like
they did, today we would be happy to forward more money to regional development
corporations. Even under the economic
constraints that we have to work within, we have still allowed for a new
development corporation to be established, and that is the West‑Man
Development Corp. which will be receiving $93,000 this year.
*
(1410)
Mr.
Speaker, we have increased the share of responsibility of this government to
RDCs to a 75 percent‑25 percent split, where it was 70‑30
before. So, indeed, in economic times
such as we are living through, we have been able to maintain our commitment to
RDCs in this province.
Free Trade Agreement
Government Support
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.
Speaker, in 1985, the G‑7 countries of which
Now
my question to the Minister of Finance is this:
He has consistently supported the U.S. Free Trade Agreement since its
inception. I believe, in looking at
these numbers, that they indicate now that this deal is not working.
I
would like to ask the minister if he will reconsider his support for this
agreement.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I understand indexes. Of course, there is tremendous subjective
weighting around all indexes. Let me
say, during that period of time of which the member indicates, the Canadian
dollar was well below 80 cents for a large period of time. Certainly, governments nationally and
provincially across this land were borrowing huge amounts of money and
contributing, obviously, to economic generation on the basis of borrowed money.
So I
would think that any regression analysis that would be done today that would
attempt to draw some conclusion as to this period of time versus a previous
period of time and the impact of free trade today versus the past would have
some difficulty, have some grave difficulty, making any type of strong
conclusion as to the well‑being and the result of the free trade
association.
I
would say, Mr. Speaker, given the realities of today, where the Canadian dollar
still is beyond 80 cents, given the realities where provincial governments and
the federal government do not have the capacity to borrow money in the fashion
that they have, and the consumers do not have the capacity to borrow money in
the fashion they did, that any comparison would be misleading.
Impact Industrial Production
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, this is a minister who lives on promises and denies
reality.
The
promise that this minister brought to us was that the signing of this deal
would improve industrial production in this country. The reality is we have fallen from the top
half of the pack to the bottom. We are
seven out of seven.
Now
will the Minister of Finance explain to this House why it is that he believes
that the Free Trade Agreement has had no impact on industrial production in
this country?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as I remember, Donald MacDonald,
a former great economic guru of the federal Liberal Party, was also a very
staunch supporter of the Free Trade Agreement.
Anybody
who understood, and understood where industrial make‑up was going in this
country, realized full well that our cost of production and indeed our
competitiveness was falling very much behind every other industrial nation in
the world, and indeed that there was a major readjustment required. Unless there was some public policy that was
going to cause that adjustment to occur, the time would be coming when even
greater numbers of people would be out of work than is unfortunately the case
today.
I am
not here to defend free trade‑‑[interjection] No, that is not my
purpose. I am the Minister of Finance
for the
Government Support
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.
Speaker, the policy is failing. It is failing.
This is the Minister of Finance for the
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked ad
nauseam in this House over the period of the last three or four weeks. Certainly the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) have made our view
and indeed the side we take on this issue very clear.
Mr.
Speaker, there are six conditions. Six
conditions of which, if neither are met or any of them are met, indeed we will
not be a supporter of the North American free trade association, but
furthermore, I point out once again, international trade is a federal matter
and ultimately the federal government will make the decision on behalf of all
Canadians and, of course, Manitobans are Canadians first.
Granting Authority
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My
question is for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. The last three years the Heritage Federation
has been able to distribute on an annual basis over $600,000 to
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I think the issue that we have to deal with
in dealing with the Heritage Federation and any other mechanism that is put in
place to distribute funds to the heritage community is No. 1, that if, in fact,
we can run a grant program to the heritage community at $100,000 less in
administrative costs than the Heritage Federation was doing, ultimately the heritage
community is going to receive $100,000 more in funding to the grassroots
community for projects and programs. I
want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of changing the funding
from the Heritage Federation indeed to another body is to reduce administrative
costs, and less administrative costs means more money to community
organizations.
Heritage Community
Public Consultations
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Would the minister make a commitment to the
House to hold province‑wide public consultations in order to develop the
basic heritage policy framework that she would not convey to the Heritage
Federation and that she refused to convey to this House when asked?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I have committed to a
consultative process throughout the
Information Tabling Request
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.
Speaker, will the minister table the letters that she claims to have received
applauding her policy of withdrawing funding from the Heritage Federation? Will she table those letters in the House?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I do know that within the
community there are people who applaud the decision that this government has
taken‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Well, I
know I hear the member for
Some
Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. I remind the honourable minister‑‑order,
please‑‑to deal with the matter raised.
Point of Order
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
* *
*
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. I had recognized the honourable
member for The Maples. The honourable
Madam Minister was not finished with her response? The honourable minister to finish her
response, briefly.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr.
Speaker, if I might continue to respond to the question that was put, in fact,
there have been people who have written the member for
Some
Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has put a question to the honourable Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and I would ask the honourable minister to
deal with that matter raised.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr.
Speaker, I guess the member for Wolseley and her party, along with the Liberal
opposition, will have to determine where they stand and where their party's
policy would be. Do they, in fact, want
to see more money going to administration, or do they want to see more money
going to the heritage community? They
are going to have to make up their minds.
*
(1420)
Mr.
Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): The Supply motion, I understand that the
Department of Agriculture Estimates will begin in Room 255.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr.
Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself
into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion
agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the
Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture; and the
honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
AGRICULTURE
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon this section of
the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will be considering the Estimates of
the Department of Agriculture.
Does
the honourable Minister of Agriculture have any opening statements?
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is a pleasure for
me at this time to introduce the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture for
1992‑93. These Estimates reflect the
Some
of the signals we see are: certainly, a
higher percentage of producers have been able to make their payments on time
with MACC; there has certainly been a reduction in the number of cases coming
before the Manitoba Farm Mediation Board; and the realized net income projected
for 1992 is about $360 million, certainly a significant increase over the $245
million last year and the $191 million the year before.
This
$360 million of realized net income that we see for 1992 is exactly the same as
what we had in the last four years of the 1980s, a period from '85 to '89,
where the average realized net income was around $360 million a year.
That
is a level of realized net income that can keep our farm community relatively
satisfied. It is not something that they
are going to get rich on or going to prosper on, but when we look back to the
late 1980s, those were not such bad years compared to the years of 1990 and
'91.
Some
of the other positive indications that farmers see are that certainly in
The
rate at which grain has been exported this year will undoubtedly lead to a
record. The previous record that we had
was around 30.7 million tonnes exported in the crop year 1987‑88, and it
certainly looks, in terms of the rate the Wheat Board is selling it right now,
that they should export more of that and maybe up around the 32‑million
mark.
This
is rather surprising given that we had a strike back in September that really
slowed the system down and almost paralyzed it for three weeks, but it is a
compliment to everybody in the industry that they were able to overcome that
and get on with selling grain around the world.
*
(1440)
Another
factor is that the demand for grain in the export market has certainly
improved. It is about 92 million tonnes
last year and 106 million tonnes this year.
We have about 20 percent of that market, so we are doing quite
well. Certainly there has been some
upward movement in grain prices, which gives farmers again some little bit of
optimism for the future.
Just
so people know what has been happening to grain prices, I would like to give
the Wheat Board prices going back to 1986‑87. We were running around $130 a tonne total
payment for '86‑87; $134 a tonne for '87‑88; up to $197 a tonne in
'88‑89; $180 a tonne in '89‑90; in 1990‑91 it dropped to $135
a tonne, which, over that five‑year period, had an average price for
wheat through the Wheat Board $155 a tonne.
The
initial price for the crop 1991‑92 was $95 a tonne, so about $60 a tonne
less, or about two‑thirds of the actual price of the five‑year
average previous, which is quite a drop.
The projection for the 1992 crop year looks like the initial price could
be above the $95 of a year ago, maybe as much as $20 above. We sure hope that is the case.
The
other little bit of positive is that in the process over the last few months
the Wheat Board has announced two interim price adjustments, one $6 a tonne,
the other $8 a tonne. So the producer is
now getting the initial price of $109 a tonne.
That gives farmers some sense of optimism for the present and the
future.
Certainly,
the combination of improved market prices and enhanced market opportunities and
the safety net programs are combining to aid farmers during these difficult
times.
In
Manitoba Agriculture, we tend to have a total net income‑‑cash
income, I guess you would say‑‑at the farm gate of around $2
billion. It was a little less than $2
billion the last two years, and this year it is going to be about $2.1 billion.
Generally
about half of that comes from the livestock sector and the other half from the
crop sector. This year $500 million of
that $2 billion cash income at the farm gate is going to come from safety net
programs. We are talking safety net
programs like GRIP and NISA and National Tripartite Stabilization.
Certainly,
farmers are encouraged by the drop in prime interest rates from the previous
year. Generally speaking, farmers are
paying just about half of what they were paying a year ago for money that they
have to borrow.
We
are also seeing some signs of positive action in terms of machine sales. It seems that the sales are up over the last
year, not dramatically up, but up in terms of making that sector feel a little
more positive about agriculture in the future.
A few
other critical components of Manitoba Agriculture's contribution to the
economy, I would like to put on the record. The first is that agriculture and
agriculture‑related industries make up 11.1 percent of Manitoba's gross
domestic product. For every dollar of
net income produced by primary agriculture in Manitoba, $1.71 is generated in
the overall provincial economy.
Approximately,
12 percent or 70,000 jobs are contributed to Manitoba's labour force through
agriculture directly and indirectly. In
other words, about one job in eight in Manitoba is due to agriculture.
The
GATT negotiations will have a significant influence on the future of Manitoba's
agriculture and food economy. We have
worked closely with the federal government and farm organizations in reviewing
the GATT draft of proposals presented by Arthur Dunkel and will continue to
work with the federal government in assessing various alternatives that come forward.
The
Manitoba government's position calls for clarification of strengthening of
Article 11, a substantial reduction in all trade distorting subsidies; thirdly,
increased access to international markets; fourthly, clearer trade rules that
apply equally to all countries; and fifthly, a framework to prevent the misuse
of health and sanitary measures as disguised barriers to trade.
The
degree of success that we may have will in large part be based on the support
we receive from other nations and the changes which they may be pressing for.
The
Dunkel proposal contains significant benefits to the grains or oil seeds and
livestock sectors. The proposed
reductions in export subsidies will support improved prices for grains and oil
seeds. The minimum access provisions
will certainly improve export markets for red meats.
In
the area of transportation, the Manitoba government continues to participate in
the federal view of Canada's transportation policy with a shipment of farm
commodities. When we are talking
transportation, one must never forget that in Manitoba we do export a good 60
percent of all our agriculture production.
In the case of wheat, it is about 80 to 90 percent that has to be
exported. In terms of an exporting
region of the world, we are the furthest from salt water of any other grain
producing area of the world. So
transportation is a big issue for us, both in terms of access to the system and
in terms of cost.
In
January and February of this year, a consultant, Peat Marwick Stevenson &
Kellogg, conducted this series of workshops across Canada to record the
viewpoints of all stakeholders. In all,
24 of these meetings were held in Manitoba.
The consultant's report summarized what was heard at these meetings and
was submitted to the Ministers of Agriculture on May 4. The document was also made public at that
time.
At
the direction of First Ministers, the Ministers of Agriculture have developed a
timetable for a review of transportation policies. Further work on these options identified by
the public meetings will be done over the next few weeks for consideration by
ministers at their annual conference in July.
With
regard to the 1990s the Manitoba Department of Agriculture has recently
published its Vision for the 1990s, the department's blueprint for the balance
of this decade. I was pleased to forward
a copy of this document to both the opposition critics a few weeks ago. The foundation for developing a vision came
from an extensive consultative process called the strategic management review,
a major department undertaking lasting over a year. Through this process we extensively consulted
with our strategic partners for reviewing our strategy alternatives for
addressing the needs of agriculture and the food sector. Strategic partners who
participated within this process included farmers, producer organizations,
researchers, agri‑business, consumers and other levels of government.
The
broad goals of the Vision were three.
Firstly, to assist the agriculture food sector to shift away from its
past emphasis on commodity production towards sustainable and yet diversified,
value‑added and market‑oriented industry. Secondly, to strengthen a broader producer
risk‑reduction systems to cushion farmers against price and yield
fluctuations, for instance, crop insurance, revenue insurance, tripartite
stabilization and NISA. Thirdly, to strengthen Manitoba agriculture's client
orientation. Our clients who are our
customers are No. 1, and serving them is the prime reason why our department
exists.
Department
management staff are currently reviewing the Vision with respect to applying
the Vision goals within our respective program areas. Although the Vision was just recently
released to both the public and the department staff, the department has
embarked those initiatives of thrust towards realizing the Vision's goals.
Some
of these initiatives and thrusts involve the following program areas. An area of risk reduction measures: The department in conjunction with the
federal government and producers entered into comprehensive safety net
programs, gross revenue insurance program, NISA and certainly other tripartite
stabilization programs.
The
second initiative under the Vision was sustainable development, and as part of
Farming for Tomorrow program staff continue to assist local organizations, some
44 across the province, promoting sound soil conservation practice throughout
agriculture in Manitoba.
The
third initiative is marketing and market orientation, and regional staff continue
to assist producers in establishing local marketing clubs. Participants using their own farms as a case
study developed basic marketing skills primarily in the areas of livestock and
grain. Each marketing club is usually
composed of around 10, 12, 15 producers.
Fourthly,
we look forward to working with our strategic partners and moving our vision
into a reality, a reality aimed at improving the economic and personal well‑being
of all those participants within the agriculture and food sector.
I would
like to remind my critics that although it is called the Department of
Agriculture we often use the term agriculture and food, because we have to
realize that what we are producing has to satisfy a customer and their
satisfaction is in the food that they eat.
So we always like to link agriculture and food, and I think in that
fashion it has a better ring in the ears of the consumer who is the person we
are looking to for supports through the process of the use of tax dollars in
this budget that we are bringing forward today.
Some
of the budget highlights‑‑certainly we will talk about them in the
course of the Estimates review, but during these tough economic times the
Manitoba government has found itself having to make some difficult budgetary
decisions. With no revenue growth and
the high cost of servicing accumulated deficits, the province has struggled to
maintain its fundamental health, education and social services. In spite of the current budgetary constraints
faced by the province the 1992‑93 budget for Agriculture was increased by
some $23.3 million from the previous fiscal year. This figure represents about a 21 percent
increase in budgeted expenditure from the past fiscal year. That is an increase in budgetary expenditure
from $112.4 million to $135.7 million.
This
year's budget fundamentally will enable Manitoba agriculture and its associated
Crown corporations, MCIC and MACC, to maintain essential front‑line
services to producers in rural Manitoba, to maintain all existing tripartite
programs, to not only maintain but to expand and enhance other risk reduction
programs. To a significant extent the
$23.3 million increase reflects the government's commitment to address the
immediate needs of Manitoba producers during this current difficult period of
low farm income.
*
(1450)
More
specifically, this figure essentially represents a new injection of provincial
government funds into the GRIP program and the NISA program. With regard to GRIP the 1992‑93 budget
is increased by $15.8 million or 36.7 percent from 1991‑92 adjusted
vote. In other words, the budget for
GRIP has been increased to $58.8 million from last year's budgeted expenditure
of $43 million. For the 1992‑93
year, approximately $11.5 million in funding has been budgeted for the NISA
program. Because of the timing for
launching of this new program, we were unable to budget NISA expenditures
within the '91‑92 Estimates brought before the Manitoba Legislature.
NISA
provides producers with comprehensive, predictable and individual target income
stability. Participating farmers will
realize increased income stability and then income from making withdrawals on
the respective NISA accounts when their income falls below certain thresholds.
Just
in concluding comments, I would like to say to my critics that in the
agriculture industry over the last four years, it has not been easy times in
terms of the issues that have come forward.
Resolution of many of those issues still remain on the table. Since we are so heavily dependent on export
trade, one of the major issues that we have to have resolved, if we are going
to continue to grow and prosper in agriculture in western Canada, is to have a
GATT resolution.
That
process started back in 1986 in Uruguay, which was to have concluded by December
of 1990, was suspended, and we have gone through 1991 without any constructive
resolution. We are now well into 1992
and any guidepost towards seeing a resolution has not been met. Dates have been set. Timetables have been set. Nothing has been achieved in terms of a
conclusion that we could see as positive for Manitoba. I say in all sincerity that until there is a
GATT resolution, great uncertainty is going to remain in agriculture in
Manitoba and western Canada.
There
is no question that the export market is critical to us. As I said earlier of wheat, we export 80 to
90 percent, and if you do not have some sanity in that export market I do not
know how we can survive forever. A good
portion of the income now comes from the taxpayer; we always have to wonder how
long the taxpayer will continue to be able to support us at the extent they
are.
The
safety net programs that have been evolved are continuing to evolve and trying
to meet the needs of the industry. I
think, although the safety nets are now used as a means of offsetting
international trade difficulties that are lowering prices, they were never
designed to do that. They were designed
as an interim measure between now and that GATT resolution that caused recovery
in international grain prices.
Certainly
within the industry of agriculture in Manitoba, we have done, over the last
number of years, a fair bit of diversification.
A fair bit of value‑added industry has developed around livestock
and special crops. The way of the future
in my mind is to continue to economically diversify and produce commodities for
which value‑added opportunities exist.
For
the whole equation to work it is absolutely essential that the end product be
economically sold in some marketplace inside or outside the country. All producers want to have their income from
the marketplace. There is no
question. I hear that repeatedly. But they do want the support of governments,
provincial and federal, in this country to survive the uncertainty they are
facing.
I
also sense that there is a strong desire amongst the nonfarm population to
support the farmer. As I said earlier,
whether this can continue forever remains to be seen. We all hope and expect that the marketplace
will allow our producers to survive in the future. So that is why a safety net has been set up
and why they will continue to evolve.
We in
the province of Manitoba right now have a major review of crop insurance going
on. Ten people have been appointed to
it, representing all regions of the province.
They have yet to report. The GRIP
program, under the national signatories committee, is undergoing a national
review at this time towards looking at changes for 1993.
So
with those few comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to say I welcome
the opportunity to discuss the realities of our industry, the difficulties we
face, and to say to the members, we have to work together to find resolutions
to some of our difficulties, because if we do not, the farming industry is at
great risk in this province in the future.
Thank you.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We
thank the honourable Minister of Agriculture for those comments. Does the critic from the official opposition
party, the honourable member for Dauphin, have any opening comments?
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Yes, thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
I,
first of all, want to just comment briefly on a few of the comments the
minister made with regard to the reference to food. I thought perhaps there may
be some move to change the name of the department to "Agriculture and
Food." I believe it is called that
in a number of provinces at the present time, Agriculture and Food, since he
did mention that.
I
think, first of all, the minister said the strategic planning document was
handed to the opposition critics. I have
consulted with the Liberal opposition critic and I‑‑
An
Honourable Member: I
mailed them to you.
Mr.
Plohman: Well, I
have not received them. I wanted the
minister to know to this point I have not seen that document that you referred
to. I remember seeing a similar document
last year. I believe this is revised?
An
Honourable Member: This is a new document.
Mr.
Plohman: Well,
there was some strategic planning document that has been in place and the
minister had his objectives for the department and so on that was handed out to
the opposition critics in the past.
Whether this is a completely revised document is something I am not sure
about, but I have not seen this year's.
Maybe the minister would check where that went.
I
agree with the minister that there has been a very difficult time in
agriculture over the last number of years. There seems to be a more optimistic
feeling at this time out in the rural areas of the province. Perhaps it is just a feeling that we have
bottomed out and any news is good news in terms of going up even if it is very
incremental and small. When you look at,
for example, wheat prices as a yard stick going up by $14 a tonne, when you
look at the average and look at where we were in '86‑87 and certainly '88‑89,
we are a long way from that yet. I do
not think farmers were getting overly wealthy on what they were making at that
time.
We
have a long way to go but even a small step up is a positive step and perhaps
an indication why there might be that optimism out there at the present time,
but it is certainly a very shaky recovery at this particular time. I guess just like our recovery in all aspects
of the economy is at this time, it is very shaky if indeed there is a recovery.
The
Conference Board of Canada has recently said that we are going to be bordering
on a recession at least for the duration of this year yet. The agriculture component is probably one of
the reasons why we are still in a recession at least in western Canada. It has a very significant impact on our
economy.
In
any event when we go through the Estimates we are going to be raising a number
of issues with the minister. We hope
that we can have some light shed on for us, particularly GRIP and the problems
associated with it. There have been many
suggestions for change to improve it.
Some were made by various groups and individuals last year when it was
being designed.
The
government chose to go ahead at that time and since that time there has been
widespread agreement by many that there are some serious inequities in the
program. We want to see whether the
minister agrees with that and whether he is pushing for a fairer program that
will reflect fairness from farmer to farmer and region to region in this
province.
Certainly
there is significant increase in the draw from the provincial coffers for the
program. The minister has indicated some
36 percent up to $58.8 million which is a significant increase and I guess
would get us into the discussion that we have referenced in the Legislature
dealing with the ability of the provinces to pay this kind of money, which is
essentially a product of offloading from the federal government to some extent.
I had
asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) about this in a question on Tuesday when the
Minister of Agriculture was not present at the time that I asked it, dealing
with the fact that we negotiated in a situation of great difficulty for the
province of Manitoba with our sister province Saskatchewan moving towards an
election and perhaps not that concerned at the time about how much money it was
going to cost the province and more concerned about getting a deal that they
could sell politically. I am being kind
to the minister in that regard because I think he should have attempted to
resist harder the temptation at that time.
But I believe that Grant Devine's election agenda cost Manitoba a lot of
money, in some respects, on this issue.
*
(1500)
I
want to indicate to the minister that we are interested in improving this
program. We want to bring forward the
proposals and suggestions by various groups from the review committee. When
McAuley had indicated the results of the meetings, that there were a lot of
suggestions that came out of those meetings: where are they at, what is
changed, what is being considered from small groups like a group in Gilbert
Plains who had a public meeting and put a number of suggestions forward to the
minister by way, I believe, of a letter from Audrey Stoski and a number of, I
think, very good questions asked of the minister. Where is that? What is he intending to do with those
proposals?
So
this is a major issue for us to discuss, I believe. I will not take too much time here, so we can
get into that. I see we probably will be
into that during this session.
Insofar
as the whole issues of orderly marketing, supply management and, of course, how
it is going to be impacted by GATT negotiations, the whole issues of
international trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Free Trade
Agreement and its impact, and as I mentioned, GATT, on our orderly marketing
system in Canada are something that we want to discuss with the minister in
more detail.
The
Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, the current debt load interest rates
being charged, those kinds of things are going to be of interest, because we do
get a lot of calls from clients, from farmers out there who are concerned about
what is happening with their debt load.
The
issues of privatization, last year the minister had several examples. I mentioned this during a speech in the
Legislature. He does have Bill 12 before
the Legislature dealing with animal husbandry which, in fact, gives a reflection
of the decisions that were made last year as it applies to the Semen
Distribution Centre, and, I believe, as a result raises the whole issue of how
successful the minster's initiatives were on privatization of a number of
enterprises between the department, including the soil testing and feed testing
and veterinarian drugs and semen distribution.
We will want to explore with the minister where that is at.
Transportation
issues are of great concern to us. We
have raised this in the Legislature with the minister. We are very concerned about the proposal that
he has made at the ministerial meetings.
It is attributed to him with regard to his statements that there is a 50‑50
split in Manitoba. So on that basis we
should look at paying the Crow on the basis of the choice of individual farmers
and from province to province, varying.
I just think that is a recipe for disaster in terms of the crow benefit.
I
have to say to the minister, the reason we have asked the question is we really
question what the minister's motivation was to make that kind of a suggestion,
because it is a recipe for unraveling that system. It is certain. The minister must have known that, and I can
see of no other reason why he would have made it other than he wants to facilitate
McKnight's agenda, which is clear.
