LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
May 26, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Edward A. Kostecki, Robert Thompson, Joan Wallace and others requesting the
government consider reviewing the funding of the
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Wayne Johnson, Florence MacCollum, Tanis Suitters and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year
moratorium on the closure of the Human Resources
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the 68th
Annual Report of the
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Economic
Growth
Average
Weekly Incomes
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in 1990, this government was 10
out of 10 in terms of average weekly earnings in
I would like to ask the Premier about the
impact of this decline and our status of weekly earnings being either ninth or
10th. What result has there been from
this decline in weekly earnings? What
has been the result of job loss and economic activity in the
* (1335)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): The question by the Leader of the Opposition
gives me an opportunity to talk about attitude and approach to a topic such as
this.
Of course, we all know that the master of
gloom and doom over there, the Leader of the Opposition, always takes the
negative side. He always takes the most
negative point of view. What he would
find very interesting, I am sure, is the statistics that were published
recently that said that Manitobans on a per family income basis, after taxes,
rank fourth best in the nation, next only to
The reason is that this government has
been concentrating on keeping their costs down, that for five straight budgets,
this government has not raised any major taxes in this province, and as a
result, Manitobans are actually better off today than they have been in the
past because of the fact that we take less away from them of their
earnings. As a result, they rank fourth
best in the nation in terms of what they have for buying power, for supporting
their families and for quality of life‑‑fourth best in the country,
Mr. Speaker.
Employment
Statistics
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Well, Mr. Speaker, we had the last place
results of gross domestic product last year which measures all economic
activity. Our dropout in our labour
force was twice the national average.
Our poverty rate is now the highest in this country, and the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) last week told us in this House that this is a deliberate
economic strategy of the provincial government to lower incomes, to lower
purchasing power, and that this, in turn, would result in greater economic
opportunity.
I would like to ask the Premier why we
have 17,000 fewer people working today than we did 12 months ago, and are those
17,000 people better off, as the Premier suggested? Maybe these results are only positive in
Tuxedo because in the rest of the province, we are getting greater unemployment
and less purchasing power with the decline in average income.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we know that the politics of envy
and jealousy that are preached by the Leader of the Opposition are the kinds of
things and the attitude that he and his New Democratic colleagues enjoy. They always want to preach that kind of thing
and tear down anybody who has been successful in business or has been
successful in opportunities in this province.
But, Mr. Speaker, the figures that I was
talking about are not relative to any one district or any one
constituency. They say that the average
per family income after taxes in this province, the
When he asks about job losses in this
country, then he should perhaps do a little bit of reading and research to find
out what is going on in other provinces.
He should perhaps find out why there were 260,000 jobs lost in NDP
Ontario. That might give him some clue
as to what is happening in the whole world on an economic front. It might give him some idea that there is a
recession that has affected, not only this province, not only this nation, but
indeed the entire world. That is why
260,000 people fewer are employed in the
I can also tell him that the things that
this government has been doing have been to lessen the burden on people so that
individual families in
* (1340)
Average
Weekly Incomes
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): We are not talking about envy here, Mr.
Speaker. We are talking about equal
opportunities. We are talking about the
58,000 people that do not have jobs. We
are talking about the thousands of people who are on social assistance. We are talking about the aspirations of our
young people and the opportunities for our young people. That is the question
before us.
The Premier has mentioned average weekly
earnings. He knows that his comparisons
are wrong in that when everybody is included in the labour income numbers,
I would ask the Premier: In light of the fact that the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) said last week that it is a deliberate strategy of the
government to lower incomes as a way of being competitive and creating jobs, in
light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are 10 out of 10 two years ago, nine
out of 10 last year, and now we have had a decline in average income for
families, what is the impact on the 17,000 who are unemployed and the 55,000
who are unemployed in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Firstly, I reject categorically the comments
that he alleges were made by the Minister of Finance. As usual, Mr. Speaker, he
is misrepresenting the facts. The Leader
of the Opposition does not understand that whereas incomes may have gone up
more in other provinces, so did their taxes, and the taxes not only took away
the increase but took away more of the increase.
When New Democrats say that they want to
have people earning more money, that is so that they can tax away more
money. That is exactly what has happened
in provinces throughout this country. As
a result, in this province, since we did not increase major taxes‑‑in
fact, we have consistently been selectively reducing taxes‑‑people
are still better off, that after taxes on a per family basis, we rank fourth
best in the nation because we have not been taking away money by way of
punitive taxes that New Democrats and other administrations in this country
have.
Economic
Growth
Government
Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance. On Friday next,
Statistics Canada will release the first quarter estimates of economic growth
for
Mr. Speaker, we are in a double‑dip
recession, largely because of the lack of consumer demand which is the result
of high unemployment and fear of unemployment.
My question then to this Minister of
Finance: When will this government do
something to fight the recession and, most specifically, when will this
government do something to stimulate economic demand in this province?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am
well aware that the Conference Board will be coming out with their spring
forecast, indeed, I am led to believe in a formal fashion tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member and
indeed all members of this House and all people in this province that
Municipal
Public Works Programs
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is going to be below
the forecast of this Minister of Finance.
Given that many municipalities are unable
to finance required public infrastructure, and given the prospect of continuing
high levels of unemployment in this province, would this government now finally
look seriously at establishing an incentive program for municipalities to
encourage them to step up their public works program and put people to work in
producing useful and needed projects‑‑bridges, streets, sewer water
systems, et cetera?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there is
so much to rebut in the member's preamble.
Firstly, let me tell him that I am led to believe that the Canadian
forecast of growth is going to be dropped from 2.2 down to a level of around 1
percent, so I can say, he challenges this government for having missed the mark
on its forecast with respect to the '92 growth rate, but I am here to tell you,
we are probably closer to the forecast than any province in
Mr. Speaker, with respect to
infrastructure renewal, there is only one provincial government in
Now, if the member wants to talk about the
Southern Development Initiative, if he wants to talk about the REDI program, if
he wants to talk about the $5‑million commitment to the City of
* (1345)
Government
Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): The Conference Board in
He talks about creating a better business
climate, but business cannot sell all of its current output. So what we need to look at is the demand side
and not the supply side of the equation.
When are we going to stimulate demand in this economy?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): A full response to
that question was provided by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) in response to
the question put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility, we
believe, to fight this recession is to keep taxes down and also to provide more
disposable income to the families of this province. Over our budgets, five of them accumulative,
Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the
member, we also have done everything we could as a government within the
restraint of the revenues that are coming down to us, not at the rate of 8 or
10 percent, as the former government had, but in the area of 1 or 2 percent.
We are doing everything we can to maintain
the expenditures on the capital side, the job‑creation areas, in $300
million in this present budget, $100 million in Highways alone, compared to
every other province in western
Our government is doing many of the things
that the member opposite would want us to do; that is, to maintain the level of
expenditure and capital, to maintain the infrastructure so badly needed in the
city and indeed in the province as a whole.
Economic
Growth
Employment
Statistics
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, sometimes you get so far down,
every way seems like up. I would like to
tell the Finance minister that he is correct.
The other thing though that has happened,
Mr. Speaker, is that the employment growth in this province dropped by 2.4
percent last year, and the Conference Board is now predicting that it will drop
a further 2 percent, two full percentage points. I would like to ask the Finance minister why.
* (1350)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as one
employer in the province, but certainly not as the only employer in the
province, maybe the member would like to ask that question indeed of the
employing companies and industries in our province. Maybe he would like to ask them whether or
not the government of
If he had the courage to ask the business
community, the people who for the most part create the jobs in this province,
he would be told in no uncertain terms, Mr. Speaker, that the course and the
path being followed by this government is the only path that can be
followed. It is the only one, given the
fact that government no longer has the capacity to go and borrow, in an
unlimited fashion, money.
Now, the member says there is a $500
million deficit, Mr. Speaker. The
reality is that is equivalent‑‑it is a $300 million deficit, but
indeed the $500 million that he talks about is basically the interest on the
borrowings, on the debt that he accomplished and his members accomplished when
they were in government.
So I say to the member that when he says
why, I think it would be better that he put that question to the major
employers of this province, the business community, and they will tell him it
is because we are in a recession. It is
because the
Mr. Alcock: If we are coming out of the recession, why
have we lost 15,000 jobs in the first quarter of this year, and why is
employment in this province predicted to drop another 2 percent?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. There is major restructuring going on in
industry. There is major competitiveness
coming to a point where, indeed, production is being maintained at levels
necessitating in some cases fewer employees.
That is part of the restructuring that is taking place.
It is unfortunate when one looks at the
impact on employment numbers, but that is obviously one of the results of the
restructuring that has taken place to put our firms on a competitive footing
vis‑a‑vis other jurisdictions in a North American context.
Mr. Speaker, the other solution, of
course, was to follow what the member opposite would have us do, and that was
to build these massive walls at the border and try to supply only ourselves
under the belief that because we were Canadian or Manitoban, somebody outside
of this jurisdiction would buy our goods because we were nice people.
The reality is, it does not work that
way. You either produce a product that
is competitive, or indeed you do not produce at all.
Retail
Sales Tax
Statistics
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Finance minister
could share with us his retail sales tax increases for the first quarter.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I do
not have those numbers with me at this point in time. I am prepared to share that information with
the member, and I will report to the House this week.
Trucking
Industry
Operating
Authority
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, motor
carriers' operating authorities are privileges given by the province to
legitimate trucking companies in this province.
Since at least 1990, a
My question is for the Minister of
Highways and Transportation. Why has
this minister allowed this illegal practice to continue, costing
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, we have the Motor Transport
Board that adjudicates the licences and authorities basically that are issued
in this province, and I have to indicate my strong support for the chairman of
the Motor Transport Board who has done a very capable job for many years.
If there is a specific issue that the
member wishes to address, I certainly would welcome the particulars and get the
information for him.
Mr. Reid: I will be pleased to share this information
with the minister.
Since this minister has the power to act,
why has the minister's department been allowing out‑of‑province
carriers to lease their operating authorities to nonauthorized companies?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the member
is talking about, but I am prepared to take the issue up with the chairman of
the Motor Transport Board to find out exactly what is going on.
I also want to indicate at this time that
the Motor Transport Board and the position of the
Mr. Reid: That is why I raise these questions, because
those jobs are so important to Manitobans.
Will this minister ensure that these
companies that are operating without authorities in this
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I am prepared to
take this issue up with the chairman of the Motor Transport Board, and whatever
the law will allow to be done, we will make sure that it is addressed that way.
