LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
May 19, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies
with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
Domestic abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but
nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
Violence against women and children in the
domestic setting is on the increase; and
Often it is desirable for the victims of
domestic abuse to leave the scene of the
abuse and seek shelter elsewhere; and
It is the policy of the current government
to limit refuge to victims of domestic
abuse to a 10‑day stay in shelters;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), and 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 citizens
of the
The
The citizens of
The
The administration of the hospital has
been forced to take drastic measures
including the elimination of the Palliative Care Unit and gynecological wards, along with the
layoff of over 30 staff, mainly licensed
practical nurses, to cope with a funding
shortfall of over $1.3 million; and
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): I beg to present the Second Report of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee
on Law Amendments presents the following
as its Second Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, May 14,
1992, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee has considered:
Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les
denturologistes;
Bill 38, The Manitoba Evidence Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la preuve
au
Bill 48, The Personal Propoerty Security
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les suretes relatives aux biens personnels;
Bill 68, The Public Trustee Amendment,
Trustee Amendment and Child and Family
Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public, la Loi sur les
fiduciaires et la Loi sur les services a
l'enfant et a la famille;
and has agreed to report same without
amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mrs. Dacquay: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I have a statement to make with copies for members opposite.
Last week's Western Premiers' Conference
in
The meeting began with a strong
reaffirmation of the value of co‑operation
among the western provinces and the territories
which are now full participants in western Premiers' conferences.
We concluded with a firm and clear statement on western and territorial constitutional
priorities, stressing that the concerns
of the west and the North must not take a back seat to those of other provinces and regions in
the current round of constitutional
discussions.
Communique No. 1 outlines the Premiers'
commitment to a co‑operative and
co‑ordinated approach to economic
diversification, the delivery of public services and national policy issues of significance to western and
northern
* (1335)
Communique No. 2, headed Better
Government, deals with the need for
improved financial management and more effective delivery of public services. It draws attention once again to the problems of federal offloading and of
overlap and duplication between federal
and provincial services. The western
Finance ministers are being asked to
resume their work on these concerns and
to prepare a report by the middle of August.
Joint work will also be
undertaken on improving the quality of service to the public.
Communique No. 3, on economic co‑operation,
sets out several key priorities for
developing and diversifying the western
Canadian economy. Improved
electrical interconnections, a
longstanding priority for our province, are at the top of the list.
Major initiatives and advanced technology are also identified, and I am pleased to note that the
Premiers supported our efforts to
reactivate the Churchill rocket range.
This communique also calls for an early announcement
of federal plans for the national
highways program. It notes that a positive start‑up decision this month
would ensure additional construction
activity and employment this summer. The
communique also notes the progress which
has been made by the four western
provinces in reducing trade barriers in recent years and commits all governments to expand those efforts. It also reaffirms support for a possible agreement on the
elimination of destructive competition
for investment.
We had hoped for greater progress on these
issues, but they are difficult
ones. I believe there is a good chance
for significant progress in the coming
months.
Communique No. 4, on international trade,
deals with several current concerns,
including the importance of formalizing the
provinces' role in international treaty making and implementation where areas of provincial constitutional
responsibility are involved. Reference is also made to the possibility of
a joint western Premiers' trade mission
to the Asia‑Pacific region in the
next year.
Communique No. 5, on agriculture,
establishes a comprehensive work program
for western Agriculture ministers on such issues as GATT, farm income and farm financing and
grain transportation. This communique
also contains a strong statement of support by
the western Premiers for the
Communique No. 6, on rural and urban
communities, commits the western
provinces and territories to working together to deal with the problems of rural and urban
development.
Communique No. 7, on health care reform,
summarizes one of our most important and
strongest areas of agreement. We
intend to work very closely with the
other western provinces and territories
to reform health care delivery. I have
advised my colleague the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) that his strategy paper on
Quality Health for Manitobans attracted considerable interest at the conference and has been
referred to the Health ministers for
discussion.
Communique No. 8, on training and
education, calls for joint work on
improved training strategies and on education reform. Much of this work is to be completed this
summer for review at the annual
Premiers' conference in
Finally, Communique No. 9, on
constitutional matters, emphasizes,
quote: ". . . that this round of
negotiations must be truly 'the
The communique identifies several major
western priorities, including
fundamental Senate reform, such as Triple‑E, and has strengthened equalization provision and
protection against unilateral federal
changes in transfers for health, education and
social services.
* (1340)
The discussions in
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I would like to respond to the statement of the Premier today
in the House. We are absolutely delighted with the changed
tone in the statement produced by the
Premier today in this Chamber, of co‑operation, consensus, working together, economic
renewal, revitalization and all the
words, Mr. Speaker, that we asked the Premier to take to the table last week in the area of economic
development for western
Last week, of course, the Premier
responded in a very partisan way,
talking about how terrible it was in New Democratic provinces to the west of us‑‑[interjection]
Well, there he goes again, Mr.
Speaker. The sentence after he talks
about being nonpartisan, he just has to
chirp up in his usual partisan way.
Mr. Speaker, we asked this Premier to go
to that western Premiers' meeting
because we have a very serious situation in
western
We have a modest increase in Alberta‑‑very,
very modest. We have declines that have taken place in the
last four years in
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we ask this
Premier to truly go to those meetings in
a co‑operative consensus way, rather than the comments we had from the Premier last week on
page 3268: ". . . we do not need any advice from New Democratic
governments who are destroying provinces
right across this country."
So the Premier, I am pleased he has come
back with a much more positive response
because, as the Premier has noted, we must
rely on each other in western
So the real villain in
Dealing with the specifics, as I say, we
asked the government to take a co‑operative
approach. We are pleased that they
are going to take one. We think that there has to be more co‑ordinated approach to offloading
from the federal government. It is much
better for all of us to talk when the federal budget is announced in a co‑ordinated way.
We would note in the last federal budget,
the Premier of
We are absolutely pleased that the
government is looking at a number of co‑operative
efforts that will be important for us in
western
We are also pleased that we are working
together on the Churchill rocket
range. My colleagues and I were in
Churchill last week, and indeed we are
competing with
* (1345)
Dealing with some of the other
communiques, Mr. Speaker, we note the
government has dealt with international trade.
I would say that there is a
fundamental difference of opinion between
this Premier and the Premiers of other western Canadian provinces.
The Premier of
Mr. Speaker, we applaud the government's
effort to work on a comprehensive
approach on agriculture. It is again
another prime example where the federal
government, in competing with the
American treasury and, unfortunately, the European treasury, has got into a situation where the federal
government has been allowed with their
tripartite programs to offload onto the
western Canadian taxpayers and onto the western Canadian treasuries.
We believe strongly that all western provinces should work together to have a national
agricultural support program, because we
believe international trade and its national
ramifications should be dealt with by the national government, not again offloaded onto the
In terms of the
Dealing with health care reform, Mr.
Speaker, we certainly would like the
western provinces to work together in a close
way. It is absolutely essential
that we not have two conflicting agendas
all under the same rubric. It is
important that we do have a reform
agenda, a true reform agenda for health care.
Western Canadians have been well served by the fact that
It is important that we reform the system,
and we will work with the
government. Any change in health care‑‑just
as in the early '80s when we reduced
health care beds by 100, we made sure
that there was outpatient surgery and day surgery to replace those beds.
We will ask questions from this government to ensure that there is real reform and not real
rhetoric in terms of health care and our
quality of health care in this province.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker‑‑this
is a long communique‑‑education
and training, we would ask the government
to return the $10 million they cut out of the post‑secondary colleges.
They have returned $1 million to it.
They cannot sign communiques in
the morning and cut $9 million out of
post‑secondary training and education in this province and
have any credibility with any members in
this Chamber.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we would applaud the
provincial Premiers in working together
on a constitutional resolution, and I
would again remind the Premier that the No. 1 issue in all the public hearings in
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Premier was
able to report to us, but less delighted
to see that he is limping a little bit
more. I think we have to keep him
out of
Mr. Speaker, much of what the Premier has
stated in his communique today is very
positive. I think that there are a number of initiatives, which have been
announced, which will bode well not only
for Manitobans, but indeed all western Canadians. I would like to begin specifically with the
Communique No. 2 headed Better
Government. I want to raise a concern,
and that is that what we are debating at
the present time at the constitutional
table seems to be the distribution of powers.
In this particular communique,
the First Ministers of the four western
provinces seem to be referring to the offloading and indeed the overlapping of services, and yet
their report is not to come in until
August.
It would seem to me that while we are
debating powers is the time when it is
most important for us to have this report,
because if we are going to talk about a change of powers, we as one of those western provinces, should have
the data at our fingertips so that we
know what would be in our best interest; to
work co‑operatively and taking a power potentially from the federal government, or in fact giving a power
back to the federal government, if that
could end the duplication and the overlapping
which everybody talks about but nobody wants to document.
* (1350)
Well, I am glad to see that it is being
documented, but I am concerned that the
documentation is going to occur perhaps after
we have dealt some of those powers away.
So I would urge caution on the
part of our First Minister and other First Ministers to make sure that that timing does not occur as
it would appear in his communique. Obviously, we welcome the possibility of
an early announcement of federal plans
for a national highways program and
would hope very much that those potential jobs would be available this summer and into the early
fall. It may indeed be a wish on the part of the Premiers but may
not turn into a reality, since the
federal government seems less than willing at
this point to promote their national highways program in a fast track position.
As to communication No. 4 on International
Trade, they have dealt very specifically
with the importance of formalizing the
province's role in international treaty making. As the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has indicated over and over
again in this House, the provinces could
be opposed to any international trade agreement, and indeed all 10 provinces and two
territories could be opposed to any
international trade agreement.
That would not prevent, except in a moral
suasion type of way, the federal
government from signing such an international
treaty, because the bottom line is that treaties are within the purview, constitutionally, of the federal
government. I think that if the Premiers are looking at some type
of mechanization whereby some, at least,
majority provincial participation and
acceptance might be necessary, I think this may bode well before we get into a future down‑the‑road
impact.
I refer specifically to the sections
having to deal with free trade
agreements which are in the purview of the provinces, and that is consistently the retraining portions,
the employability portions, which we
know have been adversely affected by the
U.S.‑Canada Free Trade Agreement and will be even more
adversely affected by the North American
free trade agreement with
If the Premiers are looking towards some
form of provincial participation to a
greater degree in the input of these treaties
or decisions with regard to negating those treaties, I see that as a positive move.
The fifth communique deals with the
Finally, I would like to comment
specifically on the health care
reform. It is delightful to see that
there is a positive message coming from
the Premiers about the need for the reform of
the health care delivery system.
We saw in the announcement of our
Health ministry on Thursday, a positive move in that direction.
I was interested in seeing a full‑page ad taken by the B.C. government advertising for a number
of community‑based facilities and
community‑based staffing which are going to be required in order to meet that reformed
health care system.
We looked with interest, and to some
dismay, at some decisions made in
provinces like
* (1355)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of all honourable members to
the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
Also this afternoon, we have twenty‑five
journalism students from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you all here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Department
of Government Services
Director
of Leasing Dismissal
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in early March the RCMP raided one of the Government
Services offices, and they seized a
number of contracts, invoices, tendering material, construction reports, audit reports, lease
agreements, et cetera, of two
buildings:
Mr. Speaker, we have been raising a number
of questions on this issue for the last
number of months. We are very
concerned about this investigation and
the impact this will have on the people
of
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): First
of all, it is true the director of
leasing was dismissed last week at the
advice of Civil Service Commission. It
was not as a result of the RCMP
investigation, because that is still being
carried out.
As the member opposite is aware, part of
the process and the process in place is
the Civil Service Commission makes a
recommendation. That
recommendation has been carried out by my
staff.
Leasing
Branch
Report
Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government now has two reports: one from the Civil Service Commission and one an internal audit from
their own Government Services
Department. The government has not yet released
or made public any of the reasons for
the internal audit or the special
investigation by the Civil Service Commission.
In that most of the issues related to the
government leasing impact upon the
Treasury Department of government in terms of the authority that these people allegedly had or
did not have, I would like to ask the
minister whether he will make public both
the Civil Service report and the Internal Audit report because they do pertain to the public trust. They do pertain to a relationship between this person and the
Treasury Board which authorized the 280
Broadway decision last year. Mr.
Speaker, will the government release
those reports so that we will not have
to continue to ferret out this information, but will know it in a full and public way as the public should
have?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, finally, the member from across the
way realizes that it was an
employee. There was no landlord involved
in this particular issue. The employee was carrying on the same authorization policy that was by the previous
administration. The employee, according
to Civil Service Commission, violated
that.
We are still waiting for the RCMP report,
and as we receive those reports, I will
be going through those with my
administration.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government will acknowledge
that this person was reporting directly
to Treasury Board. In fact, last year in Hansard, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was
quoted on a number of occasions as
citing the director of Government Leasing as the rationale for taking certain decisions in
government.
The minister has indicated that they are
also investigating another hundred
leases that were conducted by this individual,
the director of leasing. Mr.
Speaker, who is investigating the
relationship between the Treasury Board and the director of leasing who has been dismissed by government?
Mr. Ducharme: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the person involved
was reporting directly to the minister
and to the deputy minister in regard to
these leases. We found no further
indications of any other leases so far. We have 120 leases almost every year as done by my staff.
In this particular case, unfortunately,
the member violated his role and his
position, and that is what I stressed a month
and a half ago when it was first brought up in this House. I
answered those questions to the member of the opposition. At
that time, he insisted the landlord was involved. We insisted,
no. It was an employee who was
involved, who violated his position, as
the rule and at the recommendation, I repeat, by Civil Service Commission, was let go by our
department last week.
* (1400)
Pornography
Government
Policy
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
There is a great deal of uncertainty
respecting the application of the law
relating to pornography. We now have
the Supreme Court ruling, but we have no
provincial policy with respect to the
law against pornography.
When will this government reveal its
policy on pornography so the public will
have some protection and the police will have
something to work with regarding this kind of material?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I remind the member for Kildonan that it was this government that
took this matter to the Court of Appeal
to ensure that we could indeed prosecute porn and video shop owners under legislation and that
it was as a result of that that the
obscenity laws were upheld, because this
province took that appeal to try and ensure that this kind of reprehensible material was not available in
this province. With respect to the remainder of this question, I
will take that as notice on behalf of
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
Mr. Chomiak: My supplementary to the Premier: Why is it taking so long since the Supreme Court ruling, since
it was reported in early March that the
Crown Attorneys were meeting for two weeks
in order to outline and determine this policy? It is now May 18, and we still have no policy.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I know that the critic for
the opposition wants to be sure that
whatever guidelines that are put in
place are enforceable so that we do not run into a situation, as has happened in other jurisdictions, where
the laws were overturned or thrown out
by the courts because of insufficient
guidelines. That is the reason
that adequate time is being taken to
ensure that they will be legally enforceable and understood by those who have to make those decisions.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to
the Premier: Will the Premier commit to a time line to
specifically outline when the policy
will be in place so that the police can
have something to work on, since they have indicated in the media that they are not prepared to act, they are
not able to act until they hear what the
provincial policy is? Will the Premier
commit to a time line, say the end of the
week?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Justice
minister.
Health
Care System Reform
Monitor's
Mandate
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of
Health.
Last week the minister released his plan
for reform of
Today we would like to make a further
suggestion. The minister has joined many experts in
acknowledging that health is more than
sickness care; that it also is a reflection of life style, of education, of socioeconomic status,
of the environment and one's awareness
of how to stay healthy.
My question to the minister is the
following: Will he expand the mandate of the body, which will monitor
the progress and impact of the reforms
to include all departments and activities
of government in order to make proposals on how they, too, can be brought in line with health reform goals?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as discussed on Thursday of last week in terms
of the suggestion on the evaluation
component and how it might serve the purpose of
the Legislature, I have taken very seriously under advisement.
This suggestion, Mr. Speaker, really
embodies the Population Health: Major Determinants graph on page 9 of the
strategy paper and is preceded by the
establishment of the Healthy Public Policy
committee of government at the deputy minister's level. The
activities of the Healthy Public Policy committee are basically to attempt to bring together government
through varying departments to assure
that our separate activities are
interconnected in that we develop the policies knowing full well the impact on Education may well spin back on
Health. Certainly the impact of Industry, Trade and Tourism, in
terms of the economic environment, spin
directly back on health, because I think
it is clear in here that income directly relates to higher health status.
So, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the
next number of months, I would
anticipate that there will be a number of
opportunities in which interrelated policy initiatives of government, stimulated by Healthy Public
Policy considerations across
departmental jurisdictions, will be the order of the day.
In terms of the specific suggestion of
lining those two together, that may have
value, although I want to assure my
honourable friend that the analysis by the expert group to determine health outcome and maintenance of
health status is clinically related to
the changes in the health care system
itself and not involving other departments and may not have a natural fit, Sir.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, what we are maintaining is that
it must have a natural fit. I would like to give the minister two very specific examples.
We have a minister responsible for the
Liquor Control Commission who could be
doing far more in the way of preventing
fetal alcohol syndrome, which is a health disorder, but it is related to the consumption of alcohol. If the minister responsible for the Liquor Control Commission
would in fact do some public policy and
public education and put signs up in
liquor stores, we would in fact go some way to preventing this dreadful affliction.
In addition, we have the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) who
is now negotiating with the City of
Can the minister tell us why he does not
believe that it is not a perfect fit, a
marriage, if you will, made in heaven of
merging these things together in order to ensure that health care becomes a dominant policy in all departments?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing with the
proposition that those departmental
initiatives and many more have a direct
impact on health status and cost in the health care system. I do
not want to argue about that at all.
What I am saying to my honourable
friend is that we intend, as outlined, I believe, on page 31 of the strategy document, to
establish a very close monitoring system
to assure maintenance and hopefully improvement
of health status as we change the focus of where we deliver needed health services, away from high‑cost
institution to more community‑based
care.