He
says he does not favour any method of payment according to recent
headlines. On that basis, I would say it
is no surprise at all that the whole purpose of initiating this study in the
first place was he wants to get rid of it.
It
costs $1.1 million to hold a bunch of meetings, and he says, well, it does not
really reflect what the farmers really think about it. This minister did not say that, that I heard,
but the minister McKnight is quoted as saying that this does not really reflect
the people that came to the meetings then, according to some analysis, some 70
percent‑‑and I do not have the volumes and volumes from those
meetings; the minister might want to make them available to his critics if he
has them, but we have not got them‑‑according to research that was
done, and the report in Western Producer on those meetings, in fact about 70
percent of the producers who attended the meetings across western Canada agree
with the present method of payment. He
is saying that, even though there were 130‑odd meetings in Canada and
$1.1 million spent, that still does not represent because it did not give him
the results that he wanted. It does not
represent the feelings of the farmers in Canada with regard to the Crow
benefit.
I am
not sure that the minister is‑‑you know he is playing his cards
pretty close to his vest‑‑quite solidly in the camp that wants to
do away with the traditional method of payment for the Crow, and he may be
tying it hand‑in‑hand with GATT, but we do not think that is a
reason why we should be moving ahead on something to appease what might happen
internationally.
We
have done that in this country too often in the past, and we negotiate from a
position of weakness. We should
certainly be maintaining our programs until and if we have to change them, not
moving ahead and therefore weakening our bargaining position in these
discussions.
I do
not buy the argument that because of GATT we have to change it. I think that we should maintain that method
of payment; we should fight for it in Manitoba; and it is in our best interests
of our producers in this province. So we
take issue with some of the minister's statements there and will want to see if
some of those can be clarified for us.
I
agree with the minister when he says that all that the producers want is a fair
income from their produce, from the marketplace, and I agree that he says that
there is a willingness amongst the general population to support
agriculture. I think that is clear.
Perhaps
some of the awareness has come from the rallies that took place and the tension
that was drawn to the plight of the farmers in recent times that, generally, I
think the people in the city as well as in rural areas have rallied behind
farmers in this regard.
I
think the idea that was put forward was very telling by producers when they
came with a loaf of bread and gave them away and said, all I get is three cents
out of this, so you have to pay me for it because that is all a farmer's
share. You see it is what farmers are
getting for their labours that is the issue here, not a cheap food policy
necessarily, because people are paying, definitely not as much as in some
countries for their vegetables, for their food, but they are paying a lot more
in proportion than farmers are getting.
The real problem is what farmers are getting for their labours and for
their production.
In
that respect I think that we want to see a fair price for farmers, and that is
why we have advocated cost‑of‑production pricing. Ironically, if the minister had introduced
cost‑of‑production pricing in GRIP, he probably would have saved
money as it applies to lentils over the last year and this year rather than its
costing more. It is always thrown back
at us, well, we cannot afford cost‑of‑production pricing, whether
it is too expensive or‑‑[interjection] Well, the minister is
saying, define; he wants to get into that debate. Now he knows that we have supply‑managed
commodities now where cost of production is defined quite nicely, and the
pricing mechanism works quite well with milk and poultry products, and so on,
so I do not know why he wants to reinvent the wheel on this issue.
What
we have to do is, I believe, put in place a mechanism that assures fair pricing
for farmers, and then the rest will take care of itself. That is really what we need, and yet I see‑‑unless
I am misquoting the minister, I believe he said that a safety net was not
designed for a long term but was just to tide us through the difficult
times. So, in fact, his objective with
the safety net and those who have designed it, perhaps, has been different than
what our objective would have been. If
we come at it from that basis, maybe that would be one of the reasons why we
would have some fundamental disagreements with how it is structured.
In
any event, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will close because I know that the Liberal
critic will have some comments, and then we will want to get into the
discussion of the Estimates and look forward to a good debate on these issues.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson:
We thank the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) for those
comments. Does the critic from the
second opposition party, the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry),
have opening comments?
*
(1510)
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. Firstly, I would
like to say thank you to the minister for his opening remarks. Would it be possible to get a copy of your
remarks?
Mr.
Findlay: No,
they are scribbled on the back‑‑
Mr.
Gaudry: Okay.
Since
it is my first time as critic for Agriculture, I look forward to working co‑operatively
with the minister and the official opposition in regards to trying to help out
the farmers who have been suffering for the last three or four years because,
probably, of the recession. We will
certainly be addressing the issues, going through the Estimates here.
Again,
I would also like to say thank you to the minister for offering to be briefed
on anything we wanted to discuss. The
door is always open to his office, he has indicated that and I know it is. Anytime we have asked questions on this side,
he has been fair, and I appreciate very much his co‑operation. We look forward to doing the same thing.
Like
I said, myself having come from a farm background a few years ago‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Sixty years ago?
Mr.
Gaudry: Now, now,
be nice or we will not give you a chance to ask questions. The interest is always there and, like I say,
I am going to be very brief at this point.
We look forward to going through the Estimates with the opposition and
hope it will be positive criticism and informative for myself‑‑like
I said, it is my first time as critic of Agriculture‑‑and I will be
meeting and have met some of the groups already, and we will be looking forward
to doing the same thing. I will be
approaching the minister very shortly. I
know he has been very busy in the last six months. After we are out of session, I will certainly
be looking forward to going to his office and being briefed on a lot of the
stuff that we will be going through.
That
will be it for my comments today. I am
looking forward to asking questions of the minister.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We
thank the honourable member for those comments.
Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is
traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of
this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line.
At
this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask
that the minister introduce his staff members present please.
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I recall signing letters to both my opposition critics with
the Vision for the 1990s document, so if they did not receive it, I would like
to distribute it to them today. It is a
rather significant document. As I said,
it took about a year of development with the various stakeholders throughout
the agriculture industry, looking at, as I said, the Vision for the 1990s, a
strategic map for the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. I highly recommend that they view those
because they outline what all the stakeholders believe we should be doing as a
department.
I
would like to introduce staff who are presently up here with me at the
moment: Greg Lacomy, Deputy Minister;
Marv Richter; Les Baseraba; Doug Burch.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: I
thank the honourable minister.
We
will now deal with item 1.(b) Executive Support: (1) Salaries $430,900.
Mr.
Plohman: There has
been a change in staff here, I understand, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. There are still the same number of SYs in his
office. Is that correct?
Mr.
Findlay: Yes,
that is right.
Mr.
Plohman: So, does
the minister have an EA and SA now? Who
is filling those positions?
Mr.
Findlay: Jeff
MacDonald is the SA, and the EA is Monica Bazan.
Mr.
Plohman: I have
nothing else.
Mr.
Gaudry: I do not
know whether it is proper to ask this question at this time, but has there been
any staff that has been moved in the Decentralization program out into the
rural areas from the Agriculture department?
Mr.
Findlay: In total
almost 100 staff have been decentralized. If I remember the numbers off the top
of my head MACC has been decentralized to Brandon. I believe that 23 positions were involved
there plus eight other positions have been decentralized to four regional
locations in the province.
Soils
and Crops has been decentralized to Carman.
I think there are some 26 positions there. Crown Lands has been decentralized to
Minnedosa, 16 positions there, plus a few other positions here and there but
those are the three major ones.
I
should throw another one in, tripartite group was established in Portage with
eight positions. That is the major
components but there was, say, roughly close to 100 positions in total in the
decentralization, and the exact figure we can get for you later.
Mr.
Gaudry: Are you
looking at decentralizing more staff from the department into the rural area?
Mr.
Findlay: When we
started this process we had about 50 percent of the department staff inside the
city and 50 percent outside. At this
stage right now we have about 70 percent outside and 30 percent inside.
Whether
there will be any more decentralization will be determined in the future,
certainly working with our stakeholders to see whether we are doing the best
job of most effectively serving our clients with our staff located where they
are at. I can tell the member that there
is nothing in the works at this time, but that does not mean that further
considerations will not be given some time in the future.
We
also believe that the process of decentralizing those full units to those
locations has been quite positive for the improved relationship with our
clients, closer contact and closer to where they can do the best job of serving
our clients.
Mr.
Plohman: Yes,
since these questions were asked here, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just want to
ask the minister if he could perhaps table a list of those that have been
decentralized as opposed to those that were planned, the numbers of staff that
were announced for Agriculture and the number that have actually been
decentralized.
How
many of those jobs, those positions were filled, were people transferring from
the existing positions to the communities that they were being transferred to
or how many were filled from competitions locally? In other words how many local jobs may have
been created in those situations?
It
does not have to be received right now but if the minister could just bring
that to us perhaps next time we sit, that would be fine.
Mr.
Findlay: Okay, I
will bring it next time. I have just got
the total list in front of me now. It is
95 positions. I said close to a 100, it
is 95 positions. Twenty different
locations in the province totally involved.
But I
will bring that list next time. You want
the list of those that were proposed, those that were actually done and the
portion of the jobs that are out there that were filled locally? Okay.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson:
Item 1.(b)(1) Salaries $430,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $74,100‑‑pass; (3) Policy Studies $75,000‑‑pass.
Item
1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services:
(1) Salaries $1,091,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$410,600‑‑pass.
Item
1.(d) Computer Services: (1) Salaries
$256,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $58,000‑‑pass.
Item
1.(e) Personnel Services: (1) Salaries
$282,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures‑‑$18,400.
Item
1.(f) Program Analysis: (1) Salaries
$191,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $9,900‑‑pass.
Item
2. Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation (a) Administration $4,348,100.
*
(1520)
Mr.
Plohman: I just
want to first indicate that the Liberal critic indicated to me he wanted to
leave and he may have some questions.
Mr.
Gaudry: No, it
is okay.
Mr.
Plohman: Okay,
this is, of course, the major area for the department. It has increased dramatically in the last
couple of years with the advent of GRIP being included in their jurisdiction,
and certainly it gives rise to a great deal of discussion, I believe, in terms
of policy as it relates to GRIP.
I
would like to perhaps start with asking the minister to just give a brief
overview of the operation of GRIP under crop insurance in its first year, and
what major difficulties he has been experiencing with it‑‑just in a
brief synopsis form that he could give us, and then we will maybe have some
specific questions to the minister.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: At
this time, I just want to take a moment just to revert back to item 1.(g)
Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations $47,500‑‑pass.
Mr.
Findlay: Yes, now
that we are into the crop insurance area, I would like to introduce three staff
people that are with us now: Henry
Nelson, the General Manager; Neil Hamilton, the Director of Research and
Program Development; and Henry Dribnenky, Director of Finance and
Administration. Henry is just a recent
addition to the corporation, and I welcome him to his first Estimates.
The
member has asked for a general overview of the revenue insurance program. I guess I would like to start back in the
process of developing the program. As I
said in my opening comments, when the process was in discussion through the
safety net task force back in late 1990 and on into the beginning of 1991, there
was strong desire in the farm community to have some greater predictability of
income because the grain prices were low and the trade war was at its peak.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
There
was strong expectation that the GATT process would evolve in leading to a
resolution that would take care of that trade problem, and that we would expect
three or four or five years of slow and steady grain price recovery. It would give farmers the kind of income at
the farm gate that they can survive on.
I
guess for discussion purposes it is always best to use wheat which is our major
crop. It is the one that we export the
most of and the farm community has seen wheat prices fluctuate at the farm
gate. I gave the Wheat Board prices
earlier, and when it got up to $5, they were making real good money. When it was dropped down to $3, they were not
surviving very well, and that is where it was in 1990.
There
was a need to have stabilization that had wheat prices around $4 a bushel. We expected, as I said earlier, that the GATT
process would return those farm gate prices from international markets sometime
in the future.
In
the development of the safety net program, there was a committee of some 33
people; 19, I believe, were producers who spent many hours, many meetings all
across the country and brought forth recommendations to Ministers of
Agriculture, federally and provincially, in late 1990 to put this program in
place for 1991.
The
two things that producers wanted very strongly was predictability and
individuality. The question was on what
base to establish the program. They
chose the only base that existed, and that was crop insurance information, and
based price support on top of producer's individual yield that he had established
with crop insurance. The process of
implementation required a lot of staff time.
The corporation has worked very hard, very aggressively to get the
information to producers prior to the 1991 crop year and, over the course of
that crop year, to get the various pieces of information from the producer in
terms of preliminary production, final production report and to get the
payments out.
We
also mobilized a lot of staff from the Department of Agriculture to assist in
that process. It was not an easy
process. It all had to be done
yesterday, and there was certainly frustration on the part of staff, on the
part of farmers along the way. But I
congratulate them all for being able to put a program in place as rapidly as
had to be done, with all the uncertainties that existed over various decisions
that were ongoing.
In
the fall of 1991 we paid out $120 million in interim payment, and in the spring
of 1992, the second interim payment was again about $120 million, which means
that under revenue insurance, now, we have paid $240 million to the farm
community of Manitoba.
The
projection at this time is that the final figure, after the final payment is
made, probably in January of '93 for the 1991 crop, we will have paid out about
$320 million. That is today's projection
for the final. What the final will be
will be determined on what the final grain prices are going to be, and that is
still unknown, particularly Wheat Board prices.
The reason we cannot make the payment until about January of '93 is that
it is not until then that you really know the final Wheat Board payment.
The
member asks about the process, and that has been the process. The 1992 program is in place now. Probably the biggest difficulty we had for
'92 was establishing the 15‑year IMAP price. In 1991, the wheat IMAP price was $4.15. If we had followed the federal interpretation
of the agreement, the support price for wheat in 1992 would have been $3.84, I
believe? It would have been $3.84, which
was a substantial drop in income for the farm community.
I
argued that I interpreted the agreement differently, that the two‑year
lag meant there had to be a full two years between the last of the 15 years and
the crop year we are going into, and eventually won that argument so that the support
price for wheat this year is $4.08, instead of $3.84. I think that is a substantial improvement in
terms of income support for the farm community.
With
regard to a lot of questions that came up about the crop insurance program and
methodologies and so on and so forth, we put in place a Crop Insurance Review
Committee of 10 people who have had public meetings across Manitoba in the
course of the past few months and will eventually be making some report in the
coming months. We expect to use that report
leading into 1993 year.
As I
said in my opening statement, there is a national signatories committee which
is in place to manage the GRIP program.
It has producer representatives, I believe eight, nine provincial
representatives and four federal representatives. It is the job of that committee to make
recommendations on changes to the program on an ongoing basis.
That
national GRIP signatories committee now has a review in place of the successes
and problems of GRIP in '91 and '92, to make recommendations for '93 and
beyond. They will eventually be making
some recommendation to ministers, probably at least an initial recommendation
at the beginning of July when all of us meet in Nova Scotia, I think it is the
5th and 6th of July. So it is an ongoing
program being evolved on recommendations from the stakeholders: federal, provincial people and producers.
*
(1530)
I
guess I would have to say I have been personally disappointed that the
Saskatchewan government made the decision they made in terms of this very
significant alteration of the program that they did there, because we would
like to have seen a national program, and if not a national, at least a western
Canadian program. In Manitoba and
Alberta the principles of predictability and individuality exist in the
program. In Saskatchewan, their changes
made for the reasons known to them take those two principles away quite
substantively. How individuality and
predictability‑‑in Saskatchewan you are using an area average of a
basket‑of‑crops approach, which does not allow a farmer to know in
the spring what his gross revenue guarantee will be for himself or for any of
his crops. As the signatories committee
goes through its review, I do not know how they are going to be able to lead us
in the direction of a western Canadian or national program, which is the first
objective they have, with the changes that have occurred in Saskatchewan.
As I
say, the program is evolving. We have
attempted to stay with those principles as best we can, and that is why we have
budgetary increases in the program in Manitoba.
I know that they have budgetary decreases in Saskatchewan. So we think we have maintained the support to
the farm community as best we can in the process of the international
difficulties we face.
Mr.
Plohman: There
are a lot of issues to deal with here.
The minister said at the beginning that there was a need to establish
prices at around $4 a bushel to ensure that there was an adequate income for
farmers. He realizes, though, that it is
the amount of revenue insurance that an individual farmer can buy that
determines how much money he can get per acre, he or she can get per acre on
this. If he is only able to insure,
regardless of what the price is, for 15 bushels per acre or whatever the case
may be, he is not going to get as much money for his farm as the person who is
able to insure at 30 bushels or 35 or whatever it might be.
The
governing factor, the determining factor on income levels, therefore, is the
amount of insurance an individual farmer can buy based on crop insurance
records at least for the first year and, as we go along, in developing perhaps
an individual average that will determine that, but based on crop insurance
records.
Does
the minister feel in retrospect now that indeed crop insurance data were the
only basis on which to base this program, or could there have been another way,
other information, other database, other means to determine this or just a
different criteria used completely to determine basic coverage? If he had to do it again, would he base it on
the same criteria that he did in this program a year ago?
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in terms of looking back, we had to act
on the recommendation that the task force put in front of us. It is fair to say that they undoubtedly
looked at a few different mechanisms on which to base coverage, but they chose
the crop insurance database right across the country to establish coverage
on. It is not for me to prejudge or
postjudge whether they made the right decision or the wrong decision.
We
feel that there are some people who have a level of concern about the crop
insurance database. That is why we
launched a crop insurance review in this province. This is the only province that I am aware of
in this country that has taken a proactive move to really look at all the
fundamentals, let all the stakeholders have an input and let their peers make
recommendations, because they pay a portion of the premium. The taxpayers of Manitoba pay a portion of
the premium, and the federal taxpayers pay a portion of the premium.
In
terms of looking back at 1991, we allowed all producers to have at least the
area‑average approach. We had the
SMA principle in place, superior management adjustment, so that if a producer
exceeded the average by some amount, he had a retroactive coverage increase
along with a retroactive premium increase, of course, for 1991. That was a very successful approach in the
program. In 1992, individual
productivity indexing came into being.
For 1992, 50 percent of his coverage is now based on what yields he had
in 1990 and '91, like 25 percent on 1990, 25 percent on 1991, and 50 percent on
his existing crop insurance coverage adjustment factors.
We
also have SMA in place again for 1992. So
there is a stimulus for producers to improve their coverage on an ongoing basis
to IPI and immediately through SMA, if they are able to achieve that. I think it is fair to say that the lower
position the producer starts from the more likely he is to qualify for superior
management adjustment in the year he grows the crop, whether it was for '91 or
for '92.
In
the total $240 million that has been now paid out in the interim adjustments,
and some $48 million of it was paid out‑‑I should say not all the
$48 million, but a portion of the total payout that is projected to $320
million, $48 million of it will be under the SMA program, the superior
management adjustment. So that means a
lot of producers did achieve higher coverage in 1991 based on their ability and
their relative sense in their risk area.
Mr.
Plohman: Well, the
minister said that there are some concerned about crop insurance, and I guess
it is an understatement. There have been
a lot of complaints, and that is why the minister says he initiated a review.
Would
the minister at least admit that it would have been desirable to have that
review prior to basing all of this on crop insurance, because it affects the
livelihood. It affects so significantly
the revenue for so many farmers. If
there are changes, if there is found to be inequities in crop insurance, there
are major losses then that farmers will be able to identify.
Is
the minister prepared to then retroactively go and correct those inequities, or
is he going to start from that point on perhaps in making those changes? If he is not then the review is not going to
help GRIP, which is fundamentally flawed then, based on that flawed information
or database that was there. What is the
minister's plans with regard to the results of that review as it applies to
GRIP, crop insurance review?
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I said to the member earlier, the information
that will come forward in the review will be the basis for looking at changes
to the program for 1993 and beyond. One
must not forget that the federal government is a 50‑50 partner in
this. We have spoken to them on several
occasions about the ongoing review and the fact that we will be coming forward
with the results of that review in the coming months looking towards 1993. To tell you the truth, they are quite pleased
to see us doing that, because they also think that what we will be generating
in Manitoba will also be of significant help in other jurisdictions in this country,
in terms of the principles of operating the crop insurance program and,
obviously, the revenue insurance program on top of that.
Over
the course of time, crop insurance for over 30 years has had a process of
establishing yield coverages for producers, and, as I said earlier, the task
force that looked at bringing in revenue insurance felt that the only existing
database to work from was the crop insurance database. Because we have concerns about some of the
things that have been raised with us, the review was launched.
If we
lived in a perfect world, yes, we would have said, hold the trade war off for
three or four years while we go through massive adjustments here to get
ourselves ready, but nobody gave us any warning. It came upon us, and we had to act quickly,
and 19 out of 33 producers on a task force brought forward the recommendations
of program implementation which we put in place in Manitoba and maintained the
principles in 1991 and '92 and have not undercut the principles of the program
in Manitoba like they did in Saskatchewan.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, no one is suggesting that you have to hold off the
trade war before implementing a program, but no one is saying that the program
had to be implemented in its present form when it was. There was a stubborn position taken by the
federal government that there would be no so‑called ad hoc payments
made. The minister obviously bought into
that and then developed a program‑‑or bought into a program that
was developed in a great deal of haste.
He has outlined some of the problems associated with that haste in the
first year, which of course was entirely expected. I am sure he expected
it. We certainly expected it.
*
(1540)
I
have to go back then to the minister at that time and that is why I asked
whether he wished he had made some changes.
He is saying, well, the signatories committee or the initial committee
that was set up made the decisions and far be it from him as minister to
question them in this regard is what I am hearing from him. I am sure the minister did question some of
those things and he expressed reservations.
The fact is he went along with it though. So here we have a program based on crop
insurance that is, in many cases, fundamentally unfair in terms of the impact
on farmers.
So I
want to ask the minister whether it would not have been a viable alternative to
in fact urge the federal government to reject their stubborn approach to an ad
hoc payment on an acreage basis or simply guarantee a minimum payment on an
acreage basis in Manitoba while these difficulties in terms of equity could be
sorted out in crop insurance.
Mr.
Findlay: One other
element that the initial task force looked at was the frustration in 1988 and
'89 with waiting for ad hoc payments from the federal government. I think it is fair to say the farm community
did not like the uncertainty of going through a year and seeing grain prices
drop or see droughts occur and have to go cap in hand to the federal government
and beg for some kind of income support.
They wanted some more security or stability to their income.
So it
was the producers who said, we are tired of ad hoc programs. We no longer want to live and exist on ad hoc
programs. We want more predictability
and that is why the safety net discussion started. They wanted for the grains and oil seed
sector, a two‑pronged approach, the GRIP program and the NISA
program. So they wanted to get away from
ad hoc. They wanted more
predictability. They said we are
prepared to pay premiums to achieve that, and the basis upon which to set it up
is on the basis of the crop insurance data.
The
recommendations came forward, and there was intense discussion with the federal
government about their level of commitment responsibility. I would have to say in the final analysis, we
got a better deal than what was initially on the table. I will be the first to admit, I wish we got a
better deal from both the producer standpoint and the provincial government's
standpoint, because of the further level of uncertainty that has unfolded since
then.
The
federal government's opening position was a lot worse than the one we ended up
with. We have a lot of players around
the table, some more urgent to agree to the deal than ourselves. We argued long
and hard up to the point where decisions had to be made because time was moving
on and we could not leave producers holding the bag going into the 1991 year
when grain prices were down at $2 a bushel.
There was great uncertainty, great fear in the agriculture community and
1991 actually went better than I thought it would, particularly when farmers
started to see the program payments start to flow.
The
member for Dauphin earlier mentioned the rallies last September, October. Those rallies were really based on real fear
of the future because they had a good crop, strikes were in place, grain was
not moving, the price was way down there and they did not see the government
program payments starting to flow. The
interim payment came out in November and the second interim payment in April of
'92. As they started to see the program
payments flow, they started to see how it was doing a better job than they
really thought it would do.