* (1355)
Internal
Audit
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now, the
Minister of Housing has had the results of an internal audit of the former
Winnipeg Housing Authority on his desk.
Now it is part of the Manitoba Housing Authority.
I would like to ask the minister: What was in that internal audit, and what is
he doing about it?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
member for Burrows would like to expand upon what internal audit he is referring
to.
Mr. Martindale: Well, if I am allowed another preamble, I could
tell the minister this is an audit of overtime that was done because four
employees claimed $11,000 in overtime, but because concerns were raised, the
overtime was not paid.
His department did an audit. I would like to know what recommendations or
findings were made and what action was taken.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the matter the member refers to
came to my attention several weeks ago.
At my request, the internal auditor looked into the situation and found
no wrongdoing and made certain recommendations as to payment of overtime. It was my decision, along with the senior
staff of the department, to not pay any overtime.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister why no action
was taken against these employees, since it is my understanding that logs were
kept, after the fact, of overtime and that people were duplicating requests for
overtime of hours not worked, and yet three of those four employees were promoted
to the new
Has
the minister considered those facts, and what has he done about them?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of any auditor is to
presumably look into the facts of the matter and provide that information to
those in decision‑making authority.
That is exactly what happened. The auditor reported, said there was no
wrongdoing‑‑no wrongdoing, Mr. Speaker‑‑made certain
recommendations with respect to the question of the overtime logs, in effect,
and people promoted‑‑no one was promoted in these situations. Three of the four employees, in fact, all
four employees have positions with the new Manitoba Housing Authority after
following due process of competition.
Internal
Audit
Tabling
Request
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Since the minister says there was no
wrongdoing, would he table the internal audit so that we could have a look at
it?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, there are the personal interests
of the people involved here, the employees who were involved and so on.
The auditor indicated no wrongdoing, so I
am not prepared to expose those people to ridicule by members opposite,
particularly the member for Burrows, accusing them of something for which no
proof has been garnered after an internal audit.
Mr. Speaker, that member should be ashamed
of raising this kind of issue in the House.
Aboriginal
Child and Family Services
Public
Inquiry
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, for weeks an inquest in
Yesterday, Dr. Charles Ferguson, a
director of
Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal communities
themselves have been calling for a public inquiry on the involvement of the
leadership of aboriginal communities into child welfare cases.
Will the Premier now overrule his Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and call for such a public inquiry?
* (1400)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member is correct. There is
an ongoing inquest in
I would remind the member, and I have
stated before, I believe in Estimates, that I have been in contact with the
Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and, particularly, Chief Jerry Fontaine who is the
chairperson of the chiefs' committee on child and family services. They had put together a task force a number
of weeks ago to look at Child and Family Services' issues and, in particular,
to deal with the issue of governance which I believe is one of the problems
that has been highlighted by aboriginal groups.
I have been in contact with Chief Jerry
Fontaine, both in person and by letter, and while that process is going slower
than I had hoped it would, certainly my attitude is to allow that process to go
forward.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the chiefs have called for a
public inquiry. It is this government
that is refusing to convene one.
Dr.
Mr. Speaker, self‑government does
not permit, under any circumstances, children to be abused.
Will this minister now investigate his own
department to ensure that there is not a benevolent approach being conducted in
his department toward aboriginal agencies and aboriginal agencies are held
accountable, as all child welfare agencies are to be held accountable?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, many of those agencies are now
celebrating their 10th anniversaries. I
indicated in my first answer that out of that testimony in Brandon, a lot of
contradictions are coming forward, and as noted by some journalists,
contradictions not only within that testimony, but also contradictions with the
information brought forward in the AJI, which indicated that these were the
leading child welfare agencies across this nation. I can tell you that we do have other
provinces and other jurisdictions who are currently looking at the manner in
which these agencies operate.
The agencies are a product of a tripartite
agreement with the federal government, the native bands and the provincial
government. Certainly, in the formative
years, I believe, and there are those here who have more history with child
welfare and those agencies than I do, but in the early years, those agencies
were formed and allowed to grow under the auspices of self‑government.
I can tell you in recent years and recent
months that we have taken an attitude that when there are questions that come
up to do with the agencies, we seriously look at them, work with the staff of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction in what
Dr. Charlie Ferguson is saying. There is
nobody in this House who will deny that this man is a clear expert in his field
when it comes to issues of child protection.
He says very clearly that politics is being put before the issues of
child protection.
Will this minister now take some
leadership and ensure that child protection is the first and only issue of his
department and not political gamesmanship?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can assure you when I said there were
contradictions coming out of the hearings in
We, and I as minister of the department,
are very concerned about some of the stories that are coming out of that
particular hearing. We are prepared to
allow the hearings to proceed and to look at the recommendations that are
brought forward at the end of those hearings.
I say to the member that we have been active with the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs which has put together a task force to look specifically at the
governance issue with the agencies, but also to look at service delivery issues
as well.
We have offered to work with the chiefs
and with that particular committee to provide support to it, to have this task
force go ahead and do its work.
Core Area
Initiative
Replacement
Agreement
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Urban
Affairs.
Last June, the Minister of Urban Affairs
told the House that negotiations for a new Core Area Initiative were proceeding
well. On December 10, he told the House
that he hoped to sign an agreement of understanding within 30 days and that a
new agreement would be in place by April 1.
In March, he told the House that within the next little while he hoped
to conclude an agreement. Last month,
the minister once again stated he hoped to conclude his discussions in the very
near future.
Mr. Speaker, time is running out. Has the minister finished his discussions,
and can he finally tell us when he will sign an agreement?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what I told the member for
Wolseley the last time she asked this question was that we are not prepared to
sign an agreement just for the sake of signing an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we could have done that a
year ago. We want to have the best
possible agreement to provide the best possible services to the people who are
the most in need. That is what we are
negotiating at the present time. We will
continue to do that to ensure that we have those kinds of services and the
money to back them up for the people of the inner city of
Ms. Friesen: Is there any connection between the obvious
federal desire to get out of urban affairs on a constitutional basis and the
absence of a new core area agreement?
Have we, in fact, been watching for the last year, Mr. Speaker, a giant
confidence trick?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to negotiate
with our partners, the federal government and the City of
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to do that,
and we are hopeful that we will reach a satisfactory conclusion to the benefit
of all of the partners.
Public
Consultations
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Is the minister still committed to the public
consultation that he promised publicly last November? Could he tell us when
that will begin?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are still committed to a
public consultation process, but until such time as we have at least the basic
framework finalized, there is not much point in continuing on with raising
expectations in the community.
When we have that framework realized and
we have the concurrence of the partners in the agreement, we will then conduct
the public hearing process.
Impaired
Driving
Third-Party
Benefits
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
This government has prided itself for many
years for taking a tough stance on drinking and driving. However, despite this, the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the minister responsible for MPIC have refused to do
away with a loophole for impaired drivers under the MPIC regulations. Under Part 4 of the regulations, impaired
drivers, unlike unlicensed drivers or drivers driving unlicensed vehicles, do
not lose their third‑party benefits and remain an insured for the
purposes of the regulations. This means
that impaired drivers are effectively dealt with more leniently than any other
type of disqualified driver.
Why has this government allowed this
loophole for impaired drivers to persist?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I agree with
the interpretation that this is a loophole.
Mr. Edwards: This matter was brought to the attention of
the Minister of Justice some two years ago, and he indicated that he would be
reporting back to the House. I assume
the minister responsible for MPIC yet today does not have an answer to the
question posed.
For the minister again, can the minister
tell members of this House how many thousands of dollars have been lost because
of MPIC's inability to go after impaired drivers for the damage that they cause
on the highways, which right they do not have under the MPIC regulations, a
right that they have for other unlicensed drivers but not those driving while
impaired?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not have that number at
my fingertips, but I could certainly attempt to get it.
* (1410)
Mr. Edwards: Can the minister give this House any reason,
any rationale, that he would support that would provide for impaired drivers to
be treated any less leniently than those driving while unlicensed themselves or
driving an unlicensed vehicle? Can he
give any reason to support that exception in these regulations, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Cummings: The member has made a number of comments
regarding his feeling that this is a loophole or an inappropriate
coverage. The Minister of Justice and
myself are more than prepared to look at any ways that can go to reducing some
of the willingness that people may have to drink and drive, and certainly we
want that practice stopped at any cost.
There are certain principles involved in
coverage of insurance, and certainly those who are involved in accidents, the
recipients of damages certainly expect to receive some coverage.
I want to assure the member, Mr. Speaker,
that this is not a dead issue, but I do not think it is as simple an issue as
the member would like to characterize it.
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Natural Resources.
Following on the groundwork that was done
by the previous government, the current Minister of Natural Resources appointed
the Dauphin Lake Basin Advisory committee.
Now after some three years, the minister has still failed to provide any
substantive funding, even though there has been a great deal of dedicated work
done by these volunteers with an awareness centre with low cost, Mr. Speaker,
but certainly monitoring of water quality, a number of good things have been
done with very low budget. The minister
has avoided any pressure because of the management basin plan that is being
prepared.
I want to ask the minister whether he
could indicate when he expects to receive the
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of speaking about the good work that is
being done in the
I had a meeting just last week with the
senior Water Resources official, Mr. John Toews, with whom I think the
honourable member is acquainted. We are
awaiting specific budgetary proposals very shortly, and I will be calling on my
colleagues, notably the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), perhaps with
the special Environmental Innovations Fund to be of assistance again, as he was
in other years, along with programs out of his Special Conservation fund and
those of my department. I expect to have some information for him shortly.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, how does this minister hope to
maintain any credibility with the board when he has cut even the meagre support
he has given them by cutting a half‑time clerical position effective May
31? How can he maintain credibility with
the dedicated volunteers on that board when he is cutting even that small
amount of support?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was my intent, and I am
going to carry out my intent, because I did want to commend the honourable
member for Dauphin and thank him quite frankly for the support that he has
given my ministry, my government, in our attempts in improving the situation at
Dauphin, and we are making progress. I would simply ask him to continue that
support.
A half a clerical position is not going to
improve the water quality of
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I seek leave to make a nonpolitical statement. [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in this House to
recognize National Missing Children's Week in
No one can ever truly know the horror,
loneliness, suffering and the heartache of all involved when a child is
missing. It is every parent's worst
unspeakable nightmare. Organizations
such as Child Find Manitoba and its counterparts that exist throughout
Suffice to say that Child Find Manitoba
has touched the hearts of many Manitobans already. Sometimes the result is positive and
sometimes the ending is one of tragedy.