That, Sir, is a specific delegated mandate
because, as my honourable friend so
correctly pointed out, the change in the
health care system, as announced in the action plan, can become a political football. Assurance by experts as to how the
change from physician‑driven,
institutional‑based care to community‑based
care is a very important component of achieving
reform that, I think, for 20 years has been discussed, talked about but never implemented. That is where we need the expert opinion, to assure Manitobans that a
perchance speculation about the outcome
of change in the health care system may be
inappropriate, in fact outright wrong, and hence move the system closer to a more kind and caring system,
providing care closer to home.
That, Sir, is a separate function narrowed
to the reform process in health care.
* (1410)
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we feel
that there is a need for broader
monitoring. We know that because this can be such a political football that
any issue can be raised and said that
"the system is not working because of," "the system is not working because of," and
we want to ensure that in fact this
reform process does work, and does work to the best interest of Manitobans.
The other issue that concerns us that we
would like to see also in a broader
monitoring aspect is the health care
professionals who will be moved from their current jobs, and many will indeed lose their jobs. Will the minister add to the mandate of the health reform monitor the
responsibility to act as a watchdog over
the shifts in personnel requirements, to make
recommendations for retraining, if necessary, of any displaced professionals so that the talents and
dedication of all of them are retrained
in this new structure of health care in the
province of Manitoba?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, when we announced the reform of
the mental health system in January of
this year, one of the very first
initiatives that took place was a bringing together of individuals representing workers,
representing professional disciplines,
unions, to discuss the needs of caregivers in the changing environment of reform mental health
system, i.e., to look for opportunities
for redeployment of those same individuals
and indeed to suggest to government ways and means of improving, retraining opportunities for those who may be
displaced within the reform of the
mental health system.
Mr. Speaker, the same process is
envisioned to be fully part of the next
two years within the reform of the acute care side of the health care system, where unions,
professional groups, will work with
government in efforts of redeployment, retraining and other necessary efforts to preserve the
integrity of quality caregivers and
their contribution towards a reformed health care system.
Health
Advisory Network
Report
Release
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
The details are a mystery, Mr.
Speaker. Many of the details are buried on the minister's desk because he
continues to sit on reports that he has
received in final format from his Health
Advisory Network, which contained hundreds of detailed recommendations.
My question to the Minister of Health
is: Will he, in the interests of partnership that he talks about
in this document, release the five final
reports from the Health Advisory Network?
Those reports are on home care, the elderly and prevention, the elderly and promotion, health information
systems, and our rural health
systems. Would he release those reports
and tell us his action plans for those
reports?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, that is the answer we have
been hearing for months and months and
months‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Put your question, please.
Home Care
Program
Recommendations
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in
part, the response to that report was
reflected in a significant budgetary
increase to the Continuing Care Program, wherein it went from $55 million last year to a budgeted
expenditure of $62 million this year, a
very significant increase, part of which
will help us to meet some of the recommendations that were made in the report referred to.
Home Care
Program
Funding
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us why, even with this kind of
promised increase, he is not increasing
assessors and co‑ordinators in the Home Care Program, causing an incredible burden and
possible devastating impact on this very
serious community‑based program to the point where, as this reports says, severe
understaffing of the Home Care Program
has been caused by increased demands without
resources, resulting in high demand, high pressure and high potential for staff burnout within the
program? How is he addressing that situation? What is his‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if
one were to close one's eyes and go back
for at least a period of time in the
last four years, one would have heard the same kind of comments made by my honourable
friend. The fact of the matter is that the Continuing Care Program has
managed within the personnel and
staffing resources to continue ever‑increasing care delivery in a system much more effectively
than any other continuing care program
probably in the nation of Canada, a
record we all should be very, very, very proud of, Sir.
Western
Premiers' Conference
Agricultural
Issues
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, we have asked the government where they
really stand on orderly marketing and
supply management, because we have every reason to be suspicious of this government's
position. Their actions speak louder than their words. For example, at a recent meeting of Agriculture ministers, the minister refused
to sign the declaration supporting
marketing boards at the GATT talks, and
the government has also supported the removal of oats, which severely weakened the Wheat Board, removal of
the domestic price for wheat, which
weakens the Wheat Board, and lately by being
silent while the federal government refuses to enforce the requirement for export licences for grains
being trucked to the U.S.
I want to ask the First Minister, since he
said agriculture was very high on the
agenda at the Premiers' meeting: Can
the First Minister indicate whether he
still believes, like his Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that marketing boards will have to be sacrificed in order to achieve a
settlement at GATT and the NAFTA? Is this still part of what this Premier calls
the balanced approach that is referenced
in his communique?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, that has never been the position of this government or the Minister
of Agriculture.
Mr. Plohman: If the Premier is so supportive‑‑[interjection] Yes, I do have a question. The minister has also referenced many other agriculture issues in this communique.
I want to ask him, since he is the
Agriculture expert here today: Will the Premier now admit, because he referenced
the financial difficulties of provinces
in terms of the agricultural load, that
his government and his Minister of Agriculture got taken to the cleaners in the negotiations
with the federal government by following
the Grant Devine election agenda last
year?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Plohman: The usual enlightening‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Order, please.
Mr. Plohman: Will the Premier reject his minister's
proposal that was made with regard to
the fragmentation of the Crow benefit
that was discussed at the ministers' meetings as well as the First Ministers' meetings? Was it rejected? Will he now
categorically reject this proposal which will serve to undermine the Crow benefit, which is historic in this
country, and will ensure that it is in
shambles before a very reasonable period of
time?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the
preamble of the member for Dauphin, I
will take that question as notice on
behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay).
Replacement
Facility
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The health reform document released last
week talked about mental health
reform. About five months ago, there was
an announcement of a consultation
process for mental health reform in the
Western region. Mr. Speaker, real
changes are needed now.
Can the Minister of Health tell us when
the construction for the new building
for the Brandon Mental Health Centre will be
given a priority and when the new facility will meet the new agenda for health care reform in the Western
region of Manitoba?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot give my honourable friend such
specifics, but I indicate to my
honourable friend that the Western region of the province of Manitoba is much more advanced from the
Regional Mental Health Council
discussions around the reform paper of January of '92 in that the Parkland region, the Westman region
in Brandon and Western‑Central
region will hopefully be presenting an action
plan for consideration, implementation, approval and mid‑subsequent implementation by
government in co‑operation with
those professionals and citizens around the mental health councils by June of this year with hopeful
implementation of a number of features
before the end of this calendar year.
* (1420)
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how many beds will be reduced from the existing facility
when the new facility will be provided
along the side of
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, two elements are part of what
we believe will be the suggested plan of
action by the Westman councils, namely
acute facility‑‑acute psychiatric requirements being met in affiliation with the Brandon
General Hospital. How that fits and the reason why I cannot answer
my honourable friend in terms of
construction, et cetera, is that is being worked within the general redevelopment of the
Secondly, a fairly complete patient
profile has been accomplished at the
Brandon Mental Health Centre, and a number of
individuals who are long‑term residents at Brandon Mental
Health Centre are indeed long‑term
care candidates. The numbers, I do not have naturally in front of me, in terms
of specifics, but the accommodation of
those individuals will certainly be subject to
suggestions and further discussions by the ministry, once the
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, health care reform needs the
review process. This morning, like everyone else, we also
heard the story of this patient out of
Can the minister, in view of these
reports, make sure that he will and he
should establish a system to make sure the people will not fall in the cracks?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my honourable
friend brought up the circumstances that
were subject to a discussion on the
radio media earlier today.
Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to my
honourable friend that the circumstances
experienced unfortunately by that family were in no way anything to do with health care reform.
According to the
It had, Sir, nothing to do with reform of
the health care system, but everything
to do with staff, because of
circumstances, phoning in sick.
They were unable to be there;
hence three of the 12 beds were unavailable for service on Saturday.
Cormorant Population
Control
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
We have drastic figures in this province
of people living below the poverty
line. Some of these people are the
fishermen at
I want to ask the minister why this plan
was able to make it through all
departments, why he is stopping it and why he has broken his promise to the fishermen on
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to advise the
honourable member that we are currently
having further discussions with the Fisherman's association at
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to ask the minister: Is he going to go ahead with the plan this year, or is it just
going to be another promise during the
winter and a broken promise in the spring?
They need that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that I
understand what it is the honourable
member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister
that I would like him to keep his
promise and work along with the
fishermen‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a question?
Ms. Wowchuk: You promised.
I did not. You are the minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Wowchuk: Working relationships between Natural
Resources staff and fishermen are at an all‑time
low.
What plans does this minister have to
improve working relationships between
fishermen and Natural Resources staff, so
these people can continue to make a living on the lake?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I can report to all members of the
House with some satisfaction that
fishing returns on
Scholarship
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Four years of this government, Mr. Speaker, it has worked every year to poison
relations with the labour movement and
the working people that the labour movement
represents. It not only brought
in a legislative agenda that is dictated
by the Chamber of Commerce, it has cut Labour Education Centre funding, Unemployed Help Centre
funding, Workplace Innovation Centre
funding and now a $4,000 scholarship for the
Labour College of Canada that has been provided since 1963.
My question is to the Premier, very
simply: Will the Premier overrule his Minister of Labour in cutting
back this scholarship that has been in
place since 1963 and have it reinstated so that
working people can go to the
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I
think the member for Thompson would
agree that it is important for working
people to have access to health care.
All of us in government in the
last number of years, because of the financial
situation, if one looks at the amount of dollars that this Legislature has to vote each year to service
the accumulated debt of this province,
one will realize the pressure that has been on
every department to find resources that are available to fund the departments that are a priority. Obviously, health care is one of those priorities.
The member for
Mr. Ashton: Perhaps the minister can take it out of
his $7‑million training allowance
for corporations.
Unemployed
Help Centre
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I have a follow‑up
question, Mr. Speaker, and it is in
regard to the Unemployed Help Centre.
Will the government now reinstate funding
for the Unemployed Help Centre in light
of a study that showed that many Manitobans
on UIC are being shortchanged and that, through the help of organizations such as the Unemployed Help
Centre, many have been able to get
increased benefits, they are entitled to Unemployment Insurance, something this government has not
helped by cutting its‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1430)
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am totally amazed at the contradictory
statements we have from members opposite
day after day. They would think that
members of the media, members of the
public, other members of this
Legislature do not listen to him.
On one hand they talk about the need to
retrain; they need to provide investment
retraining. When this government
provides an opportunity to see some of
the dollars that are contributed through
payroll tax going into training in industry, the member opposes it.
I would point out to the member with respect to the decision that was made some years ago in the
Unemployed Help Centre that that
particular institution is an area of federal
responsibility and the area there is owned by the federal government.
Mr. Ashton: I presume the answer was no, once again, Mr.
Speaker.
Health
Care System
Essential
Services Agreement
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): My final question to the minister is:
Why has this government requested a review of the current Essential Services Agreement in the health care
sector in light of the fact that it is
working well? It is being supported
by many institutions. Why is this government now opening up
the whole issue of the Essential
Services Agreement in the health care
sector?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Thompson who always tries to
give the impression that he is very close
to the labour movement would get his
information correct. Following
the strike with the hospitals, the
Manitoba Nurses'
There was some issue that arose as to
whether or not there was a way of
strengthening the dispute settlement mechanism.
We called together the subcommittee
of the Labour Management Review
Committee which has examined that, and unofficially I have been told that there is no recommendation coming
for change.
I think it would be irresponsible for all
of the players not to review that
agreement. That does not mean
necessarily that it is being changed.
Economic
Growth
Private
Sector Capital Investment
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I have a question for the Premier.
Last week the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) shared with us his belief that
if you forced wages down in this province and
forced more people into poverty, this would create a competitive climate within which people would invest more
capital, and that we would see‑‑and
he quoted statistics that suggested private
sector capital investment in this province was going to improve.
Can the Premier tell us why private sector
capital investment in this province last
year was nearly half a billion dollars less
than it would have been if we had just maintained our same position that we had in '88, and why it is
projected at some $373 million less than
it would be if we had just maintained '88
levels?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Just to remind the member for Osborne that this province is expected to
have the largest increase in capital
investment, both public and private, of any
province in the country in 1992 and also the largest increase of manufacturing capital investment of any
province in the country in 1992.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada seems to
vary. Public sector capital investment
is projected to go down, not up, and
private sector capital investment is still some $373 million below.
Perhaps the Premier can explain why we are
doing so poorly at attracting private
sector capital when the Finance minister's
plan seems to be working to his satisfaction.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has indicated
that we are expected to have the largest
increase in capital investment of any
province in the country in 1992, both public and private capital, and the largest increase in
manufacturing capital investment. Both of those are good news. I would hope that the member for Osborne would be happy about that.
Mr. Alcock: We will have the lowest level of capital
sector investment in this province‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, kindly put your question now, please.
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps I could ask the Premier this. Why is our
level falling?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, Statistics Canada says
that we are expected to have the largest
increase of capital investment of any
province in the country this year, both public
and private investment, and in addition to that, the largest increase of manufacturing capital investment
of any province in the country.
Abinochi
Preschool Program
Minister
of Native Affairs Meeting
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): My question is to the First Minister.
The Royal Commission on aboriginal peoples
that is travelling this province has
heaped praise on the innovative native language
program, the Abinochi program, and also that indigenous language is a necessary part of the definition of the
inherent right to self‑government.
I would like to ask the First Minister if
he has instructed his Minister of Native
Affairs (Mr. Downey) to meet with the
Abinochi preschool board like he has promised to do, yet has not fulfilled that promise.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that if the Minister of Native Affairs
has made that promise, he will keep it.
Mr. Hickes: Then my second question is: If the minister does not keep this promise, will the First
Minister remove that minister from the
responsibility that he is stepping aside from?
Mr. Filmon: That is a hypothetical question.
Urban
Aboriginal Strategy
Release
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Also to the First
Minister, the Native Affairs minister
has been promising this House for the
last two years an urban aboriginal strategy which he has yet to deliver.
Will the First Minister talk to his
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) to
ensure that he brings to this House the urban
aboriginal strategy that the aboriginal people have been waiting such a long time for?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the commitment that has been made by the Minister of Native Affairs
(Mr. Downey) is a commitment that we
will keep.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have leave to revert back to reading and receiving
petitions. [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with
the privileges and the practices of the
House and complies with the rules (by leave).
Is it the will the House to have
the petition read?
The petition of Seven Oaks General
Hospital praying for the passing of an
act to amend the Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Act.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (
Mr. Speaker, on April 30, I rose in this
House to wish the team members of the
1992
On Sunday morning, May 17, after several
setbacks which included inclement
weather and an avalanche, the 12
At the peak, a canister was buried which
contained a picture of the late Free
Press columnist, Elizabeth Parker, who
co‑founded the Alpine Club of Canada. We can also take pride in knowing that our flag of
To accomplish such an extraordinary feat,
as the first ascent of a mountain, takes
painstaking planning, great dedication and
commitment and perseverance to overcome and conquer all obstacles and challenges encountered.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Manitobans
and the members of this Legislature, I
would like to congratulate the members of the
members of the
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on the support of all members in this
House to acknowledge and congratulate
the organizers of the fourth annual
candlelight vigil held this past Sunday, organized for all of us to remember those who are dying or who have
died from AIDS.
This candlelight vigil was unprecedented
in terms of numbers who came out to
support and remember. This vigil was
supported by all members in this House,
and I know that there were candles
burning in the windows of members and representatives of all political parties who could not be present at
the vigil. We were a small community joining hands with some
other 200 communities, 35 countries
around the world. It was an event of
great significance for many of us.
In this past week leading up to the vigil,
it is apparent that three Manitobans
died from AIDS. One of those
individuals was a long‑serving
president of the Body Positive Coalition, Rick
Koebel, who passed away the Saturday on the eve of the Sunday vigil.
* (1440)
Mr. Speaker, the work of Rick Koebel was
not unlike the work many are doing in
and outside of this Legislature to fight to
help people living with HIV and dying from AIDS. We remember
Rick and all others who fight and work and struggle to improve the quality of life in our communities and to
rid our society of this deathly illness
and disease.
So on behalf of all members in this House,
I would like to again congratulate the
organizers of
* (1450)
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), 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 Health, and the Department of Rural Development; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
HEALTH
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 resume
consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 1.(a) Minister's Salary
on page 82 of the Estimates book.
Shall the item pass?
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I just want to make some comments
regarding the health care reform package
which we received the other day. I am sure
everyone has had a look at this package by
now.
The package has received very positive
reviews from across the community; when
I say community, from the health care
professionals, from many organizations, many patient groups and above all, the public at large is willing to
listen, that there is a need for change
and they want to give a chance for reform to
function.
Today, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) made his
statement in the House, and we have read
this May 15, 1992,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would go back to
my statement, and that was two years ago
when the health policy analysis centre was
set up. We said at that time that
things will move and I want to reinforce
that, that we had faith that time, and we still have faith in the process. We want to see that the system could continue to function. [interjection]
* (1500)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the members who want to have a conversation to do so
quietly along the wall so that the
honourable member from The Maples can continue.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I really appreciate
the member for
It is a very important document and has to
be looked at. I was saying, if we go back to the statement
two years ago about the health policy
analysis centre when it was set up, I think at
that time many people did not realize in this province that such a major thing was being done. When we made the statement, it looked politically very immature, that it was
not a very positive step and was
applauding the government without knowing, but we had an idea then that this group would lead
us to a better health care system.
The work which has been compiled in this
book has been taken from scientific
studies. They have not been able to pull
from any of the news releases of any of
the three political parties. They may
have taken some of the ideas, but the statistics are based on the health care which Manitobans
have received for the last 20 years,
from 1971 to 1992. The reports have been
there and they are compiled.
In fairness to the whole report, I would
say that this is a very positive report,
and we will continue to watch, to make sure
that the stated principles outlined in this report are implemented.
I think that is the issue for the next six months to one year‑‑how the report is
going to be implemented and whether it
will achieve what it was supposed to, and I think then we can make a judgment call.
In our view, there are four phases. The first was the identification of the problem between 1988
and 1990. Then the second phase was to come to the conclusion in
terms of achieving a role, so to speak,
developing a plan that would meet the needs,
and I think that was the second phase.