As we
go into 1992 with our ability to get the 15‑year IMAP at a higher level,
my sense and the member for Dauphin also mentioned, there is a little more
optimism out there now, a little greater sense of security. We think there are a number of factors, but
clearly the fact that the safety nets are in place and functioning here is
giving some degree of assurance to producers that there is a little more light
at the end of the tunnel. I had heard a
lot of Manitoba producers say, thank goodness I live in Manitoba and not in
Saskatchewan.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister will have lots of time to debate
I am
wondering whether the minister is doing justice to the producers of Manitoba
when he says that it was the producers who were frustrated with ad hoc payments
and wanted to have some degree of stability and so they pushed to have this
program introduced. That is what is
implied by what he is saying, to having this introduced in the hasty way that
it was for last year.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I ask
the minister‑‑now he has time in retrospect to reflect on this,
because he did not agree with us at the time, that it would not have been
better to take a little more time in terms of consultation, because that
committee only had a couple of representatives from Manitoba that certainly
could not report to all the producers in Manitoba. I mean, the minister should be the first to
acknowledge that the vast majority of farmers did not know specifically how
this program was going to impact on them.
Probably some of them still do not know.
They are finding out now as the payments come in, but it was a pretty
complicated thing to thrust on top of farmers at very short order. So they really had a tough time to make a
decision.
Certainly,
they wanted predictability over the longer term. They wanted a program that
would give them a certain amount of security, so they were looking for
something. But they were being told, if
the minister will be fair about it‑‑and that was the environment
upon which they were asked to sign up‑‑that if they do not sign up
for this program they may be ineligible to get any more ad hoc money if it is
needed in times of disaster. It was almost to a point of blackmail.
I am
not suggesting the minister was blackmailing, but he was in a position to say
something about that or he would not tolerate that situation. That was, in fact, what existed at the
time. That was the environment that
farmers were finding themselves faced with when they were asked to sign up in
very short order to this program.
So I
say to the minister that it is not doing justice to the farmers of Manitoba by
making statements by saying it was the farmers themselves who were asking for
that. Yes, they want long‑term
security, but they do not want to be rushed and bullied and pushed into it in a
way that they were last year. Many felt
they had no choice in the final analysis but to join up, not knowing really
what they were getting themselves into.
That is a fairer statement about what was happening, and I think they
were placed in an unfair position at that time.
The
minister has had a year now to reflect on that.
Does he not think that it would have been a much more prudent position
taken by himself and his government to in fact say, hold it now, let us put a
program in place that is fair and equitable; let us not make matters worse here
by putting something in that is going to have such great inequities in it that
you are going to have some farmers doing quite well and others that are really
being cheated under this program? Does
the minister not recognize those inequities and therefore reflect that it would
have been better to hold off and iron out these wrinkles before enshrining them
in this program?
Mr.
Findlay: I am
really surprised at the statements the member has made. [interjection] Yes, I guess
I am used to it. He talks about
blackmail. The only person who might
have ever used that word is himself. He
does not understand the dilemma farmers are in, the insecurity they had, the
poor incomes, the high risk. If you have
never been on the farm, you do not understand that. I would like the member to reflect on what he
said, because there has never been any greater level of consultation by the
Minister of Agriculture's office in this building with the producers and has
occurred over the course of the development of this program.
We
consulted continuously with the farm organizations and meetings upon meetings
upon meetings. They have been inside the
room in terms of the signatories committee, the task force, long‑term
development. The member does not
understand a farmer needs $4 a bushel, and he is facing‑‑the market
is telling him, the Wheat Board is telling him, initial price is $1.88‑‑that
is $1.88, and he knows his costs are $4, and he was very, very happy to have an
opportunity to enroll in a program to give him some degree of assurance that
for the bushels he produced he was going to get $4.15. That is what occurred in 1991.
Nobody
was forced into it. Everybody had the
opportunity to voluntarily sign up, but they knew the rules. First line of defence was their
responsibility. Second line of defence
is the safety net programs, and they could choose to enroll or not enroll. Some enrolled, some did not. The majority did enroll for GRIP in 1991, and
I dare say it is safe to say the same for 1992.
Third line of defence, also set up for dealing with emergencies, is the
old ad hoc angle.
Producers
thought that, if they did not sign up for the second line of defence, they
would automatically be looked after in the third line of defence. They were told, you take great chance by not
signing up for the second line of defence if you could depend on the third line
of defence.
The
federal government did come through with FSAM I and FSAM II. The primary components of FSAM I were to
reduce the premiums by 25% for the producers last year and 10% for the
provincial government to help ease the pain of getting into the program. It is unfortunate that the federal government
did not put FSAM I in place again for 1992.
The payments under FSAM II are basically third line of defence; ad hoc
payments for 1991 have flowed.
*
(1550)
First
payment was $5 an acre, and the second payment was $3.36 an acre, I
believe. There continues to be some ad hoc
money flowing in, but the producers' best guarantee that he will be able to
have a reasonable income at the end of the crop year was to voluntarily choose
to sign up for GRIP for 1991 and beyond.
As I said earlier, it has paid substantial monies, but I just deplore
the attitude of the member to say blackmail, just absolutely unfair to the
people who developed the program, to the various administrations across the
country that have spent great amounts of public money to keep the farm
community alive. The greatest
expenditures ever incurred in agriculture in this province have incurred in the
last two years, substantial monies.
As I
said in my opening statement, we have increased our expenditures substantially
in GRIP in this province, and the member does not like us to talk to him about
Saskatchewan, but they decreased their expenditures in GRIP for 1992, and
therefore less support for their farm community. If he does not like to talk about it, that is
too bad, but those are the realities and the farmers of Manitoba have a much
better level of support than exists for the farmers in Saskatchewan.
I
feel sorry for the predicament that the Saskatchewan farmers have been put
in. They do not have the level of
certainty, predictability for 1992, and I know that the federal government's
treasuries know better than ours the ability to come up with additional
money. An ad hoc, third line of defence
approach for 1992 would be very, very hard to see happen.
Farmers
are going to get it in Manitoba through the second line of defence in a very
predictable fashion. Not only would that
help the farm community, it would help all citizens who live in rural Manitoba,
and a lot of that money will flow into the city of Winnipeg also to keep the
economy viable.
Mr.
Plohman: When I
likened the situation that farmers were faced with last year to blackmail, it
was not a reflection on the people who designed the committee, the program; it
was on the minister who approved the program.
He cannot cast aspersions on anyone else in terms of my criticism
here. My criticism is of him, the
minister, because the buck stops with the minister.
Just
to clarify, in terms of the payment, the ad hoc payment‑‑the
minister mentioned about the rallies and I mentioned that earlier‑‑in
my mind it had a great deal to do with the low prices, but also with the fact
that there was no cash flow, there were no dollars in the hands. We have been calling over the year of 1991,
throughout the year, and even before the end of 1990 that there had to be an ad
hoc payment for 1990.
The
minister talked about the $5 for '91.
Really it is based on 1990; that is what the minister is talking about,
the 1990 crop year. There were no
dollars coming forward, and it was only after the rallies that there was what we
call a terribly inadequate announcement made by the federal government. The minister can choose to defend that on the
basis of how many dollars he thinks the feds have; that is not the issue here
right now. What we are talking about is
the crisis and insecurity faced by farmers.
I ask
the minister if that is not correct that, if he had been a stronger advocate
for federal payments based on the 1990 crop year, farmers would not have found
themselves in the kind of crisis that they were in the spring of 1991 when they
were forced to sign up for GRIP. They
did not have any promise or commitment from the federal government for an ad
hoc payment for 1990. Is that not
correct?
Mr.
Findlay: The
member for Dauphin says the buck stops here, and I would like to tell him I am
very proud of the fact that the program does pay, that it is going to pay out
$320 million to the farmers of
I am
very proud that 12,500 producers were enrolled in the program and they will
receive average payments per acre of some $43 right across the province‑‑$43
an acre. I would like $3 an acre average
right across the province‑‑all crops and all acres averaged in.
FSAM
II payment that came to Manitoba is in the vicinity of $90 to $100
million. So that is rather substantive
income to the grain industry of Manitoba when the total market value most years
is just about $900 million. So you add
those two figures together, it is over $400 million, almost 50 percent of the
income of the grain industry in any given year.
So if
the buck stops here, I am very proud of the way we, as a government in the
province of Manitoba, have been able to meet the challenge and look after our
producers in this province. I will stand
up very proudly against what they are doing in Saskatchewan in 1992.
Mr.
Plohman: Yes,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has to answer for his actions here in
I
always respect a person who will admit that he may have had a better way of
doing things in retrospect, even if he will not admit he made a mistake. I cannot say that the minister is quick to do
that at any time. I have never even
heard him ever say that, in reflection, he might have done something a little
differently. I think that you can read
into that what you want, I guess.
I
want to ask the minister with regard to the average payment that he talks
about, $43 an acre, whether that is a very relevant figure. The minister knows statistical information,
figures, facts and statistics. Surely,
he will be the first to admit that using an average such as that is really not
relevant when we are talking about inequities in a program, when we are talking
about what the individual farmer and his family got out of this program in
terms of security.
I
come back to the question that I asked the minister initially and just in
rebutting what he said about averages, I think he can reflect on that, but when
I asked him about the issue of the support programs that was not in place in
1991 in the spring, and January, February, March, as this program was being
developed, no ad hoc commitment, no commitment for ad hoc payments from the
federal government, and no words publicly from this minister, that they had to
come out with that for the 1990 crop year to keep farmers alive, to keep their
heads above water while this program was being implemented and developed.
What
does the minister have to say about his inaction and what difference that would
have made to farmers in terms of their outlook in 1991?
Mr.
Findlay: In terms
of looking back, we have done some things in
Whether
averages are good or bad, it is up to the member to interpret. I am just saying that is the kind of support
that farmers are able to get in the program.
We have over 12,000 producers enrolled in the program. Had the program not been in place, I shudder
to think what would have happened in rural Manitoba throughout the course of
late 1991 and leading into 1992. I mean,
the desperation that farmers experienced that caused the rallies to occur would
have really been a devastating experience had the monies not started to flow
under the program.
When
the program was set up, it was designed to have one interim payment. We adjusted to make two interim payments, to
get one out in the fall of the crop year, which is getting the money out as
fast as possible. The farmers are
starting to see that money flow.
*
(1600)
In
large measure, it is a reason why farmers have some level of confidence in
putting the crop in in 1992. They have a
little cash to pay their expenses. The
fact that grain has moved well has also helped incomes to come in. The fact that Wheat Board prices have
improved a little bit and there has been an additional $14 a tonne paid out in
two interim payments, all helps in the farm community.
Throughout
the course of the time that the member talks about, we constantly reminded the
federal government that there was need for an ad hoc payment based on
1990. Because as I said in my opening
comments, the realized net income had dropped to about $190 million, whereas we
consider the necessary realized net income is around $360 million.
When
it dropped to $190 million, when we looked back as to how much of that realized
net income came from the livestock sector and how much from the grain sector,
less than 10 percent of that was from the grain sector. It showed a terrible situation that existed
in the grain sector then. There was need
for consideration of an ad hoc payment.
In
1991, that realized net income did improve to $245 million. So clearly, we were short a considerable
amount of money from where we needed to be over '90‑91, and they needed
to address it. FSAM II payment that they
came out with, although it certainly helped a lot, was not quite as much as we
wanted. So that conversation, that
discussion, was going on continually. Where the realized net income position
was at was the subject of my speeches all over the place.
I do
not have to tell the member that on one hand you are trying to get your message
across, but on the other hand you do not want to preach gloom and doom to the
producers, because they have enough difficulty to deal with day in and day out,
enough mental stress and strain without hearing nothing but gloom and
doom. They do need to hear that there is
some hope, both in terms of the present and the future.
I
caution the member on this constant gloom and doom that he tends to want to
work with. It is not what the farm
community wants to hear and it is not something that is good for them. It just adds to their stress and strain. Yes, we criticize what is going on, but let
us do it in a fashion that shows that there is a light at the end of the
tunnel. It is not a hopeless, black hole
that we are going into.
I can
speak as a producer. We just do not need
gloom and doom. We need a little bit of
optimism so we can get on with doing the job today so we can create a better income
and lifestyle for our families in the future.
Mr.
Plohman: I think
the minister could have given a great deal more hope to the farmers a year ago
if he would have made an unequivocal statement, loud and clear, that he would
fight with everything he has to ensure that they receive a just payment for the
previous crop year.
Those
kinds of statements were not something the minister was shouting from the
rooftop. He was continually espousing
the importance of GRIP and how this program was going to deal with those
problems. That is fine to offer hope
through that in the future, but the farmers needed something to put food
literally almost on the table, to make their payments, to put their crop in
last spring. They did not have that hope
from this minister, because he was not a strong advocate of the ad hoc payment
required for the 1990 crop year.
That
is what I am saying the minister could have been much stronger on. He would have placed the farmers in a much
better position in dealing with governments with regard to GRIP and then making
a decision whether they are going to go or not.
I
think the key to this whole thing‑‑and the minister talks about the
amount of money. We are not quarrelling
with the amount of money last year with their total payout. It could have been higher. It might have done the job in terms of the
total amount for all farmers in Manitoba.
We are not quarrelling with that.
We are not quarrelling with the average, because it is not significant
for this purpose. For the purposes of
our argument, the minister will choose to say my word significant says $43 an
acre is not significant. That is not
what I said.
What
I said is that figure is not relevant or significant for the argument. What is relevant is the fine tuning, and that
is what the minister chooses to ignore all the time, the fine tuning, how it
impacts on individual farmers, because some farmers were way above the average,
obviously, whenever you use an average‑‑and that is why I say it is
not relevant for the argument we are making‑‑and some are way
below. They just simply were not able to
buy the insurance that they required to break even.
They
did it largely because of the minister's base, the minister's criteria that he
used in this program, basing it on crop insurance data that was not relevant in
many instances for producers who were in this program or who had finally no
choice but to go into the program. I
will not use the words that they felt they were blackmailed. I will just say they felt they had no choice. So I am saying to the minister that it is the
fine tuning of this program that is important.
It is the inequities in the program.
I
just want to refer him‑‑and he has these documents that were sent
in by the group from Gilbert Plains that met.
They sent this in to the minister.
They sent it to me on April 24, and I understand the minister received
it before that. They gave hypothetical
farmer profiles. Even though they are
hypothetical, they are very real in terms of the impact of the program on individual
farmers.
When
you look through that, they had a number of farmers outlined, farmer A farms in
risk area IX with B land, 1000 acres seeded to red spring wheat, attempts to
maximize crop yields, uses high fertilizer inputs, sprays all weeds as required,
10‑year overall true average of 40 bushels per acre on red spring wheat
taken from actual production records from grain tickets, calculations for grain
use for seed and that fed out, and an accurate measurement on carry‑over
grain, and he carried spot‑loss hail through Manitoba Crop Insurance and
so on. If you go through that, the total
bankable revenue on red spring wheat seeded through revenue insurance, the
total bankable revenue would be $166,830 for that farmer A.
You
have a farmer B, farms in risk area IX, B land, also 1000 acres, attempts to
maximize crop yields, uses high fertilizer inputs, sprays all weeds as
required. His 10‑year overall true
average is 40 bushels per acre, same as farmer A. He carried private hail insurance on selected
crops during his past year's farming and continues to do so‑‑no
Manitoba Crop Insurance history.
Do
you know what the difference is? This is
what I am talking about in terms of the impact of this program‑‑equal
farmers, equal management, equal techniques.
His average, his bankable revenue on red spring wheat seeded would be
$139,000 versus $166,000 in that program.
That is the kind of inequity that this minister has enshrined in this
program. He does not want to talk about
that. That is what we are talking about
here, inequities in the program, unfairness in the program, not what the
average coverage per acre was or the total amount of dollars paid out. It is how farmers across the road from one
another are treated by this program, equally good farmers and let the minister
say they are not. I have more examples.
I
want to ask him what he thinks about that and if he thinks that is all right?
Mr.
Findlay: The
member gets all worked up, but he does not listen to the answers. I will have to repeat then what my answer was
before. This program was brought forward
by a task force recommended to federal government and all provinces across this
country, to give some level of predictability to incomes, to help offset very
low grain prices, to give a better level of gross revenue guarantee for
producers, institute into the program individuality and Manitoba and Alberta
were the only two provinces in 1991 to recognize that producers that get caught
in those situations that he just talked about need an opportunity to improve
their position. So for the existing crop
year, superior management adjustment was put in place, which I have already
told the member, paid out some‑‑[interjection] Well, it is
interesting that the member asked the questions, but he does not want to hear
the answers‑‑$48 million for 1991.
We
brought in individual productivity indexing for 1992, which meant that a
producer could very quickly move himself up if he had the records in 1990 and
1991 of crop production, which would determine 50 percent of his coverage for
1992. To deal with broader issues of
problems and inequities, we are the only province in the country to put in
place a crop insurance review to deal with those issues on an ongoing basis.
No
program is perfect. No program is not
without its problems and has to be altered and changed, and we continue to do
that. For 1992 we fought for a long
time, single‑handedly, to get the IMAP price at a more respectable level
so producers would not have a significant fall in income in 1992 versus
1991. I am very pleased to say we won
that argument and finally convinced all other jurisdictions that it had to be
done that way.
*
(1610)
As we
look ahead to 1993, the wheat price will be around or just below the $4 figure
and not way down at the $3.84 that, if the federal government had their way,
would be the case for 1992. So a lot of
things have been put in place to help farmers look after themselves within the
program.
I
mean, the member must know that there are no two farms that are equal in this
province, never have been, in terms of management ability, costs, production
ability, ability to sell the crop. All
those variables always did exist, and they do exist today.
The
member has, once in a while, talked about cost of production. If his political party believes so strongly,
then why did they not do it in Saskatchewan?
They just went the opposite way, just undercut the predictability and
the support that the farmers had in 1991.
That is a fact of life. The cost
of production formula that is used in supply management takes the top 30
percent. As I asked him before, what is
cost of production? Everybody is
different.
IPI
and SMA have an ability to improve your income.
If you want to spend more money you can improve your income, and you
have to pick the point where your cost of production meets your income. You have all the decisions in front of you in
terms of cost control, varieties to grow, mix of crops, ability to market. Naturally, there is a great incentive to be
able to, in balance, market your crop at a higher price than what your
guaranteed price per bushel is, because you put that in your pocket. If you can grow malting barley as opposed to
feed barley, you put the difference in your pocket. If you can grow No. 1, 13.5 or 14.5 percent
protein wheat, you put the money in your pocket‑‑the difference in
price between No. 2 red spring wheat, the guaranteed grade and your ability to
produce a higher grade and sell it for a higher price.
There
are all kinds of ways and means a producer, in the existing program, could
improve himself. Many, many have, and
that is why we have fertilizer sales moving quite well in this province,
because producers see the ability to improve themselves by putting the inputs
in, and that stimulates the rural economy in an ongoing way.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the minister says no two farms are equal and no two farmers
are equal. It may be that in the example
I gave, that farmer B who is going to get under this program some $30,000 less
is superior, as a matter of fact, to farmer A that I listed who happened to be
under Manitoba Crop Insurance.
So if
the minister wants to use that argument, what he has, in fact, in many cases
done is doomed superior managers to getting less revenue under his revenue
insurance program than those who were not as competent overall.
I
will give you an example of that, because the minister based it on crop
insurance and they got a superior adjustment figure. [interjection] Not the superior
management. That comes after the
fact. We are talking about the
adjustment that was made as a result of records under crop insurance over the
last 10 or 15 years that the person may have been in crop insurance, positive
adjustment, and that amounted to up to seven or eight bushels per acre in some
areas. Some people got that, some
farmers got that when they only produced 71 percent of the area average over
the last 10 years. All they had to do
was produce 70 percent and they were deemed to be‑‑under the
retroactive formula, I could call it I guess, or for previous experience under
the crop insurance data‑‑superior managers based on 71 percent, but
the person who was not in crop insurance and now who is going to be deemed a
superior manager must outproduce the area average by more than 5 percent before
he can start collecting additional revenue as a result of the SMA.
So
the minister used two completely different criteria, one for the past under
crop insurance which did not reflect superiority at all. It just said that you got 71 percent of what
you insured yourself for. I have to ask
the minister how he can reconcile those two positions that he has taken with
regard to coverage levels?
Maybe
it might be important for the minister to know that we are going to be spending
at least this next three‑quarters of an hour on this issue, so if he has
staff that is on subsequent issues and he wishes to inform them of that, it is
up to him.
Mr.
Findlay: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, without knowing absolutely all the specifics of the
examples that the member used a couple of questions ago between $166,000 and
$139,000 incomes, it is our understanding that the person with the lower income
under SMA moved up to $161,000. We could
further clarify it if he could give us all the information and the names. So SMA did equalize those two, it would
appear, from what we know at this point in time.
The
second thing is, the member is negatively reflecting on the coverage adjustment
factors used in crop insurance in years previous. Producers who were enrolled in crop insurance
had either a positive or a negative coverage adjustment depending on their
claims and frequency of claims. If they
had little or no claims, that means they were above‑average producers so
they had a positive adjustment factor.
That means that they were paying premiums and not taking out claims, so
they were paying into the program and receiving nothing out of it, therefore,
have positive coverage adjustment.
(Mr. Jack
Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Those
are the principles that have been in place in crop insurance all through the
years that they were in government, and it was a process of operating the crop
insurance program that was broadly accepted by the farm community. A producer who had claims that exceeded the
average‑‑in other words, he took more money out of the program than
he paid in premiums‑‑ended up with a negative coverage adjustment
factor. That lowered his coverage.
A
person who did not take out crop insurance had no record on which to base his
coverage in 1991 and certainly if he was a superior producer, SMA would
immediately be kicking in for him in 1991 provided he did produce above the
average. So the producer that had been a
long‑term member of crop insurance, paid his premiums, achieved the
coverage adjustment factor that was there, I cannot say there is anything wrong
with him having that coverage adjustment factor used for him in 1991. If he is already a high producer, his ability
to improve himself under IPI will probably be very difficult, whereas a
producer with a lower average yield on his record will, through IPI,
undoubtedly be able to improve himself much more rapidly. That is one of the principles that producers
want, individuality and coverage based on their ability to produce as a farmer
on a crop‑by‑crop basis.
Mr.
Plohman: Yes, the
minister is assuming that this farmer C that I talked about is a high producer,
as he used the term, but he may not have been.
He may not have drained on the crop insurance program. That is fine.
The minister says those criteria were in place for years, and that was
established and it was widely accepted criteria used, but there was no idea at
the time that we were going to have a revenue insurance program that was going
to be based on it. So it seems to me
that the two are completely separate in that regard, and so what criteria that
may have been used over the years to determine crop insurance may not be
relevant for revenue insurance, and it may not be fair. I would go further and say it is not fair
because of what we have seen happen here.
*
(1620)
What
we have seen from this situation is that a farmer who did not draw on insurance
but did not produce in a superior way at all, did not even produce the area average,
produced less than three‑quarters of the area average, still got the
coverage levels that were way beyond the individual who was not in crop
insurance but a tremendous manager and tremendous producer. The figures that would show here would reveal
that the farmer in this particular case who was simply producing 71 percent of
the area average, his bankable revenue on red spring wheat was $166,000, the
same as farmer A who was the superior producer.
How can the minister justify that?
Mr.
Findlay: The
member is taking one particular case, and a very extreme case, and it is very
difficult for the staff to think that anybody on a 10‑year basis could
consistently produce 71 percent of the area average. I mean, if he is taking one year, the
coverage adjustments factor was based on a 10‑year period, and it is
impossible to be constantly producing 71 percent and receiving coverage
adjustment. You would have to do
substantially better than that.
Basically, you would be up to over 100 percent more years than not in
order to have had a positive coverage adjustment factor. If he has some specifics there, send some
specifics over and we will look at it, but, you know, take one year.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am sorry to interrupt the minister. He said I should send the specifics
over. He has got this whole
presentation. I am taking examples that
I believe reflect actual situations, however they are hypothetical, and I said
that to the minister at the beginning. They are hypothetical examples that
reflect actual situations or very similar to.
The minister may argue with 71 percent.