However, the one dominant fact is that clearly a great deal remains to
be done. This week, Child Find Manitoba
launched their Green Ribbon of Hope campaign to highlight National Missing
Children's Week. Unfortunately, what precipitated the green‑ribbon
initiative was the recent tragic death of Kristen French in
Child Find Manitoba began in 1985 with
several objectives: to assist parents in locating abducted or runaway children;
to educate parents, children and related agencies in prevention‑awareness
techniques; to provide support to grieving parents; to create an awareness of
the problems associated with missing children in Canada; and to support the
maintenance of a national registry of missing children that was set up by the
RCMP in 1986.
Child Find Manitoba has a small staff
supported by about 70 volunteers who assist with public education,
fingerprinting of children and fundraising.
I am sure all of us would love to see a day when organizations such as
Child Find are not needed. However, the grim reality is that they are needed
more and more with each passing day. I
would like to read the proclamation for National Children's Week because it speaks
to us all.
WHEREAS over 50,000 children are reported
missing each year in
WHEREAS
WHEREAS increased awareness of the problem
is needed to help reduce the incidence of missing children as well as to help
locate missing children; and
WHEREAS this is a community issue, not
just a family issue; and
WHEREAS this week is set aside to rekindle
new hope in search of missing children.
THEREFORE it has been proclaimed that the
week of May 25 to May 30, 1992, is Missing Children's Week in Manitoba, and all
Manitobans are urged to remain vigilant in our common desire to protect and
nurture the youth in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members and
indeed all Manitobans, private citizens, community groups, unions and the
corporate community to not only support Missing Children's Week, but to get
involved and help out wherever possible.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [Agreed]
I would like to join the Minister of
Family Services in recognizing this week to raise awareness about missing
children. The term "missing children" would lead one to think that
most of the missing children are missing because of abduction, but the fact is,
although this is a troubling issue no matter what the conditions, most of the
children who are missing are missing because they are runaways. I think it is important that we realize there
needs to be services available so that these children, when they do run away,
have a place to go.
I would like to recognize the work of
Child Find in trying to help with the problem of missing children, but there is
also the need to recognize that there are other services that are required for
children who are runaways. Thank you.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement. [Agreed]
A friend of mine who was a social worker,
worked first with the Child Guidance Clinic and then in the south end of the
city, used to talk about "disposable" children. He defined them as the children of families
who were under such enormous stress today through two parents working, repeated
divorces, remarriage, blended families and all of the things that we have
become so aware of. This leads, as the
member for the New Democratic Party just mentioned, to a tremendous increase in
runaways, a weakening of the attachment to home and family.
But there has also been a more troubling
phenomenon, and that is parental abductions, where kids are actually taken in
defiance of legitimate orders of supervision and guardianship, and to a lesser
but, unfortunately, growing number of third‑party abductions, where
people are actually stealing particularly very young children and incorporating
them into their own family.
What Child Find does, Mr. Speaker, is
mobilize the community, remind us that these circumstances exist, that these
kinds of issues need to be confronted by the community. I think all of us in this House owe them a
vote of thanks, and we need to congratulate them for the work they do. Thank you.
* (1420)
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Before I move the
Supply motion, I would like to change the sequence for consideration of
Estimates. I have discussed this with
the opposition House leaders.
I move, seconded by the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that the sequence for consideration of Estimates
as outlined in Sessional Paper No. 72, tabled on March 20, 1992, be amended in
order that the Estimates of the Aboriginal Justice Initiatives, to be
considered in the Chamber, follow the Estimates of the Department of Justice;
and that the Estimates of Native Affairs, to be considered outside the Chamber,
follow the Estimates of Northern Affairs.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave?
Mr. Manness: By leave of the House.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I just
want to indicate that there may be some other adjustments needed to be
made. I know there are some difficulties
with some upcoming departments, but we certainly have no problem with joining
those two departments.
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider
of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Agriculture, and the honourable member for
* (1430)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee
of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates for
the Department of Agriculture.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 4.(c) Veterinary Services Branch on page 16 of the Estimates
book.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Just for the record, the
minister had some information from MACC, I believe, that is being
prepared. Is it ready now or are we
going to get it later today or when?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): The information that
was requested that we committed to last night, it is not fully ready yet. It may be ready during the course of the
afternoon, but I have here what I will table is terms of reference for the Red
Meat Forum which we had indicated we would give out last night.
Mr. Plohman: I wanted to ask the minister, briefly, what the
current status is of the Larry Williamson game farm and involvement by his
department in the health of the animals there.
Mr. Findlay: Since approximately last September, we have
done something like six to eight inspections under The Animal Diseases Act, and
we continue to do those inspections as warranted.
I believe there have been two inspections
in the last two or three weeks.
Mr. Plohman: Are there any orders being issued insofar as
the operation and time lines being given to the operator?
Mr. Findlay: Over the course of that period of time,
Williamson was operating, then two fellows by the name of Rehman and Wallace
came in and operated it for a period of time.
They seem to have left the scene and Williamson is back as the
operator. No orders have been issued to
Williamson at this point in time.
Mr. Plohman: Then the latest inspection, since Larry
Williamson is back in charge of this, is that, what I gather from the minister,
they have taken place since he has been back and everything is satisfactory as
far as staff is concerned?
Mr. Findlay: Since Williamson returned as operator, two
inspections have been done, one as recently as this past weekend. Undoubtedly, additional inspections will be
occurring.
Mr. Plohman: The minister may know that this has created a
great deal of interest in the area, and so the local media as well are very
interested in this issue at all times.
They seem to be wanting to know what is happening, and there does not
seem to be a lot of information.
Everyone is groping to find out whether this game farm is going to
continue to exist or whether it is being closed down, so that is why I asked
the questions.
In that context, is the minister
indicating that there have been certain instructions given to comply with
certain regulations from his department's point of view? I realize Natural Resources is also involved,
but in terms of his own branch here, the Veterinary Services Branch under The
Animal Diseases Act, that there have been orders issued and that time is being
given for compliance. Is that why the
minister said there would be further inspections to see what progress has been
made? Is that really what has happened?
Mr. Findlay: Staff are at the present time evaluating the
information that they gathered in the last two visits, and we will be
monitoring the situation carefully over the next few weeks and will
undoubtedly, in time, be making recommendations.
Mr. Plohman: So am I to understand that there are not
specific recommendations as this was just simply a fact‑finding
inspection as opposed to direct orders at that particular time? After analysis of what was gathered, then
there may be some orders issued, but up to this point there are not, just fact
finding?
Mr. Findlay: In the course of the visits, there has been
verbal communication, but nothing in the way of orders given at this time. As the member indicated, basically fact
finding and information garnered in those fact‑finding missions is being
considered and discussed and appropriate considerations that will be given over
time.
Mr. Plohman: Just leaving this issue, but before I do, in
terms of the enforcement of any orders, is it by way of fine? Is that what enforcement lies under The
Animal Diseases Act?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, under the act, fines can be levied,
charges can be laid under the Criminal Code for cruelty to animals, and
thirdly, the animals could be seized if that was deemed appropriate. So those are three actions that could ensue.
Mr. Plohman: Then none of those actions have been taken to
this date, I gather from what the minister has said?
Mr. Findlay: That is right.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, moving on to the
couple of issues that relate to The Animal Husbandry Act, changes that are
being proposed in the Legislature by the minister as a result of actions taken
last year involving the Semen Distribution Centre, I guess all references to
that in the act are being removed this year as a result of the privatization of
this centre.
* (1440)
For the record, to refresh my memory and
record, how many employees were involved last year that were in government
employ that were terminated as a result of the privatization of this function
of the Semen Distribution Centre? Could
the minister report on what the activities are of the new operation in terms of
employment and economic activity in the province?
I ask those questions for both the Semen
Distribution Centre and the vet services lab, keeping in mind that the minister
had given as one of his rationale in making the decision last year that this
was a function no longer required to be in by government and basically a good
economic opportunity for a private‑sector company in Manitoba who could
actually thrive in this business and perhaps expand it in terms of employment
opportunities and economic activity.
So if I am correct in saying that was one
of the major reasons that the minister mentioned, which I believe it was, I am
attempting to determine at this point whether in fact that has happened in this
province as a result of what the minister did last year.
Mr. Findlay: Yes, the Semen Distribution Centre, prior to
our privatizing of it, we estimate we were doing 50 percent, maybe 60 percent
of the semen business in the province, and the private sector was doing the
rest.
ABS and Western Breeders were the big
players at that time. Western Breeders purchased the Semen Centre, and at that
time there were three staff in the Semen Centre. Western Breeders now have four staff in the
province, we understand two in
Mr. Plohman: How many did they have prior to the purchase
in the province?
Mr. Findlay: We believe two, and one of the staff members
that was in the Semen Centre, a Mr. Klagenberg, is now the
Mr. Plohman: I was asking, I guess, about the Vet Services
Lab and the Semen Distribution Centre.
The minister has said that there were three positions in the
office. Now Western Breeders has four in
the province. They had two prior. So they have gone up two, and we have lost
three. So we are down one job.
He says that job could be the‑‑what
function? I am not sure what he said it
was, but I would take it from what he said that that is an additional person in
addition to the four that Western Breeders has in Manitoba, that this one
person who has taken another position is located outside of Manitoba but
servicing Manitoba, so he is mentioning this in that context?
Mr. Findlay: No, Mr. Klagenberg is in inside of
Mr. Plohman: Transfer Genetics, working for whom? Transfer Genetics is the company?
Mr. Findlay: Yes.
Mr. Plohman: Oh, I thought that was the function.
Mr. Findlay: No, that is the company.
Mr. Plohman: In competition with what?
Mr. Findlay: In competition with Western Breeders and ABS.
Mr. Plohman: Okay, but clearly for Western Breeders
function, that is not a relevant factor for them. I mean, the person had an employment
opportunity, was working for the government, got a job in the private sector
but not with the company that took over.
So it is not really relevant for the issue here.
What we have done is lost a job in
Mr. Findlay: In terms of jobs in the semen business in
Mr. Plohman: Okay, it could be argued that they saw an
opportunity that they might not have seen if Western Breeders was not competing
against them in terms of their ownership of the Semen Centre. I think that is questionable as to whether
that could have happened either way. It
may have just been time for that to happen.