The third phase was to achieve
this report. The fourth phase is going
to be implementation of the report. I think the fifth phase will be again the judgment from the people. I mean, we cannot really tell how each and every individual will react
to this health care reform in the long
run, but I am sure the voters will tell us.
I think the fifth phase is very
crucial but that will all be open, and
that is why we have never aligned ourselves against this proposal.
I want to make it very clear the reasons
why we did that. You identify the
problem. You try to come up with
some conclusion, and then you try to
help the system to get into some of the
implementation. I think that is where we
will watch for a two‑year period
how things are implemented.
For us, one thing is very important, the
monitoring of the system. One can name it the way you want to. We have to have somebody monitoring the system. There are three reasons. I will
tell the minister very frankly.
First of all, how can we get
reassurance that there is not going to be any change in the ministry?
If tomorrow a new minister comes, are they going to follow up this same proposal? Second is, if there is a change in the government‑‑anything can
happen. There is a two‑member majority.
Things can happen and how will the system continue to function?
I think the third thing is, if there is any new minister, whether they will be able to build
credibility and understanding of the
system. I think that is the issue, but
that is up to the government to
decide. Those are the very important issues that people have to know, that there
is a continuity of care.
That is why we said when the health care
ministers are put into place for six
months to one year, that is the most
irresponsible thing any government can ever do. That is why a
four‑year period, six‑year period, eight‑year period
of Health ministers are very, very
essential, especially when we are having
the health care reform package.
So those are the general
comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
I want to add a few things in terms of the
things we have been asking. We said from 1988 that we should be
spending smarter, and I think this
report meets that statement. The second was shift of care resources to the
community, and this report again
satisfies our intentions. The third was
setting up of alternative services in
the form of community care, dealing with
day surgery, home care‑‑[interjection] That was day surgery, outpatient surgical procedures and expansion
of home care. That is why, if you were to review Hansard, our
one question was to review the home care
policy. I think this report satisfies us
to some extent, but some more expansion
is required.
I think the other issue, we asked for a
well elderly centre, and I think this
report goes in that direction to some extent.
Then we asked for a birthing facility.
That was one of our election
promises, that we wanted to set up a system where a birthing facility could be provided.
The other thing was the major emphasis on
education, prevention and promotion, and
the broader statement has been made in
this report but more detailed information is required. I
think as time goes by, we may get some of the answers. I think
the minister should be very careful on that issue, on education, not only about health and wellness, but
education about the tax dollars we
spend. We want to emphasize again,
patient education in the system is most
crucial, not only for the protection of
health care but also for the success of this health care reform, very essential.
Some of the provinces, as Mrs. Carstairs
was saying today, even British Columbia
is having ads in the papers because they
know that something has to be done, but I do not believe in isolated approaches, just having one article
here and one article over there and one
plan here, and the other part of the plan does
not know what the first one is doing.
So we would like to have more
patient education done.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we want to see in
terms of one of the major issues in this
report the fee reform policy which is very,
very fundamental to our health care system. In terms of the open‑ended system that we have today,
the major structural changes, how the
physicians are paid, how the services are being
delivered, that answer has to be developed because without that, I do not think anything will be successful.
We understand that this report was not
able to address because I think we are
in the process negotiating and putting the
process in place. A very complex
issue, but at least the policy statement
has been made. It needs more redefining,
and retuning of this policy area must be
done because people want to know how the
physicians and other health care providers are going to get paid in the long run.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we strongly
believe that to implement all these
major principles, there has to be a co‑ordinated approach within the Department of
Health. The graph on page 31 which tells the patient in the middle‑‑everything,
environment, economy, and all those
factors surrounding that patient. We
made that statement even before this
package came. That was about six weeks ago and even during our budget speech,
I made those comments.
* (1510)
After reading from many various reports,
we felt that was a very important issue,
because people only relate to health care
only of illness. But as you said,
the patient's mental and physical well‑being
will be only helped if we meet the definition
of the World Health Organization.
That says very clearly that
illness it is not only the absence of disease, but also to meet the physical and mental well‑being of
the patient.
To do that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a
healthy economy is very important
because without jobs, without good environment, nothing can be achieved. Also to pay for the services we all
talked about, there has to be some
resources, there has to be money coming
in. Also, the other responsibility which
is very, very important is to be
accountable to the taxpayers.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, nobody wants to
talk about this issue, but I think it is
very crucial that the $1.8 billion‑‑how it is spent and how we are going to continue
to spend it in the future, if we have to
borrow money from banks and other
institutions to fund our health care system‑‑I think we have
to think about that. If you take money from one area, you are
going to suffer from the other; so in
that regard, I would like to see a more
economic diversity. I would like to see
people get involved. I would like to see many positive things,
many creative things, many innovative
things that will help a person as a
whole, so that we can achieve the best quality health care for all people.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted to
sum up by saying that there are many,
many positive things. There are
certain things which need redefining or
a fine tuning. If anybody thinks that is not the case, then I think everyone
is lying to themselves. I think the minister also knows there may be
some changes that have to required from
time to time. That is why the rigidity or the other way, the flexibility, I
would say, flexibility in the health
care reform and the openness in the
health care reform, and the frankness in the health care reform, must be one of the major focuses, so that the
patient can be involved, the health care
providers can be involved.
Government should not be afraid
to take bold steps and admit their mistakes
when they are being made. When
they are doing a positive thing, they
should tell people. They should not be
afraid of the opposition parties when
things are derailed for a while.
Some people will do it, but for the last
four days we have watched all the news
media‑‑the print news media, the electronic news media, and above all, the public opinion
in the health care sector. It is amazing that people are so willing to
listen and so positive. I have never seen this in four or five
years. It is amazing that their main goal seems to be,
as the goal of this government and the
goal of all people, is to save the health care
system.
I will end my comments by saying that the
minister has to succeed, because we have
put all our faith on the five basic
principles of the medicare system in this minister's hands and he is the head of the House here in terms of
implementing some of the policies. So I would rather challenge him not to disappoint any one of us because it is not only his
credibility, but the credibility of a
lot of individuals, a lot of professionals, a
lot of decent people who have worked very hard for the last 21 years starting from 1971 to come up with so
many new things. At least we have all reached a stage and the
minister should not be afraid of taking
decisions.
I would say again that some are still
afraid the system will not only fail,
but they are afraid the system will succeed and to defeat those forces, we have to make that
system work for the better of people.
Thank you.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend for
his comments. My honourable friend and the critic for the New
Democratic Party have offered comments
indicating that they want to see this
reform process move ahead. I
simply indicate that it will not move
ahead if it becomes a political football, if that is the appropriate language. My honourable friend puts a lot of onus on me personally and I accept that, but there
are a tremendous number of people in the
system as professionals, as managers and
as trustees, who understand the need for change and that
I want to close by indicating to both my
critics that on Sunday night on CKY
television there was a program on about ten
o'clock. For the life of me, I
cannot tell you what the name of the
program was.
An Honourable Member: W5.
Mr. Orchard: W5. I
believe that is correct.
One of the individuals featured in the
interview was a chap by the name of Ken
Fyke. Ken Fyke was a deputy minister
for Health in Saskatchewan, subsequently
moved to British Columbia about three or
four years ago, five years ago maybe, and became part of the British Columbia ministry of
Health, and over the last couple of
years has taken over administration of one of the senior hospitals in Victoria, if not both of
them‑‑joint
administration. I do not know the
exact details. I met Mr. Fyke earlier this year at the symposium that I was
at in
You know, we are going to see some pretty
remarkable changes over the next couple
of years across
I appreciate both my critics for past
contributions, and I want to thank them
in advance for future contributions for making
that system of change work well.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 65: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $13,933,600
for Health, Administration and Finance,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1993‑‑pass.
This completes the Estimates of the
Department of Health. The next set of
Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates
for Rural Development.
Shall we briefly recess to allow the
minister and the critics the opportunity
to prepare for the commencement of the next set
of Estimates?
An Honourable Member: But not too long.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Okay, we will recess five minutes.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 3:17 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 3:27 p.m.
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We are now commencing consideration of the Estimates for Rural
Development. Does the minister responsible have an opening
statement?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Thank
you very much, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. First of all, may I say I
am pleased to introduce my department's
Estimates for review. I look forward to the discussions, the linkages
between the dollar commitments and the
services to our diverse client groups.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
take this opportunity to acknowledge the
efforts that have been put forward by the
municipal officials, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities,
and the Manitoba Municipal
Administrators' Association. I would
like to commend them and their executive
and membership for their ongoing
dedication to the citizens whom they represent.
I have had the pleasure of meeting with
these groups, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on
several occasions, and I found their input
to be very valuable to our department in terms of the advice that they have been able to provide. I would also like to recognize the efforts of the regional development
agencies whose work fosters economic
development at local levels, and conservation
districts whose work on behalf of the environment will be witnessed by future generations. The people who dedicated their time to these organizations are valuable
partners, who are essential to the
progress we are making in rural
The strongest message that we are
receiving from rural Manitobans is that
people are willing to work hard to develop new
economic initiatives in their communities.
This request for partnerships underscores
the new directions we are taking as a
government. I know many people in many
other departments are working with the
people to make changes and adapt to a
rapidly changing world. Our government
believes that supporting locally
generated initiatives, building upon
traditional and nontraditional strengths, and focusing on new opportunities can help rural
In short, the people of
This commitment forms the foundation upon
which Rural Development's programs are
based and funding directed. We are striving to meet the challenge of economic
growth through job creation, industry
development and diversification. We
are introducing several measures to
achieve this goal.
* (1530)
In particular, we are implementing new,
innovative programs to help rural
Manitobans achieve their goals. The most
recent of these is the Rural Economic
Development Initiative. The REDI program gives communities the tools they need
to build on economic strategies. REDI is based on the conviction that by building up traditional strengths and
focusing on new opportunities, rural
As many of you are aware, the REDI program
will be funded with revenues generated
by Video Lottery Terminals in rural
The four program options are available to
urban and rural municipalities outside
of
REDI has several thrusts. Its infrastructure development component is designed to ensure rural
communities have the capacity to improve
or develop the infrastructure needed to
attract new businesses and allow for the expansion of existing industry.
REDI's feasibility studies component administered by my colleague in Manitoba Industry, Trade and
Tourism is designed to help rural
business people hire independent consultants to
prepare financial market or engineering analysis.
Through REDI's MBA student consulting
portion of the program, business people
can capitalize on the
A development support component provides a
one‑time contribution to fund
innovative proposals in nontraditional areas
to create business development opportunities. This program is developed to address the need to be
innovative in order to remain
competitive in the changing world economy and marketplace.
Partners with Youth is one component of
REDI to which I feel particularly
committed. Creating opportunities for
our youth, educating and training them
for jobs and opening up employment in
our home towns can result in stability for them and a secure future for our communities.
The REDI program has immense potential for
rural Manitobans, especially when it is
used in conjunction with some of the other
programs we have established to help rural Manitobans help themselves.
Last year, our government introduced the
Community Choices program which
encourages community groups to meet in round‑table settings to examine their communities from
environmental, social and economic
perspectives and develop realistic plans for action.
I am pleased to announce that by mid‑April,
30 round tables involving 57
municipalities have been established. We
expect this program will continue to
expand and take on a different focus as
community development plans reach implementation phases.
This implementation process must be
tackled from the grass roots
upwards. We believe that rural
Manitobans should have the opportunity
not only to set directions for the future but to invest in it directly to strengthen local
economies and create jobs.
The Grow Bond program we introduced last
year is designed to do just that. This program is lottery funded, and it is
proving to be a great success. I know many of the members are familiar with this program, but what you may not be
aware of is its successes and impact on
rural
I am delighted to inform you that rural
Manitobans have demonstrated their
confidence in their communities and are ready
to invest in their own future.
Morden's residents were the first
to sell bonds and were very successful.
The Alco Rural Bond Corporation
met and surpassed its minimum sales requirements in record time.
Their success means Morden will soon have up to 16 new jobs and an expanded industrial base.
Four other bond proposals are undergoing
the internal review process. Three proposals are in planned preparation
stages while preliminary proposals have
been received by two community groups. In addition, I might say, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, that later this evening we
will once again be making a fairly
significant announcement in Teulon in terms of their bond corporation as well.
In addition, consulting services are being
extended to 22 interested entrepreneurs
to examine the viability of proposed
projects. The people of
While we are providing the tools for the
people of
We are currently in the process of
remodeling the department to adapt to
changing requirements in our province.
This restructuring process
includes the creation of a new division to
make our department more responsive to the economic development needs and demands of rural
This new rural economic development
division has been created to serve as a
lead provincial agent in rural
The local government's services division
will maintain the major function
performed by the former Department of Municipal
Affairs. This includes the
delivery of services such as assessments
for local governments and advisory services to
municipal councillors and administrators in the areas of finance and administration.
We will soon announce the appointment of a
new full‑time deputy minister, and
I might say that I can do that now. As
a matter of fact, Mr. Winston Hodgins,
who is the new deputy minister of Rural
Development, officially started in the office
this morning.
Because he is so new, we have Mr.
Tomasson, the acting deputy minister for
Rural Development, whose term ended today, will be assisting us with the Estimates this time.
The restructuring of the department will
enable us to respond more effectively to
changing economic dynamics, but we also
recognize the need to make changes in legislation. This includes
the review of The Municipal Act as well as conservation and planning legislation. This is something that has been called
for by municipalities for a long time.
Finally, I think we are at a stage where
we can begin the process of looking at
how we can better address some of the
issues that are addressed in The Municipal Act and also the conservation and planning act.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
We have also recently begun a review of
our provincial land use policies adopted
in 1980 under The Planning Act. Given
that they were adopted more than 10
years ago, it is appropriate that they
be reviewed to ensure that they reflect
Proposed revisions have recently been
forwarded to our local municipalities,
the districts' associations, and other interest
groups for comments and suggestions.
After a review of the
submissions, we intend to bring the policies forward for adoption.
Related to this review of legislation is a revision of The Municipal Assessment Act. We are continuing in our efforts to improve the assessment system.
I would like to emphasize that both Bill
20 and the long‑term portioning
strategy announced by my predecessor last September will have a positive impact on the assessment
and taxation system in this
province. Our government's strategy is
aimed at continuing to improve how
property is assessed and taxed. It
is important to remember that our
government‑‑for that matter, the
Weir committee never set out to resolve overnight the inequities that have been built up over the last 25
years.
With the introduction of market value
assessment in 1990, we took a major step
forward on the assessment side of the
equation. The adjustments to
portions will now take us another step
by improving the level of equity in the taxes paid by various property classes. As part of this portioning strategy, our government also announced its intention
to delay the next reassessment which is
to take place for 1993 to the 1994 tax year.
There are several benefits to this
delay. With one more year, we are able to reach the portion
targets for those classes containing the
majority of ratepayers such as residential 1 and commercial properties. In this way, ratepayers can more easily distinguish between policy driven changes to
their taxes and reassessment or market
driven changes.
This is in keeping with one of the
original objectives of assessment
reform: to make the system more
understandable. The delay also allows changes associated with the
July 1992 implementation of the new
Education Finance Formula to stabilize
before the assessment base is altered across the province.
As you are aware, assessment is a
fundamental element in the education tax
system. I will stress again to the
members opposite that Bill 20 does not
affect the rights of farmers to appeal
their assessments, nor does it propose changes that would restrict appeal rights in any way.
In summary, I would like to reiterate that
the changes made to the portions as well
as Bill 20 are in keeping with the
department's ongoing commitment to improve the property assessment and taxation system in this
province.
Our department has also introduced
property taxes related to equipment in
sand and gravel pits. On January 1,
1992, the province approved and adopted
a regulation to set maximum levels for
fees which municipalities may now charge for the extraction and transportation of sand and gravel. The proposals for this regulation were put forward by a committee of
municipal and industrial officials.
* (1540)
The regulations derived from the proposals
have enabled us to resolve the long‑standing
dissatisfaction with a system of
municipal taxation of equipment used to extract sand and gravel. The new fees will replace the existing
property taxes on equipment in the pits
with a more direct and equitable way of
covering municipal road maintenance costs.
I am confident that we will soon adjust to
these new systems, and the benefits are
already being realized in rural
We are setting up a working group to
discuss the entire issue at the present
time, and we contemplate that within the next few short days or next week, we will have a
committee in place which will then begin
the process of addressing the issues that were
set forth in the report that was forwarded by Charlie Hill and was tabled in January. We are hopeful that by September we will be able to have a resolution to this
outstanding issue.
Our government is also involved in
partnerships with various levels of
government through cost‑sharing programs.
As members are aware, I recently
announced that
We are also using cost‑sharing
programs to improve the infrastructures
in rural communities. I am
referring specifically to the southern
development initiative which is
officially known as the Canada‑Manitoba Partnership Agreement
on Municipal Water Infrastructure or, in
short, PAMWI. Under the PAMWI agreement, the governments of
The PAMWI agreement is an important tool
in our overall game plan to improve the
equity and the quality of life in rural
Enhancing our rural communities through
projects like the ones I have outlined
here today is an important part of our
commitment to rural
But our decentralization initiative does
more than bring services closer to the
people who use them. It also brings
new faces and job opportunities to rural
In examining our Estimates, members will
note that‑‑
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Is it the will of
the committee to let the minister finish
his opening statement? Go ahead.
Mr. Derkach: In examining our Estimates, members will note
that the grants to municipalities,
regional development agencies and
conservation districts represent a major portion of our budget‑‑
An Honourable Member: Hansard is not recording it.
Mr. Derkach: So there is no sense in reading it‑‑[interjection] We will wait.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Bureaucracy
triumphs. A formal vote has been
requested in the Chamber and the committee
recess.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 3:47 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 4:50 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply will come to order. Before the recess, this section had been considering Rural
Development. We will now conclude with the minister's opening
statement.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
indicate to the members that I will
provide for them, if that has not already
happened, copies of the opening statement so that they may peruse it in preparation for their questions which
will follow.