Maybe he thinks it is not possible to have a whole series of years at
70.5 percent of the area average in one year, at 71.5 percent so they come out
with the 71. Yes, it might be. So maybe 80 percent would be better because
then you could go up or down 10 percent to get the average of 80.
My
point is that there are farmers who did not even produce the area average over
10 or 15 years, but simply because they did not draw on crop insurance were
given a superior adjustment, a positive adjustment, not a superior management
clause but a positive adjustment, therefore, were able to purchase additional
crop insurance and guarantee themselves additional revenue as high as the
individual who was consistently outproducing the area average, and, truly, even
under the SMA will reflect that in future coverage years.
Mr.
Findlay: The
coverage adjustment factor that the member is talking about was for the 10‑year
period that person's record would be done.
It would be from 1980 to 1989. We
are not going to go back and say that anything was done wrong in those years. I
mean, he was in the government at that time.
In terms of ability of a producer to improve himself, we had SMA in
place for 1991 and many producers qualified on a crop‑by‑crop
basis. Some maybe grow four or five
crops, qualified one, two, three crops, maybe all five. I would dare say a very high percentage of
producers qualified on at least one crop.
IPI gives them pretty much instant opportunity to improve their coverage
in 1992 based on 1990‑91 production years‑‑a tremendous
opportunity to improve themselves, and producers want individuality by producer
and by crop, and it is available in Manitoba.
Mr.
Plohman: The point
is, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, these producers will be forever out that
amount of money. They will remain behind
for many years before they are finally able to even themselves up based on
their own individual averages because of where they were started.
The
minister seems content to allow that kind of inequity to prevail in this
program rather than correcting it where individuals can show that their
average, since he based in on crop insurance, their own personal average was in
fact higher than some of those people in crop insurance. They cannot get any redress from this
minister. He will not deal with that
situation, and I ask him if he will give consideration to those farmers who are
penalized because they were not in crop insurance as per the examples that I
have given, whether he will allow them to, in fact, get the higher coverage
based on proving their production over the last 10 years say.
Mr.
Findlay: As
I have told the member, we have a continuous ongoing ability of producers to
improve their record, and producers want the right to improve their record, and
they can improve their record. But the
member must honestly reflect on how could you prove a record over the last 10
years. It is open to all kinds of
potential difficulties and problems and exchanging receipts, and on it goes.
You
have a terrible time being sure that everybody is treated fairly because it is
open to abuse. I mean, the records,
sales to the Canadian Wheat Board, that is pretty well recorded, but the sales
beyond that, difficult, very difficult to ever establish what a producer really
sold.
So we
have opened it up in terms of ability of a producer to prove himself and
improve his coverage on the basis of his own ability in the crops of 1990 and
'91, for his coverage in '92 and beyond, and the crop insurance review, we will
wait and see what it recommends from here on.
Mr.
Plohman: The
minister is saying that he is making a judgment that every individual farmer
who has kept records does not have records that he thinks are reliable enough
to make a decision on, at least as reliable as the admittedly flawed crop
insurance program.
Mr.
Findlay: I guess
I am very disappointed that the member for Dauphin would say that the crop
insurance program is flawed. He is
reflecting back on staff and a lot of years, over 30 years of crop insurance
record keeping, and I am disappointed he would take that position.
We in
this province have recognized producers' desire and ability. Farmers have good records, but I also know of
ways in which records can be created, and that is unfortunate. I would like to believe we could go out and
ask farmers for their information. I
know many would give you legitimate records, but I also know it is open to
abuse.
One
thing that farmers have constantly said to me is, control abuse in that
program, control abuse. I have heard
that as often as I heard, we need better coverage. Those are the two messages I have heard over
the last three or four years, and "control abuse" is very high on
their agenda.
A lot
of them said, that is why I am not in the program because I do not want to pay
premiums for somebody else to abuse the program. That is another reason why the program review
is in place because there are some concerns about things over time and let us
try to be sure that producers have a chance to have their input to their peers,
and we will see what recommendations come forward.
We
will take those recommendations to the federal partner to see if we cannot make
some adjustments that satisfy the vast majority of clients because they have to
have a satisfied client if they are going to buy into the program. I say that is why many of the, sometimes
better, producers did not take crop insurance in the past. They said first, coverage was not high
enough. What was available to them was
not high enough because it was area‑average based and they wanted
individuality, and I would like to remind the member that individuality is a
direction they were going in Saskatchewan, and that was all taken away from
them in the revenue insurance program in 1992, so everything he says here he
should take out there and speak to his friends in Saskatchewan, why they have
taken it away from the farm community.
An
Honourable Member:
They inherited the Devine mess.
Mr.
Findlay: He says
they inherited a mess. They took a
program that did have some level of individuality and took it all away from the
producers, and that is why we get thousands of people showing up at
Saskatchewan rallies very frustrated with the drastic changes that occurred out
there.
I
think the member does understand the producers of Manitoba want an ability to
create their own level of coverage. If
they are better producers they want to have a higher level of insurance
coverage. They want that in Manitoba,
and we are proceeding towards it directly and effectively in this province.
*
(1630)
Mr.
Plohman: The
minister is contradicting himself all over the place here with regard to abuse
when he makes those statements, because he did not even do an inventory of the
supplies that were in the bins before GRIP was put in place. There was some spot checking that was done,
but there was not an overall inspection that was done for all the farmers in
the province of Manitoba. He did not even know it was there, but he trusted the
farmers, the vast majority in terms of their inventory, and if they inflated
their inventory for 1990 they were going to have lower production for '91,
which would have meant more payments through GRIP. Yet the minister did not ensure that he knew
what was out there in terms of inventory.
That
is the problem with this kind of a program.
Certainly there is all kinds of room for abuse. There has to be a certain amount of trust in
the system, and I am wondering how the minister can say that there would be
less abuse in a passive way by the rank‑and‑file farmers out there
who were not subject to any inspection of their bins, why there would be less
abuse there than in this particular case where farmers, in fact, would have to
aggressively come forward and bring the records forward. The chances of them openly abusing on that
basis‑‑because they are trying to prove their case, they feel that
there has been an injustice, that they should have a higher starting point in
this program. They are earnestly coming
forward with their records and they want to prove their case, and they are not
being given that opportunity because the minister is saying, I do not trust
you. Yet on the other hand he did not
measure the bins. Where is he coming on
this issue of abuse?
Mr.
Findlay: Every
year the Crop Insurance Corporation requires producers to send to the
corporation a statement on inventory that is left at the end of the crop year,
the end of July. That is done every
year. It has been ongoing for a long
period of time. That was done exactly
the same in 1991.
Now,
he says the producer would record higher production for 1990, and then he would
have higher inventory in his bins for 1990; therefore he would have lower
production in 1991. Is the producer
going to win or lose on that? I will ask
the member to think about that, because that lower production he would want to
record for 1990 when it goes on his record for 1992, and that is 25 percent of
his coverage from 1992. So he may win
one way, he is going to lose the other.
What it really says is you had better be honest in the system in 1991
and beyond. If you say you have higher
production or lower production, you can lose both ways, so we are giving an
opportunity to producers to send their information in.
We
are doing spot audits right now on the final production reports that producers
submitted. They were to be submitted by
early February of this year for the 1991 crop, and there are some 2,000 audits
now ongoing, random audits throughout Manitoba to determine the degree of
reliability of the information producers sent in. For some producers, I am sure if they
underestimated their production, it will be corrected to their benefit.
Mr.
Plohman: The
minister should know that the audits should have been done prior to the 1991
crop being harvested, so he would know what was carried over and what the
inventory was at that particular time, and then it would have been a true
reading for GRIP. That was not done, and
I say to the minister‑‑[interjection] No, the minister said was
so. No, they asked farmers to submit
their inventory, but‑‑[interjection] Well, now the minister is
saying, I do not trust them. He is the
one that just said he does not trust farmers to put accurate records
forward. He only trusts crop
insurance. How come they are going to be
dishonest for previous years but suddenly they are going to be honest now?
The
point is, and the minister raised this whole issue in his discussion, that in
fact a farmer who is putting forward in an affirmative way his production
records from the previous year has got to be pretty sure of himself before he
comes forward with that. Therefore,
there should be some consideration by this minister to what he is saying to
that farmer, saying, if he can prove, and he has good records that are
reliable, he should consider that.
He is
refusing to consider that on the basis that all farmers' records are deemed to
be either poor or there is so much dishonesty in there they cannot pick out the
honest from the dishonest, the right from the wrong, and therefore they do not
even want to touch it. I say if the
minister operates under that same principle, then where was he on his audits
prior to GRIP coming into effect so he knew what was out there, so everyone
started on a footing of what was produced after 1991?
Mr.
Findlay: I
believe very strongly in producers' ability to be honest. That is why we are using the production
report approach where they can send in the information on their own production
as opposed to that member's idea where you go out and look at everybody's
bin. He does not trust anybody. That is the NDP approach quite obviously,
quite obviously.
My
approach is I trust people and I allow them to‑‑[interjection] Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member has asked a question. Would he like to give us the courtesy of
being able to answer the question? [interjection] I can see that.
A
producer in my mind knows what he has on his farm. [interjection] Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, if the members are ready, I am ready to give the answer.
Producers
have been asked every year by crop insurance to give the inventory that they
have on their farm. They are sent a form
in July of each year, report your inventory, and they can go out and they can
see it and measure it. Very easy to do,
they have been doing it for some time.
I
also believe in producers' ability to be honest and that is why I have
advocated in Manitoba‑‑and again, a lonely voice in the wilderness‑‑saying
we do not need to send inspectors out to investigate everybody's bin because
farmers do not like that. They do not like that invasion of their privacy.
I say
that they have the opportunity to send their information in and I do believe that
the 2,000 audits we are now undertaking will support that argument, that
farmers can honestly submit their information.
When they were asked to give their production reports, I would dare say
a good portion of their production had already been marketed and all they had
to do was report from their receipts.
The rest they had to go out and measure in their bins, and I believe
they will do a very good job of that.
But
it is a totally different question to go back and ask producers to say what
happened over 10 years. I say a good
portion of our producers, certainly in excess of 50 percent, will have good
records that will go back 10 years.
Many, I am sorry, do not have the records at their finger tips over that
long period of time.
I
mean through income tax you only have to keep it seven years but to go back 10
years, some can, some cannot. I am just
saying that it is not a foolproof program to go back 10 years. To go back one
year on what you have on your farm, what you marketed last year, I have great
confidence that producers will report honestly.
It
saves the whole program administrative costs.
That is another message, loud and clear.
They always say we have spent all this money on administration and
nothing gets to the farm pocket. This
program and the approach I am taking is to guarantee that the very least amount
of dollars be spent on administration, maximum dollars that we budget goes
directly to support the farmer in his pocket.
That
is why I reject the member's approach that you go out and you look in
everybody's bin because you do not trust them. That is his approach, mine is
the opposite.
Mr.
Plohman: The
minister's approach has been to trust on the one side those farmers who are in
crop insurance but not to trust those who are not. I would like to see him have a little more
integrity in dealing with the farmers and trust all those farmers equally until
they prove they should not be trusted if that is his position.
In
terms of his handling of the one situation and the other it is a completely
different approach. He is not asking the
farmers of Manitoba to come out and bring the records in to prove it. They are asking him if they can come in and
bring their records in.
I am
saying, if they can prove it, why is he not allowing it? These reliable records. Do not worry about the 50 percent because he
is not worrying about crop insurance, he does not care about inequities. This is a chance to make some amends in this
program, to make it more equitable. He
has the crop insurance records, for certain ones, for certain farmers in the
province, and he is using that.
Then
there are other farmers who went on crop insurance, about 40 percent of the
farmers of Manitoba, many of them‑‑say using the minister's
statistics, say 50 percent of good records. He could have another 20 percent of
those farmers who would be eligible for a positive adjustment for this first
year based on those records. Why will
not the minister allow‑‑not ask all the farmers to bring them in,
but just make a statement that he is allowing farmers to prove their
statements, prove their production over the last 10 years?
I am
saying you cannot have it both ways. If
on the one hand he says he trusts farmers, his approach is not to stick his
nose into bins, then why is he not trusting them on this other issue when they
take the initiative to come in with their records?
*
(1640)
Mr.
Findlay: The
approach we have taken is to allow producers who believe that their level of
coverage is not as high as it should be to have instant access to improving
that in the crop year through SMA on an ongoing basis to individual
productivity indexing.
Those
are the two approaches available to producers in Manitoba. As I said, you know, $48 million is paid out
under SMA which proves that many producers were able to achieve higher coverage
in 1991 on SMA, a very substantive level of coverage improvement, and that they
improved themselves in 1991, they carried forward to 1992, and they add in, in
1992, the records that they had in 1990.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is clear that the minister is not going to allow
farmers with legitimate concerns in mistreatment under this program to seek
redress in terms of where they were started in this program.
They
are going to be behind for many years because of the minister's approach. He says that there are options for them under
SMA, but the fact is they are going to be behind, even though they are just as
superior a producer as the fellow or woman who was in crop insurance because of
the start that they got in this program.
There
are thousands of dollars being lost every year in that approach by this
minister, and he is content to let that happen simply because they chose not to
be in crop insurance before. I think
that is a very inequitable and unfair way for this minister to approach this
program. That is the point we are making
here. We have a brief by the people that have brought this forward. They have
asked about 19 questions of the minister.
Has the minister answered this yet?
Mr.
Findlay: We
recognize there was some difficulty for those that were not in crop
insurance. It is the only database we
had and SMA was brought in to deal with it.
I can tell him from personal experience, SMA does allow you to very
quickly improve your coverage for the crop year you are in and through IPI and
SMA for 1992 allows you to do the same.
I
would say anybody that had a good coverage going into 1991, if he does not
perform in 1991 and 1992 and beyond, through IPI he comes down rapidly. To say somebody is permanently behind is not
necessarily true. He has to be able to
produce above average to improve himself, and if you are above average you got
to keep producing to stay there because you can come down as fast you can go
up. To say somebody is permanently
behind is just not true.
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Mr. Minister.
Pardon me, the member for Dauphin.
Mr.
Plohman: Thank
you very much for projecting ahead a bit.
Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, there is a problem here with the situation that the
minister has described in terms of the averaging and how it works. Let him explain then, he said they can go
down as fast as they can go up, and that is my point. It takes a long time to go up, because we are
only dealing with one year coming off every year out of 15 in that
average. Is that correct?
Mr.
Findlay: What are
you referring to, IPI?
Mr.
Plohman: Yes, the
individual average from crop insurance.
Mr.
Findlay: Under IPI
for 1992, 25 percent was based on 1991 and 25 percent on 1990. So you have, you know, 25 percent in any
given year. So if you have a bad year
you can quickly go down, and if you have a good year you can quickly go up
because 25 percent of your 1992 coverage is based on those two years. In 1993 it is 25 percent on '90, 25 percent
on '91, 25 percent on '92; and by '94 it is 25 percent on '90, '91, '92 and
'93. So you have the four years prior to
'94, is 25 percent on each year. You
used the term 15 years. That is the
moving IMAP price where you drop off one at a time, but the IPI, beyond '94 it
will just start adding a year on. So it
will be five years in '95 and six years in '96.
So you have 25 percent of any given year, so that way you can very
quickly move yourself up or down based on your performance, on your own
ability.
Mr.
Plohman: Yes,
I mistakenly referred to the IMAP which was not what I meant to refer to. It was the average that was established under
crop insurance which was an average that might have been based on 10 years or
12 years or what? It varies, I would
assume, depending on how long the person has been in crop insurance?
Mr.
Findlay: In terms
of the long‑term yields for different crops it varied from 10 to 25
years. Wheat was 25 years, barley 15
years, but in terms of coverage adjustment it is based on the 10 years previous
for the producer.
Mr.
Plohman: Okay.
So the person that has been in crop insurance has a 10‑year
average that they are working on.
Mr.
Findlay: Moving 10‑year
average.
Mr.
Plohman: Moving 10‑year
average. So in '92 they will have added
on the results of '92, and that will be averaged in with the previous nine
years then to get their average‑‑if that is correct. I am trying to make the point here that if
they are not producing up to their average it takes quite a long time to bring
it down, because you have only one year out of 10 here that is impacting on the
average.
Mr.
Findlay: Their
yield that they will have on their record for 1992 is 25 percent on 1991, 25
percent on 1990 and 50 percent on the average between 1980 and 1989, the
previous coverage adjustment factor.
Mr.
Plohman: So, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, they will have 50 percent of their average based on
the previous nine years, or eight years.
An
Honourable Member:
Ten.
Mr.
Plohman: Oh, previous
10 years prior to '91. Okay. Then in '93, will that drop to 25 percent,
that portion impacting on their production?
Okay, I see. So that means though
that still that person that was in crop insurance carries with him or her a
declining but still an advantage over the person who was not in crop insurance
who has to develop their average from then on.
If they have poor years they may be going the wrong way, those people
that do not have a crop insurance to fall back on in terms of their
average. Their average is based on a
very short period of time.
Mr.
Findlay: Yes,
that person can be above or below the average.
I mean, if he had a poor record in '89 he drags that with him. If he had a good record, of course, it helps
him for his average in '92, '93 or '94, but we are developing here‑‑this
is a risk protection program, and it is based on your individual ability. Everyone wants to be based on their
individual ability, and that could be a win or a lose depending on what happens
down the road. We have talked to
producers saying that you can win or you can lose on this individuality, but
there is such a strong desire and demand for it that we hope it is successful
for the majority of producers in terms of continually moving themselves up.
Do
not forget that it exists for each crop.
So if you have a producer that grows four, five, six crops, he may be
moving up on two or three and down on two or three. I would dare say that over time he will
either improve his ability to produce those crops that he is declining in, or
he will drop them off his list and grow the ones he is doing better in. So over the broad scale of things I would
think you will have more than 50 percent of producers moving up because they will
choose the crops to grow in the future that they are moving up in as opposed to
the ones they are moving down in.
I
might just add one other thing. A
producer has to look at his pros and cons here, and if he is doing poorly in a
crop he may say, well, I am only going to grow just a small acreage next year,
and I will do real good to get my average up in the future for that crop. So it is not a total 50 percent up, 50
percent down. Your choice of crops, and
I am speaking more as a farmer, is you look at things. You make the decisions to maximize your own
coverage and the potential benefits you can get from that coverage down the
road.
*
(1650)
Mr.
Plohman: Well, I
understand that. The point is though
that those farmers who were not in crop insurance, the 40 percent or so of Manitoba
grain producers who were not in crop insurance, would like to have the same
opportunity as those who were in crop insurance. The minister talked about the individual
abilities, it is based on the individual ability. Well, the risk is a lot less if you feel you
are a good producer, a superior producer, if you can use your average over the
last 10 years rather than the last one or two as it develops, because you stand
to expose yourself to less risk. You have
a longer‑term average, a more accurate average. That is what these people are saying. They want to be able to use their longer‑term
average to determine what kind of coverage they can buy.
So
why will the minister not allow them to do that, so they can be on equal
footing since he believes so much in individuality? I agree that seems to be coming through at
the meetings and the reports of the reviews that have taken place. So on that
basis, if he believes in that philosophy, why would he then not apply that to
those people, individuals who also want to prove their records and have been
excellent farmers and producers and want to have that reflected in their
coverage levels?
Mr.
Findlay:
Individual coverage has never been available in the major crops in
Manitoba, and we are respecting producers' desire to have individuality, and we
are moving into it, moving into it very rapidly, allowing producers from here
on to have that level of individuality.
The
decisions have been made. I would like
to have been able to go back and say, produce the records. We looked at the pros and cons and realized
the potential of abuse in that process was relatively high. As I said to the member, we have had a lot of
people complaining that they did not enter the program because they felt there
were too many people abusing it as it was.
So we put the various opportunities in front of producers, to SMA, IPI,
Crop Insurance Review to deal with further issues that are brought forward by
the farm community.
I am
glad to hear the member say that the desire for individuality is coming through
loud and clear, because very clearly it has.
To tell you the truth, when the SMA calculations were sent to producers
I thought we would have got a flood of calls of people saying, I did not get
fairly treated. We had none. I think what lot of producers found, they
were surprised that, as I said earlier, they had four or five crops that they
grow and they may have qualified in one or two and felt good about it‑‑hey,
we have got to do better on the other ones.
It is
a good factor of motivating people to do a good job of farming, and I think
that is very positive, because that means undoubtedly they will be buying more
inputs and that stimulates the whole rural economy which is very
important. I know that member has
commented, I guess the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was commenting today
about loss of population in rural Manitoba, and if farmers do not have the
money coming in and are not spending money, that is why we are losing
population, because smaller businesses that supply goods and services to
producers cannot stay viable, and therefore they leave the community.
I
will say that this is an ongoing program that is being developed on the basis
of experience that is occurring, and I look forward to the recommendations that
the review committee will bring in on crop insurance as well as the
recommendations that will come forward from the signatories review committee on
revenue insurance. I hope that we can
achieve more continuity, at least across western Canada, in program design,
because I am sure the producers in Saskatchewan and Alberta want individuality
as much as producers in Manitoba.
Mr.
Plohman: I think
some farmers want individuality and want to have that option. Others want an area average. The minister knows exactly where that is in
this province.
He
has refused to‑‑I believe, at the present time, I hope it is not
the case‑‑extend that option to southwest area farmers in terms of
their coverage, where they have asked for an extension of the area average as an
option for them because of the low averages that they are faced with on the
basis of natural disasters, on the basis of natural disasters that they have
been faced with over the last number of years.
Unfortunately,
the minister's program‑‑again, we talk about inequities‑‑seems
to have treated those who have been hurt the hardest over the last number of
years the worst in terms of their coverage levels. That seems to be the reverse of what it
should be.
So I
ask the minister with regard to that issue, because he talks about individual
coverage‑‑I mean, there are farmers and groups of farmers,
individuals and probably large sections of farmers who would prefer to have an
area average, at least for a couple of years, because they cannot base it on
their previous experience, because it is just going to mean that they are going
to be down to about $70 an acre, they tell me, in the southwest corner. Well, the minister cannot be very pleased
with that in terms of the distribution of the funds out of this program.
Mr.
Findlay: Last
year we were able to extend area average to all producers in the province as
minimum coverage. This past year, we
again asked the federal government, as the partner, to support that principle,
and they have said no. It is financially
impossible for us to take on further federal offloading by paying their portion
of the premium to move to area average for everybody again. So the answer was no.
It is
a grave concern, what is going on in southwestern Manitoba. I mean, they have had a long history of less
production, partly because of less moisture.
It has just been historic in that area that there is less moisture and
less ability to produce. Clearly, it is
a significant question. It is in front
of the review committee.
It
has come up, obviously, from producers in that area. I guess it is fair to say there are three
people on the review committee who come from that southwest area. Whether there is some resolution they can
recommend to deal with the lower producing capability in that area or whether
there should be further promotion of producing other crops there that can do
better in those circumstances is a very difficult question for which there is
no quick and easy answer.
I
guess I would say that the recent information in the press on the weekend about
AECL and working on this compound, this material that is supposed to improve
the utilization of water in soils that do not have enough water really to
satisfy the crop demand has a lot of promise for those kind of soils. I just hope that it is successful.
[interjection]
Well,
I guess we are all in that position to some extent. I appreciate their greater difficulty, but
you know the other side of the coin is that, certainly, land prices were less
in that area, at least, they sure should have been, compared to the better
producing areas. So that tends to even
it out a little bit.
There
is no question that it is very difficult to farm on a revenue guarantee of $70
an acre. We appreciate that, but I have
to remind the member that the federal answer was no, on 1992 area average. It is the same answer that was given in
Saskatchewan.
Mr.
Plohman: I do not
know whether the farmers can take much solace in the minister saying that he
realizes that, I mean, that they cannot exist at $70 an acre, and tell these
new processsors‑‑and I have that here somewhere. I want to discuss that with the minister too,
in terms of new developments. That is
something that is encouraging.