This other company wanted to expand.
Obviously they did not get the business that the Semen Centre had. Western Breeders got that business. Or did Western Breeders lose some of that
business to other companies, to competitors?
Is that what the minister is intimating by this suggestion that this job
was a result of his privatization of the Semen Centre?
Mr. Findlay: Just to restate what I have already said, in
the semen business in the province prior to the privatization, really ABS and
Western Breeders were competing with the government, so to speak. The Semen Distribution Centre was handling
the semen material from Transfer Genetics.
When the privatization occurred, Transfer Genetics decided to market
their commodities directly in the province and have done it through hiring one
of the employees of the former Semen Distribution Centre.
With regard to the Drug Centre, under the
provincial ownership there were eight full‑time positions. Now under the ownership of the vet co‑operative
there are 10 full‑time positions and one part‑time. So you might say that as a consequence of
that privatization, there are two full‑time and one part‑time
positions created.
* (1450)
Mr. Plohman: Where is this vet co‑op‑‑is
that what it is called now? Where is it
located, the 10 positions that the minister talks about and the one part time?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, they are operating under the name of
Midwest Veterinary Co‑operative and they are located on Lagimodiere here
in
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to the minister, is
this a new company formed for just this purpose, or is this an amalgamation of
a previously existing company that was in this business with the co‑operative?
Mr. Findlay: It is a new co‑operative consisting of
88 practising veterinarians in the
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when did they begin
their operations, and what did they get in terms of inventory, supplies and
equipment and so on from the government?
Mr. Findlay: The co‑operative went into business on
September 15, and they purchased the inventory and equipment from the
government.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, purchased that
at the normal purchase price or selling price of these drugs, or was it a
discounted clearing price?
Mr. Findlay: The drugs were purchased at book value and
the equipment at a depreciated value.
Mr. Plohman: Is the department doing any follow‑up
monitoring of this operation as a result of it taking over a major function of
the government, in its infancy at this point?
Is there any follow‑up?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, department staff have been in close
contact with the co‑operative but there have been no complaints and no
reason to do anything other than discuss with them, or work with them in any
fashion they may request. There is no need
for any analysis or no complaints to follow‑up.
Mr. Plohman: So there is no regulating of their operations
in any way. They are just operating as a
free business?
Mr. Findlay: The co‑operative is purchasing drugs in
bulk from various suppliers and selling them directly to the
veterinarians. In the case of the vet
districts clinics, that we have the vet services commission and the
veterinarians negotiate the markup that will be charged in the clinics on the
drugs that are purchased from the co‑operative.
Mr. Plohman: How was that markup regulated prior to the
takeover? I imagine there was a small
markup by the government in order to bring it close to a break‑even
operation. We had our big discussion
last year about whether they were breaking even or not, but it was certainly
not at a great cost so there must have been some markup on those drugs by the
government upon sale, or some markup allowed by the vets in the sale as well.
But did the government tell them how much
they could mark it up or is this a new function?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, there was a markup in place between the
Drug Centre and the veterinarians which was 6 percent for animal health, food
animal products and 10 percent for pets.
As I said earlier, the markup that the vets put on the product when they
sell it to the producers in the government vet clinics is negotiated by the
commission with the veterinarians.
So those same two procedures still
operate. The markup between the co‑operative
Drug Centre and the veterinarians, we believe, is now around 10 or twelve
percent, very comparable to
Mr. Plohman: So what we are seeing here then is initially
the co‑operative having to mark up its drugs after it purchases them in
volume and sells them to the various vet clinics. It has to double the markup for large animal
drugs as opposed to pets here. We are
talking 6 percent to 10 or 12 percent.
So in fact the markup is now almost
doubled, if I am hearing the minister correctly, and the price that the vets
set when selling to the farmers would probably be very similar with the
exception of this 6 percent. The markup
that they would have would be set using the same mechanism that was in place
before, so there still is some regulation there. Would that be under The Veterinary Services
Act?
Mr. Findlay: The procedure that the commission uses for
negotiating the markup in the clinics is the same now as before. The buying
policy of the co‑operative with the private drug companies, we do not
know at this time whether they are buying at the same price or lower or
higher. We would have to assume probably
very similar to the buying policies used by the Drug Centre when it was under
government ownership.
* (1500)
Mr. Plohman: Are any of the employees who were doing purchasing
with government now working for the co‑operative and therefore bringing
their experience and contacts with them?
Mr. Findlay: The co‑operative now employs three of
the people who used to be in the employ of the Drug Centre. One Brian Lezak was the major buyer, and he
is their major buyer over at the co‑operative. Harry Singh was in charge of warehousing and
is in the same capacity with the co‑operative, and a Rick Landon worked
with Harry Singh and is also in the employ of the co‑operative.
Mr. Plohman: Has the department done any monitoring of
wholesale drug prices to determine what kind of an increase we have seen in
prices generally this year from last?
The price the farmer pays, retail.
Mr. Findlay: There has not been any specific monitoring of
retail prices across the province. The
general belief is that they have moved up marginally, probably still in a
general sense slightly lower priced than, say,
Mr. Plohman: Did that competitor not exist prior to the
turning over of this operation to the vets, and what is the name of the company
that is involved?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, the competitor is Weiller & Williams
of the Winnipeg Livestock auction mart.
They have been in the business for some period of time, but since they
built the new facility out on the Perimeter north of the city they have become
much more active, and we believe, you know, much more active in recent
time. They have become a fairly
significant competitor in that business.
But that is who they are and that is where they are located.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister foresee at this time or plan
or contemplate any changes to The Veterinary Services Act to reflect the
changed environment with regard to this business at this time‑‑any
regulation that he would foresee?
Mr. Findlay: No, no changes to the act are contemplated
because of the privatization of the Drug Centre. Naturally there continues to be some request
from the veterinarians to look at the act.
That is sort of an ongoing process, but no changes are being
contemplated relative to the Drug Centre.
Mr. Plohman: So I am to understand that the minister does
not have a mechanism for monitoring the retail prices and has no plans to put
any in place nor to regulate those prices.
I think of it in terms of what has happened with the pharmaceutical drug
prices since the patent laws have been tightened up, I guess you could say, or
there is a greater patent protection for the name‑brand companies in
In this situation it is possible that drug
prices‑‑although the minister said there is competition with this
other operation right now, it remains to be seen how effective that competition
will be in all instances, in all situations in the province. So there could be some increases, and I just
wondered whether the minister had any plans to monitor at any time what is
happening in that industry. Of course,
it would be premature to say if there would be any need for any regulation, but
the monitoring seems to me to be a critical thing, at least in its formative
stages. Yet, the minister has not
monitored. He said, it is general wisdom
that it has probably gone up a bit, but it is still lower than
Mr. Findlay: I guess we would say there are two functions
going on: No. 1, there is the
marketplace regulation which we have already talked about; and the other, which
we have already talked about, is the role of the commission in negotiating
markup with the veterinarians in the vet districts.
* (1510)
That does not put any regulation directly
on the private vets, but in competition it is pretty tough for them to sell
drugs at a higher price than what the farmer can buy them at at the vet
district clinics. So there are the
activities of the association, plus there is the competitive marketplace for
the private vets, and the competitive marketplace of Weiller & Williams
being in the business of selling drugs directly to farmers.
We will certainly be keeping an eye on
what is going on and be listening to input from various red meat commodity
associations, whichever has an interest in drugs, as to how the scene
unfolds. But at this time, we are not
proposing any additional monitoring, other than what the commission is doing,
the vet commission.
Mr. Plohman: Is Weiller & Williams able to provide
competition throughout the province or is this rather localized, around
Mr. Findlay: Our belief is that he is doing business all
over the province. Obviously, the
majority of it may be within 60 or 100 miles of the city. But cattle are coming to this auction mart
from all over the province and being sold from that auction mart to all over
the province. So there is a contact with
producers.
Undoubtedly, he is in the process of
trying to have dealers elsewhere in the province. Whether he is successful or not remains to be
seen, but we believe he has an influence over the vast majority of the
province.
Mr. Plohman: Does he have a truck distributing these drugs
travelling throughout the province or is this all done from a store, a
warehouse at the facility at the Perimeter?
Mr. Findlay: To the best of our knowledge, it is just done
out of the auction mart on the north Perimeter.
Mr. Plohman: I would suggest that it would probably be
limited in terms of the impact it is having right now. The minister may choose to differ, although
we would have to explore this further to find out.
What is the role of generic drugs in this
field? Is there a lot of competition in
that area?
Mr. Findlay: There are very limited generics
available. It is primarily trade‑name
drugs that are sold in the marketplace, very few generics.
Mr. Plohman: Is the pricing policy the commission
negotiates with the vets a standard one across the province, or do they allow
some variance in the prices from location north to south or east to west or
whatever?
Mr. Findlay: The commission negotiates with
representatives of the 31 vet clinics and what they negotiate with those vets
is the same right across the province in all the clinics.
Mr. Plohman: Just on the Semen Distribution Centre
then. We have covered some of the
methods used in the vet services in the lab with drugs‑‑drug
lab. What is the practice and procedure
in the Semen Distribution area now without the government being involved in
terms of pricing and availability? Has
there been any follow‑up as a result of privatization there by the staff?
Mr. Findlay: The semen business is very competitive and
from our knowledge it would look like the cost of most semen has come
down. The very high profile sires may
not have come down, but the majority of semen has come down in price. The charges that the technicians are applying
for their business is much the same as it has been. We are not aware that it has gone up, but the
general cost of semen on average has come down because of the competition.
Mr. Plohman: Is there the same type of markup from the
Semen Distribution Centre? The Drug
Centre used to have a 6 percent markup, as the minister relayed to us
today. Was there that kind of a markup
with the Semen Distribution Centre when it was owned by the government?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, when we had the Semen Distribution
Centre, we had a markup in place which was around 10 percent, and the
technician had a markup of around 20 percent.
We are no longer in the business, so either the technician or the
producer buys directly from Western Breeders or ABS whereas we used to buy from
ABS or Western Breeders and then put the 10 percent markup on, and then the
technician put his markup on.
As I said earlier, the technicians markup
charges are much the same, we are no longer there as a middleman, so that is
undoubtedly why the producer is actually acquiring the semen a little bit
cheaper now than he was before. So the
same semen is available direct now as opposed to through the Semen Distribution
Centre where we act as a middleman. When
we were there as a middleman, as I said earlier, 40 or 50 percent of the
business was being done direct from the companies to the producer or to the
technician.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, just a question whether there were any
volume discounts that the Semen Distribution Centre received as opposed to an
individual producer or even technician purchaser. That has not been addressed in the minister's
answer in terms of whether the Semen Centre‑‑you did say, Mr.