Just in conclusion, I would just like to
say that in the examination of our
Estimates, members will note that the grants
to municipalities, regional development agencies and conservation districts represent a major portion of our
budget. Something like about 56 percent of the total budget is
devoted to support to those agencies. Add to the Rural Development's 17.7
percent contribution through capital
assets and infrastructure support and
just under 75 percent of our total budget, or over $52 million, is earmarked for rural
This certainly represents a major
commitment to rural
Certainly, I would like to put on the
record that Mr. Tomasson has done an
outstanding job as the Acting Deputy
Minister for the Department of Rural Development. Under his
stewardship we were able to implement several major initiatives, I believe, in rural
In addition, I would like to also
acknowledge the efforts of the many
staff whom I have in the department, the directors. The
department as you know is still without several positions in it. We are advertising for several directors and
ADMs within the department. Even in times of being shorthanded as we are,
we have been able to do a tremendous
amount of work. Certainly, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of all
of the staff within the department who
have done a tremendous amount of work over the
last few months to introduce some fairly major initiatives to help to revitalize the rural population of
our province. With that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
conclude my opening remarks.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable minister for those remarks. Does the critic from the official
opposition party, the honourable member
for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I would like to begin, first of all, by
congratulating the minister on his
appointment. The first comments that
were made when he was appointed to this
department was that he was a country boy
and a rural person, and I hope that he is sincere about a commitment to rural Manitoba. I suspect that he is, because most of us who live in the rural
community in small towns want to see
growth in our community. I look forward
to seeing what he is going to do
throughout the rural part of the province
to have economic growth.
I know that the comments were that taking
a position in Rural Development was a
demotion. In fact, I feel that rural development is a very high priority. When we look at what happens in rural
I was very concerned when Rural
Development and Northern Affairs were
combined together under one minister, and I felt that rural development was not getting a fair
share of attention. In fact, when the name of the department was
changed to Rural Development rather than
Municipal Affairs, there was an
expectation that we were going to see a lot more happening in rural
I also want to congratulate the new deputy
minister. I am sure that he‑‑he has been in
government for some time‑‑will bring some good leadership to the department.
The concern that I have is that we had an
announcement at the municipal convention
that two assistant deputy ministers were
going to be hired, and the department was going to be split. This was received very positively by
councillors. I am concerned with the lack of movement. The minister has just indicated that there has been advertising going on. Hopefully, both these ADMs will be filled very soon, and we can see some
development because it is of some
concern when you see the number of vacancies in the department.
So we look forward to what is going to happen with the restructuring of the department.
As I said, as a rural person, my greatest
concern right now is that there is not
any real growth in rural
There was an interesting article in one of
the rural newspapers just the other
day. I do not have it with me but I
am sure that the minister may have seen
it, and that is, an article indicating
that if we do not have growth in our rural community, if we do not have opportunities for our young
people, they are not going to come back.
At this point, I can sincerely say that,
as I look at the part of the province
that I am from, I cannot see very much for
our young people to come back to.
It is a problem that we all have
to address. We have to look at what we
can do to have economic growth in the
rural community. I guess some of
the things that I am anxious to hear are
what the minister has to say, what his
position is, where he is taking the department on things that will attract growth to our rural
community.
When I was at the rural convention at the
Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the
previous minister had indicated that he was
still moving forward with getting natural gas to other parts of the province.
It is not something that I have raised with the minister yet, but I hope that through this
Estimates process, we can talk about
where we are going with natural gas to other parts of the province that want to have the same
economic growth that we see in the
southern part of the province.
We have to have diversification, ways to
sustain, ways to use our natural
resources, rather than shipping them out in the raw state as many of them are going right now. We have to have diversification for our agriculture
community. How can we process some of those products that we are
producing and then have growth? An example that comes to mind is
ethanol. There has been lots of discussion of that. The farming community is very interested in that kind of thing.
But I do not believe it is enough to say,
yes, it is up to you in the rural
community to look at ideas for diversification,
to look at ways. The rural people
cannot do it on their own. There has to
be leadership from government. There
have to be initiatives taken that will
support the rural community. As good as the Grow Bond initiative is, there has to
be government support behind it to help
those communities come up with those
initiatives.
I would like to know, through the
Department of Rural Development, how
this minister feels about sustainable
development of our forestry industry.
Is there anything being looked at
as to how we can keep more of the secondary jobs from our forestry industry here in our province?
We need, as I said, services to attract
these businesses to the rural community,
and I use my community, the major centre in
my constituency of
What we have to have is a government that
is sincere about rural development that
will take the initiatives to attract
industry‑‑
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order,
please. The time is now 5 p.m., and time for private members' hour. I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. The Committee of Supply will resume considerations at 8 p.m.
* (1700)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the
Committee of Supply please come to order? This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of
Education and Training. We are on 5.(b)
Program Analysis, Co‑ordination
and Support.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
5.(b) Program Analysis, Co‑ordination
and Support: (1) Salaries $904,100.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Chairperson, I think at the end of last time I was trying to find some
relationship between the courses which
have been cut at the community colleges over
the last two years and the labour market requirements in
I have been doing this from a document
called High Demand Occupations in
Manitoba, September '91, which I think is the most recent document we have, and also,
unfortunately, in the absence of a
labour market strategy that this department has not yet provided.
So I wanted to continue with that and see
what the issues were in some of the
other college programs that were cut.
I think we were looking at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The honourable member seems to raise some
concerns that people wishing to study in
the North will have to leave their home,
where they are living, to study.
I would certainly say that it is
not a policy of this government to make that be a reason for people to leave home. However, we do have an issue of supply
and demand. We do have courses available where there is a
demand and also where there are the
resources to provide those courses.
I would like to speak for a moment about
distance education as a viable
alternative and to remind her that we do have a
Distance Education task force which will also be looking at issues relating to universities and
colleges. It is a viable alternative where we cannot be site‑specific
in some of the courses offered. I would remind her that other provinces, including
Ms. Friesen: What I was asking about was correspondence
schools, not distance education. There is a considerable difference, and I assumed that the minister understood that.
* (1450)
What I am indicating is that in the
document which she tabled or which her
department tabled, when it is looking at alternate programs for those courses which have been
cut in our community colleges, that on
seven occasions on the list that is
proposed‑‑it is a list perhaps of about 20 odd courses‑‑that
at least on seven or eight occasions,
the alternative proposed is a
correspondence school in Montreal, a private correspondence school.
I am asking: Is that still government policy, that we
cut programs at community colleges and
advise students to register in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, I certainly
understood the question and wish to
provide the member with some information I
did not believe that she had.
However, I would like to say again that
there are times when we have to look at
other kinds of alternatives. The courses
are useful courses. They are viable courses. They provide an education.
However, most of those same programs also are available at one of the two other community
colleges. So the correspondence simply offers a choice for
those individuals in an area where they
would like to study. In the area of pre‑employment courses, where they have
been eliminated, there is still access
to the trades through the apprenticeship programs.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, on at least three of those
seven items there is no alternative
listed other than the international
correspondence schools. So I am
not quite sure what the minister means
that there are alternatives proposed.
I think at the end of last time I was
asking her, is the alternative she is
proposing for northerners to come to Red River
or to go to Brandon or a correspondence school?
I think the second part I would like to
address is, the minister advises us that
she is sure that these are good
alternatives. Could she indicate
also who in her department evaluates
these correspondence courses for the purposes of advising Manitobans that these are viable
alternatives, and what kind of
certificates, what kind of certification is available at the end of the correspondence courses that is
acceptable in
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I would encourage the
honourable member to look at the entire
list of programming. She is really painting a slanted picture by picking a very
few number of courses.
I would like to remind her again that the
reductions have been replaced by what
are considered to be more beneficial
programming in the North. Those
programs which have been reduced, I will
remind her again, are available through other
community colleges or through correspondence. So there is, in fact, still access to those programs. Yes, there will be a point when all students cannot get, locally,
exactly what they require, and therefore
we have put into place this series of alternatives.
Now, on the issue of evaluations, these
programs are evaluated by other
jurisdictions. We are responsible for
the evaluation of vocational programs
within
Point of
Order
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Chairperson, on a point of order, I have noted that the minister is
taking a great deal of time of this
House writing down notes while her staff is raising points with her, rather than answering the
questions that are put to her in a
timely way. This is an incredible
approach by this minister. We have not seen this kind of thing in the
Estimates before. I talked to my colleague over the last week
or so and found that, in fact, this has
been a habit that has taken place, and
it is killing an awful lot of Estimates time.
I do not know if this is a deliberate
tactic on the part of this minister and
this government, but I do not think that we in
the opposition should have to tolerate this. Surely the minister can be briefed on these issues and come in
here ready to speak on the issues that
are being asked of her in this House.
If this does not stop, Madam Chairperson,
on a point of order, we are going to
have to move that the Estimates time that
is being taken while she is taking notes be deducted from the total hours that are allotted for this
department for Estimates. I will not
make that motion at this time, but I hope that the minister will indeed attempt to change her
procedure in this regard because it is
not a normal approach by a minister in this
House. I take it she is a new
minister, but this is intolerable.
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Madam Chairperson, I am quite amazed to hear what I have just heard
come from the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman). I find that the activities of
the minister are quite appropriate. Her answers are adequate and sufficient.
That is the issue, is the answer that is given. I
think it is quite appropriate for the minister to carry out the kind of activity in answering, making sure it
is complete and to the satisfaction of
this Chamber. The method‑‑I
can go back for years as to the delays
of the member for Dauphin and there are
different styles among different ministers, and it is not, I believe, the purpose of this committee to in
any way determine how the answers are
derived at. It is the quality and
the quantity of the answers that are
important.
* (1500)
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
I appreciate what the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) said, although I think had he
been witnessing what has been going on
in this committee, he might share the same
concerns. The member for Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was here the
last time this committee met. He
commented that in 23 years he has never
seen a minister take this kind of time to
prepare for questions and deliberately use up the time available to the committee.
It is not being moved at this point, but
the suggestion that has been made is, if
the minister requires this kind of time and
she is a new minister and perhaps has not had the time to be briefed, that we simply deduct that
preparation time from the clock that is
running on Estimates. Otherwise we are
forced into the position of using the
concurrence motion to try to get the
answers to the questions that we are failing to get on a department that the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
himself has designated as a
priority. The government certainly is
not acting as though this is a priority
of this government, neither is the minister.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Second
Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Chairperson, I would
point to the key point to which the
member for Dauphin is pointing is the significant loss of time to members of this House and
particularly opposition members. Given the fact that we have only a limited
time period, 240 hours, we are concerned
that it is a deliberate tactic, as we
are seeing in the other section of Estimates where we have the government filibustering its own Health
Estimates, thereby running out the clock
and preventing us from asking questions in
other important departments, and we are seeing it in this particular area.
I realize that we have a new minister
here, but I think the minister should
have some responsibility to be briefed on these
matters and should not rely on staff at the expense of committee time, because in the period of time I have
sat in here we often end up out of every
five minutes there is perhaps one minute in
which the minister is actually putting something on the record and four minutes in which the minister is
consulting. It is the degree to which the minister is not using the
time of Estimates, is using it to
consult with her staff which she can do at any
time, that is of concern here.
I would, on the point of order, ask that
the time that is taken off from the
limited amount of time we have for Estimates,
only 240 hours, not include the time during which the minister is consulting with her staff, and I believe it
is only reasonable. I believe there is
an element of having the staff here for
detailed questions, but on broad policy questions the minister should not be consulting with the staff in
the first place. The minister should be responding directly to
questions based on her knowledge, her
understanding of the department, her policies and the policies of her government. This is unprecedented, the degree to which we have seen this time wasted
in Estimates.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Yes,
Madam Chairperson, I have listened to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
The member for Thompson tries to make a point of order on how the minister answers questions. I am sure that the members opposite agree‑‑or the
member for Dauphin has raised the point
of order. I would imagine that members
opposite want to ensure that the
minister provides as accurate information as is
available to them as possible.
Now, if the members are trying to
make a quick political point in this committee room, that is unacceptable.
Madam Chairperson, ministers have a right
to consult. It is a time‑honoured tradition in this
Assembly which they as ministers, I am
sure, did when they were ministers in the same
predicament in Estimates. A
minister has a right to consult with the
staff who are here to ensure that members opposite get an accurate answer, as accurate as possible, to
the questions that they ask. If a minister chooses to make some notes
while the question is being asked, I do
not think that there is a minister who
has gone through committee ever who has not done that.
All I can conclude, and I would submit to
your ruling that first of all the point
of order is out of order, but I would
suggest as well that members opposite are only trying to make some quick political point rather than have
any real interest in the Department of
Education.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I have listened with interest to the comments of all honourable members,
and I would remind all honourable
members that a point of order is used to bring to the attention of the Chair a breach of the rules
or a digression from practices of the
committee. The honourable member may
have a complaint but does not have a
point of order.
Secondly, I would like to remind all
honourable members of this committee
that indeed we do have a new minister.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Chairperson, you very carefully read the rules to the House and one
of the rules is if there is a breach of
practice. What has been pointed out by
a number of my colleagues, including
both opposition parties, that what is
occurring here is a breach of practice.
This minister, rightly or wrongly
for whatever her motivation, is abusing the
time of Estimates.
Madam Chairperson, I and a number of other
people have been ministers, and there
have been ministers on that side who have
gone through the Estimates process year after year without taking the kind of time that this minister is taking
to answer questions. We are not arguing that the minister should
be giving us inaccurate or incorrect
information. What we are asking the minister to do is to take her briefings
outside of Estimates hours as has been
the normal practice in this house over many,
many years.
We are seeing the minister answer a very
few number of questions every hour in
this Chamber, and it would be much more
efficient and much more effective if the minister would follow the practice of this House and answer
questions more directly, take her
briefing time outside of the Chamber so that we can get on with the business in this Chamber during
the Estimates process.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Flin Flon does
not have a new point of order. He has reiterated the previous point of order raised.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, in response to the two opposition
parties, my suggestion is then that they
realize that we are discussing the
Estimates of 1992‑93. Their
questions have focused on Estimates that
are several years past.
I have also made every effort to remind
the other side that the line of
questioning that they are pursuing is best pursued under Red River Community College, Appropriation
6.(5)(c), Keewatin Community College,
Appropriation 6.(5)(e), and Assiniboine
Community College, 6.(5)(d). So the
members have been directed to put their
questions in the appropriate Estimates
line and they have said they did not wish to do that. They
argued that point. Therefore,
Madam Chairperson, I am delighted to
answer the questions, and I will be answering them as fully and as completely as I possibly can in this
Chamber.
Ms. Friesen: I do not know if the minister is speaking on
a point of order there or not, but I
have responded and I will continue to
respond that we are discussing the overall policy and programming of community colleges.
It is quite legitimate since this
government maintains that it has
expanded the community college programs this year. It is
extremely important that we continue to underline to the government and to the public that in fact
they cut $10 million from community
colleges, that they cut over 30 programs.
In cutting those programs, what they
were doing was advising people to go to
correspondence courses based in
I was asking the minister a very specific
question. Is it still the policy of this government to
recommend correspondence courses based at
ICS in
I do not believe in her last answer that
the minister answered those questions,
so I am prepared to state them again.
* (1510)
Mrs. Vodrey: I will repeat the answer to the question,
and perhaps the member will decide to
listen to the answer this time.
The programs are regulated by other
jurisdictions. We take care of those vocational programs and those
correspondence programs here in
Ms. Friesen: I really regret having to stay on this line,
but my question is specifically related
to ICS, the International Correspondence
Schools, which the minister lists or this ministry listed on the piece of paper that it tabled.
International Correspondence Schools are
located in
Who is evaluating those programs? What kind of certificate is acquired at the end of those
programs? Who in
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, again, private
vocational schools are evaluated by
those individual provinces where the
schools are residing. ICS is part
of a national association of career
colleges. There is no external
evaluation by provinces, and the only
evaluation by an external province, by
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, then could we get back
to department policy? If there is no evaluation in
I am referring, in fact, to about 11 of
the 30 courses that were cut. The alternatives in 11 of those were
recommended as being, amongst others,
the International Correspondence Schools.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in terms of the schools
existing in other provinces, they exist
in other provinces, they are licensed in
other provinces. These programs then
obviously meet the standards within
those provinces and within that particular
province's evaluation.
Secondly, within
Ms. Friesen: It seems to me that then the department is
waiting for employers to say that this
is inadequate before any new policy is
developed. It seems to me a very odd
way, in a policy and planning branch, to
develop policy because you have no
alternatives in some of these programs.
Employers who want to hire
people, according to this list, will only be able to employ them from correspondence schools if we were
to go on the evidence that the minister
is suggesting. It seems to me a very
bizarre way of making policy.
Overall, what we are looking at in the
community colleges is a cut or reduction
two years ago of more than 35 courses.
I think we have talked about this
in Estimates and in Question Period a
number of times, particularly when the government wants to trumpet its "extra" $2.5 million
to the community colleges because in
fact we are limiting community colleges.
It seems to me that we are
reducing their role in the post‑secondary field in
I want to ask the minister about something
that I have asked her in Question
Period, but now that she has her staff here,
perhaps we could get some more specific answers, and that is the waiting lists at community colleges and in
particular the waiting list at Red River
Community College, which I believe have
resulted from the program and policy developments in this government.
There are, from my understanding, about 25
courses at
Mrs. Vodrey: We do recognize that there are waiting lists
in some courses at
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, how does the college, how
does this Policy and Planning Branch in
fact evaluate the demand from a student
perspective?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the primary way is
the medium‑term demand within the
marketplace, and then we add to that the
student demand. So it is labour market
demand and student demand. We certainly look to see that the student
demand would lead to employability.
* (1520)
Ms. Friesen: We seem to be moving in circles. Labour market
demand in a department which has no labour market strategy yet, in fact, which started from scratch in recent
months to development; student demand in
an area where the government now claims
that it cannot even count student demand because students, they argue, register for many courses‑‑I
do not understand how in fact the
department is developing any kind of planning framework for the community colleges which it is now
sending off to govern themselves. You do not know the student demand. You do not know the labour market strategy. Where is the planning coming from?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I have discussed with the honourable
member that at the moment we do not have
a formal strategy. That is true.