That
is not going to happen overnight.
Meanwhile, these farmers are in this situation. There is a high percentage of lost farms in
the municipalities in that area. I think
if the minister would have pushed for the concept of a minimum acreage
coverage, below which no one could fall‑‑unless there was complete
mismanagement and therefore they were tossed out of the program, as they are in
crop insurance and others. We have all
kinds of complaints of people we know, that farmers are taken out, their
coverage is pulled, because they are not considered adequate risks in crop
insurance. We know that is the
case. So that could be done in some of
those extreme cases.
But
why was there not a minimum acreage coverage below which‑‑even if
it were set at 100, I mean it would be a lot better than 70 in this particular
case‑‑no one could fall unless they are in violation of some of the
principles of the agreement?
Why
could the minister not push for that type of thing so that we would help the
situation? If the federal minister says
no, then he has to go all out and join with his counterparts, make sure the
Premiers are involved, and go to the Prime Minister and just say: Look, we are not tolerating, we cannot
tolerate this inequity; we cannot; we are going to have all kinds of farmers on
our doorsteps.
So I
will leave it at that today, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, and we will go back
into this on Monday.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order.
The time is now five o'clock and time for private members' hour. Committee, rise.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order please.
Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Education and Training. We are on page 43, item 5.(b) Program Analysis,
Co‑ordination and Support: (1) Salaries.
Would
the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Item
5.(b)(1) Salaries, $904,100‑‑
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Chairperson, I would just like to cover
what it says here: The objectives of the
policy is to provide leadership in the design and planning and development co‑ordination
and review of nonuniversity education and training for adults that will enable
Manitobans to contribute to the economic and social development of the
province.
So to
follow those objectives of the Department of Education, I would like to
reference back to Hansard where the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) had
quoted, and it is on May 14, on page 3403 of Hansard where she states: Limestone Training agreement students very
rarely progress beyond Level I or Level II, and for her information‑‑referring
to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)‑‑approximately 30 of 1,500
students obtained trades qualifications.
And she states that: This was an
NDP approach, and it did not work.
I
would like to follow along on that line in questioning. For her information and
for the information of the House, when you get into an apprenticeship training
program, it takes you four years to complete your hours to write for your journeyman
ticket. If the minister had any
knowledge about northern Manitoba, she would know that the construction seasons
are very short. Also, when you are
dealing in aboriginal northern communities, the people that were on those
carpentry related training courses were working for the bands building
community houses. That is what they
worked on.
There
had been very little active training in northern Manitoba pertaining to
aboriginal people for years and years.
So you had individuals that were coming on to be apprentices that were
30, 40 years old, some 50 years old, that had the first‑time opportunity
to challenge and to write their apprenticeship exams. These individuals had been out of the school
systems for 20‑some, 30 years. So
there was a lot of upgrading and simulated training that had to take place in
order for these individuals, most were of aboriginal ancestry, in order to
obtain the proper skills to pass the practical examinations.
So I
feel very offended as an aboriginal, as a former employee of Limestone
Training, when she states there were 35 of 1,500 students that graduated. I think it is very demeaning to aboriginal
people who have finally had an opportunity to make a career for themselves and
to come back and work in their own home communities. The traditional method in northern Manitoba
communities and in the reserves was you hired outside contractors that would
come in and build the houses for the communities. Those outside contractors,
99.99 percent were nonaboriginal individuals that went in, built the houses,
took the money and went back into the communities and very little was left in
those communities. So when you have a
training program that works and strives for aboriginal people to obtain trade
certificates‑‑when she says there are 35 trades‑qualified
aboriginal people, because out of those graduates most of them were aboriginal
people.
When
we first started Limestone Training we did a survey in Manitoba, and, Madam
Chairperson, there were three aboriginal people in all of Manitoba that had a
carpentry ticket. So if you looked at
30, that was obtained in a short four years, I might add, because the Limestone
Training Program started up in '85, but it did not escalate till '86‑‑the
stats I have which I tabled previously in the House, which I hope the minister
will read, and it states right in there, where I do not understand how she can
say 30 graduated from Limestone Training when in Level I alone there were 309
trainees and out of that there were 212 that completed. That is only in Level I out of 25 courses,
and the individuals that graduated from that‑‑there were 141 that
graduated. There were 71 that failed.
*
(1440)
In
order to update the minister and to give her some information that obviously is
lacking, people that failed the level would be recruited back into an upgrading
program. Because I stated earlier, these
individuals had been out of the school system for many, many years and had to
have the proper upgrading in order to upgrade themselves in the sciences, the
comprehension skills and mostly in maths.
We are dealing with adults. We
are not dealing with individuals. Most
of your apprentices down here in southern Manitoba leave high school, go
directly into a community college or are hired by a big company. So they are taken on as apprentices that work
year‑round.
In
Manitoba they are very lucky if they get two months, three months the max, in
their chosen careers. In order to
challenge any level of apprenticeship you need 1,800 hours. If you figure out the working schedule per
construction season in a lot of these remote communities you will know it does
not come near 1,800 hours.
A lot
of these individuals take anywhere from three to four years to accumulate 1,800
hours to go from one level to the next.
That is three years. If you took
the Limestone Training Program when it started in 1986 to 1989 that is three
years. In most northern communities that
is what it would take one individual to even accumulate enough hours to qualify
for one level, and not all four levels.
For
the minister's information, if you look at Level II, and I am quoting from
totals of March 31, 1989: Level II,
there were 12 courses and there were a 136 trainees that were taken on and
there were 94 completions. What
graduated out of that was 65 out of the 94.
Level
III, there were 47, 30 completed, and there were 26 that graduated out of that
30. If you look at Level IV, which is
your trades qualification level, there were 15 trainees that were taken on, all
15 completed and 12 graduated and got their journeyman tickets. That is up to 1989. The three that I know personally that failed
had a chance to rewrite, and now they also have their trades papers, so now
they are marketable anywhere in North America, not only in their own home communities.
But
the big, important part that is missing here, that is, when we had the
Limestone Training Program there were support systems in place to ensure that
the aboriginal people had every opportunity to succeed. Because like I mentioned earlier, they did
not come straight out of high school into big companies and into colleges and
write their levels. A lot of them had
worked years in their trade.
For
one example, I will give you, when we talk about simulated training is because
a lot of the construction that these individuals are working under were not
big, heavy‑duty construction projects.
But you had to have the knowledge of the whole construction phase in
order to pass your Level IV to get your journeyman status.
One
example I will give you is, you had to know how to construct a spiral
staircase. Now, you can tour all the
reserves in Manitoba and all the northern communities you want, and I dare you
to find one spiral staircase in any of those homes. I bet you will not.
But that
is the kind of training that the individuals had to have, and so they had to
learn it somewhere. So you had to have
that simulated training in order to achieve that. These individuals‑‑I have a hard
time understanding this because I give them nothing but credit and admiration
for the dedication they showed for themselves, their family and their
communities.
These
individuals came for a two‑month training program‑‑two months‑‑and
you know, Madam Chairperson, they trained seven days a week, 10 hours a
day. That is straight, for one month
straight, and then they went home for one week and came back. When you look at
the percentage of graduates out of such a strict regimented training course as
that, and how many of the aboriginal people stuck it out, you knew and you know
that they were determined to try and make something for themselves in their own
community.
So
when I hear statements like this being raised in the House, I get very offended
on behalf of those graduates who worked extremely hard to try and pursue a
career that they chose, and worked very hard in order to complete. If you want, I will go a little further on
this report. If you look at the Levels I
to IV, the completion rate was 69.2 percent.
Levels I to IV, the graduation rate out of that completion rate was 69.5
percent. So where were all these people
dropping out and not getting adequate training?
I was
just in Garden Hill last week. One of
the individuals I met was a graduate from that Limestone Training Program, and
this individual had obtained his journeyman carpentry certificate. You now what this individual is doing
now? He is the housing officer for the
community. That individual is in charge
of all housing construction, where in the past you never had aboriginal people
who had that kind of opportunity, and you see that all over the North.
The
other thing that the minister has to remember, and I hope she will consider
when she does some future planning, is in order to be an apprentice and to
serve in an apprenticeship program, you need to work under a qualified
tradesperson. Now these aboriginal
communities are having the opportunity of their own aboriginal people so that
apprentices can work under these individuals.
In
reality, if you look in another 10, 15 years, you will not have the situation
that was faced in 1985, where you had three aboriginal journeyman carpenters in
all of Manitoba. When we contacted every
area and every place that we could to try and hire aboriginal tradespeople to
train them to become instructors to train their own people, we found
three. Now, if you looked at the
records, you would see about 45 to 50.
Most of those individuals are working in their own home communities, but
also these individuals have the freedom of movement.
Where
these individuals now have trades papers, if there is a big construction
project, say in Winnipeg, these individuals can come down and apply for
employment opportunities, because you know that there are 85 to 90 percent
unemployed in most of those northern communities.
So
when you say, how come we have such few graduates, how come the program costs
so much? The cost is because there are
additional supports there for the individuals.
They had private tutoring in the evenings. There was a tutor supplied to them during the
day. They had individual instructors who
had to work with them to overcome a problem that they were facing.
If a
person was on the verge of dropping out because they were the bread earners or
the head of their family, whether it was male or female who was on the training
program, if they needed assistance at home, instead of them quitting the course
to go and cut wood for their families, we even paid for a load of wood to keep
that person in training. We did whatever
was possible to try and keep these individuals to obtain their chosen goals so
that we would have an improved labour market in northern communities,
especially in the aboriginal communities.
Sure,
that was only a first step, and sure, there was a low number of journeymen
carpenters, but, as I mentioned earlier, it takes you at least two or three
seasons to get from one level. If you multiply that by four, what you need to
become a journeyman carpenter, you are looking at eight to 10 years to
accumulate the appropriate hours to even write for your journeymen papers. That is only in the trades area where you
lumped a whole number of students into one.
If I
go further, you will see where heavy equipment operators were trained right in
the communities. There were 22 courses.
There were 229 trainees, 180 individuals completed for a 78.6 percent
graduation rate. Most of those
individuals now are working in their own communities. Who do you think builds and maintains our
winter roads throughout northern Manitoba?
*
(1450)
It is
no longer the practice like it was in the past where you had contractors from
the South that went up there and built those winter roads and had the contract
to maintain them. It is the people in
the communities. It is the community
leaders and the reserves and stuff that now get the contract to deliver those
services. They hire their own people so
the money generated stays in their own community. That is the big area where I hope this
minister will look at addressing and correcting.
Truck
drivers, Class 1 with air‑‑there are 17 courses, 143 trainees, 86
graduated for a complete grade of 60.1 and that is a licence. They had an examination that they have to
pass under the Province of Manitoba. You
know, Madam Chairperson, 90 percent of those individuals had very limited truck
driving experience, because a lot of those communities only have half‑ton
trucks and not the big vehicles that they need to haul pulp and maintain the
gravel in their own home communities.
If
you look at those communities now, you talk to those individuals who
participated in those training programs, talk to their community leaders, talk
to their leaders before you start making inaccurate statements that does
discredit, not to the agency‑‑that is the least of my worries‑‑does
discredit to the individuals who worked extremely hard, that made great
sacrifices, had to leave their families for extended periods. Their families at
home had to continue functioning on their own that made the great sacrifices in
order to accomplish what they have accomplished.
This
is not to defend Limestone training. I
do not care what it was called. This is
to stand up for the people who worked so hard for those 1,500 individuals who
stayed and completed their training program.
If the support systems are still there and if it is under KCC in
Thompson, if that support system is still maintained in the classroom and with
a simulated training program, that 35 you say which is now about up to 50 that
have journeyman papers, should keep improving every year. Without that support system, I will tell you,
Madam Chairperson, you are setting these individuals up to fail. So do not waste your time. Do not waste your money. It is not a discredit to the
individuals. It is because they have
been out of the school system for so many years and because of the occupation
and the skills level that they have had to work under, because these
individuals are used to building houses, not big major construction projects.
Just
for your own information, when you knock the training agency, the employment
stats as of February 1988‑‑[interjection] no, I will table it for
your information. I have already tabled
it once, I will table it again. The
employed at Limestone is 26.6 percent who had gained employment after
graduation at the Limestone project.
Employed elsewhere, that is within their own bands, within their own
communities was 35.2 percent. Others who
either returned back to school or relocated to the South or were working
elsewhere was 15.6 percent. Out of 100
percent of the graduates there was only 22.6 percent who were unemployed.
Any
given day, if you go to most northern reserves, you will see where the average
unemployment rate is 85‑90 percent.
So I think, Madam Chairperson, that you will address this in a serious
manner, and hopefully you will look, under your policy and your planning, to
ensure that adequate measures are there to support the aboriginal people,
because when we, some day, achieve the wish of aboriginal people of self‑government,
those skills will come in mighty, mighty handy.
So I offer you this information, and I will get some copies, and I will
have it tabled here for your own information.
What
I would like to ask is: Will the
minister ensure that the proper support systems are in place at the KCC offsite
in Thompson, Manitoba?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Chairperson, well, the member started
out speaking about how I had offended him and his manner initially was
extremely confrontational, so it is obvious that he has taken offence, and he
made that clear. So I would like to
start by trying to deal with his own feelings about this, which he has raised,
and try and deal with his own sensitivities to this matter, and then let me
deal with some of the issues which he has raised.
First
of all, in dealing with his feelings and also some of the sensitivities that he
has raised, let me really stress that the comments on May 14 were in no way
ever intended to offend either the member or any members of his community from
which he lives or where he represents or aboriginal people in Manitoba. On that
day, they were in answer to a question.
In
answer to the question, I believe I had said there were approximately 35 people
who completed to Level IV, and in fact today I have the figures in front of me
which say it was less than that. The
figures that I have in front of me today say 14 people completed to Level IV.
First
of all, in dealing with his feelings, let me say that there was no offence ever
intended to him or to any people of Manitoba.
In fact, the personalizing of that statement I suppose has allowed us to
enter into further discussions, which I think may be helpful both to the member
and to the people of Manitoba.
I
would like to say, in starting, that the difficulties with the Limestone
project were not the people, and that seems to be the line of argument that the
member is trying to bring forward. In fact, what we have said is that the
difficulties with the Limestone project was the structure of the project. What happened in that project was that there
was a large number of people who were applying, and exactly as the member has
said, it was very difficult to get the numbers of hours required to progress
through to the Level IV. In that case, I
think we are both speaking about the same thing. The structure of that project made it very
difficult for those people to achieve what they had hoped to achieve when they
set out.
What
the effect of that is, is that the market was then flooded with people who had
attempted a training program, had been unable to complete the program or
completed the program at a lower level and not the level that they had
originally intended. I do have some figures for the member also, in that these
numbers come from the Limestone apprenticeship applicants as of March 20,
1990: 1,317 individuals failed to
complete even Level I; 262 applicants did complete Level I; 81 completed Level
II; 24 completed Level III; and 14 completed to Level IV, the journeyman or the
journeyperson's position, which the member has been speaking about.
*
(1500)
So I
certainly acknowledge, as does this government, that structure was simply not
working. There were many reasons and
there were many causes. I believe the
member has certainly discussed some of those, why people were finding it very
difficult to complete. He has raised a
couple of issues. The first is the issue
of the adult learner.
There
certainly is a recognition that adults do learn differently than children and
that it is very difficult for some individuals.
The member has spoken about people who are 30 years old, 40 years old or
perhaps older, who are trying to return to an environment in which they were
studying and they were students. I will
tell you, I am a good example of that myself. I was 38 years old when I
returned to law school, and that was not an easy task as an adult learner.
So
there is certainly a recognition of this government and a personal recognition
on my part that it is very difficult for adults to return to the classroom and
to a training program, and that we have to recognize that those individuals as
adult learners need some special supports.
The
member has raised beyond that the issue of aboriginal Manitobans. Certainly, in the work that I have taken part
in before I became minister, I do have a recognition that aboriginal
Manitobans, in some cases, had a significantly more difficult time in school,
because the school system has had to learn to become more sensitive to the
needs of those individuals. So many of
those adults of whom he speaks were people who, for them and for all kinds of
reasons, perhaps did not have a very satisfactory earlier experience, for all
kinds of reasons, and those individuals returning to a training program then do
need some additional supports. He has
spoken of issues such as a tutoring program or some special recognition for
their needs as students.
In
addition to that, the member has also spoken of a recognition of some special
needs because some of those individuals had to leave their homes and had to
leave the places where they live and, in some cases, had to leave their
families behind. That is very difficult,
and there is certainly a recognition of that.
So I
want to make sure in the first part of my answer that the member sees that those
issues which he has brought forward in terms of the special needs of adult
learners and adult learners who are aboriginal are certainly issues which I
think are important and I am certainly very conscious of in any kind of work
that I have done and that I hope to do.
He
also then raises another specific issue, and that is an issue of northern
Manitobans, and suggests that somehow there is not a sensitivity to the issues
of the North, in particular, in everything he has raised so far. I also believe that he has made some
assumptions regarding people who live in southern Manitoba. He has made those
assumptions. I would like to simply
raise that for the record to say that I do not necessarily accept without
discussion those assumptions, but I do accept that his question wishes me to
focus on the North. Therefore, I will
limit my comments to the North, but to say that I recognize he did raise those,
and I am not prepared to fully accept some assumptions which he has made.
Now I
think it would be important to talk about, again, some of the reasons that the
Limestone project failed. Again, I would
like to focus on the fact that the Limestone project did not fail because of
the people, but did fail as a result of the structure. We have spoken already within this answer, of
the fact that there was great difficulty for people in reaching the Level IV or
the journeyperson's point, and that many people did drop out of the program
before that.
The
difficulties seem to be that again it was very difficult for those trainees to
get the number of hours required to complete for a higher level. So what we have done is make an effort to be
sensitive, first of all, to the needs of northern Manitobans who are adult
learners and northern Manitobans who are adult learners who are also aboriginal
people. Today we have subsumed some of
those Limestone programs under Keewatin Community College, and we will be
focusing on the many issues which the member has raised and which I have attempted
to tell him, yes, I have taken in and have understood the points that he has
wanted to make.
I
would also like to say that we are attempting to deal with those issues in
another series of ways which I think would be also really important, first of
all, within our labour market strategy, within the new programs at Keewatin
Community College and the particular sensitivity, actually I would say of all
three colleges, to the needs of aboriginal students, and also through the
Northern Economic Development Commission.
We are very anxious to hear from that commission and to hear through
that commission what the people of the North are saying, and also through our
responses to Conawapa and to the northern training strategy.
But
in summary I think it is very important that this point is made, that there
should be a tie between the community‑based economic development to the
community‑based training, and therefore to ensure that private sector
employers such as Conawapa will hire our graduates, and that we are training
graduates to a level and at an appropriate level that they are needed within
the economic circumstances of the area in which they live, and that there has
been a recognition of that as a particular concern in order to deal with some
of the issues that the member raised in his discussion with me this afternoon.
Mr.
Hickes: I would
just like to ask for clarification, the number you gave me of 1,320, was that
Level I or Level II? I did not quite
catch what level that was.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, that was the number of applicants who did not complete Level I
training.
(Mr. Ben
Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr.
Hickes: Just to
verify this, 1,320 people did not complete?
Mrs.
Vodrey: 1,317
individuals.
Mr.
Hickes: Failed?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Did not
complete Level I.
Mr.
Hickes: Just for
clarification, either they dropped out of the course or they failed. Is that what you are saying?
Mrs.
Vodrey: In order
to complete Level I, and I know the member knows this from his involvement,
students need to complete both an in‑class portion and an on‑the‑job
portion. So these students failed to
complete Level I. They may have
completed one or the other but did not complete both parts for some reason.
Mr.
Hickes: Just to
clarify that, and maybe further for the minister's education. When the recruiting was done for Limestone
Training, any person that wanted to get into an apprenticeship program or take
a trades training program was recruited at whatever level, even if they had no
experience whatsoever. If they were
interested in that trades program, that is what they were recruited for.
So
when you refer to 1,317 that did not complete Level I, I would tell you 1,317
probably did not even take carpentry or even work in the carpentry trades area
because you had anyone that filled out the form that wanted to become a plumber
or an electrician, that is what they put down in their application form for
training or employment at Limestone.
Most
of those individuals that had no experience were never ever, ever called either
for training or for work on the dam, because to work on the dam you need to
have a certain number of years experience.
So if the minister could just clarify that for me.
*
(1510)
The
other question I have is, if 1,317 did not complete Level I, on average you had
10 students, or at most you had 12 students to a class, that would be 130
classes. There is nowhere in the world
that in northern Manitoba there were 130 Level I or Level II courses delivered,
even if you want to go back 10 years. So
if you could just clarify that for me I would appreciate that.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Well,
the source of my figures is the Manitoba Labour Apprenticeship branch. These are figures kept by them regarding the
applicants and the completion rate by applicants, so the numbers according to
this are accurate.
But
what I would draw the member back to is, I think, the points that he wishes to
make, not the numbers issue which he is specifically speaking about now, though
if he wishes to continue talking about those we can. But it seemed to me the points that the
member wanted to make were points other than the specific numbers. They seemed to me to be the points that he
raised around the other issues of northern aboriginal Manitobans and training
and what their specific needs are.
The
member did ask me was there going to be any specific consideration made
regarding the needs and the sensitivity to those particular Manitobans? I have given him a list of initiatives put
forward by this government in which there is a sensitivity, and which there has
been a recognition. In addition, I have
also personally spoken of some personal experiences in recognition of those
needs.
Mr.
Hickes: The point
I am trying to make I will make very clear right now is that when I hear numbers
and stats thrown around about northern and especially aboriginal people, when
you say there are only 35 graduated from a northern program that was
specifically earmarked for aboriginal people and when the next response I hear
is 1,317 failed to complete Grade 1, that either says to me, just listening,
that aboriginal people are awful dumb or are not committed to complete the
course.
If
you are going to have 1,317 failing a level, there is something drastically
wrong there. I do not want that impression
left out there that aboriginal people are not the brightest people in the
world, because some of your very well‑educated and successful individuals
are aboriginal, whether they are lawyers or doctors or what have you.
The
thing that I would like to see corrected here is the thousand that successfully
graduated, the effort, commitment, be recognized and appreciated, not look at
aboriginal people as total failures. If
you have 1,317 failing Level I, what does that tell you? You cannot assume otherwise. That 1,317 is very clear in my mind. It is the individuals that I spoke of earlier
that walked off the street and filled out applications to become apprentices or
work in that field that never were accepted.
When
there was recruiting done, there were thousands and thousands of individuals
that filled out applications to work at Limestone and to take training
programs. There were only very few,
small numbers, that graduated.
The
other thing, when we talk about various levels, the whole point is, hopefully
the minister will continue the appropriate levels of training in trades areas
so that the aboriginal communities will have their own people to draw from in
the future. That is the whole point.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, the member is the one who has drawn the negative
inference. The member is the one who has
taken a recognition of concerns that he has raised today, and also a
description of what this government is attempting to do in dealing with those
concerns, and also a personal recognition of those issues and has drawn
inferences, and now wishes to attribute them to me.
Now,
I would like it again stated for the record that these are, in fact, inferences
drawn by the member. They are not
anything which I or any member of this government has said. I think it very important on the record that
my recognition of the concerns he raised earlier regarding the needs of
aboriginal northern Manitobans, both their need to become trained and trained
in skills which can be utilized within their own area or, as the member has
spoken about, allows those individual Manitobans to have mobility throughout
Manitoba, has also been recognized by this government and also by myself as
minister.
In an
effort to deal with the specific needs raised and recognized, I have spoken
with him about the efforts of this government to deal with that, because there
certainly has been a recognition of potential for northern Manitobans and
northern Manitobans who are aboriginal.
The
member has spoken about the need for special supports. In responding to him I
have also accepted that we have acknowledged the need for some special
supports, but never at any time did I make any reference or continue to draw
some kind of inference about those special supports. That is clearly the member himself.