Minister, that the prices have dropped slightly because it is very
competitive. So I will accept that on
face value, but on exploring that further, I would question it in terms of
whether the Semen Centre, even though they were a middleman, so to speak, were
able to purchase because of the volumes at a discounted price from ABS, as
opposed to what the individuals can now purchase from ABS.
Mr. Findlay: When the Semen Distribution Centre was in
operation there were no volume discounts.
We understand that that is still the same way it is, whether a
technician buys 10 straws or 100 straws, he is paying the same price per
straw. We were not, in the semen
distribution business, able to obtain volume discounts.
Mr. Plohman: That is interesting, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. I will turn this over to
the Liberal critic at this time.
* (1520)
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): In the expected results you say you hire
veterinary students to provide them with experience and to encourage the return
to rural practice after graduation. How
many students do you hire in the course of a year?
Mr. Findlay: Students have a four‑year program at
For students who have completed that, what
we call the first year in
Mr. Gaudry: Since you started that program, you have not
had any graduates yet that have gone back into the rural to practise in one of
the clinics in
Mr. Findlay: This program of hiring them during the
summers after the first, second and third years has been ongoing for some time,
so many of the students who have been hired as summer students have come back
into the province, either working as a veterinarian in the clinic or as a
veterinarian in a private practice. We
have had lots of them come back. We
cannot give you numbers, but it adds obviously a work experience opportunity
for these students, and hopefully it attracts them to come back and take up a
practice either in a clinic or as a private vet in the province.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mr. Gaudry: You feel it is very successful in respect to
hiring them and then trying to convince them to go back and practise in the
rural areas?
Mr. Findlay: I think what the member for St. Boniface is
probably referring to is the scholarships that are in place. There are the
scholarships, and then there is the summer work experience.
In the scholarships, they can receive a
maximum of $750 a year over the course of four years, in other words, a maximum
of $3,000. If they come back to the
province and work in a rural practice, they work it off, whatever the
scholarship was that they had received over the four years, at the rate of 20
percent a year. So they come back and
work in a rural practice for five years; they work off the value of their
scholarship which could have been as much as $3,000.
In the 1991 graduating class, there were
four students who had scholarships totalling $3,000, $2,400, $2,100, and $2,550
that returned to work in rural practices here in
Mr. Gaudry: The famous question of decentralization: Out of this department, have there been any
employees who have been decentralized to rural
Mr. Findlay: No, there have been no jobs decentralized out
of vet services.
Mr. Gaudry: In appropriating grants, there is an amount
of $516,900. Is that part of the grant,
and how is it distributed to the clinics?
Is it according to their requests or to the government's proposals?
Mr. Findlay: For the 31 clinics in the province, the
maximum grant they can achieve is $20,000 per year. It is allocated by us on the basis of $15,000
for the first veterinarian, and an additional $5,000 for the second
veterinarian. They can only get that
grant or that amount or a portion of that amount based on the contribution from
the municipalities.
If the municipalities put up a full
$20,000, we will match it. If they put
up $15,000, and they have one vet, we will match it. If they have two vets, and they put up
$17,000, we will match the $17,000. In
terms of the budget available for the grants, last year was $488,900; this year
it is $493,400. But we match what the
municipalities will put up to a maximum of $20,000 per year for each of the 31
clinics.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, one last question. In the allowance for staff turnover $27,700,
was that someone who retired and hired someone at the lower scale?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, that allowance is not for specific
retirement but cases for where people will be leaving our employ and will be
replaced by other staff, maybe at a lower salary or there will be a period of
time in which there is nobody in the position‑‑obviously, we save
salary dollars. So it is actually our
projected saving because of the turnover process.
Mr. Plohman: Just briefly on the situation in Alonsa. Could the minister give us an update of the
vet services situation there?
* (1530)
Mr. Findlay: The Vet Medical Board will be holding a
formal inquiry sometime not far down the road.
The veterinarian, Dr. Thompson, received a court injunction to allow him
to continue to practise until that formal inquiry occurs or until the end of
June. That is our understanding at this
time.
Mr. Plohman: So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, he is
continuing to function there until the end of June or until some other court
decision affects it. They have full‑time
services of a vet at Alonsa now, or is it restricted as a result of certain
charges that have been laid?
Mr. Findlay: Our understanding is it is for emergency‑related
services that are requested but, as I said, it is not for a subsequent court
action. The court injunction is in place
until the vet medical board has held the formal hearing to review his
case. We expect that to occur in the
next number of weeks.
Mr. Plohman: How many districts are without vets right
now? What is the outlook for replacing the vets if there was a decision made
that he could no longer practise, for example, and they would then be without a
vet? Are there any other districts that
are short vets right now?
Mr. Findlay: Over the last few years, it has been
relatively common to have a clinic or two or three in the province actively
searching for a veterinarian. At this
point in time, St. Lazare is without a veterinarian. Selkirk Clinic is in the final stages of
winding down, and Lac du Bonnet is in the process of winding down their clinic.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
is saying that two clinics are going to close, because they do not have. Is that what the minister means by Selkirk
and Lac du Bonnet winding down, that they are not going to operate and offer
services any longer as a result of a shortage of vets?
Mr. Findlay: In both cases, Selkirk and Lac du Bonnet, a
decision to move towards winding down the clinic was a local decision by the
local board and the local councils. In
Selkirk, there are private vets in operation in the area. Obviously, a decision was taken by the board
and the councils that that was adequately servicing the area and there was no
need for them to be putting money into a clinic. If they are not doing it, then naturally they
do not draw our matching money.
In Lac du Bonnet, my understanding is that
there was considerable difficulty over time attracting a veterinarian
there. So they are proceeding in the
direction of probably winding it down.
Mr. Plohman: So these are part of the 31 that the minister
mentioned, not necessarily 31 locations, but 31 vets or 31 clinics.
Mr. Findlay: When I referred to a 31, it is 31 clinics in
the province. In some cases, there is
more than one vet per clinic, but they were included in that list of 31.
Mr. Plohman: So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we would
be down to 29 clinics if these two were to go, and there is the St. Lazare
situation and then there is the potential Alonsa situation. So I guess I just would express some alarm at
the tendency maybe to close these. I
wonder if this is a trend. Is this
symptomatic of perhaps funding not being realistic in the modern situation that
they just cannot continue to fund this service?
What is causing this?
Mr. Findlay: A year ago, we set up a new clinic in Fisher
Branch so that added one to the list.
The funding that we put in there for the building would be about
$158,000, somewhere in that area. That
was set up because they had been successful in attracting a veterinarian who
was prepared to stay and was giving that commitment, and the presence of a
clinic only improved the chance that he would stay.
In terms of the 31 clinics that I
mentioned earlier, there are 56 veterinarians involved at those 31 clinics in
large animal practice throughout rural
The situation in Selkirk, as I mentioned
earlier, there is an adequate vet deemed to be present to serve the
community. Lac du Bonnet has had a
consistent ongoing problem trying to attract a veterinarian, and the local
board and the local municipalities are proceeding in the direction they deem
appropriate for their area.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, and I can appreciate the local decisions
on that aspect. Insofar as the
minister's position, though, is he in any way encouraging the winding down of
these clinics and moving towards private clinics? Is this something that he is in any way
actively involved in?
Mr. Findlay: No, the minister is not actively involved in
any way. It is a decision by them. Our matching grant is available. If they choose to put up the money, we match
it. If they choose not to, obviously
they do not attract the matching money.
But we are not actively involved‑‑I am not actively involved
on either side of the issue with regard to those clinics or any other clinic
regarding whether they should wind up or privatize or whatever.
Simply, events unfold as events shall
unfold, and in some parts of the province, clearly, there have been clinics
operating for some time. A private vet
can come in and set up business close to or 10 miles away, at his own volition,
and producers use whichever vet they deem appropriate. Whether they use the clinic services or
strictly the services of the private vet is entirely up to the producer.
* (1540)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will be
dealing with the weed districts, for example, maybe in the next section, and it
is a matter there of funding being cut.
In this case, the minister is saying the
matching grants are still there. If they
are never increased, eventually it is like a cut. They are no longer relevant in terms of their
ability to assist substantively the service.
So that is why I was asking the
minister. I mean, he does not have to
necessarily make a decision that he is going to phase it out, but he could
choose not to increase the grants over successive years and eventually they are
no longer relevant. So I just want to
ask the minister: Have they been
increased? Is there a plan to increase‑‑they
were not increased this year, I take it.
When was the last time they were increased? Is there representation being made about the
relevance of those grants right now, the size of them? Are they still sufficient to do the job?
Mr. Findlay: This is my fifth budget as a minister. It was either in my first or second budget‑‑I
am not sure which one‑‑we increased the grant ceiling from $15,000
to $20,000. So in my term in office over
the last four years we have increased it fairly substantively at some time in
the past.
We are not aware of any broad request from
vet districts for increases. There may
be one or two that would like to see it happen, but there is not a broad
request. More and more clinics are
moving up close to or at the $20,000, but not everybody is there at this time.
Mr. Plohman: Will the minister review this again before
the next budget? Will he be reviewing
this $20,000 maximum ceiling again since it will be four or five years since
the last increase?
Mr. Findlay: It is our belief that the increase that I
just mentioned, the $15,000 to $20,000, was in my second budget‑‑in
other words, three years ago. We review
it every year in that budgetary process, and there was no formal request in the
preparation of this budget requesting increases, but in terms of the
preparation of the next budget, we will definitely be reviewing all lines as to
appropriateness, or whether there is need for increases or decreases, and this
will be one of them that will be considered.
Mr. Plohman: I was going to complete my question with that
question when the minister talked about decreasing. Is that something that the minister is any
way contemplating because he mentioned whether some have to be decreased or
increased, not just increased. Of
course, that is the case with the weed districts. It is not because it had to be but because
government chose a certain direction and, therefore, reduced the grants over a
three‑year period. Is that kind of
plan something the minister is asking his staff or he is personally
contemplating?
Mr. Findlay: No.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 4.(c) Veterinary
Services Branch: (1) Salaries $1,373,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,074,000‑‑pass.
Item 4.(d) Soils and Crops Branch: (1) Salaries $1,984,200.