We are in the process of developing that strategy. We are
also in the process of preparing to sign the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement, but we do
have access to statistics on demand, and
I think we have discussed that already
within these Estimates.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(b)(1) Salaries $904,100. Shall the
item pass?
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, I move, seconded by the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that
the committee condemn the government for
its lack of planning and support for community
colleges, its failure to respond to the needs of the thousands of unemployed in
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Just for clarification, do we have to debate this
motion before us, or is it nondebatable?
Madam Chairperson: The motion is in order, and the motion
indeed is debatable. I will now read the motion.
It has been moved by the honourable member
for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) that the
committee condemn the government for its lack
of planning and support for community colleges, its failure to respond to the needs of the thousands of
unemployed in Manitoba and to the
immediate needs of the hundreds of students waiting for training in this province.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am extremely pleased to
speak to this motion, because I believe
that it will give an opportunity to
discuss our government's commitment to training in this province and also to the community
college system within this province.
I would like to start by saying that
choice is a very important principle
guiding my department as outlined in the
Strategic Plan. We believe that
Manitobans want to be able to choose
alternatives to education and training which include both public institutions funded by government
within the resources available to us and
private training providers paid for primarily
by the individuals making those choices.
I would like to address, specifically, the
policies of the former New Democratic
government to see if in fact our approach
differs significantly. The
honourable member has criticized this
government for taking the necessary steps to eliminate certain college programs as part of last year's
Estimates based on the criteria that I
outlined previously: labour market
demand, student success, post‑graduation
employment, program costs, and the
availability of alternative delivery approaches.
I have indicated to the honourable member
that we have, in fact, added new or
expanded programs last year and again this
year in those areas which, we believe, will most significantly contribute to the well‑being of the
provincial economy. What I now wish to remind the member is of certain
decisions made by the former
government. I refer to the statements
from Hansard made by the former
minister, Maureen Hemphill, on May 22, 1984.
During that year's Estimates, the NDP government also cut a number of college programs, but it failed to introduce
new programs to replace those which had
been eliminated. The former NDP minister clearly indicated that her
government had considered the
availability of similar programs at private vocational schools, other colleges or secondary
vocational schools as part of its
decision‑making process.
I would like to quote Ms. Hemphill's
response: "If the program can be delivered by another
institution, and I give you an example
where we have some of the same programs being
delivered through our vocational schools as are being delivered through the colleges, and if we can say this
program is being delivered through other
institutions, then we do not have to keep
delivering it, do not have to duplicate.
That is another of the
criteria."
The NDP minister went on to say: "An example, . . . is the fact that various of the trade schools, like
Success, are able to train an adequate
number of people in that area successfully and
it is not necessary for us to duplicate that program."
So we see now that the program
eliminations and reductions are not
something new to the community colleges.
What is new, however, which I have
stressed on several earlier occasions, is
the restructuring which we have undertaken as indicated by the large number of new and expanded programs
which this government has introduced at
the colleges, both last year and this year.
As part of the government's ongoing
activities of strengthening the
The review resulted in a redirection of
programming from the less effective
programs to ones which would be more effective in addressing labour market mismatches. College programs were evaluated based on enrollment levels,
graduation rates, job placements,
projected demands for graduates as well as program costs and effectiveness. Although some programs were eliminated, for example, the recreational vehicle technology,
and hairstylist, and clerical
bookkeeping, which we did spend a great
deal of time on in Estimates‑‑and I spoke on that one
very specifically when we spoke of the
accountancy and the requirements for a
greater technological ability on behalf of the
graduates. Many were added,
including technology and business
management programs, computer‑related programs, programming related to our aerospace industry and
expanded programming within rural and
northern
In 1992‑93 we are proposing a
further expansion of $2.5 million to
college programming in areas which will contribute to the economic development of our
province. As I have said to the member previously, this training will result
in an additional 640 students in 1992‑93.
I would like to read into the record again
some of the additional programs which
are available at our community
colleges. At Red River Community
College: the post‑diploma in geographical information systems, that is a
new program; the post‑diploma in
biomedical engineering, a new program;
manufacturing assessment services, an expanded program; development of learning technologies, a
modified program; post‑diploma in
technology management, a new program;
post‑diploma in electrical and electronic technology, an
expanded program; telecommunications
technology, an expanded program;
developmental services, an expanded program; civil engineering technology, both a modified and an expanded
program; motor vehicle mechanic, a
modified and an expanded program; business
administration, an expanded program; technology preparation, a new program; advertising art, a modified
program; business accountancy, an
expanded program; applied sciences, a new program.
* (1530)
At Assiniboine Community College: agribusiness, rural enterprise, a new program; heavy duty
equipment electronics technology, a new
program; business administration year one, an
expanded and a modified program; media production technology, a new program; sustainable shelter specialist,
a new program.
At
So this government has recognized the
urgent need for the community colleges
to have greater flexibility and greater
responsiveness and great accountability in order to meet the rapidly changing demands of a highly
competitive information and technology‑based
economy. As it stands today, the
colleges are the direct arms of the
government and this structure does not
provide them with the flexibility they need to meet the future challenges.
After consultations with the private
sector the government decided that the
colleges must move to a system of board
governance which would on one hand provide flexibility while on the other accountability of public funds.
Since The Colleges Act was passed in July
1991 an implementation plan has been
prepared and is currently being reviewed
by the government, and $250,000 has been provided in the 1992‑93 Estimates in support of the
activities associated with this
transition including funds for staff development and training so that the college staff can assume
their new responsibilities under board
governance. Incorporation of the three colleges under separate boards is
expected to take place on April 1, 1993,
and The Colleges Act allows for the continuation of existing pension plans for college
employees.
So, Madam Chairperson, I hope that I have
underlined again this government's
commitment for training and training through
the community colleges, but the issue of restructuring the community colleges was an important one, and
it was very important for us to look at
the employability of graduates and also
the number of young people or adults who started the programs and then who were actually able to
finish and graduate from those programs.
As a part, as I have said, of making sure
that colleges are able to provide the
programming that is the most flexible and the
most important to their areas, we are moving to a system of college governance and through that system of
college governance we fully expect
colleges then to be able to look at labour market needs within their area, to utilize the
labour market strategy developed by this
government and to provide the kind of programming
that will be the most responsive to their specific area.
Having visited the community colleges and
having visited in the North, we can see
that this is a very important move.
The member has spoken about the
colleges in the North, and she has
spoken about the need for employment in the North, and she has spoken about concern for people in northern
So as I said to her much earlier and for
several days, day after day, it has been
very important for us to make sure that
people who are studying in these programs or in programs which lead for them to a personal satisfaction as
well as an employability and that the
programs are in sync with the current
labour market needs in Manitoba.
Then again, I will remind her that when
she speaks of the private vocational
schools, that it was also her government in
the government of the NDP in 1984 who said, and I will just read again into the record, Ms. Hemphill's
response: If the program can be delivered by another institution, and
I will give you an example where we have
some of those programs being delivered
through our vocational schools, the area being delivered through the colleges, and if we can say this program
is being delivered through other
institutions then we do not have to keep delivering it, we do not have to duplicate it.
An Honourable Member: Who said that?
Mrs. Vodrey: That was said by Maureen Hemphill who was
the Minister of Education in 1984.
Point of
Order
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, I think the member is
reading a set speech and I think perhaps
she has not adapted it to the situation
because, in fact, we have not talked about vocational schools yet.
I asked about one correspondence school.
We have not mentioned any other
vocational schools. I think the
minister had a prepared speech that she
came in with that she has not
adapted. But we would be happy to
give her the time to adapt it.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: I know if the member goes back and
references Hansard, she will find her
own reference to vocational schools and
private vocational schools. She did
raise this issue this afternoon. I think it is very important to get on the
record all of the information that will
be important to a motion such as this.
In terms of our labour market strategy and
our labour force strategy in
Point of
Order
Mr. Ashton: Our rules are fairly clear that speeches, apart
from very isolated occasions, should not
be read from a written copy, and I do
believe the minister is doing that. If
she wishes to table a copy of her
speech, I am sure we will all read it, Madam
Chairperson. But our rules are
very clear that speeches apart from some
very specific designated occasions‑‑and in the case of Estimates about the only exception is when
ministers make introductory comments and
that is standard practice. But in debate on motions, it is highly irregular for
members to be reading from speeches and
I would ask that you bring the Minister
of Education to order and ask her address the motion rather than read a written speech into the record. That is a point of order.
Mr. Enns: On the same point of order, I would have to
agree with my colleague, the member for
Thompson, official opposition House
leader. That indeed was the
tradition in the rule of this Chamber
some time, but long ago abandoned. If,
in fact, that were to be applied now,
you would have to rule out the Question
Period pretty well, because most questions are read onto the record.
Furthermore, there has always been, as
long as I have been in this Chamber,
substantial leeway given to ministers during the Estimates period to read from particular
documents because of the nature, because
of the specific questions that are being asked.
I think it is a rule that I, quite frankly, support, that members should desist from reading from papers in
their contribution to the Chamber, but
there are exceptions to the rule, and certainly
the minister when engaged in her Estimates is one of them.
* (1540)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. I am referring explicitly to Rule 29. "A member addressing the House shall
not read from a written previously
prepared speech except in the case of a
Minister of the Crown making a statement of policy."
Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, are you saying that at any
time that a minister is speaking‑‑I
just want to get the clarity on the
ruling‑‑that they are entitled by your interpretation of that rule to speak. My understanding of that is to do with ministerial statements. It is also to do with opening comments, but in debate it has never been the policy of
ministers, particularly on motions.
I would just like to ask for clarity on
your ruling.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. My interpretation of Rule 29 is indeed as I have previously stated, that a
minister shall not read from a written
previously prepared speech except in the case
of a minister of the Crown making a statement of policy. It is
my interpretation that the minister is indeed stating departmental policy in response to the
concerns expressed in the motion by the
honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, with all due respect, I
challenge your ruling.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair having been challenged, the question before
the committee is, shall the ruling of
the Chair be sustained? All those in
favour of sustaining the ruling of the
Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I request a formal vote.
Madam Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested. Call in
the members.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 3:44 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 4:39 p.m.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. In the section of Committee of Supply meeting in the Chamber to consider
the Estimates of the Department of
Education and Training, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rose on a point of
order alleging that the honourable
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) was in breach of the rules by reading from a prepared text.
The Chair ruled that the honourable member
did not have a point of order and that
the honourable minister had complied with
Rule 29(a). The honourable member
for Thompson challenged the ruling which
was sustained on a voice vote. The
honourable member then requested a
formal vote.
Therefore, the question before the
committee is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
* (1640)
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows: Yeas 24, Nays 25.
Madam Chairperson: The ruling of the Chair has not been sustained, therefore I must request the
honourable minister not to read from a
previously prepared text.
* * *
Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come
to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates of the
Department of Education and Training.
Order, please. We will continue to consider the
Estimates for the Department of
Education. Question?
Mr. Praznik: Pardon me, Madam Chairperson. Which question did you call?
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I have called the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training
back to order, and when the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rose on a
point of order and then subsequently challenged the Chair, there was a motion on the floor, and the honourable
Minister of Education and Training (Mrs.
Vodrey) was debating that motion.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Would you read the motion, Madam Chairperson? I think a number of us may want to speak on this particular motion.
Madam Chairperson: Moved by the honourable member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the
committee condemn the government for its
lack of planning and support for community colleges‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The Chair had not concluded reading the motion: its failure to respond to the needs of
the thousands of unemployed in
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I am rising to speak on
the motion that was brought forward by
the member for‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Alcock: This is a friendly point of order. I believe the
minister was speaking and has not finished her remarks. Has she
concluded her remarks?
An Honourable Member: No, she was just being ruled out of order.
Mr. Ashton: Yes, if I might be of assistance. Also, in a
friendly manner to the government since it is having some difficulty here, I also believe if we are now
back in the section of the Estimates,
the staff should be invited back in.
The minister should come down. We are ready for the question, but we should proceed normally with the committee,
Madam Chairperson.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to continue the speech that I
was delivering before the point of order
was raised, the speech in which I have
delivered those points many times when I visited around in this province and when I have also
spoken in this House.
I have spoken very frequently about this
government's commitment to the community
college system and to the training of
Manitobans. I have spoken about
that commitment first of all in terms of
the movement towards college governance.
As I have said in this House
before, the community colleges are in fact, at this point, an arm of government, and it has been
determined, through a bill passed in
this House, that those community colleges will
move into college governance so that those community colleges will be able to be much more responsive to
the citizens of their area.
By way of example, I spoke of the citizens
in northern
This government has made every effort to
attempt to manage this province in a
more responsible way, dealing with the
left‑over debt of the NDP government.
In terms of the management, we have looked
very carefully at the budgeting in this
province, and we have also looked at what
Manitobans can afford. In looking
at what Manitobans can afford, we have
also looked at the structure that would best suit the people of
* (1650)
We certainly are aware that the issue of
management is a major issue that is
simply pouring money in, which, as the NDP
answer, has not answered anything and in fact has led us deeper into debt and has been what has led us to the
need for restructuring in this
province. We do have a commitment to
the community college system. We do have a commitment to training within this province. We have also looked into the development of new college programming to programming
which is responsive to the needs of the
labour market.
There has been an opportunity to discuss
with employers what it is that employers
are looking for, what is the technological
need for employers, what is the greatest amount of employability for Manitobans so that in fact they will be
successful when they have spent that
time within the community college system.
Madam Chairperson, I think it is very
important that those people studying
within the community college system also develop a sense of internal satisfaction as well as
the belief that they will be able to
look ahead, and that they will be able to look
for employability. I respond to
the honourable member by saying not only
have we moved toward college governance, but I will remind her again that we have put more money
into community colleges and that we have
been looking at developing programs
which are very responsive and will lead to the issues of employment.
Going along with this, Madam Chairperson,
I have also spoken in this House over
the past several weeks about the development
of a provincial labour force strategy for
In addition, we also look forward to
signing a Canada‑Manitoba Labour
Force Development Agreement and within
that, we will also be looking to the partnerships within the community.
We will be looking at how we can co‑operate in terms of training with not only what the labour
market demands but with what students
demand as well.
This government through its development of
a labour market strategy, this
government through its move to a community college governance, this government with its
development of courses that are very
much more updated than previously has put thought into this.
The NDP has said that if you just pour more money in and run up the debt, keep the programs, keep the
status quo, do not do any restructuring,
do not do any further development, that
everything will be fine.
That has been the message that the NDP has
delivered in this House during the
Estimates process, and this government has said
that we will, in fact, provide a strategy and the strategy is one that is in the process of being developed
now. It is a strategy that will assist Manitobans; it is a strategy
that does not just talk about
maintaining the status quo for Manitobans.
As I said in the Estimates
process, those Manitobans in many cases were not able to complete the programs, were not able
to find jobs at the end of the programs,
so we looked at some of those programs that
were, in fact, reduced and the restructuring of the programs.
We looked at those programs, and we said
the employability is low and we found
that there was an attrition rate as well.
We are now looking to develop
programs within the community colleges
that are more responsive to Manitobans and also to employers. I put
forward to you again that we are looking at the issue of management.
In addition to management, we are also looking at responsiveness for Manitobans and assisting
Manitobans to stay in their programming
and also to help bring them a sense of
satisfaction.
We also have to acknowledge, in the
planning of a labour force, in the
planning of training and the planning for community colleges, that
So we have developed these new
programs. I know that we will be speaking about them in detail when we go
line by line looking at the community
colleges, looking at the planning of the
community colleges, looking at the staffing of the community colleges.
All of those issues, Madam Chairperson, will be very important when we look at college governance.
As I have acknowledged in this Chamber
already, the move to college governance
requires a trained staff. It requires
a trained administration and that
administration is in the process of
receiving the training that it needs, both the administrative training and the financial training, and that
staff also continues to need that kind
of training.
We want to make sure also at our community
colleges that our instructors are as up
to date as possible, that they have had the
opportunity to experience professional development and through that professional development, to offer the
highest quality of training for the
students within Manitoba. We certainly
support that issue, and we want our
students to graduate in a way that is in
sync with labour and business and industry that they will be moving into as well as the technology that we
can be providing through the community
colleges.
So we certainly have focused a great deal
of attention, as I have explained in the
process of discussing the college
governance implementation team, that we have an interdepartmental team which is looking at all the issues that
relate to movement to college
governance. There is a plan that is a
well laid out plan, and we are looking
at issues as they relate to instructors
and their agreements with the college.
We are also looking at the
courses, and we are looking at property.
We are looking at all the issues
to assist the community colleges within the
college governance structure.
So I think it is very important that this
government has a plan and this
government has worked according to this plan.
We developed the plan. We have moved according to the plan, and I think that it is a plan that Manitobans can
then begin to look at and say, this is a
government that has provided a plan. The other government had no strategy. The other government did not have any way to be responsive, but this
government has developed a plan. This government is being responsive to the
needs of Manitobans.
Through the community colleges, that is
one way in which we are proving our
particular interest in both the instructors and
also the students who will be studying.
We want to make the community
colleges attractive places. As I have
said in the last several weeks of
Estimates, we are working with communities to
make the course content that is offered at community colleges, very important to the areas in which people
are studying and that the community
colleges will become a very attractive option both to students and to parents.
We are working with high school guidance
counsellors, so that high school
guidance counsellors can assist students in the
transition and that community colleges become a very viable option.
I think that is a very important thing, because the colleges during the '80s were left with very
little. They were left with nothing. They were not a priority of the NDP government, and this government has begun to
make them a priority.
So I think that motion is absolutely
unfounded because this government has
shown that it is‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, I am
interrupting the proceedings.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
House
Business
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker,
we are quite prepared to waive private
members' hour to go back into Committee
of Supply if the government is agreeable.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive
private members' hour?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
That is agreed. We will waive
private members' hour. We are back into Supply. Madam Deputy Speaker, take the chair please.
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The Committee of Supply will now resume the consideration of the
Department of Rural Development.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* (1710)
The other area of concern that we will be
raising in Estimates is the changes to
the amendments to the assessment act,
Bill 20. The minister has
indicated that this is not going to
affect a farmer's right to appeal, but there are many farmers out there, farm organizations, who have expressed
concern with this. The questions are
asked as to, if this is not going to affect the
farmer's right to appeal, why are the changes even being made?