Mr.
Hickes: The
reason I kept pursuing this is because if any individual would have read
Hansard the way it was worded before you made the clarifications, could have
misinterpreted it and read the way I brought it out was to get it clear on the
record, because I do not for one minute believe that was your intention when
you made that statement. That is why I
raise it again, hopefully that you would clarify it, so someone reading Hansard
other than myself or someone sitting in this room would know that was not your
intention.
I am
glad you made that very clear, and in conclusion, I would just like to offer to
the minister, now we have quite a few aboriginal people who are sitting as
graduates of Level I and Level III, and in the future‑‑I say in the
future when Conawapa is built, whether it is the year 2000 or whether it is
next year or whenever it is, whenever Conawapa or any major project in northern
Manitoba, whatever the next major project is‑‑that we have northern
aboriginal people ready to go on a job site.
The
reason it is so important to have aboriginal people sitting at Level II, Level
III or Level IV is because that is the level that they are hired. You get very, very few Level I's on any job
site. Those are usually filled by
carpenters' helpers, and they recruit more Level IIIs, more Level IVs. Where right now you say there are lots
sitting out there in limbo right at that level, that is fine because if they
continue their employment, even if it is a month at a time in their own home
communities when there is a major project, they, if you keep the northern
preferential hiring clause, should be the first ones recruited on the site and
start accumulating their hours so eventually they will have their trades
qualification.
I did
not mean this to be confrontational, but I just had to get a few things on the
record on behalf of aboriginal people as I mentioned earlier who sacrificed so
much and worked so hard, and I know what you are saying when you say
individuals, even in the South, sacrifice.
They leave their families and everything else, but when you are in a
remote northern community, sometimes it is very difficult when you are
depending on the head of the household or a family member to go out in the bush
and cut firewood, to bring back the heat so you and your family do not
freeze. It is not like turning on a
thermostat and you have adequate heat.
Also,
in most of your northern communities the food source is wild game, and if you
do not have someone out there hunting or fishing for the community, what do
those families do? That is the point I
was making. That is the difference
between an apprentice in the South and apprentices in remote northern
communities.
Mrs.
Vodrey: I am
very pleased that I was able to clarify for the member so that he does have a
better understanding when he now goes into his constituency, when he now goes
into the North and he is able to talk about an awareness and a recognition of
the issues that he has raised today. I
am pleased that we had the opportunity to talk about it and so that I could
share with him some of the, I think, important areas through our discussion,
both on recognition by this government and also a personal recognition.
Again,
this government did learn from Limestone.
We learned about some of the structural difficulties being one thing and
the difficulties as they affected people, which I think is the point that he
would like to make, being another. So
again, I am pleased we had the chance to discuss it.
*
(1520)
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
As we
look at this program, it is a real blessing for people in rural Manitoba. We all want the opportunity for our students
to go to university but in many cases that is unrealistic. There are many people who cannot afford to go
to university.
When
this program was devised, we thought it was very, very useful, not only making
it more easy financially for students, but also we know that statistics show us
that many students who leave their home the first time have a very difficult
time and have a very low success rate in their first year of university, so
this would be quite useful.
We
see that the project has only been offered in a few areas. I want to ask the minister, as she looks at
the results from the area that the program has been offered in, has the policy
of this government changed or are they pleased with the way it is going and are
they looking at expanding the program?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Let me
start off by telling the member that the issue of First Year Distance Education
falls under the appropriation for the Universities Grants Commission. That appropriation is 16‑6. I would ask that you hold the member to the
line, because the discussion does not fall within this appropriation at
all. However, I will make a comment on
it, because I would not leave for the record the comments that the member has
made, unanswered at this time.
First
of all, she has raised the issues of concerns for access, and she has also
raised in a specific way the issues that many people have leaving their homes
and going away to university in the first year, which affects many Manitobans. I recognize that she is raising an issue from
her constituency and from the constituency for a colleague of hers, and we are,
as a government, very concerned that young people do have access to university
programs.
First
Year Distance Education was a pilot put forward in order to allow young people
to study within their home community and to not have to experience some of the
issues and some of the hardships which the member has said may cause some of
those young people to drop out in the first year of study. It allows them to experience the course of
study, and then if they decide that course of study is appropriate for them and
is one that they are particularly interested in and wish to pursue, it has
given them a good start.
However,
I will remind the member, as I have answered her previously, that this was a
pilot project, that it is in the process of evaluation at this time, and that
the extension during the pilot process and the evaluation process at this time
is not advisable, but I will tell her that there is a recognition by this
government of the interest in Distance Education by many parts of this
province. We have as a result of that
formed a task force on Distance Education, so not only is there this pilot
project and its evaluation about the way this pilot project is functioning, but
in addition we have a task force looking at Distance Education and the
potential of use for Distance Education and a number‑‑That task
force has a very good scope.
Again,
I would like to leave for the record our interest in the area of Distance
Education, our recognition within this province of many people's interest in
Distance Education and the effect of Distance Education allowing young people
to remain within their home community or in the K to 12 side perhaps to remain in
their home school. But a discussion of
the details of this falls under the appropriation 16‑6 Universities
Grants Commission.
Ms.
Wowchuk: As we
are looking at this post‑secondary policy of this government I want to
ask the minister then, as we look at post‑secondary education and
Distance Education as it is a pilot project that is reviewed each year, is this
government satisfied, has it made any changes in its policy since the program
was first established, and are they looking to expand? What are this government's plans with First
Year Distance Education and other outreach education programs from universities
and community colleges? Is this
government prepared to expand and offer supports to the rural community?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I will again remind the member that First Year Distance
Education which she is referring to is a university level training. It does fall within the appropriation of the
University Grants Commission, and I would ask the Acting Chairperson to please
hold the member to the line.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would remind the minister that we are
discussing the division, Post‑Secondary, Adult and Continuing Education and
Training which includes the Program Analysis and Policy Branch of this
division. Surely the Policy Branch is
one that has division‑wide responsibilities and can be expected to answer
some of the questions of a policy nature that affect this particular program.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Well, the
member wishes to associate himself again very closely with the questions of the
NDP party. So let me give him the same
answer that I gave the member from the official opposition, that First Year
Distance Education does not fall under this policy area. It does fall under the appropriation related
to the Universities Grants Commission.
PACE, which we are discussing now, does not administer or set policy for
Distance Education and Training or First Year Distance Education.
*
(1530)
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, as we look at the outline here, the activities identified
include conducting research and analysis of existing market issues and trends
in supports. I want to ask the minister
then, is this department conducting any research? Is this the department that is analysing
Distance Education and other courses that can be offered in the rural
community? Does this department have any
role in that, and if so what are they doing?
Mrs.
Vodrey: I would
like to refer the member to Hansard when we discussed appropriation 16‑3(g)(2)
which is Distance Education and Technology.
That appropriation has been passed.
There was discussion within that appropriation. Questions were answered within that
appropriation around Distance Education.
The
policy for Distance Education does fall within the DET or Distance Education
and Technology Branch, again, 16‑3(g)(2) which has been passed. The specifics, if she would like to ask more
regarding the First Year Distance Education, those questions should be asked
under the appropriation for the Universities Grants Commission where that is
considered.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I am trying to ask the minister what research is this
department doing before they set policy?
What have they done to look at the value of offering different types of
education in different parts of Manitoba?
I am sure this department must do some of that‑‑that is
policy. Are they conducting any research?
Let us not deal specifically with Distance Education if that is
bothering the minister so badly. What
research is this department doing to provide post‑secondary, adult and
continuing education and training in other parts of the province?
Mrs.
Vodrey: The
member is again attempting to attribute to me some particular feelings of
concern. I draw her back to factual
issues which I have answered now, I believe, four times to say that this
particular branch does not do research into Distance Education. It is the Distance Education and Technology
Branch which does research into the area of Distance Education. This appropriation has now been passed. Questions were put at that time and could
have been put by the member at that particular time.
In
addition, the task force on Distance Education is also examining some of the
issues which the member would like to discuss and I do expect to have that task
force report to me. Again, I would remind her in the area of First Year
Distance Education, that should be discussed under its appropriation, and I
believe, Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is the method, that is the practice of
this House in terms of Estimates and the other side has been extremely
concerned about the practices in this House, so I would refer her to the
appropriate appropriation.
Ms.
Wowchuk: It appears
that either research is not being done or this minister does not want to share
it with us, so I will move to another area.
Point of Order
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, on a point of order, I have answered the member exactly
where that research is being done. She does not appear to wish to accept where
that research has been done and she missed her chance to ask the questions in
that appropriation.
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education does not
have a point of order.
* *
*
Ms.
Wowchuk: Just on a
point of clarification, I would like to let the minister know that I was in
other Estimates that relate to Rural Development and the rural community. I did not have the opportunity to ask them at
that time. I will wait for the next line
on that particular issue.
However,
another area that is covered here is policy direction on Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance programs. The
minister is well aware of the fact that it costs rural children much more to go
to university than it does urban children.
She is also well aware, I am sure, of the financial crisis that is
facing many rural communities and the disappointment that many rural and
northern children and families felt when the government decided to cut back on
education funding, particularly ACCESS and other programs.
I
want to ask the minister: What is the
overall direction and have they done any work on this to look at the impact of
the cost of education for rural children verses the urban children and the
impact that this has on that family?
What is the direction of this department in supporting rural children to
get an education?
Mrs.
Vodrey: I am
pleased to talk about the policy issues here. Some of the details relating to
student aid will have to wait for the student aid appropriation, which is 16‑5(g). But in terms of the policy area, first of
all, there is a concern and definitely consideration given to make sure that
the Canada Student Loan and its program are administered fairly.
Certainly
the member is referencing some of the really well‑known financial
difficulties that are part of the rural area.
As minister I have met with a number of rural people face to face who
have spoken about the particular concerns that they have. The concern seems to relate to the issue that
on paper rural people appear to have significant assets. But the difficulty for those individuals is
that they do not have the cash flow, so they do not have the ability with cash
to do what their assets appear to suggest that they should be able to do.
So
there is a recognition of that. In
recognition of that particular difficulty, two years ago we did exempt farm
assets in the student loan, also small businesses as it relates to farm. We
also added an exemption for vehicles for those young people who did have to
travel back and forth, and that vehicle was a necessity for that person either
to attend the program they wished to attend, or if they were living away from
home and attending that program but wished to return home for that kind of
contact.
There
is certainly a recognition on this side of the House that all students are not
necessarily young people. All students
are not necessarily those young people who finish Grade 12 and then progress
sequentially on to post‑secondary training, but that there are a number
of people who fall into the student category who would wish to access student
loans and bursaries, who in fact are people who already have families, who need
to have, in the case of the vehicle, that vehicle to return home for that
family involvement and family contact.
So
that certainly is recognized, No. 1 through that exemption, and No. 2 by the
recognition that all students are not necessarily young people, single and
unattached.
*
(1540)
In
addition, in Manitoba we provide bursaries and loan rebates. That is different than the additional
provincial loan which is the process in other provinces in Canada. The important part of the bursary is that
then students are not saddled with an additional debt load when they
finish. They are not then indebted for
the Canada Student Loan and also a provincial loan, but the provincial portion
is given in the form of a bursary.
In addition,
I would like to draw the members' attention at the community college level, in
particular, the establishment of regional centres to support residents of rural
Manitoba. The regional centres then
allow young people to study, or adults who wish to study, or adults who wish to
retrain to study at regional centres which are much closer to their own
homes. They are not necessarily so
disrupted as they might have been if they could only study in one, single location.
So
those are some of the policy directions which this government has moved towards
in order to support rural Manitobans through a recognition of the concerns of
rural Manitobans right now.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I am glad that the minister understands that the situation in
rural
She
mentioned the part about the assets making it more difficult, but there are
also many students who do not have any assets, and many students who cannot get
enough bursaries to cover their costs.
Just
on one question, I wanted to ask the minister, before I go into my next
question, on bursaries. The student's
mark, what is the percentage point? Is
it just a pass mark? How is the bursary
allocated? Does a student have to pass
the course? Does a student have to get a
certain mark or how do you get a bursary?
Mrs.
Vodrey: That is
an example of the detail as it relates to the student aid program, and the
student aid program is again a separate appropriation to allow this kind of discussion
and detail. That appropriation is 16‑5(g),
and if the member would like to ask that detailed question within that
appropriation, we will be able to provide her with the information.
Ms.
Wowchuk: What is
the policy? There must be a policy on
bursaries. Is there a policy from this
department on bursaries that outlines how bursaries are dealt with?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Well, I
can certainly give the member some information at this time if that would be
helpful. First of all, to tell her that
the government has established Manitoba bursaries. They are not based on academic
achievement. You do not get more or less
of a bursary if you get an A, a B or a C for a student.
We do
have policies for post‑secondary loan and bursary programs. We do have a policy for the types of
assistance and a policy relating to Manitoba government bursaries which simply
states that Manitoba Government Bursaries are awarded to post‑secondary
students whose needs exceed the assessed Canada Student Loan maximum. These bursaries are usually paid in one sum
halfway through the program.
Then
we also have loan rebates. A loan rebate
which is a portion of the Canada Student Loan which is repaid by the government
of Manitoba at the time the student begins repayment of the Canada Student Loan. The eligibility for this loan rebate is
determined by using Manitoba Government Bursary criteria.
In
addition, there are some special post‑secondary bursaries which might be
of interest to the member. The Prince of
Wales, Princess Anne, Metis and non‑Status bursaries which are awarded to
Metis and non‑Status students attending post‑secondary institutions
in Manitoba or attending a designated Canadian post‑secondary institution
offering courses which are not available in Canada.
We
also have special opportunity bursaries for students with disabilities. These bursaries are available to both full
and part‑time post‑secondary students. They are designed to provide support for the
extra services that disabled students require which are not covered by other
support programs.
In
addition, we also have mature student bursaries. We also have a pilot bursary program for
mature students. We also have special
opportunity adult basic education bursaries which the member might also be
interested in, which cover the direct educational costs such as tuition, books
and supplies, and transportation of students enrolled in adult basic education
at the community colleges. Living
allowances may be applied for through the student social allowances.
So
the member has been interested in the kinds of student bursaries and the kind
of support that has been available to students.
I hope I have been able to provide her with a range of the kinds of
bursaries available because it seemed to me in her questioning to me, she wanted
to make sure that this government had an awareness that all students are not
the same when they are attempting to enter a post‑secondary program.
As
she mentioned, some students have assets, some students do not. Some students come from families in which
their families have assets, but that does not mean that the family itself is
able to necessarily provide the cash that the student will need in order to
progress through the post‑secondary program. In addition, as I spoke earlier, we recognize
that all students are not young people who are sequential students, but there
are a number of mature students who also need some additional support.
We
also have had, and it certainly has been important for the other side of the
House to recognize our support to people with special needs. I have discussed the bursary for students
with special needs.
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
Mrs.
Vodrey: I believe
I have the floor, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
*
(1550)
I
have also spoken of the bursaries that are available to Metis and nonstatus
students or people studying. I believe
the member did ask me what were the policies.
The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has also expressed his interest in
the area of policy and expressed it to the member who has presently asked the
question. So what I have attempted to do
is provide for her a listing of the kinds of policies and considerations which
we provide in the bursary area.
Ms.
Wowchuk: I asked
a very simple question. I asked what was
the policy on grade point average? That
was all I wanted to know, but since the minister has chosen to be so elaborate,
I will thank her for that information, and we will get on to another area.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Excuse
me‑‑
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The minister would like to comment on that.
Mrs.
Vodrey: I
believe if the member checks Hansard, she will find that she did not at any
time mention the words "grade point average."
Point of Order
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Acting Chairperson, we will check Hansard
but I believe that the member for
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) does
not have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* *
*
Mrs.
Vodrey: I am not
sure at all what is inappropriate about the answer that I gave, which said,
that bursaries are not tied to an A, B, or C.
That was the first part of the answer which I gave the member.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Well, I
think the minister knows that I am very concerned about rural students and the
financial situation they are in. Many of
them do not have the ability to raise the necessary funds. We are looking for every possible way that we
can get an education for all people, no matter where they live, so that they
can fit into the job force when we finally have some real jobs in this
province, or new jobs.
I
want to know whether this department is looking at the finances, whether they
are looking at the people, doing any studies in comparing the people who are
using the loans, whether they are looking at doing any changing to their
overall policy to address the needs of those children, those students, whether
they be young or old, and whether they are looking at changing the policy so
that all people can have the finances to attend either university or post‑secondary
education.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, well, I certainly too have a concern about all Manitobans
who wish to pursue a post‑secondary education and find themselves in
financial need in order to do that.
I
will remind the member, tell her again, that the Canada Student Loan program is
a federal program, and that federal program is then one in which they set the
principles, and they set the federal government‑‑let me be, again,
underscoring that particular issue‑‑the federal government sets the
weekly loan limits.
Now
we in Manitoba have expressed a concern, and I have certainly answered this
question in the House that we do have a concern about the level of the weekly
loan limits. So I did attend a meeting,
I believe it was in March in Ottawa, with Mr. de Cotret, the Secretary of State
who is responsible for the Canada Student Loan.
I, along with Ministers of Education, post‑secondary education
across Canada made a strong case to him that the issue of weekly loan limits
was of great concern to us in our provinces.
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
So we
have expressed concern. I as minister
have gone to Ottawa to meet the federal minister responsible and made that case
also. We in Manitoba can assist through
our bursary program. Our bursary
program, as I have described to her in my last answer, is such that it is a
bursary not a loan program, so that it does not add to the student debt at the
end of the period of study.
This
government has enhanced the bursary program so that there is more money
available within that program. Now, the
member has also asked for any kind of research or analysis. That research and analysis is a detail which
I will remind her falls under the student aid appropriation, because that is
where the work has been done. I will be
very happy to discuss the analysis under the appropriate 16‑5(g).
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, it is indeed a pleasure to see you back in the Chair.
Well,
I would like to start, perhaps just to ensure, and I was interested in the
comments the minister has made on student aid.
I think it is true that this government is concerned, as all governments
are concerned, about the level of student aid that is available.
I
think it is disgraceful that the federal government has not moved on increasing
those levels for some‑‑is it not since 1984?‑‑eight
years that they have not been increased?
I am pleased to hear the minister say that she has been advocating,
along with other ministers, for an increase in those numbers.
Can
the minister tell us whether or not, based on the discussions they have had
with the federal minister and the subsequent follow‑up presumably within
the department, as to whether there is any sense that those rates will
increase?
Mrs.
Vodrey: In my
meeting with the Secretary of State, these issues were raised to him directly
by me, as minister, and also by our department.
The
minister of State did say that he recognized the concerns around the weekly
loan limit, that he was examining the weekly loan limit. But he did not tell us, he gave us no
commitment, about when that weekly loan limit might be raised or by how much.
*
(1600)
The
issue appears to be contingent upon the savings by the federal government by
reducing the default rate of the Canada Student Loan and also by the banks
accepting some responsibility for the risk and the collection of a student
loan.
Mr.
Alcock: I
commend the minister for the stand that she has taken. I wonder if she could clarify‑‑and
I realize, she is not the federal minister.
I do not expect her to answer for the federal minister. I do not intend to hold her accountable for
the actions of the federal minister. I
think she has made it clear that she is advocating, on what I believe is the
correct side of this issue, and I will undertake to support her in that.
But
did I understand that her representation of the federal minister's position was
that it was the default rate that led them to freeze the support rates at the
'84 level?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Well, I
appreciate the member's comments. I
would not want to speak for the federal minister, and I would not want to even
attempt to interpret his particular position. I think he should be here himself.
On
the other hand, what I certainly understand about the issue is that this is a
multifaceted issue in terms of the number of issues relating to the Canada
Student Loans and, in specific, the weekly loan limit that we have been
speaking of. At this point, I can tell
him that the federal government has reported to us that they will be
negotiating with financial institutions to reduce defaults and to share in the
risks of the Canada Student Loans.
I
have said that it is multifaceted. One
of the facets is the issue of the negotiation with the financial institutions
to reduce the default. If they can
reduce the default, they have reported to us that they believe they can
generate a savings of up to $160 million.
If they can generate that amount of savings, then it perhaps would be
that money then may be available to assist in the Canada Student Loans
Program. The federal government has also
told us that they will, and I believe they announced in their budget also, wish
to eliminate that 3 percent guarantee fee.
We have also been interested in speaking with them around an issue that
they raised of increasing, from 60 percent to 80 percent, course load.
Also,
they have spoken of a number of other issues.
They have talked about eliminating the six‑month interest‑free
grace period upon completion of studies.
So I did raise that particular issue with the minister also. They may increase the living allowances we
have been speaking of and weekly rates and weekly loan limits if, and again
this is something that we have no positive commitment on, we have not yet seen
any action on, that if some money can be saved then through these processes,
then perhaps the weekly loan limits may be raised.
Mr.
Alcock: Before I
continue with questions, might I serve notice to you and maybe through you to
Hansard that the mikes here are not working terribly well. I have changed over to the next member's desk
and it is a little bit better. I mean,
the minister is speaking clearly, but with my earphone I cannot hear her
responses. I do not think the minister
speaking up would assist that. I think
it is an electrical problem in the system, so perhaps Hansard could be asked to
check it or whoever does these things.
Madam
Chairperson: I thank
the honourable member for Osborne for drawing that to our attention. Just one question for clarification, does the
honourable member suspect it is the ear piece?
Mr.
Alcock: Well, I
am hearing better from this desk. I am
still getting some static, but I do not hear at all from this desk, and I am
using the same ear piece. We could try a
new one. I am game.
Madam
Chairperson: Okay.
Mr.
Alcock: Let me
start with this question of the banks taking more responsibility. Is it the sense that the banks have to assume
a greater proportion of the risk involved in offering these loans? Is it the position of the federal government
that the banking institutions that provide these loans have been irresponsible
perhaps in their follow‑up report‑‑irresponsible may be too
strong a word, and I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth‑‑but
that they have perhaps been lax in following up in defaults, because they do
have this federal government guarantee?
Is that the concern that has been raised?
Mrs.
Vodrey: I would
like to again state very strongly that I do not speak for the federal
government, but there is a recognition that there is a very high default rate
for Canada Student Loans. The issue is that Canada, at this time, underwrites
all costs of the Canada Student Loan.
The
bank's role, at this point, is to send to a student two letters in which they
request the payment. Where that payment
does not occur, Canada then pays the loan.
The concern is that banks have, in the past, a record of following up
very strongly on commercial loans. There
has been a suggestion by the federal government that if banks would keep a
closer contact with students, perhaps a more personal contact, then banks might
be aware of the personal situation of students who are not able, or who for
some reason have failed to repay the loan.
Through
that more personal contact, perhaps the default rate might then be decreased
and the collection of the loan may improve.
Mr.
Alcock: Since the
minister has taken the time to stress once more that she does not speak for the
federal minister, I want to assure her that I do not expect her to. I say this with all sincerity. It is not often we get a chance to hear
directly from a minister who has had recent conversations with the federal
minister on a particular policy, and I have no intention of holding this
minister accountable for the federal government's policy. I do accept at face value her assurances that
she has made representations to the contrary.
But I
am very interested in this area because it strikes me as a very curious policy
that the federal government has taken, when the objective or the stated
objective of the federal government as well as the provincial government is to
increase or maximize the number of people who take advantage of higher
education. They seem to be following a
policy course which does leave this minister with very few options that is
limiting the ability of students to avail themselves of higher education. I would like to try to understand, through
the minister, who has had the most recent and closest contact with the federal
minister, exactly what the reasoning is behind that, because at this point I
must confess I do not understand the logic of it.