Mr. Plohman: Before I ask questions about the weeds, is
this appropriate section for the weed districts? [interjection] Yes.
The issue of the new compound, I think, is
something that everyone is probably looking at.
It is called Reclaimer‑Ameliorator Polymeric Gel (RAPG). It has not got a commercial name yet, but I
note that the article by Mary Ann FitzGerald in the Winnipeg Free Press of May
16 discusses this product and indicates that there is some involvement to the
government through Industry, Trade and Tourism for some research into this
product.
Is that more appropriately discussed under
research? There is only a research grant
of, I think, $800,000 for the
Is this something that there has been any
research done by experts in the minister's department up to this point in time,
and any input into any research that has being done and funded by the
government?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, with regard to the compound RAPG, we are
not directly involved in it. About the
only thing we know is that UMA Engineering has a contract. They have a scientist who is involved in the
development of the compound and, to the best of our knowledge, is working with
the AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Pinawa and has some degree of
grant from Industry, Trade and Tourism to further research and explore the
compound and determine its capability of moisture conservation in the context
of using it to improve crop growth in arid lands.
I know there has been some discussion that
it may have considerable market value in the drier regions of the world, maybe
even including the Palliser Triangle of western
Mr. Plohman: Just on AECL's involvement and the
government's involvement, is there some ownership of intellectual property in
the public domain as a result of the involvement? Would there be any initiative on the
minister's part to ensure that?
Dealing with a new product, which if
patented privately‑‑and I understand there is an individual
inventor, so I guess he has the first options on it in terms of what or whom he
sells it to, but it seems to me that there is an aspect in the public interest
here in terms of what happens to that product, to intellectual property. Has the minister given any thought to this
concept and this idea in terms of what would happen to the ownership and the
potential options for farmers if it was held by, say, one of the large chemical
companies under protection for 20 years or so. The cost could be enormous for
farmers who want to have access to it.
On the other hand, it might be in the public interest to have some
portion of this involving the public sector through research‑‑it is
involved now‑‑some conditions set so that farmers could get access
to it at a much lower price if it ever became marketable commercially as a
product.
* (1550)
Mr. Findlay: In terms of the compound, we are not involved
as a department in any fashion with the research, exploration or the contracts
that exist involving UMA Engineering, Atomic Energy of Canada and/or the
inventor, so I cannot comment any further.
It is an interesting compound for the
agricultural industry in arid regions of the world, but I would have to suspect
that the ownership lies somewhere between the inventor and UMA Engineering
and/or maybe involving AECL through whatever contractual arrangements they have
at this time in the further exploration of the compound.
Mr. Plohman: I think this leads to an interesting debate
on this issue, and it is one that I think governments have to consider in terms
of the increasing powers that are being given in terms of ownership of
intellectual property. Perhaps this
would not fall under intellectual property, but it seems that it does because
it received the United Nations Environmental Program prize in 1990 and
recognition by the Swiss‑based World Intellectual Property Organization.
I do not know whether it falls strictly
within that or not. Certainly, this whole area is an evolving area with new
technology and one that I think governments have to give some thought to in
terms of how the public is involved and the public interest is protected in
balance to the fact that there are huge international conglomerates who can
very well tie up the market for these new products and essentially control that
market because of the gigantic size of those conglomerates.
Mr. Findlay: I guess the best way to describe the compound
at this stage, it is purely in its infancy in terms of whether it ever achieves
the expectation that presently exists for it. Before it can ever be used in
There would have to be a lot of testing
done in terms of its efficacy, and others to prove it can actually do what it
claims to do. There certainly would have
to be a fair bit of work done on residues and uptake by plants of the compound
or any decomposition products of the compounds.
So it has a long, long way to go.
It does not mean that this is the only compound of this character or of
this nature that is in the development stages.
I think government's role in this case is
to be sure that the compound, when eventually registered, is adequately able to
do what it is purported to do, in other words, do the efficacy testing and the
residue testing for the compound. That
is government's role. It is the role of
the scientists in the private sector to do the research and bring forward the
information to get into their investigation process that government would
eventually use for the provincial registration of the compound if that ever
occurs. As I said, this may not be the
only compound of a similar nature that is in some stage of exploration right
now.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I would submit that the government also
has a role in the research end of it, not just the private sector. That is why
I was raising that question with the minister.
I imagine in the other areas of the Soils and Crops Branch, there is a
substantial amount of research that is taking place with test crops being grown
and managed by the department. Is that
still a function that has taken place to the same extent it has in the past and
even expanding, new varieties of crops being field tested?
Mr. Findlay: As a department, we do the crop variety
testing, we do demonstration plots, we do fertility plots, we do crop
development work. A compound like this
will have to be researched a lot further before we would want to include it in
any of our ongoing demonstration or product development plots that the
department is involved in, because it is nowhere near being close to being
marketable or usable. It has, it is fair
to say, several years of research ahead of it before it can get to that
position where it would be something we would want to get involved in, in terms
of further exploring its capability to work under different conditions in the
province, like we do with the new crops or new technologies.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that once it
becomes potentially, at least, commercially viable, then it would be something
that the Soils and Crops Branch would actively be testing and pursuing in terms
of generating interest by farmers in this new product and seeing how it would
perform. Does that mean that the whole
issue of genetic engineering is not something that the department is actively
involved in, in terms of new strains, varieties of crops from scratch?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Findlay: As a department, we are not directly involved
in any bioengineering research, but when and where private companies are
involved in doing some sort of studies, trials or research with bioengineering‑‑I
guess we could call it samples or varieties‑‑we are made aware of
it, and our staff will visit the studies of the trials to gain information for
the use of the department in some fashion down the road.
Mr. Plohman: So is the minister basically comfortable with
that function and role at the present time?
* (1600)
Mr. Findlay: In terms of becoming any more formally
involved is exceedingly expensive, and we are just not able to be involved in
direct research. We are in constant
contact with the university and with various companies that are involved in
trying to explore those opportunities, and we just do not have the resources to
be involved any more directly.
There is no question that various forms of
biological engineering is the new wave of research and will open, in my mind, I
believe, many new doors in terms of opportunity of improving the quality of
crops we produce. Certain specificities
that are required in those crops can be done this way. So I think it is a new wave of scientific
research in agriculture. We will stay
closely in tune with what is going on, but we do not have the resources or the
staff to get directly involved.
I guess our research arm for the
department is the
Mr. Plohman: Because of modern technology they can eliminate
hundreds of years of trial and error in developing new strains of plants. So I wonder whether the minister is aware of
any activities taking place at the university as a result of the grant money
that the province provides?
That is not strictly in this section, but
it is related. Since we are talking about it, the minister may be able to shed
some light on that.
Mr. Findlay: It is our understanding the university is
involved in hybrid canola research, which is some utilization of biotechnology
techniques. Also, in terms of herbicide
resistance, it is doing some biotechnology work there. They have grants to work in those areas. Certainly, the probability of some major
breakthrough in canola hybridization is, I think, very, very probable.
If the member read a few articles in the
last couple of weeks on herbicide resistance, he will clearly see that it is a
developing problem for weeds such as wild oats, millet, Russian thistle, and
undoubtedly some more. Because as you
constantly kill out the susceptible strains of a particular variety, you are
going to allow the nonsusceptible ones, or the resistant ones, to survive and
multiply. So through the course of using
chemicals over time, you select for resistance basically. Some of that resistance is starting to
emerge.
It is a major challenge for farmers to be
able to have at their disposal chemicals that overcome those resistant strains
of various weeds. In some parts of the
province, in millet and wild oats, it is of grave concern. So we desperately need either choices of
basically different chemical types of herbicides or another vehicle, another
means by which we can utilize some compound that allows us to control those
resistant strains of those various weeds.
Because if we do not, three or four years from now, we are going to have
some really major weed problems because of resistance.
Mr. Plohman: It is certainly an important area, and I
guess the minister is obviously aware of the future trend of engineering
certain strains of crops that would respond only to certain kinds of chemicals
manufactured by a certain chemical company, for example.
That is the kind of thing that concerns me
in terms of the kind of control that could be exercised by individual companies
who have engineered the kind of crop that produces in an excellent way, but
responds only to certain kinds of chemicals that they have engineered
particularly for that strain. That is of
some concern, and I think that is one of the reasons why I think the public
sector has to be continually vigilant and active in research, and not leave it
all to the private sector to do. Because it will be the monopoly of perhaps a
very few large companies at some point, if it is not already.
Mr. Findlay: The member sees it as a problem, and I see it
as an opportunity‑‑
Mr. Plohman: Right, if it is handled right.
Mr. Findlay: Certainly, with the involvement of
universities, that is the public sector involved in terms of research. My general understanding is that many
companies are exploring the ability to genetically engineer plants so that they
respond specifically to certain herbicides and that the end result will be
better control of weeds, higher production of food commodities. I think the public sector is involved through
the universities and through government research.
One example I could give is there are some
weed problems in canola. If somebody
could come up with a canola strain that is resistant to Roundup so that he can
move in and spray all the plant material with Roundup and kill everything
except the canola that is growing there, that would be a very major
breakthrough and would be very positive for the canola industry in this
country. I think that is an area of
research that is being worked on and looked at, but I would not say there is
only one company in the business of pursuing that kind of genetic
engineering. I say it is exciting. It is opportunistic.
* (1610)
The member sees concerns there, and we
might share some of the same concerns about whether the product when it comes
out is adequately researched so that all safety factors are considered and
efficacy factors are considered, but we have a regulatory system to manage
that. Naturally, if the price is too
high, the consuming public‑‑in other words, the farmer in this case‑‑will
not buy it. So the company is under
pressure to keep it priced so that it is usable by the consuming public, being
the farmer in this case.
Mr. Plohman: This is an important area. I wonder whether the minister can tell us
about the activities of his branch in this area in organic farming and control
of weeds in a natural way without use of any chemicals. Is this something that is actively being
developed and pursued as an option?
Mr. Findlay:
Through the department, we have committed
some funding in the process of developing those national standards. We worked with the organization in terms of
the meetings they put on, information meetings they have held about that. The Manitoba organization has worked with
Kent Flour Mills in Virden and with Can‑Oat in Portage for processing of
their organic grains for direct shipment after processing to marketplaces in
eastern Canada and Europe, which, I think, are a couple of the places that they
market to.
A manual has been put together for general
procedures for a farmer to follow if he wants to end up with an organic
compound. We hope that the certification standards are available fairly
soon. I am just not sure how soon they
expect them to be done. [interjection] They expect that printing of the
standards will occur in the next few months.