The other issue is the delay in
reassessment, and we cannot agree with
the minister that it is necessary to have a delay in reassessment.
We feel that there was a commitment made when Bill 79 was being presented that never again would
there be a delay in assessment. It would always happen in three‑year
periods, and I think that people
expected that to happen and we should go
forward with it. There are many
people that are concerned, many people
who want the assessment to go forward and cannot understand why this government has chosen to
delay that reassessment. So we will be raising those issues.
Also, we have to have some discussion on
the portioning and what is happening
with portioning and shifting of taxes‑‑the decrease in apportioning and the different
percentage of decrease for some classes
versus other classes. Farmers are having
to pick up additional education costs,
and I know that the minister will say
that is the local levy that is causing the extra taxation on farmers, but I think we have to
look at a way that‑‑how can
this be addressed?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
The intention of the legislation was that
the taxation for education would go on
farm buildings, on homes as it does in the
town, and that seems to make sense.
But, as is happening right now,
there is an additional tax being put on farmland, and we have to look at how this can be addressed so
that farmers will pay their fair share
of educational tax but not a
disproportionate amount of tax, which, I feel, is happening right now.
Another area that I would like‑‑there
is a concern with taxation on Crown
lands or lack of ability that municipalities
have to collect taxes on Crown land.
I would like to raise that issue
with the minister and see whether there is any way that we can resolve that problem because
municipalities, although they are
providing services to people who are living on Crown lands, do not have the ability‑‑now this
may not fall under Rural
Development. It may fall under
Crown lands, but I would like to talk
this through with the minister and see how we might be able to come to some resolve on this particular
problem.
One of the initiatives that this
government has taken, as the minister
outlined in comments, was the REDI program and the allocation of lottery funds that will support
the rural community. I attended the Hotel Association
meeting. It seemed to be very positive from the people within
the Hotel Association. It is helping their business and that is
good. I
have said earlier that I have difficulty with raising money only from lotteries. I have some problem with that. There have to be other initiatives, but if that is being done
by all governments‑‑and I
think that is something we just have to accept
that it is going to be a way of raising money.
I want to know, how much money is being
raised and what percentage of the money
that is raised is going back into the
rural communities? We need some
clarification of where the money is
going to be spent. How is the money
going to be allocated back to the
communities? Is it going back to the
communities that raised the money, or is
it being distributed right across the
province? If it is only going back into
those communities that have the video
lottery terminals, what about the rest of the
province? So we need some
clarification on what is happening and
what the benefit is to those communities.
I guess I want to know whether the
government will consider matching that
money. I do not believe that everything
that happened in the rural community
should happen from funds only raised in
the rural community. There has to be, as
I have said earlier, a commitment from
government to also stand up for rural
areas and, again, all of rural
An Honourable Member: Or Portage la Prairie.
Ms. Wowchuk: It does not end at
We hear about the water and sewer program,
the Southern Development Initiative,
that this government continues to praise
and that is good. That is good
for southern
If you want to call us the northern part
of the province, then I am not sure the
The decentralization program and Community
Futures are also a few areas of
concern. The minister talked about
Community Futures and the round table
program. I guess I am anxious to know what the next step is with the round
table and whether the process on round
tables has changed at all. Is the
funding the same as it was before for
round tables? Is there a change in funding?
What happens when the communities put a proposal on this round table? Is that the end? Is the government taking any initiative to go farther, because it is not
enough to say, well, yes, we have had a
round table meeting and this community has put
together a proposal and there has been money spent on it, but if the ideas do not go farther, then that is not
helping communities.
The minister talked about decentralization
and how positive it has been. I cannot completely agree with some of
his numbers. I do not know whether we are going to talk
about decentralization at this time or
whether we are going to talk about it
under the decentralization budget.
Estimates, we will not have very
much time at that time I do not think, as we will not have very much time in this area. I guess what I would like to know is, what has happened with
decentralization in this
department? How many jobs are really
moving out of Rural Development and
where are we going with decentralization?
I think there are only a couple of other
areas that I have concerns with. I think that one of them is the minister's
power as it relates to LGDs versus
municipalities, and who has the final
say and what is happening in those areas.
I mentioned this briefly to the
minister at some point during the Estimates.
I would just like some
clarification.
As I said, our major concern is Bill 20
and the reasoning behind bringing in
those amendments at this time and the concerns
that people are raising with us.
I think with that I will close
and let my colleague for the third opposition make his comments, and then perhaps we can get into more detail
in specific areas.
Thank you very much.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
* (1720)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those comments.
Does the critic for the second opposition party, the honourable member for St. Boniface, have an opening
statement?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Firstly, I would like to congratulate the minister on being promoted
to Rural Development. I say promoted because I think Rural
Development has just as much importance
as any other department here in the
Legislature. I also would like to
congratulate the appointment of our new
deputy minister and say thank you for the work that Dave Tomasson has done for the Department of
Rural Development. I am sure he will be
missed, but I am sure he will be available
for his help when required.
Also, I am pleased to have been given the
chance to be the critic of Rural
Development. Having come from a rural
area myself, you always have your roots
in the rural area. The minister will know that because I have
visited his constituency and have
enjoyed doing that. I have worked with
him co‑operatively, I think, and I
appreciate his efforts in helping me out
when I met those people.
I have visited many rural areas since I
was given the portfolio of critic for
Rural Development, and I will continue
after the session to visit the rural area, because it is always pleasant to go out to the rural communities,
and you are always welcome. You are always well received.
I will be very brief, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, because I know we have
several Estimates to go through yet, and I think all the Estimates that we have to go through are just
as important as any of the other
Estimates that are left to be dealt with.
I know we have just so many hours
to deal with.
I think we want to raise the issues that
have been raised by the member for
Again, like I said, I would be brief, and
I want to go into the details of the
Estimates. I will end my comments at
this time and look forward with positive
criticism‑‑[interjection]
Well, I think that is what we need, positive criticism for the rural areas, because like the member for Swan
River (Ms. Wowchuk) has mentioned, it
does not stop at the Perimeter Highway.
I think our interests are for all
Manitobans, and I think the interest of
all legislators here in this House should be for all Manitobans, and I look forward to dealing in
the Estimates with the minister.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable member for St. Boniface for his opening comments. Under
At this time, we invite the minister's
staff to join us at the table, and we
will ask the minister to introduce the staff
members present.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Thank
you very much, Mr. Deputy Chairperson
and members of the committee. I would
like to introduce to you our Acting Deputy Minister, Mr. David Tomasson. As I said, David is the Acting Deputy
Minister who will be moving on to
Northern and Native Affairs. Also
with us is Brian Johnston who is our
Chief of Financial Services for the
Department of Rural Development.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: At this time we will be dealing with Item 1.(b) Executive Support: (1) Salaries $368,600. Shall the
item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: I do not want to spend very much time on
this section. I just want to ask briefly on the increase of
staff. You have had an increase of 2.25‑‑am
I on the right line? I am just wondering, is that the proposed
assistant deputy minister? What are the
increases in staff there?
Mr. Derkach: As the member knows, this department formerly
was administered by a minister who had
joint responsibility for Northern and
Native Affairs and for Rural Development.
When the responsibilities were separated,
it meant that there would be some
additional staff because of a separate ministry for such things as your special executive
assistant and also some of your clerical
support.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am sorry, I just did not quite
understand. You are saying that your special assistant then
comes with the ministry. This does not include the new assistant
deputy minister that will be hired at
some point, and if it does not include
that, I am just wondering where that will show up in the lines?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this includes the
special executive support to the
minister, but it does not include the
deputy minister's component, or ADM's.
Ms. Wowchuk: My question then is, where in the budget will
we see the allocation of funds for the
new ADMs?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the ADMs show up in
two separate sections, one under 5.(a),
and that is the ADM for the Local
Government Services Division. Then in
section 6.(a), the other ADM is found
for the Rural Economic Development Division.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support: (1)
Salaries $368,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $94,400.
Mr. Gaudry: There is an increase in Other Expenditures of
some $13,000. What does that consist of?
Mr. Derkach:
Mr. Gaudry: You say it is going to be held in
Mr. Derkach: Well, the agenda has not been finalized, I
guess, but it is a ministerial
conference. Whether or not we will make available for the opposition the social
evening, I do not know. I do not even
know if one is planned. This is
something that is planned as a joint
effort between provinces across the country.
It is not usually done for the public or
members of opposition parties. It is usually confined to ministers only
and some support staff whom the minister
may choose to have there.
Ms. Wowchuk: Gee, I am disappointed, I cannot go to
that conference. Just on the conference, I wanted to ask
the minister, is this a new
function? Has this happened with
Rural Development, or is this a new
initiative that has been taken with
other provinces, and which provinces will be invited?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my understanding is
this is an annual event, that each year
some province in
Last year, it was in
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, maybe since we are not available to join
the ministers, maybe you could arrange
for golfing for the opposition.
* (1730)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item (b)(2) Other Expenditures $94,400‑‑pass.
Item (c) Brandon Office: (1) Salaries $100,600.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just on the Brandon Office, every time we do
these Estimates we get into the issue of
the value of that office. Again we see
the expenses, the cost of that going up.
I want to ask the minister his
feeling on that office, if he feels it is a
worthwhile investment, and in particular, has he considered moving that office into the government
building?
There is space in the provincial
building. It would be a saving rather than an increase in cost. Just on that, has the minister considered that type of move?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I certainly have
not considered moving the office into a
different location. At the present time it is located on
Western Manitoba finds that it is a long
distance away from
Now, from time to time ministers use the
office as well in meeting with groups,
in meeting with different organizations.
I intend to use the office much
more than I have in the past, because I
only had an opportunity to use it as Minister of Education and Training, at which time I did
use it on several occasions.
It was a good place for us to meet with
superintendents, school board members
who were not from
As of this time we have two positions
there, as you can see by the Estimate
line in front of you. Indeed, I think it
is a very worthwhile use of space. Just to give you an idea of some of the groups that have used it, I would like
to just list a few: the Manitoba Telephone System, Native
Affairs, MPIC, Lotteries Foundation,
Natural Resources, the Justice Department,
Manitoba Mediation Board, McKenzie Seeds, Manitoba Government Employees Association, Brandon District
Labour Council, the UMM, Manitoba
Pharmaceutical Association, the Assiniboine Community College, Brandon University, Brandon Economic
Development Board, Westman Multicultural
Council, Brandon Mental Health Centre,
Brandon General Hospital, Downtown Brandon Business Improvement Area, Prairie Forum on Rural Education,
Westman Recycling Council, as well as
the City of Brandon.
So, as you can see, there is a wide range
of communities and organizations who
have accessed the office, and I am hopeful that
we will continue to promote that office as, if you like, a seat of government or an office of government
outside of this Legislature.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just do not quite understand spending that
kind of money. I can see that the office is used, but I
think that those needs could be met
through a provincial building, through
the provincial office because there are staff there that deal with all of those departments. But since the minister feels that this is such a good investment and it is
being so well utilized, is he giving any
consideration to setting up an office similar to this in other parts of the province? If he considers it such a good investment, is it something that is
being considered in other parts of the
province?
Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess when
you are looking at the kind of financial
constraints that we as a province have,
you have to try and maximize the resources that
you have. Given that attitude, we
have determined that the two offices
that we have presently are probably as much as we can do at the present time.
The member for
We feel that with the two offices that we
have presently, we can reach out to a
large population of the province, maybe not
ideal, but certainly better than we have been able to in the past.
In the future, if the demand is there and if the resources are there, I am sure that we certainly could
look at the possibility of doing that.
My interest, of course, is to ensure that
we have a presence in rural
So, in that vein, I am interested in
proposals and in suggestions, if they
come from opposition or whoever, in terms of
trying to maximize our presence out there.
Mr. Gaudry: How long have you had this office in
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would have to
research that and get back to the
member, but I know it is at least two
years that we have had the cabinet office in
Mr. Gaudry: Do you feel, for those years that you have had
the office in
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess I would say
that we can always do more. Certainly, it is up to ministers of the government to ensure that when they are
travelling in rural
When the House is not sitting, I have to
tell you that it makes it much more easy
for us to access those offices and to use
them and to meet groups there.
One of the constraints, of
course, is when the Legislature is sitting for a long period of time it does not allow for us to be as
accessible to those offices as we would
like to be.
Personally, I have been in both offices,
in the Thompson office and in the
Mr. Gaudry: What rent do you pay for the building that you
are in now on 18th Street, if you have
space available in another building like
the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was saying?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as you know, that is
paid through Government Services, and I
will get that figure for you from
Government Services.
In terms of the kind of space it is: what we have is one boardroom; we have two offices, and a
reception area. It is not a big, elaborate office. It is one that is functional and one that is accessible to the public because
there is a large amount of traffic on
* (1740)
Mr. Gaudry: No, I expressed concern like the member for
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is certainly
something that I will take under
advisement. But let me just say that
when you have a cabinet office, per se,
you certainly want to locate it in an
area where it is fairly accessible to the public, not that it cannot be in a provincial
building. There are certainly‑‑the Thompson one is in
that building, but the office was
located where it is before I became the minister. Nevertheless, it is a government office. It is a cabinet office.
If you drive by that office you find that it catches your eye fairly quickly. It has the
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will
take the comments of the Liberal critic
under advisement, and we will leave it at that.
I have the information, while I am
speaking, about the cabinet office. It has been in
Mr. Edward Connery
(Portage la Prairie): Just for the edification of the two opposition members and
especially the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk), the NDP government used to
have, in the government building in Thompson, a cabinet office in there also, but they also provided free space
for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
and free secretarial space for the member
for Thompson which was not kosher by the rules. So just for your edification, to understand and [interjection]
Pardon? Well, the member for Thompson had an office in the
cabinet group of offices and had his own
space there, which is not kosher by the rules
where MLAs should have office space outside of government buildings.
But in the case of the NDP during their reign the member for Thompson had free office space and
free secretarial space in the government
offices.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item (c) Brandon Office: (1) Salaries
$100,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures, $30,000‑‑pass.
Item (d) Human Resource Management: (1) Salaries $156,000.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just one question on
the Activity Identification. The statement says, new and ongoing initiatives such as development of a Policy
and Procedure Manual, and an Affirmative
Action Program, among other things. I
want to ask the minister: What direction is the government going? This
Policy and Procedure Manual‑‑basically that is a staff
manual I take it, but on the affirmative
action, what is happening with
affirmative action in the Department of Rural Development? Is
there a plan in place?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Activity Identification it spells out that the ongoing
initiatives such as development of
Policy and Procedure Manual, a Performance Review and Development Program‑‑this is
done in conjunction with the Civil
Service Commission, and we are constantly, I guess, revising and reviewing the policies that we
have with regard to employees, the
workplace, affirmative action. We are
an affirmative action employer, and we
do not do it in isolation. We do it in
conjunction with the Civil Service Commission to ensure that any policies and procedures that
we have in place are going to conform
with the overall policies of The Civil Service
Act, and also that we are not different from what procedures and policies are in place in other departments.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification, there is not a
specific affirmative action policy that
applies to the Department of Rural
Development. It is a general
policy that applies, that is carried
through, because I see it here as an affirmative action program, but you are saying that it is not a
specific program related to Rural
Development.
Mr. Derkach: No, it is not Rural Development affirmative
action policy. It is one that is generic, if you like, for
all of government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(d) Human Resource Management: (1) Salaries $156,000‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $11,400‑‑pass.
(e) Financial and Administrative
Services: (1) Salaries $305,800‑‑pass.
(2) Other Expenditures $184,500. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: The Deputy Chairperson is going so fast that we
may end up missing one of these lines
here at that rate.
Just on Other Expenditures we end up
seeing a slight reduction of roughly
$5,000 which is not a great reduction, but
there seems to be a shift of money from one area to the other. You see a shift from Communication, down by
$20,000. We see a shift in Operating Grants, up $20,000. Can the minister give us some idea the amount of money is being spent? What is the
shift? Is there a change in the
structure of the department?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the shift that the
member refers to is the cost related to
putting on our annual UMM and MAUM
conventions. As members know, the
convention shifts from
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that will account for,
as I understand it, the reduction of
$20,000 because of a different location,
but is that money then allocated to other operations? Is that right? Do you just shift it back and forth from year
to year?
You are saying the municipal convention costs less. It has
gone down, but it has gone up in another area, so I do not quite understand what the money is then spent
for. If you have saved it on a municipal convention, what have
you spent the money on?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not one big
item that is causing the shift. It is such things, as I indicated, as the differential cost of hosting the banquets
for the UMM and MAUM conventions. There are some insurance costs that we as
a department have to pick up. There has been some shifting, or as you can see, some changes in terms of the
capital as you can see and that is for
computer software and computer hardware that has been purchased. So those are the kinds of shifts that you
can see.
They are not any one big item that is causing that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(e)(2) Other Expenditures, $184,500‑‑pass.
2. Municipal Board, Reviews and renders
decisions on municipal borrowing,
assessment, planning and other matters as
required by statute. (a) Salaries
$346,200.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the department deals
with municipal borrowing. I am asking for clarification here, is
this where municipalities then get their
approvals for spending? I am not quite sure what the municipal borrowing means.
* (1750)
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is the
Municipal Board. Its responsibilities, if you like, are quasi
judicial. They are mandated to sit to
hear applications or appeals and
referrals pursuant to the variety of statutes that we have in the province.
We have 22 members who are appointed by
the province to this board. Once again, their responsibility is to try
and deal with such appeals as may come
in from time to time from individuals
and groups regarding the statutes of the Legislature. More
specifically, I guess, with The Municipal Act or The Municipal Assessment Act and the other acts that we may
have under the jurisdiction of this
department.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am referring to the main Estimates where it
says, "Reviews and renders
decisions on municipal borrowing . . . ."
Again, I am wondering which borrowing does this board have jurisdiction over?
Mr. Derkach: Once again, from time to time municipalities
may require capital. Under the statutes it is this board that they would apply.