*
(1610)
She
has explained to me the issue relative to the banks. Is it her belief that it is only if‑‑and
I recall her stating that there was no guarantee, that there would be
increases, but that if there was to be any hope of increases, those increases
were contingent through greater follow‑up on defaults and such that if
this number of some $160 million was to be realized, is there a commitment to
reallocate that?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, again, I would like to say that the discussions which I had with
the federal minister were very broad. I
raised the issues which I have spoken about today to the federal minister. The discussions were very preliminary in that
any changes then would need to be placed in legislation.
There
was, however, as I am sure the honourable member knows, a commitment in the
federal budget to drop the 3 percent guarantee and to increase the weekly loan
limit. The budget did say that savings
found through some of the streamlining mechanisms would be reinvested in the
program. However, at this point we really
do not know how much money will be recovered, and again, the decisions‑‑and
we do not know how it will be recovered.
So though we have some broad commitments, we do not yet have the details
of how much and exactly how that will occur, and neither have we seen any draft
legislation, which, again, legislation would be necessary to make these
changes.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, another statement that the minister said, as a result of those
discussions, was some thought in increasing the course‑load requirement
from 60 to 80 percent. I wonder if she could clarify the source of that
particular suggestion.
Mrs.
Vodrey: The
issue that the member has raised, again, was a suggestion raised by the federal
government, discussed as a possibility by the federal government. The federal government addressed a number of
issues. We as provincial ministers of
Education pressed the federal government, the federal minister to discuss some
of the details of a restructuring of the Canada Student Loan plan, which he had
invited us to Ottawa to discuss.
We
wanted to know, as provincial ministers, where some of this money, which is
needed, might come from. The federal
minister spoke of recovering some money perhaps through decreasing those
numbers who default, and secondly, the federal minister raised, as a
suggestion, increasing the course load from 60 to 80 percent.
However,
the provincial ministers did press the federal minister on that particular
issue, and the federal minister did express then some recognition of the needs
of what we had called special needs students, special needs students including
people like single parents or underprepared learners who are not able to cope
with such a full or large course load.
Mr.
Alcock: I believe
also the concern has been because of the increase or the failure of the federal
government to increase the support levels for the past eight years, that this
has forced students to work longer and longer hours to supplement their income
in order to meet basic living expenses.
To force up the course load requirement would also put incredible‑‑it
would catch students in a real Hobson's choice, because if they are really
trying hard to achieve and maintain their grade point average, and at the same
time work enough to put money in their pockets, they seem to be being squeezed
on both sides: no increases in basic
living and all of a sudden a requirement that they spend more time in studies.
So
what I would like to know is: What is
the policy of this government on that suggestion?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, certainly I recognize the issue which the member has been
discussing. The federal government did
discuss with us on that day a general policy by the federal government to
increase course load requirements from 60 to 80 percent.
The
provincial ministers and I, on behalf of Manitoba, raised some concerns around
that raising of the percentage of course load for some of the reasons that the
member has spoken about: No. 1, the time required by students to then work at
jobs to assist in supporting themselves.
We also wanted to make sure that the needs of those special groups of
learners, special needs learners who are sometimes single parents‑‑because
one other very important point that I raised with the minister was that those
students seeking Canada Student Loans are not necessarily all sequential
students.
*
(1620)
I
think it is very important for us to recognize that there is some mythical
sense that all students are young people who have just finished a high school
program and are continuing on sequentially, because we recognize now that in
fact is not the case. The member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) raised that in his remarks also, that for many
reasons people are not able to continue their education until they are mature
adults with other kinds of responsibilities.
So as
a provincial minister I wanted to press the federal minister on that particular
issue, in specific, but as provincial ministers we did recognize the need that
there had to be some assistance in the weekly loan limit and therefore some
recognition to restructure in some way.
So we were very interested to hear what the federal minister had to say
and to have an opportunity to respond to the federal minister.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I am certainly supportive of the concerns that the minister has
raised, and I am pleased that she has raised them with the federal minister.
I
know the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has a couple of questions. I will yield the floor, although I want to
come back to this question of restructuring, because that word in the
dictionary of a Conservative minister, to date, has caused me great
concern. Perhaps this minister will
prove those concerns groundless.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I would have appreciated some clarification about which minister
the member for Osborne is speaking of. I
am assuming that he has raised some concerns regarding the federal government,
which he has raised in this House before, and he may have many reasons for wishing
to raise those concerns. So I think it
is very important that it be clarified on the record that he has been speaking
of an issue which is within the policy area of the federal government and the
federal minister, the Canada Student Loans Program, and that as provincial
ministers we did attempt to raise the concerns of the people of our province
and I, in particular, to raise the concerns of Manitobans.
Ms.
Friesen: Madam
Chairperson, the minister has been talking about the different proportions of
students who are sequential students and those who are continuing students, in
some way or other, and who fall under different kinds of family and economic
categories.
I
wonder if the minister could tell us what proportion of the post‑secondary
students in Manitoba are in fact in that age group that we might call
sequential students, and how is that defined in Manitoba? Is it the age group 18 to 24?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, those details of those students and their status as they apply for
student aid would be available for discussion, because they are very specific,
under the appropriation for student aid, and the appropriation again is 16‑5(g).
Ms.
Friesen:
Actually, I was not asking about it in reference to student aid. I was asking about it in terms of the overall
post‑secondary students. What
proportion of the post‑secondary students in Manitoba fall into the
sequential category, what proportion fall into the other category?
Mrs.
Vodrey: We
would have to look into that statistic number that the member has asked
for. We would not necessarily have
information about students as sequential learners; we would have some
statistics available by age of students attending programs. On the university
side, it would also require some contact with each of the universities for
their statistics relating to the age range of students within their programs.
I am
informed, however, for the colleges, for the member's information, that
approximately 7 percent of the college full‑time daytime enrollment are
sequential students. That leaves, then,
approximately 93 percent who are not sequential learners or who have been out
of school for one year or more‑‑that one year being the pivotal
point.
Now
that 7 percent, as we discussed earlier in our discussion in Estimates, would
be considered low, and we are taking steps through the colleges and the college
programming, and discussion with high school counsellors and other moves, in
terms of having people look at the colleges as a very viable alternative for
sequential learners to then move into the programs that are available at the
colleges.
Ms.
Friesen: I look
forward to receiving that information.
But do I understand the minister to say that this department, without
contacting the universities as a result of this question, does not collect the
statistics on the age ranges of people in post‑secondary education?
Mrs.
Vodrey: The
ranges are reported by the universities to Stats Canada, so we would certainly
have it available through that mechanism.
As I
said to her, we could get that. We do
not have it with us today for the colleges, but we could certainly get it for
the colleges. The universities are more
autonomous than the colleges. The
Universities Grants Commission does not maintain that specifically within the
Grants Commission.
In
terms of all post‑secondary, yes, we can certainly get that information
for the colleges; and in relation to the universities, yes, we can obtain that
information from the universities because of their autonomy. Also, it is available, and certainly
available to us and to the member, through Stats Canada.
Ms. Friesen: I will ask some questions when we get to the
Universities Grants Commission on the kind of statistics which they keep and
the relationships between their information and the government's planning
process.
*
(1630)
I
understand that the minister then has access to the same Statistics Canada
material that everyone else does, and that the department then does not make
any further attempts on a general basis, on a continuing basis to keep those
kind of, I guess you would call them generational statistics within post‑secondary
education.
Mrs.
Vodrey: I
appreciate the member saying that she will wait until we reach the appropriation
for the Universities Grants Commission.
At that time we can discuss the database which the Universities Grants
Commission does maintain and also the available databases and other data
available to the Universities Grants Commission, because certainly our
statistics do not only come through the Stats Canada report.
Ms.
Friesen: At
that point, Madam Chairperson, one of my interests will be the relationship
between the department and Universities Grants Commission.
I
wanted to follow up on some of the questions that the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) was asking relating to the extensive hours that students now have to
work. It is not an issue that is
confined to post‑secondary education.
It certainly is there in the high schools, and it is increasingly there
at lower and lower levels within the high schools. You do not have to talk to any high school
teacher for long to know that you have good proportions, 20 to 30 percent of
some schools, where children over the age of Grade 10 or 11 are, in fact,
putting in 30‑hour weeks.
I do
not have those kinds of statistics for the universities, but I do know that the
Statistics Canada material for Manitoba showed that the Manitoba student in the
age group 15 to 24 was, in fact, working longer hours than any other student in
Canada.
I
wonder what opportunity the minister has had to reflect on that‑‑I
believe those were numbers that came out in February or March‑‑what
opportunity the minister has had to reflect on that, what kind of policy
direction she thinks her department might be considering, first of all, perhaps
in terms of research to verify this?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I would like to start by saying that I recognize the issue that
the member has raised, and certainly share the concern that students, both at
the high school level, for many reasons, are working outside of their time in
which they would attend school, and some of that time then spent working,
particularly at the high school level and then in the post‑secondary
level, limits the time that those young people or adults have available then to
do the kinds of project work, reading, homework and engagement within the
studies which might help them. Because
one of the issues which we have spoken about is also the engagement of students
at all levels so that we do not lose them and that they are able to come to
completion of the program.
So I
would like to start by saying I recognize the issue and that we, as a
government, also have recognized the issue.
In terms of the research, we do not wish to duplicate research which is
already being done in other areas, and so‑‑the research issue again‑‑we
look carefully at what is already available to us. We have found that there are students who are
working more than 10 to 15 hours a week, and by working more than that they are
sometimes putting their studies in jeopardy.
Certainly there is a recognition on all sides of the House of that
issue.
One
of the things that we have done as a government is to increase the earnings
exemption for students so that they are able to keep more of the money that
they earn, and previously they were not able to keep that amount of money, and
so it was not seen as a resource. So it
has been important that we have been able to increase that earnings exemption.
We
have also, over the past number of years, increased our contribution to the
Student Financial Assistance program so that there is more money available for
those people who are studying.
Ms.
Friesen: Madam
Chairperson, I raised this for a number of reasons. One, obviously, is the condition of the
students themselves and the way in which this affects, in some cases, their
physical health as well as their intellectual abilities and their ability to
participate in an educational culture.
I was
pleased to hear the minister suggest 10 to 15 hours as an ideal. I recognize it is an ideal, because certainly
it seems to me that beyond that there is a harm to a student who is in full‑time
studies. It is not something which is
said very often in Manitoba, it is not something which is often held out as an
ideal. Too often, I think, we hold out
the ideal that the work itself is more important than the study, and that kind
of attitude has been conveyed to students through media and in many cases, I
think, through a kind of public culture, which I would hope that any Minister
of Education would attempt to change or to alter.
But
there is another reason too, and that, of course, is that students who are
working longer and longer hours are also taking many more years to complete
their studies. I wonder what research
the department has done on that at the university level and at the community
college level. Have they related it to
the impact on the economy, the fact that we are in fact delaying, perhaps in some
cases by policies, in some cases by absolute economic necessity of some
families? But we are having an impact
upon the nature of the Manitoba economy.
So I am not looking for finite answers.
I am looking for interest in the question. Are you doing the research? Are you asking those kinds of questions?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, again, I understand the issue that the member is raising in terms
of the prolonged number of years, and to add to that, sometimes the concern of
prolonging the number of years is one of the issues which then causes students
to not complete a program because six years instead of three years looks a
whole lot longer to finish and so people then sometimes lose the momentum that
they have built up.
In
terms of the kinds of research that we as a department are doing, at the
moment, no, we are not doing any particular research on part‑time
employment as an impact on students' ability to complete a course within the
established time frame. We are aware that the majority of students, to this
point, are in fact completing within the established time frame, because Canada
Student Loans does keep that information, in that they keep the information for
the established length of the program plus one year.
*
(1640)
However,
we are also aware of the fact that in some of the very technical training
programs, and by example I would like to use engineering for one, that
engineering which is presently a four‑year program is one of those
programs in which students by and large have taken longer than four years to
complete it. Also, we have found in some of the very highly technological
programs, two‑year diploma programs, that in other provinces they are now
offering those two‑year diploma programs over a three‑year period,
because the course material itself is so sophisticated and challenging that in
those areas students are spending a longer time completing the work.
We do
not have any specific information relating to those areas which talks about the
fact that those students are working, in terms of part‑time employment,
and that being the reason for the extended period to study in those areas.
Ms.
Friesen: Can I
just clarify the answer there? When you
said the majority are completing, are you referring specifically to colleges?
Mrs.
Vodrey: The
information, I am informed, relates to full‑time students. That information comes to us through Student
Financial Assistance through the Canada Student Loans Program so it would not
be restricted only to the colleges or only to the universities.
Ms.
Friesen: So it
refers to college and university students in
I mean,
I have not met a student lately who has finished anything in the three or four
years of the degree requirement. I do
not think my experience is that unusual.
First of all, I guess there is a bias to this statistic, because it is
based upon student bursaries, and then, second of all, what does majority
mean? Does it mean 51 percent, for
example?
Mrs.
Vodrey: I would
like to again direct the member to the appropriation 16‑5(g). Some of the details which she is requesting
now do go beyond the policy and go into detailed information, but, in short, an
answer for her is yes, the study would be biased. The information would be biased because it is
based on those students who have applied for Canada Student Loans.
Ms.
Friesen: The
broader question I was asking was about the economic impact of delayed
completion rates in post‑secondary education in
Mrs.
Vodrey: The
division does keep statistics for the completion rates for the community
colleges, as I have said and we have discussed.
We do not relate those statistics specifically to the economic state of
the province. The statistics have been
useful to us to identify programs which might need some special attention,
particularly in programs where we might require a review of the curriculum or
where students by virtue of failure to complete or large numbers' failure to
complete may be requiring some additional kinds of support.
Mr.
Alcock: In
opening up this discussion or furthering this discussion on policy, I would
like to say that I am pleased by the information that the minister has been
able to provide. I am pleased by her
willingness to enter into some discussions on these policy questions, because I
think there is a general concern on both sides of the House about the state of
the support available to students. I am
pleased that we are not spending as much time on some of the silly kind of
games that were occurring yesterday or the last time we met.
(Mr. Ben
Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
I am
interested in the policy that governs some of the decision making. Now, the minister was quite eloquent, and I
think quite right, when she went through the changing nature of the student
body and how we are not simply talking about people that are moving from high
school on into university. We are
talking about a number of different categories of students.
In
this student aid program there is a parental contribution requirement for
certain classes of students, and that parental contribution requirement changes
or disappears under certain conditions.
What I am interested in is, what is the policy that defines when someone
has a parent that is going to be required to make a contribution, or if they do
not actually make a contribution, they are nonetheless going to be assessed a
contribution, and when is a person seen not to have a parent?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I am also very pleased that the member has decided to end
the games that were played the other day and the official opposition has also
agreed to end the kind of gamesmanship that was played on that day, and
certainly any reference to Hansard will indicate that I‑‑
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms.
Friesen: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I do not know what the minister is talking about, playing
games, but I think it is inappropriate of her to put that kind of‑‑
*
(1650)
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* *
*
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr.
Acting Chairperson, perhaps the member did not hear that the issue of
gamesmanship was raised by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
The
issue was raised and put forward for comment, and so I am more than happy to
comment on the fact that any member, any Manitoban may check Hansard and
clarify where the gamesmanship occurred.
Now,
I will agree with the member that the kind of discussion regarding policy and
the discussion relating to the educational needs of Manitobans is the purpose
of the Estimates process, and I am very happy that today the questions are
relating to that particular issue.
In
response to the specific question by the member, there is a review process for
the Canada Student Loans Program where students indicate that parents are
unable to make the contributions which might be expected according to the
formula. There is a special review process which recognizes that the parental
contribution table was set in 1984‑85, and this is not necessarily
applicable to the economic circumstances of the day. Through this special
appeal process that requirement of parental contribution can be reduced by
approximately 50 percent.
In
addition, for students who are in a position where parents refuse to provide
that special support, that parental support, if students can document parental
refusal, then that will certainly be considered by the appeal board, and under
certain circumstances I am informed that the parental contribution can be
waived.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I thank the minister for clarifying her feelings on
gamesmanship. She knows, of course, that
I would never engage in any such games.
I am
interested in this question though, of the student being able to document the
parental refusal. The minister said if
the student can document the parental refusal then under certain circumstances
a parental contribution may be waived.
Now can the minister outline what those circumstances are?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Madam
Chairperson, I hate to return to the issue of gamesmanship. However, I feel that on the record I have to
also make it clear that I do not play games, and that will be evident by
Hansard. So we have to leave the people
of Manitoba to decide then where that may have occurred.
I
would also like to say to the member that he is getting into a level of detail
which is beyond the policy area here. It
is a matter of detail which will be better discussed under the appropriation
for student aid which is 16‑5(g).
Mr.
Alcock: The
minister will know that I am very hesitant to disagree with her, but I am
inquiring about policy. The minister has
indicated a policy relative to the determination of whether or not a parent
will be required to contribute or at least whether or not the person applying
for the loan will be required to credit themselves as having received a
parental contribution whether they receive it or not. So I am asking for the policy. How do you
determine whether or not a parent is in a position to contribute or not?
Mrs.
Vodrey: By way of
clarification, I spoke of a process available, not a specific policy. That process which the member has referenced
is best discussed under 16‑5(g) and I would request, Madam Chairperson,
that you hold the honourable member to the line.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I suspect if you were to take the minister's advice and look at
Hansard, you would find that I specifically used a different "p"
word. I did not use the "p"
process word. I used the "p"
policy word which is specifically referenced on page 91 of the minister's enlightening
little document called the 1992‑1993 Departmental Expenditure
Estimates. We are going to have this
policy discussion sometime within the next two months. Now the minister can either have it now or we
can have it on Monday or on Thursday or whenever the minister wishes. I am asking for the policy on parental
contributions. I want to know this
government's policy. When is a parent considered
to be contributing and when is a parent not? When is a parent considered to
have refused to support their child?
Mrs.
Vodrey: I am
certainly prepared to have this discussion under the appropriation which is for
the area of student aid. Estimates are structured in this to provide an orderly
movement through the budget of the Department of Education.
It is
my intention as minister to provide the member with the best and most
completive answers. I will be happy to
provide him with that complete answer when we reach that appropriation.
Mr.
Alcock: Now I am
beginning to understand that the minister is afraid of discussing this
particular issue. From the calls that I
have had and the discussions I have had with students who are receiving
assistance, I can understand why.
But I
have to draw the minister's attention to page 91 in the 1992‑1993
Departmental Expenditures Estimates book, Manitoba Education and Training,
which this minister prepared, this minister approved and signed off on, and
this minister tabled in the House. It
says in this particular document that this department‑‑this
division that we are now talking about‑‑and for your information,
Madam Chairperson, 16‑5(b) Program Analysis, Coordination and
Support. It says on page 91 of
that: "Provides overall policy‑‑
Madam
Chairperson: Order,
please.
Point of Order
Mrs.
Vodrey: I would like
to make it clear in Hansard of the day that the member has attempted to
attribute his sense of a state of mind to me, and I would like to make it clear
and to clarify for the record the issue of being afraid is a nonsense issue
raised by the honourable member.
He
seems to be afraid to wait for the appropriate line in appropriation and I am
not sure where his fear comes from. On
the other hand, Madam Chairperson, I would not want to attribute those kinds of
feelings to an honourable member in this House.
Madam
Chairperson: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Osborne on the same point of order.
Mr.
Alcock: I trust
I am going to be able to speak on that point of order.
I think
the actions of the minister speak for themselves.
Madam
Chairperson: The
honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) does not have a
point of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
*
* *
Mr.
Alcock: Perhaps I
can finish my question then, Madam Chairperson, now that we have dispensed with
the nonpoint of order.
The
dilemma that we face is that in this particular‑‑
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): She had a point of order.
Mr.
Alcock: Oh, I am
sorry, the Minister of Government Services points out that there was no point
of order raised by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), and he is quite
right. [interjection] Well, if the minister wishes to check Hansard, he will
find that the Chairperson ruled that there was no point of order.
Mr.
Ducharme: Time has
run out; time has run out; time has run out.
Mr.
Alcock: Well, now
he says time has run out because he is terrified‑‑
Madam
Chairperson: Order,
please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time
for private members' hour, committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
*
(1700)
IN SESSION
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
Private
Members' Business is to resume debate on second readings, public bills.
Committee Report
Mr.
Jack Reimer (Acting Chairperson of Committees): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Committee of Supply
has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks
leave to sit again.
I move,
seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report
of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The Health Care Directives Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) (Bill 16, The Health Care Directives
Act; Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante),
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Health? [Agreed]
Bill 18‑The Franchises Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) (Bill 18, The Franchises Act; Loi sur les
concessions), standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek
(Mr. McAlpine).
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek? [Agreed]
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and
speak to Bill 18 introduced by the member for Elmwood. The Franchises Act is the title of Bill 18,
and I believe it is an important bill for us.
It will bring some order, a semblance of order to the franchise
investment opportunities for the people in the province of Manitoba, those
wishing to invest in that.
It is
my understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we do not have currently franchise
regulations in this province that would give some protection to those wishing
to invest in the franchise opportunities.
I note in looking back over some of the information in the bill itself,
and the comments of those that have spoken before me on this bill, that they
have raised some very good points. In a
few moments I will get to a couple of examples in my own community of franchise
opportunities and the people whom I have spoken to since being elected to this
office. People have called me and have had me come to their franchise business
establishments to talk to me to explain some of their concerns.
The
history of franchise operations, of course, has not been around that long. It is my understanding it is in the range of
approximately 30 years. [interjection] No, I was born. I just look young. For many of us, I am sure we can find
franchise opportunities in a lot of our communities around the province whether
it be in the form of 7‑Elevens or Mac's stores, particularly in our
larger communities in the province.
I
know in my own community, we have many franchise operations whether it be 7‑Elevens
or McDonald's or Mac's stores or whatever other franchise opportunities. They are essentially fast‑service
outlets where people go to receive the services they need, usually in the off‑hours. For those who are investing in these
franchise opportunities, it is a major undertaking for them. I will get to that when I get to my example
of the one in my community that I am familiar with, and the difficulties that
person had in their experience.
Franchises
usually draw people to invest in them because they are usually successful
ventures. They are proven track records.
They have outlets in various communities throughout the province, maybe even
across the country. What we are seeing
coming more into our communities, particularly in the city of Winnipeg, we are
seeing some of the franchise opportunities coming from south of the 49th
parallel coming up to establish business opportunities in our province.
People
that have maybe become familiar with these different franchise operations‑‑I
am talking about clientele‑‑have become familiar with these
different franchise operations in the different jurisdictions, whether they be
south of the border or in other provinces, will naturally tend to gravitate
towards these new businesses when they establish in our own communities. It
will, of course, establish very quickly a base of clientele to support these
business operations. These franchises
usually have proven track records. They
have known names that can very quickly become household words that are familiar
to the families themselves that would frequent these establishments. These business franchises also have
particular marketing or product formula strategies that they sell and advertise
and, of course, attract the clientele for them.
These
people who wish to invest in these business opportunities usually undertake to
become involved in these operations‑‑[interjection]
Contrary
to what the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) thinks, the New Democrats have
invested in many business opportunities and believe very strongly in co‑operative
ventures, whether they be credit unions or co‑operative movements‑‑[interjection]
And marketing boards, as the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) refers to. There are many co‑operative‑type
ventures or business ventures that even New Democrats become involved in‑‑[interjection]
I
find it unusual that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) does not support co‑operative
ventures. I find it strange. I am sure that even in southwestern Manitoba,
his home turf, there are probably co‑operatives even down in his area,
even though he probably does not frequent those establishments. It is unfortunate he does not do that, does
not want to support those local businesses.
An
Honourable Member:
When I was campaigning in that area, he was there‑‑
*
(1710)
Mr.
Reid: He was
probably standing on the front doorstep shaking hands with the people coming
out, never spending his money inside the door, or darkening the doorway.
As I have
indicated, it is my understanding that there is no current legislation in the
province of Manitoba; it is nonexistent.
In other words, it is a law of the jungle out there. It is buyer beware for those who want to
become involved in franchise operations.