So they will be available fairly shortly.
There is no question there is a market for
organically produced commodities. You
will see various grocery stores have a section.
They call it green foods or organically grown foods. I guess I always say wherever there is a
niche market and somebody is prepared to pay a price that you deem is
acceptable, you go ahead and produce for that niche market.
Mr. Plohman: Would the minister say that GRIP is neutral
on this as a program for‑‑whether it discourages or encourages
organic farming?
Mr. Findlay: In terms of GRIP and organic production, at
this stage it looks like it is basically neutral. Whether a producer is producing regular wheat
or organic wheat, he works for the same market price, the same support
price. If he sells his commodity at a
premium‑‑in other words, the organic wheat had a premium to the
regular wheat‑‑the farmer pockets that premium. There is no
question that he is producing less bushels per acre, so his IPI will be lower.
An Honourable Member: So will his input costs.
Mr. Findlay: His input costs will be lower; plus he
pockets the premium. If he is selling it
for a dollar or a dollar and a half a bushel more, he pockets that
premium. There has been some discussion
on whether there should be a separate category for this, but there has been no
request to pursue that. We will wait and
see what may evolve in the future, but right now it seems to be relatively
neutral. You pocket the premium, but
your IPI will be lower and your costs should be lower.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is the way I
would look at it, Although some people have raised it with us that it is
actually a disincentive. I do not fully
understand why it would be at this time, whether it is just marginal in that
regard, but it may be something that will be brought to the forefront more for
discussion at some time in the future.
Mr. Findlay: Once the national certification process is in
place, that might be the appropriate time to weigh the pros and cons, the
advantages and disadvantages, whether there needs to be any special
consideration given.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has
indicated that he is following through with the reductions in the weed district
grants and has received continuing concerns from the weed districts. He indicates that he is working on an
integrated structure for programming. I
am not certain what exactly that involves at the present time.
I wonder if the minister would shed some
light on exactly what activities have taken place with regard to a new model
for weed districts, with a reduction in the funding by the province, and what
kinds of services would be integrated, as he says, for financial
efficiency. What progress has been made
and where is he at on that new model and what does it involve?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a district review
committee was set up involving representatives of Manitoba Agriculture, Union
of Manitoba Municipalities, weed districts and Farming for Tomorrow
organizations to try to look for some model of integration of some of the
delivery programs of agriculture in municipalities across the province to
achieve financial efficiency for both municipalities and the Department of
Agriculture and the provincial government.
* (1620)
It is fair to say that discussions have
been ongoing for some period of time and they continue on at this point in
time. We will be undoubtedly having a
discussion with UMM at their June district meetings on the proposals or
recommendations that have come forward to this point. There does seem to be some ability to
integrate weed district activities with soil conservation activities. That is probably one of the more likely
things that we can do. Whether there can
be integration further is still under discussion.
I am sure the member remembers that under
the weed district program that was in place, only about a little over 50
percent of the municipalities in the province participated. Almost 50 percent of the agricultural area of
the province had no weed district activity in it.
We would like, through this process, to
find the mechanism to have weed district activity cover the province completely.
Whether that is achievable or not remains to be seen. We had increased the grant for three
consecutive years to try to entice more municipalities to get involved in the
weed district program as it existed.
That did not work. The
municipalities did not see fit to get involved in the program as it
existed. So now we are trying to find a
mechanism to have the weed district activities cover all municipalities in some
integrated fashion, both for their financial efficiency and for our financial
efficiency.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I ask the
minister, why would he cut the funding first and destroy the program before
putting in place a replacement? Does it
not make more sense to continue the program and at the same time be developing
the guidelines for a more integrated approach and then switch to it, rather
than choking it off, in the meantime, and perhaps being left with nothing in
many of those areas when the funding is no longer there and getting to that
point already?
Mr. Findlay: If we had no end of money available to us,
probably that would be a way you could go.
We had to swing vast amounts of money from the department into risk
protection programs like GRIP and NISA, tripartite, and expenditure reductions
had to occur in some areas of the department.
This was one area that we chose to reduce expenditures in and, at the
same time, trying to find another delivery mechanism that would exist involving
the Department of Agriculture and its ongoing services and the municipalities
in their ongoing services that would be cost efficient and program effective
for all involved. That is the process we
are still in.
Mr. Plohman: The Liberal critic the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) mentioned that this was offloading on municipalities. We lose sight of that sometimes, the
government does, when it talks about holding taxes down, that in fact it is
resulting in tax increases at the municipal levels because a lot of services
are being offloaded. Is that really what
the minister sees out of this that these services, this integrated approach
will be largely paid for by the municipalities or does he foresee an influx of
money from the province once there is an integration of the service, that there
is going to be a grant available again or is it just going to be services in
kind by the department and any funding that has to come from anywhere will have
to come from municipalities?
Mr. Findlay: It is too early to bring that kind of
discussion to this table. It has not
been developed. They still have not
reached that stage as yet as to what it will be and who will pay for it. I think it is fair to say municipalities do
not feel they can pay any more. We are in
a position that we cannot pay any more.
We are mutually working together to try to find a solution that achieves
program deliveries that are reasonable and effective from both their point of
view and our point of view.
In terms of how it can be paid for, the
expectation is it can be paid for out of existing expenditures that are
presently ongoing in various areas and try to find some efficiency process to
achieve additional program activities with no additional cost to either
delivery vehicle, the provincial government or the municipalities.
Mr. Plohman: Just on the issue of soil conservation, for
example, the municipalities, I do not believe spend any money on soil
conservation as a municipal corporation, so I do not know where the integration
is. Not that it is not desirable,
something has to be done there, but it is a question of whether there is any
money being put that could be more efficiently used to do both weed control and
soil conservation, just for example those two.
So I do not know where they are going to achieve a saving there in terms
of their delivery of programs, because they are not doing soil‑‑if
I am wrong, well, the minister can give me some examples.
The only area that I can see that
happening is in special projects under a federal‑provincial agreement
where individuals are involved, or maybe the conservation districts. Conservation districts do not exist in all
areas of the province either. Has the
minister reviewed the reports and studies that his officials are involved with
or the group that is working on this area, that they have brought forward? Are they talking about perhaps using funding
from other sources such as federal level or conservation districts?
Mr. Findlay: The member talks about conservation districts
and that is not what we are referring to here.
We are referring to the soil and water associations, some 44, which were
set up across the province to deliver the Farming for Tomorrow program. That is
all federal and provincial money. We are
in the process right now of looking at the mechanics of how we can utilize the
Green Plan money that was announced by the federal minister a few months ago,
some $170 million for across the country for agriculture in some matching
fashion, so those discussions are just getting started as to how we would use
them.
I would see the soil and water
associations as being the basic pedestal on which to build the utilization of
those moneys beyond the existing four‑year agreement that is in place
under Farming for Tomorrow, the soil agreement under the soil accord. Whether
we can dovetail some activities or related activities of weed districts,
whether it is in alternate pest management or whatever, into that overall
process, utilizing moneys that we are already expending, is the challenge that
the department and this committee has.
The issue of the Green Plan money is a new
issue, a new opportunity, and it will extend us for a period of time and
hopefully we will be able to integrate in a broader sense a more efficient
delivery of a number of program initiatives.
Whether it is all achievable or not remains to be seen.
Mr. Plohman: If the minister can accomplish some reverse
offloading, that would be fantastic. I
would be the first to compliment him if he is able to do that by taking
advantage of some federal programming dollars.
They may be not there forever though, and so certainly this is kind of a
sporadic approach to it that you might have dollars one year and nothing the
next or when the agreement expires.
* (1630)
However, if there is some infrastructure
developed on the basis, the chances are that those agreements could be renewed
every five years or whatever the case might be.
But it seems to me that until he has actually got that plan in place, it
might be wise to put the brakes on this cut, because next year he will not have
any funding for weed districts and he may not have this fully developed, this
option.
Is the minister saying, under those
circumstances, that he would review this possibility of maintaining this meagre
$4,160 per district for a year longer if it took that long, or does he fully
expect to have a mature mechanism in place for the next fiscal year?
Mr. Findlay: Certainly the district program review
committee has had various meetings and are maturing their thought process, and
there will be discussion of their findings to date at the June district
meetings.
As we look ahead to the budget for next
year, certainly we will be prepared to look at the present expenditure relative
to the direction that this committee points out as being the most realistic
direction to follow, and determine whether it is feasible to follow the
reductions as we had previously laid out or reconsider them, and that laying
that out is a promise to reverse what we have planned to do. But we are open‑minded enough to
consider the pros and cons on an ongoing basis of our expenditures relative to
program and delivery objectives we have in a broad sense for the department,
and for looking at attracting as much of that federal Green Plan money to this
province as possible.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I will leave that issue. I think if we have to develop structures to
ensure we maximize those dollars, then we are wise to do it. In the meantime, though, I do not agree that
we should be, as I indicated earlier, cutting programs before we have developed
alternatives. That is why I think the
minister has missed the boat on this one.
I will turn it over to the Liberal critic.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4.(d)(1) Salaries $1,984,200.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am looking over
Grants/Transfer Payments here, where there has been a reduction, and it
explains at the bottom, but the horticultural society falls under those
grants. In 1981, you supplied grants to
39 organizations, can you give us how many societies were covered in 1991‑92?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in last year's budget
there was zero funding for horticultural societies. The year previous, my recollection is about
$33,000 was granted to horticultural societies, but it was removed from last
year's budget, so there was no funding in the last budget for horticultural
societies.
Mr. Gaudry: There was a request from the
Mr. Findlay: Yes, we have had two or three requests from
horticultural societies to reinstate funding, but we have had to respond to
them that the decision has been made to terminate those grants and it is not
possible at this time to reinstate those grants.
Mr. Gaudry: Were they referred back to their
municipalities to apply for grants in regard to continuing the work they were
doing?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, staff of the
department have continued to work with the horticultural societies to try to
help them find alternative mechanisms of funding their operations and their
umbrella organization. So various ways
and means of coming up with the resources they need to carry out their functions
have been discussed with them by staff of the department. But the ability of us to reinstate the grant
at this time does not exist.
Mr. Gaudry: You mentioned that you had tried
municipalities that they absorb some of these societies. Have they been successful in doing so by
contacting their municipalities?