That is why I indicated in my comments in the beginning that the board does sit to hear
applications, appeals and so forth from
individuals or municipalities as they relate
under The Municipal Act, the assessment act or any of the other legislation that is the responsibility of
this department.
Ms. Wowchuk: On this borrowing, is this the board that when
a municipality wants to borrow a
substantial amount of money they have to
give approval before they can borrow for capital investment, or who gives the approval? Is this where the decision is made?
Mr. Derkach: The Municipal Board would be dealing
with borrowings, large borrowings if you
like, by municipalities for capital
purposes.
Ms. Wowchuk: If a municipality is borrowing money, does
this mean borrowing money against their
reserves or does it mean borrowing money
from a bank? If they are borrowing
against their reserves, is this also the
board that gives them approval to borrow
against their‑‑?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I understand it,
with regard to the reserves, that is not
handled by the Municipal Board. Municipal Board would authorize, or if you
like, hear application for capital
borrowings which could be debenture, for
that matter.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. (a) Salaries $346,200‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $64,700‑‑pass.
Resolution 115: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $410,900 for
Rural Development, Municipal Board for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1993‑‑pass.
Item 3. Surface Rights Board. Provides for the resolution of disputes in accordance with the Surface Rights
Act. (a) Salaries $71,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $28,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 116: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $99,000 for Rural
Development, Surface Rights Board for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 4. Provincial Planning. Provides technical and administrative support to the
Interdepartmental Planning Board and the
Provincial Land Use Committee of Cabinet, as well as administering the subdivision approval
process, (a) Salaries $362,900. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: There are several questions under this area
that I would like to ask the
minister. The first one is dealing with the provincial land use policy. I understand there has been a draft policy put in place, and it has been
sent out to municipalities for approval
or for comment on it. I would like to ask the minister, what is he proposing for
changes to provincial land use?
Mr. Derkach: Before I begin the response, I would like
to introduce Mr. Ed Sawatzky who is the
acting manager for the branch.
Let me say with regard to the question
asked that we have sent the policies out
to the various stakeholders, if you like,
for response. It is not a fait
accompli. We will certainly be waiting for a response to the policies that
were sent out.
The reason that the changes were made was
that they were put in place to reflect
or to ensure that the policies are more
positive towards development in our province, that they perhaps become less regulatory in character, and that
they can be more easily understood by
the people who use these policies, because
one of the complaints we have had over the last number of years is that sometimes as governments we lay
policies down which are difficult to
understand, cumbersome to use, and require sometimes a lawyer to interpret.
So we want to ensure that people, when
they have these policies before them,
are going to be able to understand them,
understand their intent, and we want to ensure that the whole concept of sustainable development will be
incorporated into the entire document. It is for that reason that we have tried
to come up with a draft that is going to
allow people to do some thinking about
whether or not this is what we as a province
should be doing in terms of our land use policies, and it gives them an opportunity to respond to those
policies. Later in the year we will be getting together in regions
with the various stakeholders and
formally addressing the whole issue of land use
policies and where we should be moving.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that this would be
less regulatory and would encourage more
development. Are there plans in place, with this land use policy, in this
proposal that will protect agriculture
land? Is it a move to get more
development? We all want development in
a rural area, but we also want to have
that land based for agriculture.
Is part of it to protect the
agriculture land base?
Mr. Derkach: From reading the policy it indeed has a
fairly significant emphasis on the
importance of protecting and enhancing
the agricultural land that we have in this province. It is still one of the greatest resources
that this province has, and I think
developing a land use policy without paying
extraordinary attention to agricultural land would be foolhardy.
It is for that reason that we want to
ensure that municipalities and other
stakeholder groups and individuals can
respond to the draft policies that have been circulated, and perhaps we have left something out or perhaps
we have overlooked something that needs
to be incorporated. It is for that
reason that we want to hear the
responses. Yes, we have put in
place the importance of agricultural
land in protecting it, but if there is
something else that needs to be added to it we are open to those suggestions.
* (1800)
Ms. Wowchuk: Where did the direction come from to change
this land use policy then? It is a rural land base that we are looking at, change of land use: Who was that was not happy with the present land use policy? Was it municipalities that were wanting to change? What initiated this new policy?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the member knows,
the existing policy has been in place
now for some time. I believe 1980 was the last revision to it.
Since that time, many things have changed,
in terms of our agriculture, in terms of
our renewable resources, in terms of our
use of water and our attitude towards the protection of our land and water.
There has been a tremendous amount of changing done to the landscape in terms of refacing it, if
you like, in some instances, and
development. It is for that reason that
we want to ensure that we upgrade and
reflect the changes that have been made
and also the new social and economic and, if you like, environmental and sustainable development
objectives that it seems everyone is
subscribing to.
It is really an upgrade, an update, of existing
policies. We set them out for people to comment on because
we want to make sure that we have hit
the mark, if you like, and that if there is
comment with regard to certain areas, we are going to be listening to the people. It is a partnership approach rather than a single‑focused sort of upper‑hand
approach by government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The time is now 6 p.m. I am interrupting the proceedings of the
committee. The Committee of Supply will resume consideration
at 8 p.m.
Mr. Connery: Could I ask a question before? Just a question on procedure for tonight.
I have been asked by the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to present the Order of the
Some Honourable Members: Sure.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it agreed by the committee that we will revert back if the honourable member is
not here? [Agreed]
The time is now 6 p.m. I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. The Committee of Supply will resume
consideration at 8 p.m. Thank you.
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Madam Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come
to order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the
Department of Education and Training.
Would the minister's staff please
enter the Chamber.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam
Chairperson‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Does the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines have leave to speak from
that chair, given the minister has been
sitting in his chair?
Mr. Downey: I will use my own.
Madam Chairperson: Okay.
I have recognized the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of
order, Madam Chairperson, we just had a
speaker from the Conservative Party
speak, and we would like the opposition to have the same right to speak.
Mr. Downey: On the same point of order, Madam Chairperson,
when the opposition get recognized, they
will have the same opportunity. I believe I have been recognized.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam Chairperson, the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) was clearly standing up to be
recognized. The Deputy Premier was not
in his chair. The government had just finished answering a
question that was put forward from
another member.
The opposition would like to continue
asking questions, and it is a debatable
motion in which the government in fact has put
up a speaker and the opposition would like to put up a speaker.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, on a point of order, I have
no objection to you recognizing the
member opposite, but I would think that
what we are seeing here today is a demonstration of a lot of nonsensical petty politics and not
really wanting to get on with the issue
of the event.
I would invite the opposition to be
recognized so that they can deal with
the issue in hand. I am prepared to
speak, not have the question put, but I
want to speak to this motion.
Madam Chairperson: On the honourable member for Thompson's
(Mr. Ashton) point of order, I was
determining initially whether there was
leave to recognize the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), given that the minister
was seated in his chair and has been
seated in that chair consistently throughout
Estimates, but I am now of the understanding that the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines has relinquished
his recognition of speaking to the
honourable member for Thompson to speak to the motion.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: I want to indicate first of all to the
member opposite that this is not a
question of petty politics. We are talking about the community college system of
this province that this government has
starved, has cut back. We are talking
about the fact that this government has
demonstrated today, by its own
incompetence, the fact that it views the government process obviously as a drop‑in centre, a
voluntary process; they drop by when
they feel like it.
I think the member opposite, the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey), might wish to talk
to some of his colleagues about that because
we are facing serious problems in this province, and we do not need a part‑time drop‑in
government to deal with them.
I want to say to the Deputy Premier that
he has to understand what this
government has been doing in terms of training, and he of all people should understand that because
if he had any input, which he obviously
has not, around the cabinet table, if he had
any input at all within this government beyond the fine‑sounding titles he has been given, I wonder if we
would be seeing the kind of cuts we have
seen in terms of the North, in terms of what has happened with KCC. We have seen the complete and absolute dismantling of the training that was put in
place in terms of the trades. It was completely wiped out last year by
this government. They talk about market‑driven
training. I want to talk about what my constituents in northern
They have been asking, when there is still
need for trades people in each and every
community in the North, why they cut
back on trades. They have been
asking with the future needs in terms of
whatever major developments will take place in the North, whether it be hydro or forestry, why
this government is cutting back in terms
of trades and training and instead has not
put anything in place in terms of substitutes. Those are serious questions.
That relates to the North.
* (1710)
Let us deal with
There is only one level of government that
is responsible for our community college
system. It is the provincial
government. It is run directly through
grants to that. As much as they are trying to change that now with the structure
they have put in place in terms of
governance, the bottom line is this is one area
that has always been a priority, a concern of the provincial government, Madam Chairperson. I say to you that this government has been failing and failing seriously in
terms of dealing with this.
I found it interesting, by the way, that
the Minister of Education in debate
prior to the vote that took place on the
point of order, went back to 1984 to trot out comments made eight years ago in defence of what her government
is doing. This is the same minister whom we had been critical
of in terms of not having information,
in terms of what her government is doing now,
in terms of delays that have taken place in getting those answers.
This minister all of a sudden trots out 1984, eight years ago.
I must say, Madam Chairperson, we have
seen this government stretch over a
little bit far backwards the last number of days and weeks in trying to say that somehow all
the problems of the province could be
blamed on the previous government. Let
us not forget one thing. They are the previous government. They were
elected in 1990. They were
elected in 1988. They have had four years.
We have seen their policies in four years
in terms of education. We have seen their policies in terms of
community colleges. Let them not blame previous governments for
their conscious decision to cut out
money from the community college system
last year. That was their decision. Let them not blame previous governments for their deliberate
policy of privatizing our college
system, our training system. That is not
the fault of a previous government. That is their responsibility, their responsibility alone.
So this government and this minister in
particular should be very careful with
the kind of statements that are put on the
record. I say to the minister who
one minute before had been professing
the need to talk to staff to get detailed information about decisions made in 1992, but had Hansard
in detail from 1984: Perhaps she should stop reading the Hansard
of 1984 and start dealing with 1992, the
province of Manitoba today.
To this government that seems totally in
chaos, inept, incompetent, I cannot
believe this, Madam Chairperson. I
have never in the years I have been in
the House seen a government lose a vote
such as the one they have lost today, be in the
position where they are attempting to stall any further votes, because I know that is what is taking
place. I do not know what is going on with that government.
We have the worst economic circumstances
in the last 60 years. You have to go back to the Great Depression
to find similar circumstances. We have seen a government that has been fiddling while
An Honourable Member: Nero.
Mr. Ashton: Nero, indeed.
Well, as the member for Broadway (Mr.
I mean, what happened to this
government? Madam Chairperson, they applauded greatly for the minister's
speech, but when it came to voting,
where were they? Where were the members
of the government, those brave
supporters of this Minister of Education,
or have we seen in this one afternoon the government itself, by its feet, vote to say no to the policies of
this Minister of Education? Because if it is not important enough for
government members to be in the House to
support their Minister of Education, we
will know in the opposition exactly when other
members who are here applaud the Minister of Education, how much that means.
I say this to the minister‑‑we have heard much of how she is a new minister‑‑I
would say she should be very careful
about her back after today, because I wonder what kind of support she really has in terms of her government
when they are not even here to support
her in Estimates‑‑not even here.
The first time, and I look to the dean of
the House, the member for
Indeed, in fact, the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr.
The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says they
were only voting on supporting the
Chair. I guess they do not have any
confidence in the Chair either, which is
for the second time.
But I digress, Madam Chairperson. I digress, because I know the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
is trying to draw me off track. He will have to explain later whom the government has lost faith in, because if they cannot
bring in their members for important
discussions dealing with the Department of
Education, the second largest department in government, the second largest department, if that department
cannot bring its members here, there is
a serious problem. There is
something rotten in the state of the
Conservative caucus, rotten to the core,
indeed.
The bottom line is this government is
rapidly losing the confidence of this
province. It is losing the confidence of
this Legislature, when it cannot even
support its Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), and it is rapidly losing the confidence of the people of the province. That is why this motion is very clear‑‑no ifs, no ands, no
buts. We are condemning the government for its policies in terms of
community colleges.
I know that is something that is supported
by both opposition parties, because I
know the Liberal Party has raised this issue
in Question Period, indeed, as we have.
There are fewer spots; there is
fewer money; there are fewer students at a time of record unemployment amongst young people,
upwards of 18 percent unemployment
amongst young people. This government
has cut back on the opportunities, and
this shell game has to stop.
The bottom line is this government has to
accept responsibility for matters within
its competence. There may be some question in terms of whether it has any
areas in terms of competence, but in
terms of administrative competence, a term
that is often referred to in this House.
The bottom line is it has to accept
responsibility for the community college
system. It has let this province
down. It has let the young people down, in particular, who
rely on community colleges in the North,
in the south and in the city for
opportunities for advancement. It
is letting the province down, because we
cannot be competitive if we cut back in terms of such things as I mentioned earlier, the trades
training, some of the kinds of things.
Let the minister not put on the record,
let the minister not say to this House,
that they are simply adjusting according to
the market. The bottom line is
the amount of resources that this
government has put in for community colleges has been cut $10 million.
It was cut the previous year.
It is not a question of cutting out one
program and adding another one
here. The minister obviously does not
understand. The bottom line is there are
fewer opportunities. There are fewer of the kinds of courses we need,
because this government has cut back in
terms of the resources available. That
is why we have used this motion to put
forward our clear condemnation of this
government. This motion deals with it
without doing what we can only do as an
opposition. We cannot add to
expenditures, we can only reduce, if we
move a motion in terms of other line items.
It sends a very clear signal to this
government, Madam Chairperson, that
their policies in education, particularly in
the area of community college education, are a complete and absolute failure. I wonder if perhaps the fact that this minister has been abandoned this afternoon has
something to do with the fact that maybe
there are some open minds, some clear
consciences over on the other‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
* (1720)
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Madam Chairperson, the member for Thompson has stood in his
place and indicated on four or five
occasions‑‑I have not exactly kept count‑‑somehow suggesting the government has abandoned the
Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey). There has been no vote on the
competence or anything else related to
the Minister of Education. There was
a vote on a point of order challenged to
the Chair, and that is all.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a
point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, let there be no doubt‑‑and
I am not referring to any specific
vote. It is very clear to anybody watching today, the complete chaos on the
behalf of that government and their
complete lack of support for the Minister of
Education. That is absolutely
clear.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ashton: I hear members in the Conservative benches howling. Indeed, they should howl at the incompetence
of a government that does not support
its Minister of Education, that does not support its Deputy Chairperson. This is a government whose days are ticking away.
Point of
Order
Mr. Ernst: Again I would like you to call to order the
member for Thompson. He is talking again about the support or the
lack thereof of the Minister of Education.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr. Ernst) does not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, we know, in the
opposition, the complete chaos in the
government ranks, and this is very clear on
this matter. In fact, we believe
that we should now give the members of
this House the opportunity to put very clearly
then‑‑if the Minister of Urban Affairs has any comments he
wishes to make, he can stand now. But, even better than that, we are quite prepared to put this matter to a vote
and to see how the members of the
Legislature will vote. We will see where
they stand on the Minister of Education.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I rise to speak today on
the resolution brought forward by the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
As has been indicated, through a point of
order, as to whether there is confidence
in the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) or whether there is not, has not been put to this Chamber.
The question that was put was to whether or not we would support the Speaker's Ruling as to
whether or not a read text or any form
of a read text could be used in responding to
questions.
Madam Chairperson, I call that a
nonsubstantive matter. I call it playing petty politics, when the
public of
I say shame on them, shame on them. I say particularly shame for the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen),
and I am not going to do a personal
attack on any individual, but I say shame on her as an elected member to try and play politics
with an educational institution known as
the community college when she sits in the
comfortable pew at the University of Manitoba, and has never raised a question dealing with the activities
that are taking place in that
jurisdiction.
I think that she is very selective in her
criticism.
Point of
Order
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): The honourable member, in the guise of not making a personal attack, has
personally attacked me on the grounds of
not having asked questions about the
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Wolseley does
not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, if the member took it as
a personal attack, I apologize. It was not meant to be a personal attack.
What I said was: I would expect the same kind of scrutiny
of the
Ms. Friesen: That is not what you said.
Mr. Downey: Okay, I apologize if she took out of context
what I said previously.
What I am saying is, I would expect‑‑will
she bring the same kind of a resolution
forward dealing with the University of
Manitoba? Is this a selective
approach by the opposition party to
bring forward an attack on what I consider very credible, well‑dedicated people who are running
our community college system?
Madam Chairperson, I take an offence to
the approach from the member for
Wolseley on those well‑meaning people that are out there running our community colleges and that
are bringing forward, in consultation
with the minister, policies to equip our
young people to face the kinds of challenges that this society demands of them and will demand of them.
I believe that there are responsible
activities being carried out, and there
is full confidence in this minister and the staff of people who are working at our community
colleges. I believe that they are really coming into the
responsible areas that is being demanded
of them through the college governance system that is being introduced. There is a crying need out there, Madam Chairperson, for change.
Point of
Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (
It points the finger of responsibility at
the Minister of Education‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable government House leader on the same point of order.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): If you were listening carefully, Madam Chairperson, like
I know you were, as I was, to the point
of order, the member says we were not casting
aspersion on those delivering educational services.
What she suggested in that statement was
that really where she was casting
aspersion was on the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), and that is totally against the
rules, Madam Chairperson. The very essence of the motion is casting aspersion, and I would ask you to call the
member to attention. That is against the
rules of the House.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Downey: Well, again, the members of the opposition
cannot have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways, and that appears to be what they are doing.
The real issue here is the petty politics
of the opposition and how they have
dealt with today's activities in Estimates.
They, first of all, have complained about the manner in which the minister has responded. I would have thought that if there was a concern to how the answers were coming
forward or the content of the answers,
it would have been something of substance.
Really, what we get down to is
one of operations of the committee, as to
how the person responded.
Well, I remind the members opposite, and I
am sure if my colleague from Lakeside
(Mr. Enns) was here, as many members of
this House, when you impose the wish of this Legislature, either party from opposition and/or from government,
you had better be prepared to live with
the long‑term implications of that
precedent that you have set or that request that you have put forward to this committee.