Of
course, this creates some difficulty for those who wish to become investors in
this type of business opportunity. I
think back even to residents in my own community and to people whom I had the
good fortune to work with over the years who, unfortunately, got laid off from
their employment in the railway, and some of them considered taking up
franchise operations as an alternate form of employment. Some of these people took their pension funds
that had been held for them while they were in the employ of the company, took
those funds and usually their life savings, and invested that into the
franchise operation.
Some
of these people have been successful and have made a go of it and, of course,
have gained for themselves that alternate employment that they were
seeking. Others I was aware of had the
misfortune of not having their business ventures be successful, and they have
lost their pension investment and their life savings. That is the purpose of this particular piece
of legislation: to draw some regulation
into the process for those who are becoming involved in franchise operations.
One
example, just shortly after the 1990 election, when I was talking with the
small business people in my community of Transcona, I had the opportunity to
speak with an individual working in a particular fast‑service outlet in
one of the small shopping malls in my community. This individual had immigrated to Canada and
had established a home in Winnipeg and had brought with them their life savings
and had invested their life savings in a family operation in one of these
franchise outlets. Unfortunately, this franchise outlet, even though the family
put all of their efforts, their finances and their time into the operation of
this outlet, was not successful. So these
people immigrated to this country, invested everything they had and lost
everything they had in this opportunity.
Yet
this particular franchise was a well‑known name, and one would have
thought would have been successful for these people investing in that. They had a good market base to draw from,
being a totally residential area. Yet
this venture failed. These individuals were quite concerned about the role that
the franchise‑issuing company had played in this process and the lack of
concern that they had for those franchisees who were investing their hard‑earned
monies.
I
know the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), in his discussions in talking about
this particular bill, has mentioned others that he is aware of as well. In the investments that these people make,
they quite often take their monies from their pension plans on early
retirement. They will take those monies,
they will borrow against them and they will invest all of this money into
franchise investment opportunities.
Quite often, although I do not personally know the exact statistics on
it, I hear and even see in my own community where these franchise operations
are failing from time to time.
What
we are trying to do is to lay the groundwork for franchise businesses, to give
some consistency to these particular type of business operations, to have
consistent contracts so that when people get involved in this particular type
of business opportunity, they know what the guidelines are going in and they
know what the provincial regulations should be for them, and everyone who is
going into a franchise operation will be operating under the same rules or
guidelines.
Those
who are investing in franchises will also have the opportunity of know that there
is going to be a consistent price for them.
So someone coming along and investing after them‑‑as an
example, if someone invested $100,000 into a franchise outlet, which by today's
standard I am sure is a modest sum, looking at some of the prices that I am
aware of for franchise opportunities. If
a person was to invest, hypothetically, $100,000 into a franchise opportunity,
there should be some consistency of price for these franchises so that an
individual coming along after would have to pay the same price for these
franchise opportunities, so that there is not an inconsistency in prices, that
someone cannot get a better deal because maybe the person selling the
franchises likes them better or any of the other scenarios that can come into
play.
Up‑front
there needs to be some regulation, because we quite often see where more than
one franchise can be in the same neighbourhood, creating downward pressures on
business opportunities for those who initially established these particular
franchises. In other words, what we need
is a defined territory for this particular operation.
The
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) had mentioned in his comments as well about
the particular legislation that is in the province of Alberta.
There
is franchise legislation in the province of Alberta, and one of the
requirements in Alberta is that you have to file a prospectus with the
securities commission. In other words,
your operation has to be a solid business operation before you can undertake to
do this particular type of business and to open your doors, so that those who
are following along behind and wish to, as well, invest their hard‑earned
dollar into this particular type of business, will know that there is some
sense of security for them, and that the initial businesses coming into the
province had to jump through all of the hoops and meet all of the regulations
before they could establish.
It
gives a sense of security in the sense that the first people have to jump
through all of these hoops and meet the requirements of the regulations and the
law, and that those who are following behind will know that any others that
follow along behind also have to meet the same requirements. Therefore, it would be a discouragement from
those less serious investors who may come along behind and think about
investing their money.
There
is also the prospect for those who are getting involved in franchise
legislation that there needs to be some regulation in there that requires the
particular company that is selling the franchise opportunities to prospective
investors to have an up‑front agreement, some regulations in there that
say that if there are up‑front promises made by the franchiser,
franchisee will know that these commitments have to be made, and that they will
be forced to comply in the sense of advertising opportunities if the particular
company says that, yes, we will undertake to have advertising in the form of a
few million dollars a year or whatever the amount may be. That commitment must be met, regardless of
whatever conditions transpire after that franchise opportunity is sold.
There
are many other issues, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can see that my time is
running short. We need to have this
particular piece of legislation passed and to come into force in the province
of Manitoba to give a sense of security, a sense of fair play for those who are
wishing to invest their monies, so that we do not see people taking all of
their pension funds and their life savings and invest them into opportunities,
to know that it is a law of the jungle, and that they can be taken advantage of
somewhere down the load because they do not have the full business opportunity
or because of commitments that are not lived up to.
I
hope that all members of the House, upon reading of this legislation and the
opportunity to speak on this particular Bill 18, The Franchises Act, will see
their way clear to lend their support to this legislation and that we will see
it come into being in the province of Manitoba.
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
*
(1720)
Madam
Deputy Speaker: As
previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock), Bill 25, (The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure for me
to speak on this bill because university governance is actually something that
I know a little bit about from having had some practical experience, having
once been on a Board of Regents of a university. We in this party support this Bill 25, The
University of Manitoba Amendment Act, because we believe that students should
have the right to elect their representatives on the board rather than having
the government appoint their Tory friends to the board.
I
received my Bachelor of Arts degree from Brock University in St. Catharines,
and I was not very involved in student politics at the time, but it was a very
dynamic and exciting campus to be on, because while I was there the university
students who belonged to a student union rather than a student association went
on strike for three days and occupied the senate board room and the 13th floor
of the Brock University tower and in effect shut down the university. But it was probably one of the most
interesting and perhaps a unique strike of all strikes in Canadian university
history because the administration and the faculty supported the students.
It
was over funding problems with the provincial government, a Conservative
provincial government at the time, and what they decided to do is to send a
delegation to Queen's Park, and the students said, we want a united front
here. We want the faculty to go with us,
and we want the administration to go with us, and we are going to ask for more
money, and they did. The faculty and the
administration joined the student representatives in going to Queen's Park and
requesting more money. As I recall, they
came back with an additional $10 million for the university budget. So that was a very interesting time to be an
undergraduate student at a university in Ontario.
After
I received my B.A. I went to Emmanuel College of Victoria University, not to be
confused with the University of Victoria in Victoria, B.C., this is Victoria
University federated with the University of Toronto in Ontario. This is a very old university. In fact it is one of the predecessors of the
University of Toronto. Originally it was
located in a small town on Lake Ontario and it moved to Toronto in the 1800s,
and when they became part of the University of Toronto, at some point they gave
up their degree‑granting authority in medicine and law and arts and other
subjects, but they did keep their degree‑granting power in one area and
that was theology. Victoria University
is made up of two colleges, Victoria College and Emmanuel College, and I
studied at Emmanuel College and received a Master of Divinity degree from
Victoria University.
While
I was there I was elected in second year as vice‑president of Emmanuel
College Student Council, which automatically made me a vice‑president of
Victoria University Student Council, and because I held that position I was
automatically on the Board of Regents of Victoria University. That was a
fascinating experience, and almost everything that I learned about politics and
power and the abuse of power I learned while on the Board of Regents of
Victoria University. I am sorry to have
to say this about one of my alma maters, but it is true, it was an excellent
education. I mean, there were positive
things about watching power and how power was used and misused on the Board of
Regents of a large university.
An
Honourable Member:
Power corrupts.
Mr.
Martindale: Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Right?
Yes.
Well,
I would not want to go so far as to say there was corruption. I just think there was a misuse of
power. I think that is a little different.
One
of the things that I observed was that almost all of the board members, the
vast majority of whom were men, lived or worked within about two miles of King
and Bay Street, the financial heart of downtown Toronto. Probably many of these people were graduates
of Victoria University, but very successful in their fields. Many of them were lawyers for example. One was the vice‑president of Ontario
Hydro. One was the spouse of the
Lieutenant‑Governor of Ontario at the time.
While
I was a member of the Board of Regents I was appointed or chosen to be on a
committee to look at the constitution of the Board of Regents. This committee met frequently. It consisted of faculty members, student
representatives and board members.
We
came up with a report, after meeting for about a year, to amend the
constitution of the board. One of the
recommendations was to have more student representatives on the Board of
Regents, elected of course‑‑a much more progressive institution
than the Conservative caucus of this government wants to make the University of
Manitoba board.
So
this report went to the board, it was debated, and then eventually it came to a
vote. A majority of the board members
voted to implement the recommendations of the report. However, the executive of the board and the
president of the university were opposed to these progressive
recommendations. So what did they
do? They referred it to a new
subcommittee of the board and it never saw the light of day again. In effect, it was buried.
So at
that time more students were not elected to the board and the board was not
reorganized. I have no idea what
happened from that time to this.
By
way of comparison, I would like to use the University of Saskatchewan because their
board is organized very, very differently.
There is no reason why any university in Canada cannot be organized on
similar geographic reasons, although I suppose it is more logical for the
University of Saskatchewan because it is a provincial university. At one time it was a university with two
campuses, one in Saskatoon and one in Regina.
My
wife is a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan. She obtained a Bachelor of Science and Home
Economics degree from U of S in 1973.
Consequently, as an alumnus of that university she is still on the
mailing list and once a year she receives a notice on elections to the Board of
Governors.
What
they do, I think, is very democratic.
They have a certain number of board members from Saskatoon, a certain
number from Regina, I believe, and the rest of the province is divided up into
geographic districts. When people run
for election to the board they run in a geographic district and only graduates
who live in that district can vote for those people.
So it
may seem kind of strange, but people actually from rural Saskatchewan compete
for the privilege of being elected to the board of the University of
Saskatchewan.
To my
mind, it is a very democratic way of representing the whole province, not just
a small area. As I mentioned, the vast
majority of board members at Victoria University lived or worked in the
downtown financial or government offices in Toronto and represented,
presumably, the whole province on the board.
In
fact, I think when I was on the Board of Regents, the furthest member came from
Stony Creek which would be about an hour's drive from Toronto. So the representation of the graduates was
not representative of the province of Ontario or where people lived after they
graduated.
As I
said, in Saskatchewan it is very, very different, in my view, much more
democratic. In fact, I think what this
bill is all about is whether or not students, people, adults have the right to
democratically elect their representatives to the board or whether the government
thinks that they know best, and they should appoint their own people.
However,
this government‑‑and I would like to hear some of their members
defend their policy of appointing their Tory friends as student representatives
on the board. I have‑‑
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Were not you a political appointment to the
board, Doug?
Mr.
Martindale: Well, the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) would like to talk about my record, and I have
already put this on the record in a previous debate. I can also say that I declined three
appointments to boards by NDP governments.
I
have not had a chance to read all the speeches yet, but I realize that a couple
of government members, I believe, yes, one backbencher has spoken to this bill,
and so I will have to read the speech of the MLA for St. Vital (Mrs. Render)
and see what the government's view is on this private members' bill.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
But
we know what their view is. We know that
they would rather appoint someone than have students democratically elect their
own representatives. We find that
disappointing and, therefore, we support this private members' bill of the MLA
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
With
that I would like to conclude my remarks, but I am pleased that I had an
opportunity to speak about this and compare other universities with the
practice at the University of Manitoba, and also to condemn the government for
this regressive measure, which I believe does not recognize the important role
that elected students can contribute on the board of their university.
Thank
you.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Is it
the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Agreed? No?
Bill 27‑The Business Practices Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: To
resume debate on second reading of Bill 27 (The Business Practices Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales), on the proposed
motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), standing in the
name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Stand. Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 31‑The Municipal Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: To
resume debate on second reading of Bill 31 (The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites),
on the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Stand. Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 36‑The Health Care Records Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: To
resume debate on second reading of Bill 36 (The Health Care Records Act; Loi
sur les dossiers medicaux), on the proposed motion of the honourable member for
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Stand. Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
*
(1730)
Bill 50‑The Beverage Container Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Bill
50 (The Beverage Container Act; Loi sur
les contenants de boisson), to resume debate on second reading
of the proposed motion of the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs.
Carstairs), standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 51‑The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Bill 51 (The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie),
on the proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples
(Mr. Cheema), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr. Ernst). Stand?
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 54‑The Consumer Protection Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Bill 54 (The Consumer Protection Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du
consommateur), on the proposed motion of the honourable member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? [Agreed]
Bill 55‑The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 55 (The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les
accidents du travail), on the proposed motion of the
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), standing in the name of the
honourable Speaker (Mr. Rocan).
Is
there leave? [Agreed]
Bill 56‑The Public Health Amendment Act (2)
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Bill 56 (The Public Health Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique), on
the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik).
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? [Agreed]
Bill 66‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
(2)
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Bill 66 (The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les
services a l'enfant et a la famille), on the proposed
motion of the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), standing in
the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? [Agreed]
Bill 77‑The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Bill 77 (The Liquor Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Loi sur la reglementation des alcools), on
the proposed motion of the honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes), standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas,
who has five minutes remaining.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I am pleased to conclude my remarks on this
bill. It was a bill that I brought in,
that was encouraged, on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba. In conversation with the Minister responsible
for the Liquor Control Board (Mrs. McIntosh), it seems that the government has
a golden opportunity here to do the proper thing for all citizens of this
province.
I am
hoping that they will come in with the appropriate measures that are required
to take these cooking wines and liqueurs off the shelf and limit the access to
people who do not use these products in the manner that they were intended, and
that is for cooking. When you have
problems of abuse, you cannot penalize the people, or you should not penalize
the people, who use it for the proper purposes.
By removing it totally from the shelves or banning it, you are
penalizing those honest individuals and the people who use it with the right
intentions.
What
I am hoping to see, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this government and the
Liberals will support this bill, because it is a bill that has all the right
intentions and it is brought in on behalf of all citizens. [interjection] The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) says that we can count on his support. I really look forward to that because a lot
of the problems that these individuals encounter fall right in the health care
system, because when you abuse those products you eventually have a lot of
health problems that increase our health costs.
So I am glad to see that the minister recognizes that and supports this.
So in
conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am looking forward to all parties
supporting this bill so that we can have the proper protection to the best
interests of all citizens.
Thank
you.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): I would move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 52‑The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment
Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), Bill
52, (The Pas Health Complex
Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant
en corporation "The Pas Health Complex"), standing in the name of the
honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst). Stand.
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
On a
point of clarification, the honourable member for Point Douglas. (Mr. Hickes)
Second
reading was called on Bill 52 and leave was granted to permit the bill to
remain standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst). We will now proceed to proposed
resolutions.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I sense that if we
proceed to resolutions, the resolution No. 23 which would be called would fall
to the bottom of the Order Paper. I
simply want to indicate to the House that members of the government were prepared
to debate this important resolution and I sense that we are unable to have that
opportunity today.
Point of Order
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I regret that our member
is not here. However, a lot of the
public bills‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is
the honourable member for Burrows speaking on a point of order?
Mr.
Martindale: On a
point of order. We were counting on
other people to speak on bills in private members' bills that were standing in
their names and none of them spoke. We
would like to get leave to leave this standing in the name of our member for
St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) so that she can be here to speak to
it. I believe that this has happened on
other occasions with other members, and we would like to ask the same courtesy
of the government and then call it six o'clock.
*
(1740)
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Burrows (Martindale) does not have a point of order. It is a clarification of procedure.
Point of Order
Mr.
Orchard: Well, I
want to provide advice, if I could, about the circumstance we appear to be
in. I just want to point out to the
honourable members of the House that private members' hour is for the purpose
of debate of private members' resolutions and bills. The rules of the private members' hour are
that, if the sponsor of the resolution is not here and it is called, it falls
to the bottom of the resolution list.
We
have tried in the past to achieve accommodation with honourable members opposite,
particularly with the official opposition, to have resolutions brought forward
with leave of the House and that leave was denied. Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have got a
very good desire to debate this resolution, we are prepared to let it stay in
its position, but under ordinary circumstances, in the absence of the sponsor
of this resolution, it would fall to the bottom of the Order Paper.
I
want Hansard to note that members of government are willing to wait for the
sponsor of the resolution to introduce it.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Leave would have to be granted in order for Resolution 23 to remain
standing at the top of the list on the Order Paper. Is there leave? [Agreed]
Point of Order
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad that the House has seen fit to do what
is, in fact, normal in this House and that is to give the members the courtesy
of allowing the resolutions to stand in their name when they are not able to be
here. I think it has to be noted that
the member for Pembina, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), when he made his
statement, was suggesting that this was something that was not normal. I am saying that it is normal, this courtesy,
and I appreciate‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Dauphin does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over facts.
Leave
has previously been granted.
*
* *
Resolution 24.
Point of Order
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Deputy Speaker, the reason I asked if 52
was called was because I had not heard it called and I wanted to speak to
it. That was the reason that I asked if
52 was called.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
The honourable member for Point Douglas does not have a point of
order. The bill was legitimately
called. It was left standing in the name
of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst). Leave was granted to permit it to remain
standing and the Deputy Speaker proceeded then to proceed through the Order
Paper as is the rule of the House.
Point of Order
Mr.
Plohman: Yes, on a
point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleague the member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) has raised a very important point, and I have to agree with him
that I, too‑‑and I was in this House at the time‑‑did
not hear that the second reading on the motion, Bill 52, was called in this
House. I am wondering whether it is possible that you did not call that
particular motion, because my colleagues have indicated that. They want to
speak on that motion, prior to getting to resolutions. I think it would be appropriate to‑‑if
you did not fail to call it that in fact you would revert now to that bill so
my colleague could speak on it as he desires to do.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Dauphin does not have a point of order.
I
would suggest, with all due respect to the honourable member for Dauphin, that
he indeed peruse Hansard at his first opportunity to indeed clarify that Bill
52 was called for second reading by myself and my advice in consultation with
the Clerks is indeed that it legitimately was called and leave was granted.
Point of Order
Mr.
Hickes: On a
point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the bill was called there was a lot of
conversation going on in the House, and I did not hear the bill called. The reason I asked again was the bill called,
because I had not heard anyone say that it was called. I would like the opportunity to speak to the
bill, because it is very important to the citizens and the residents of The
Pas. What we have been seeing‑‑and
what is happening to northern Manitoba?
Where is the support‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Point Douglas does not have a point of order. I have now clarified on three separate
occasions that indeed the bill was called.
Point of Order
Mr.
Martindale: On a
point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry that we find ourselves in this
position, but I had talked to the acting House leader earlier this afternoon,
who asked if we were going to waive private members' hour, and at that point we
said, no, because we had three people prepared to speak on bills, and we
assumed that we could call it six o'clock after those three bills were debated,
and we did not anticipate this problem.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Burrows does not have a point of order.
Point of Order
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard a whole
host of points of order that have been ruled out of order. I would ask now, on behalf of the members of
this House, that you would call the next order of business, which is Resolution
24 to allow the mover of that resolution to present it to the Assembly at this
time.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: I
thank the honourable deputy government House leader. I have been attempting to call the
resolutions on the Order Paper.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 24.
Resolution 25‑‑
Point of Order
Mr.
Plohman: Madam
Deputy Speaker, I wanted to reference what I think is a legitimate point of
order with regard to the acting House leader's discussion. There has been an attempt by this House to
move forward on other resolutions and the private members' hour, even though
there was previous agreement that we would deal with the bills. Because of the fact that we have completed
those bills at this particular time, it would seem that we would now be in a
position to either call it six o'clock or, in fact, go back to the bill that my
colleague had mentioned‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Dauphin does not have a legitimate point of
order. Is the honourable member for
Dauphin asking me to, for the third time, canvass the House to see if there is
the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Is
there leave to call it six o'clock?
Some
Honourable Members:
No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied for the third time. We will now proceed with the resolutions in
the order listed on the Order Paper.
* *
*
Resolution
25. Resolution 26.
Point of Order
Mr.
Hickes: On a
point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, we
have given leave, to leave other resolutions.
In fact, we brought resolutions from the bottom of list right up to the
top in order to accommodate the government side.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I feel totally insulted where I was ready to speak on Bill 52
because it is so important for the North‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Point Douglas does not have a point of
order. There are rules and procedures,
and the Chair is indeed following the rules of the House.
* *
*
The
honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness), one moment, please. Order, please.
If it
is the will of the House, honourable members must request leave to permit a
resolution to remain standing in its order on the Order Paper. On Bill 23 it was suggested by the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), and I posed the question and leave was
granted.
Barring
that, the rules are very explicit. The
resolution is called. If the sponsor of
the resolution is unavailable to introduce the resolution without request for
leave, it does drop to the bottom of the Order Paper. I trust that everyone clearly and fully
understands the procedure. Resolution
27.
Mr.
Plohman: Did you
canvass the House on Resolution 24 for clarification and Resolution 25 to see‑‑I
know that you dealt with 23, and you indicated the Minister of Health indicated
there was leave to leave it standing in that position, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I would ask you to canvass the
House to determine whether Resolutions 24 and 25 can be left in their current
positions by leave.
*
(1750)
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) once again does not have
a point of order. If he is requesting
clarification, I will repeat again, I do not initiate the request. The request is to be initiated by any
honourable member present in the Chamber as to whether, indeed, it is the will
of the House to grant leave. Hearing
none, I proceeded to call Resolution 24, 25, 26.
Point of Order
Mr.
Plohman: Madam
Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order.
My
colleague the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) was up on his feet on a
point of order at the time you called Resolutions 24 and 25. He was on a point of order. That is why I could not rise to ask you
whether you could canvass the House to see whether there was leave to allow 24
and 25 to stand in their present position.
I am
asking for that leave, and I would ask you to deal with 24, so we can ask for
that leave.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
The honourable deputy government House leader (Mr. Praznik), on the same
point of order.
Mr.
Praznik: Madam
Deputy Speaker, if you would like to canvass the House, if there is leave on 24
and 25‑‑I believe there was leave on Resolution 23 to remain
standing‑‑if you would like to canvass on 24 and 25, and then if
you would like to canvass separately on 26, we would make that suggestion to
you.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: I
thank the honourable deputy government House leader for the request. Is there leave to permit Resolution 24 to
retain its order as listed on the Order Paper?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
No, leave has been denied.
Point of Order
Mr.
Plohman: On a
point of order, let the record show that these government members here will not
follow the traditional‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Dauphin does not have a point of order.
* * *
I have been requested
to canvass the House to see now if there is leave to permit Resolution 25 to
retain its order of listing on the Order Paper.
Is there leave?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
No, leave has been denied.
Point of Order
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that leave
was granted for Resolution 23. I would
ask that leave be given to 26 in the same fashion in which leave was given to
23. Because of the time, on the next
resolution, I would then ask that we call it six o'clock so I can have my full
time as opposed to only five minutes.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: I
thank the honourable member for
* *
*
Is
there leave to permit Resolution 26 to retain its order of listing on the Order
Paper?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Point of Order
Mr.
Plohman: On a
point of order, I want the record to show that on Resolution 25, the members of
the government refused‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin did not
have a point of order. I would sincerely
request the co‑operation of the House in dealing with the resolutions as
called, one at a time.
* * *
I had
requested if there was leave to permit Resolution 26 to retain its order of
listing on the Order Paper. Leave? Leave has been granted?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
No.
Point of Order
Mr.
Lamoureux: Madam
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, we granted leave for Resolution 23. They are denying leave for us. I would then
ask at least for the simple courtesy from the NDP so that we can call it six
o'clock, so that I get more than three minutes to debate my own resolution.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) does not have a point of order.
However,
he has requested that I canvass the House to see if it is the will of the House
to call it six o'clock. Leave of the
House to call it six o'clock? [Agreed]
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m.
tomorrow morning (Friday).