That has been I think somewhat relaxed by
the government as we have proceeded with
a lot of new members in this House, that
if you were to go strictly to the rule book and to say that no one shall read their questions or no one
shall read their speeches or no one
should read whatever, we have been a little
bit more lax as a House in that regard to help some of the new members.
But today we saw the opposition members for their own little‑‑because I can tell you
why, Madam Chairperson. I can tell you why.
They have not been able to lay a glove on
this Minister of Education, who is
demonstrating her competence, her full,
complete answers on issues of anything that has been brought forward.
They have not been able to touch it.
In fact, after the minister
finished her comments at five o'clock today, I would not be surprised if they will want to
introduce a motion that she now has to
read from a prepared text after the lecture that she has given them as to what she is doing in her
department or doing in this government
or doing on behalf of the community colleges
of this province and the young people of this province. I would
think tomorrow they will feel that something is wrong and they will want her to go back to that.
I was here at the beginning of this, what
I would call, petty political debate,
brought forward from whom? None other
than the member for Dauphin, Madam
Chairperson, who if one were to go
through his record of asking and answering questions on his performance in this House, one could not find
enough rules to make him respond in a
responsible manner. I do not want to
even get into that, but it is important
that we point out the kind of game
playing that we saw here today, not of substance, but of petty politics.
As I said earlier and I want to re‑emphasize,
the public are fed up with it. They are fed up to the teeth with the kind
of performance we saw from the
opposition party here today. If there is one thing‑‑yes, the
Liberal and the New Democratic Party‑‑if
there is one thing I hear from the constituents that I represent day after day after day is, why do
you not get on with getting the
improvements of this province and why do you not put the petty politics aside?
* (1730)
Well, the answer has to be pretty clear,
is that when they cannot get at any
matter of substance to the minister, they
cannot get into any matter of substance with the Department of Education, they come forward and criticize
the minister because she works from a
prepared answer. Well, goodness sakes
alive, what a terrible sin that we have
seen committed in this Legislature when
we have tremendous difficulties out there
dealing with keeping this country together, and we have a minister away dealing with that, dealing with
issues.
I was in northern
I tell you, these are the kinds of things
that the members of the New Democratic
Party will have to support and defend when
they go to the by‑election, when the Liberals go to the by‑election, and say our No. 1 plank in
our platform is that we will not allow
the government members to read from a prepared
text in the Legislature. That is
our No. 1 plank; that is what we
support.
Oh, that is really going to turn the
cranks of the electorate. The Liberal Party, that will be their plank
as well.
That is the kind of foolishness that people are fed up with.
That is exactly what we saw performed here in the Legislature today, and I can tell you the
members of the opposition will have to
explain it when they stand on their
platform in their debates and say, our No. 1 issue is that we do not want the Minister of Education reading
from a prepared text when she is answering
a question in committee. My
goodness sakes. My goodness sakes.
The point is that I believe, if I observed
correctly, that the minister was not
reading from a prepared text of any way,
shape or form. I know what was
taking place, probably some notes being
taken. I have done it, I have seen
members opposite do it when they were in
ministry, but the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) would never be involved in that because he never got that far.
Again, the point is, what I think the minister was doing was making a note from what staff had told
her and then responded to the
questions. The point is the minister
quite often‑‑and it has been
a normal practice in opening statements to work from prepared text. During the Estimates process, notes are
made, comments are made from those
notes, and I can tell you I think we
have an excellent Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
Anyone who is as prepared and thorough as
she is to make sure that all issues and
subject matter are covered, I want to
compliment. I do not want to
stand in the Legislature and vote
against that kind of performance.
I believe what our education
system needs is more of that kind of thoroughness and concern and consideration and direction and leadership
from a responsible person like
that. I do not think they should be
condemned, and that is what the
opposition condemned today is efficiency,
thoroughness in the education system.
I say, shame on them.
Now, let us deal a little bit more with
the community colleges, because I really
have not heard, and I would appreciate
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) really substantiating the need for the resolution that she brought
forward. I cannot for the life of me see why she would condemn this
government in that area when, in fact,
we have increased the program funding for the
community colleges.
An Honourable Member: No, you have not.
Mr. Downey: Yes, we have.
What we have done, we have increased
the programming by over $300,000 and, yes, we have done something that the member for Wolseley adamantly
opposes because she is part of that
system, is the administrative side has been probably streamlined a little bit, running a little
more efficiently.
You see, that is where the New Democrats
and the Liberals fall apart from the
Conservative Party. Conservative
Party believe that the taxpayers should
not be taxed more to get more
services. What we believe is
streamlining and redirecting the monies
towards programming. That is what we have
done. We have demonstrated and can demonstrate many times
over the improved efficiencies in the
system. I again understand why the
member for Wolseley is upset with that,
because when she joined the New
Democratic Party‑‑I do not know how long she has been a
New Democrat, but she did not do her
research very well as to some of the
past practices of the New Democratic Party.
I do not know why she would sign up with a
government that would fritter $27
million away in
I belong to the federal Tory party, yes I
do, certainly I do, and I do not mind
admitting it. I do not mind admitting I
belong to the federal Tory party.
[interjection] Pardon me?
Mr. Ashton: You have become an endangered species. Some of your
people have problems admitting to it, and some of them . . . .
Mr. Downey: I believe, Madam Chairperson, that they are
trying to get me off the subject matter
of which I am trying to debate here.
The bottom line is that today's
performance truly demonstrates how
really serious this opposition party really is,
it really does. They have not been
able to lay a glove on the Department of
Education. They have not had one line in
any newspaper as to the Estimates
process.
In fact, I just want to speak about the
Estimates process for a minute. I believe the objective of the opposition has
now arrived to the day where we are
going to burn up 240 hours, regardless
of questions, just the objective now within this House is to use up 240 hours. It does not matter what questions we ask.
Oh, it matters how the minister responds. We do not want the minister working from notes.
The issue is, when are we going to get on
to something of substance from the
members opposite? The objectives,
Madam Chairperson, have to get back to
matters of substance and not on the
absolute use of 240 hours.
So I have a really difficult time with
what I saw here today. I will challenge the member for Wolseley as I
do the other members of the opposition
party to pay more attention to the
substance of the answers than how the answers are prepared and responded to. I hope that would be the issue that we
would be dealing with. I would hope they would deal with the whole area of the questions which are developed and
whether they get the answer or whether
they do not. If they do not get the answer, they have every right to object, but
if they get the answer, I think is an
important point.
The absolute use of 240 hours for the
exercise of Estimates is established by
an agreement of some time ago. I think
that, rather than just for the sake of
using up time and, again, what I would
say to some degree, not using the taxpayers' money wisely in this process, that should be reconsidered
by this House. I think that we could be well advised to look
at reviewing that. It seems to me that
we get into situations like today, and we are
dealing with procedure rather than what we are dealing with as far as substance. If we cannot deal with substance, then
we really do not have anything to deal
with.
So let us get on and pass the
Estimates. That is what we are sent here for. Again, I hate to go back to this point, but
if you did a survey today as to what
they expect of government and
opposition, the first thing they want us to do is to deal responsibly with the issues that are out
there, not as to whether or not a
minister responds from notes that happen to be taken from her departmental response. I think that the minister still has every ability to do it one way or the
other and has performed very well in all
roles as the Minister of Education.
* (1740)
Madam Chairperson, where do we go from
here in the Estimate process? Where do we go from here as members of the
Legislature and members of this
committee? Are the members of the
opposition going to get the vote on this
particular resolution that we are
dealing with? Are they going to
want to vote against the government,
saying that we have done a bad job?
Where is the evidence that supports the
resolution from the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen)? She, as a partisan
member, stood in her place and brought
forward this resolution. It is a resolution that was concocted by a partisan
political party. Where is the evidence
coming from‑‑groups of students, from teachers, from the industry out there who are
depending on these young people who are
going to be educated to fulfill the needs of
industry?
Where are those people whom she is
representing in the resolution that she
has brought forward? Does she have
any? Does the New Democratic Party have
a list of people who support the
resolution that she brought forward, or is she doing it and the New Democratic Party doing it surely as a
partisan political maneuver to try and
embarrass the government? Is it not a
fair question to ask of the member? Is it solely based on her political partisan approach or is it based on
substance?
It is not based on any substance. Madam Chairperson, I think, and I say this again, I do not believe
it is based on any substance. I believe it is based on political partisan
politics of which the public have asked
us to quit playing in this House, to get
on with the issues of substance and quit playing the political games that we are seeing here
today.
The member has not laid any basis. The member in debate should lay a basis before she advances this
kind of a concept, this kind of an
idea. I, quite frankly, cannot see why
this resolution is delaying, and has
been brought forward to delay, the
debate of this House. That is really
what it is doing. It is delaying getting on with it. I would challenge her to get a list of teachers in the system at ACC, and
give us evidence that the system is not
working. I challenge her to get a group
of business people who are depending on
these people for the need to fulfill
jobs for them, but that is not there.
There is not anything of any
substance there. It is a game, political partisanship, petty politics that is being
played by the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen). Of all members from this
House, she is the last one that I would
have thought would have got caught up in
this kind of games playing.
I thought probably as a member of an
educational organization, as she is part
of, that she would have more confidence
in the people involved in the community colleges, but this is demonstrating, I believe, a lack in
the leadership at our community colleges
and the teachers that are performing that
activity. That is really what I
think this is, a true reflection on
those people who are involved in program delivery and leadership of those facilities.
This is not what I would have expected
from the member for Wolseley. What I do have confidence in, though, is the
close communication link that the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has,
that the department has, who are responsible for the programs, that are‑‑[interjection]
Madam Chairperson, I cannot help but put
this on the record, what the member for
Well, in that comment, she is actually
saying that this is what it is all
about, that they were filibustering the Estimates of the Department of Education. That is really an admission of what their purpose really is.
Point of
Order
Ms. Barrett: What I stated, Madam Chairperson, to the
Minister of Northern Affairs is that he
is filibustering now like his government
filibustered in the Health Estimates, refusing to deal with the issues.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Downey: I am now more astonished than ever as to
the admission of the New Democratic
Party as to what their strategy was
today. Again, the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen) to fall into that trap of
her own party, to get caught up in a
filibuster, to waste time on the Department of Education Estimates, Madam Chairperson, for her to get
caught up in this, I am astounded by
it. I am disappointed in that kind of
an approach.
I, Madam Chairperson, have not been known
to be one to filibuster in this
House. I want to make that absolutely
clear, I want to make that absolutely
clear that I hope that the contribution‑‑
An Honourable Member: Perfectly clear.
Mr. Downey: Well, if the members would sooner I make
it perfectly clear, then I will take a
few minutes to do so.
Madam Chairperson, the point is that we
have been sent to this Legislative
Assembly as members to deal responsibly with
issues of the day. We have
serious issues. We had an international recession. We have a young group of people out in our society who are looking for, not only
governments, but opposition members as
well to come forward with constructive
ideas. I have not heard a lot of
them.
What I heard today was just a resolution
condemning the government which did not
have any substantive backing to it but,
again, brought forward on a partisan political approach from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). What we saw was a gamesmanship by the House leader of the
opposition in saying that the opposition
parties, both of them, were going to vote against the member working from notes that were in
communication from her staff to this
House, something that has been here from the
beginning of the Legislature, I am sure. [interjection]
I am not reflecting on a ruling of the
House. I am just merely stating a matter of fact, and I am not
reflecting on the decision.
I will complete my comments, Madam
Chairperson, by saying that is what the
public is fed up with. They are fed up
with it to the teeth. They are fed up by saying, you, as elected
people, come and deal with the matters
of unemployment, deal with the matters
of opportunity in this province, and get on with it; quit your bickering. That, today, was demonstrated as to how
serious the opposition party is.
I invite them to go to the door when they
are going to the by‑election and
saying, our big issue is, the Minister of
Education worked from notes in the answering of questions. We did
not mind the answers, mind you. The
answers were okay, but we did not like
the fact that she was giving us a complete
answer. We wanted less than
complete information. I cannot understand, Madam Chairperson. Maybe if they do not want to go to the doors, we will give that message for
them. I wonder if that would be appropriate, if that is the
issue of which they want us to deal
with.
Well, I am not going to make it any more
petty by continuing to talk. I think there is a message here for the
members opposite. What you have enforced today, be prepared to
live with if you ever get to government,
but be prepared to have your members,
when they are delivering something in this House, that someday somebody may rise and question as to
whether they should be working from a
prepared text.
I do not want it prepared, and my
colleague was not working from a
prepared text; the context of which you brought it forward is such.
Be prepared to live with that if someday somebody wants to enforce that on your members. What you have asked for today, you may well have to live with tomorrow, and
that is something that one always has to
be regarded.
Madam Chairperson, I totally reject the
resolution from the member for Wolseley,
who I thought would have not been involved
in this kind of petty political playing.
Thank you.
* (1750)
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, it is a pleasure to stand
and rise‑‑I do not know
whether 10 minutes will do justice to what I
have heard over the last hour. I
guess what is most apparent is the
orchestration that is going on, when I look at the opposition House leaders, when one realizes that they
feel like they have something going.
It is the first time in almost a year when
these two members talk and they are
happy and they are sitting with each other,
because they have, they think, the government on the run. You
know, it happens once a session, and it happened today. It is
the first time this session. They
are sitting together. They are smiling because they have the government
on the run.
What do they have the government on the
run on? They have the Minister of Education, they caught her
reading a text. That is what they have the government on the run
on.
There have been questions in this House
day in and day out on economic matters
from the revitalized member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) who finally has asked more questions in the last three weeks than he has in five years in this
House.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: What we caught the government is once
again demonstrating that they do not
have confidence in the person that sits
in the Chair.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Manness: I rise on a point of order. No, I rise up on speaking, because the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) did not read from a
prepared text.
An Honourable Member: You were not even here.
Mr. Manness: No, but I listened to my colleagues. You see, we
are a united team and when my colleagues tell me that she did not read from a prepared text, she did not read
from a prepared text, and it is just
that simple.
It is not as simple as watching the House
leaders opposite believing they have the
government on the run, so much so that
the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) calls us drop‑in membership, or the drop‑in government.
This government has been in place now for
four years and 11 days, and through that
period of time, through two years of
minority and two years of majority, slightly, this government has never lost a substantive motion.
An Honourable Member: You just lost one.
Mr. Manness: I said a substantive motion. Yes, and there are going to be those days where the Liberals and
the NDP come together again and embrace
each other; it will not happen that much
but it will happen, of course, on a Monday or a Tuesday. It
will happen, of course, on a day when the executive benches do not appear to be that full and then they will
come together and they will
embrace. They will start approximately
1:30 in the afternoon. They will come together and they will say,
hey, this is our chance. Today is the day, let us embarrass the government.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who has not laid one glove on the Premier in four years,
he is going to sit in his place and he
is going to smile and he is going to grin
because he figures today he may be going to cash one in and today is going to be the big day.
You know, Madam Chairperson, today was the
big day. We lost 24 to 25, and we lost because the members
opposite accused our Minister of
Education of reading from a prepared text.
For that they want us to
resign. For that they want us to go to
the people. For that they want to be able to say that we
cannot govern.
I am interested to know, and I will be
watching how long this new embrace
between the Liberals and the NDP will last.
How long? Will it be gone by eight o'clock
tonight? Maybe it will not. Maybe it will last till midnight, but like
Cinderella will be home at midnight, I
can tell you this embrace, this new
affection, will be over. It will
be over before the end of this week.
An Honourable Member: When are we going to be allowed to vote
on it?
Mr. Manness: Well, the member says now, when are we going
to allow a vote? I think that this is such a stimulating
debate, we may want to keep this
up. We will have to caucus this, will
we not?
I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who has not had a chance to debate an issue now for at
least three days, would love to get into
this debate.
Madam Chairperson, more importantly than
that, the motion of condemnation as to
the government's giving or caring towards
community colleges, I have sat on Treasury Board through the development of five budgets, and I can tell‑‑[interjection]
I hear a member say, I am the one. I do not know what he means by that, but I can tell you we spend a
considerable time, not only on all
educational matters, but certainly on the community colleges.
I want to tell you what we inherited. We inherited in the community colleges at least a dozen if not 20
courses where the number of enrollments
was either between a half dozen or a dozen
for a whole session, necessitating still a full collection of course instructors. We inherited course instruction in areas where there was not a demand, where the
market said‑‑and the members
opposite said, we are in love with the free market. No. I
am certainly not in love with the free market.
I can tell you there were courses being
perpetuated in the community colleges
that had been there for 30 years, and yet
there were graduates who were leaving those courses today and out of 10 or 20 of them, maybe two or three could
get jobs.
An Honourable Member: A 90 percent success rate.
Mr. Manness: Oh, the member says 90 percent. Of course, he
takes the global success rate, but we are talking specifically now about a dozen courses, whereas the government
before us did not have the courage
because, of course, all they did was go to
the banker and ask for more money to perpetuate these courses.
Finally, a government came along and a
minister came along, the former minister
and now our new minister said, times are
changed. There is tremendous
demand in aerospace, and we should begin
to move our resources into some engineering courses, into some management courses, some advanced
management courses. We asked the Minister of Education, and the
Treasury Board said, well, what should
we do? Should we just add on add on, add
on, or should we do some evaluations? Should we do some removal of those courses that are no longer demanded by
the market?
You know what we did? We took out some courses. You know,
Madam Chairperson, what we did?
Yes, we pulled out a couple
million dollars, and it was a tough year in '91‑92. This year,
'92‑93, we are reinstituting courses that the marketplace
wants, and I say courses that society
needs if we are going to maintain our
standard of living. That is the decision
behind the decisions made with respect
to community colleges.
Yet the members opposite sit there in glee
because they won one 24 to 25, but what
did they win? Do they care about
the community colleges? Do they care about restructuring? Do they
care about training for tomorrow for wealth creation? They do
not care one bit.
All they care about, as the Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being 6 p.m., I am interrupting
the proceedings. This committee will
reconvene at 8 p.m. this evening.