Mr. Findlay: In terms of the discussions, we have not, as
a department, promoted that they go to the municipalities to find the
funding. We have promoted them to do
various things as an organization so that they become self‑sufficient by
some mechanism, whether it is membership fees or private sector grants or
whatever. But we have not promoted them
to go talk to the municipalities to fund them.
Mr. Gaudry: Are you aware if any of those societies have
folded up because of nonfunding from the government?
Mr. Findlay: As far as we know, at this time, they are all
still functioning.
* (1640)
Mr. Gaudry: There has been some indication that there
would be construction on an alfalfa pellet plant in Sprague or
Mr. Findlay: There have been numerous groups wanting to
develop forage pelleting or processing plants in the province. As a department, we have been working with
anybody who comes along wanting technical information, guidance. In the Marketing Branch, we have been working
with that industry, through the Manitoba Forage Council. We prefer to work through the council, which
represents all of them as opposed to directly in the marketing sense with any
one particular plant.
It is a very competitive business. It is not an easy business to get into. It is high cost. It is big investment. We strongly recommend to
anybody who is looking at it that they do the appropriate market analysis and
have a very well researched plan so that they know when they spend their money,
make the capital investment, they have some repayment potential through market
opportunities and contracts, whatever.
In terms of getting direct funding from government, the only vehicle
that exists was Industry, Trade and Tourism.
We can assist them through the Marketing branch with marketing studies
or marketing analysis, but as I said earlier, we work through the Forage
Council so that any work that is done in that direction benefits any and all
participants in the industry.
Mr. Gaudry: In regard to Sprague and
Mr. Findlay: To the best of our knowledge at this point in
time, they are working on a feasibility study and a marketing plan for a
proposed plant in the area and working with the Manitoba Forage Council.
Mr. Gaudry: One question here in regard to a letter that
was sent to the honourable minister from Powerrich Corporation. Rather than go
through the letter, it is quite substantial, can we have some comments from the
minister in regard to that letter and in regard to some accusations of asking
to retract some of the information on the news release in regard to fertilizer‑‑beware
of new special fertilizer sales pitches.
Mr. Findlay: This is referring to a news release put out
by a Mr. John Ewanek in the department.
Is that right?
Mr. Gaudry: Yes.
Mr. Findlay: When any new product comes on the market, I
think it is important that staff evaluate the product and look at the research
information that is available. If they
feel that farmers should be careful in considering the product from the
standpoint of the advertised benefits, I think it is important that staff do
that, tell producers be cautious; consider the information that the company is
giving out. I think it is fair to say
that anybody who has any valid scientific information to support their product
should bring it forward.
(Mr.
Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I read the letter that came back from
Powerrich and basically they challenged our authority to say some of the things
that were said there and our right to inform producers that they be cautious in
looking at new products like this. If
the company has valid scientific information that they want to show the public,
show the farmers, we would recommend that they do that. There have been a lot
of products come on the marketplace, and I think it is only fair that where
staff wonder whether there is enough scientific information to warrant the
claims, make those concerns known to the farm community as a caution, nothing
more than that.
Mr. Gaudry: One final last question in regard to the
horticultural societies again. Does the
government have any intention of reinstating those programs in the near
future? I know because of recession and
hard times that they had to cut back and try and get them to get funding
elsewhere. What is the government's
intention? Is that forever to cut off
the horticultural societies or those grants, because there has been a
substantial decrease since the third budget from $673,600 to $141,700 in this
last budget?
Mr. Findlay: The actual amount of grants to the
horticultural societies was $33,000 two budgets ago and we have reduced that to
zero, but the recessionary times we are in and the tough budgetary
considerations we have to use every year, we do not see changing for the next
budget or two. I would have to be quite
honest and say that there is no consideration right now of reinstating those
grants. It is just not possible to do
it. As I have said earlier, we have
focused our attention on maximizing our ability to help producers through the
tough times they are in with risk protection programs, and had to eliminate,
unfortunately, these expenditures for the horticultural societies and a few
other grants, but this one that you are talking about in particular.
Mr. Gaudry: You mentioned only $33,000. What other grants were cut back then because
of the amount that is being shown cut in this area?
Mr. Findlay: In terms of the supplementals that you are
looking at, the $281,700 under Grants/Transfer to $141,700. Are you looking at page 54?
Mr. Gaudry: Yes.
Mr. Findlay: The Grants/Transfer Payments went from
$281,700 to $141,700. That is strictly
the $140,000 reduction in the weed district grant. The horticulture grants were reduced a budget
prior.
* (1650)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Findlay: Our staff are involved as technical assistance
to any producer or group or task force that wants to look at irrigation. You asked specifically about the Pembina
Valley Diversion Project. The
We have technical assistance for the
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you for that. Is there a plan that is being designed by
other people or by the department for irrigation in the
Mr. Findlay: Another group in the
My understanding is that the
considerations that the new task force in the Pembina Valley is giving is that
they are looking at ways and means to impound water that is already here or
already in the region at some other time of the year to more effectively
utilize it in the growing season in an irrigation sense. It has often been said that in the
If we have the soil and the technical
resources, and water is a limiting factor, I think it is imperative that we, as
an industry, try to, in any region in the province, find a mechanism to use the
existing water in a more efficient way over the course of 12 months to promote
crop production or animal production or the eventual processing of those food
commodities in the region to create jobs.
Both activities create jobs, the production and the processing. If we can manage our water resources that are
already there to effectively achieve it, then I think it is imperative that we
try to do that.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister must be speaking about the
proposal or an article I saw in the paper where they were holding back spring water
and filling out dugouts and then using it.
Can you tell us the name of the group that is doing the work on that
right now?
Mr. Findlay: It is the Agassiz irrigators association‑‑Lake
An Honourable Member: If we only had the lake back.
Ms. Wowchuk: If we had the lake back we would not have to
worry about irrigation. That is right.
An Honourable Member: We would be flooded out.
Ms. Wowchuk: Then we would not have any worries
whatsoever.
The minister then says there is no work
being done by his department that would take water from the
Mr. Findlay: In terms of the technical information and
expertise we provided for the various groups looking at irrigation, the
department has not been looking at diversion of water from the
Ms. Wowchuk: Has any work been done by the department to
look at drawing water from aquifers, underground water for irrigation in this
area?
Mr. Findlay: In terms of utilizing water from aquifers in
the province for irrigation, the two main aquifers that water is drawn from by
the use of wells is the Assiniboine Delta aquifer and the Winkler aquifer.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am just looking for a clarification
then. Is the minister saying then that
all the water‑‑you are not looking at taking more water from
aquifers for irrigation, it is at a level that it is going to be‑‑there
is water taken from two aquifers for irrigation right now, but you are not
looking at more, or increasing the amount, or at new areas.
Mr. Findlay: In terms of looking at the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time is now five o'clock, and time for
private members' hour.
Committee rise.
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. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Chairperson, I have some information which I said that I would bring back to
the House. It is a listing of the post‑secondary
campus list, the institutions, private vocational schools which are eligible
for student financial assistance, and I would like to table them.
Madam Chairperson: We are on page 43, item 5.(e)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I raised my concerns yesterday in terms of
I particularly found the comments on
Limestone training to be rather incredulous.
She attacked the former Limestone Training Authority for providing
training out of
I am not sure if she was perhaps
referring, in error, to the fact that the civil technology program that was
provided under Limestone Training was cancelled in Thompson, and the students
were required to move to
So, Madam Chairperson, perhaps there is
some confusion on behalf of the minister, and she made reference to equipment
and so on. I notice she did not bring
into the debate any discussion on the efficacy of the training that did take
place. In fact, I wish she had been in
the committee this morning on Manitoba Hydro, because Manitoba Hydro confirmed
that under the previous government the percentage of northern native people
working in terms of Limestone was significantly higher, was as high as 25
percent, as compared to 9 percent on previous projects. The bottom line is progress was made, but
further progress can only be made with a further commitment to northern
training and, in particular, northern training geared to the upcoming Conawapa
program.
I just want to finish though‑‑and
I know we will be moving off this line item onto other line items‑‑by
putting another concern on the record, and it does relate partially to
* (1430)
There is a great deal of concern with post‑secondary
programs that this in many ways could destroy the programs, because what would
happen, obviously, would be as follows:
If treaty Indians were not able to receive that funding, that would
either have to be picked up by the provincial government if other funding was
put in, or, indeed, might potentially come out of operating funding. There is a very strong concern‑‑and
I am raising it under KCC because KCC does provide the one program in terms of
the ACCESS program, but it impacts on all‑‑in terms of funding of
students.
I know in the case of the BUNTEP program
in Thompson, there is a particular example of that. It has been indicated that BUNTEP will not be
in place in Thompson in large part because of student funding. I am not talking about funding of the program
itself. That is an ongoing concern. We will continue to lobby the provincial
government in that regard. I am talking
in particular of student funding, and what I would like to ask the minister is
what the current status is in terms of student funding, what the current status
is in terms of overall funding for the Northern Nursing Program, which is under
this line item, and if she could provide any further information in terms of
the general situation affecting other programs.
I realize this has come up in other areas,
other line items, but the bottom line is to find out what discussions are
ongoing with the federal government and where we stand, and when I say
"we", I am particularly talking on behalf of not only existing
students in the programs but the many northerners who are interested in having
access to the ACCESS programs, the many fine opportunities that have been
offered the last several years since those programs have been put in place.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, just to respond to the
member's opening remarks. I have, in
this House, if he checks Hansard, spoken many times about
It seems that there are two important
issues to be considered. One, the issues
of the North in general, and what are their particular needs in relation to
economic development and in relation to training and the training interests of
the people who live in the North.
Then, another issue which needs to be
considered as well and equally as seriously are the issues of northern students
and those students who would be attending a community college and would be
attending specifically
In my speech, the last time we were
together, however, the member did ask in his question, he did say that I had
not provided any examples of NDP mismanagement.
Therefore, I was very pleased to let him know the examples that I had of
NDP mismanagement, since he asked for them.
Relating to the issue of Limestone, it is
true that the senior staff of Limestone were located in
But the most important of the issues,
which I think needs to be considered and needs to be highlighted and needs to
be shown that there is a recognition by this government, are those issues that
relate to the North and particularly northern students.
The member has raised the issue, first of
all, of the northern nursing students, and I am pleased to tell him that the
northern nursing program is continuing.
But we do share the same concern which he has raised, concerning any
federal offloading. There is an ongoing discussion with the federal government
regarding any attempt to offload, particularly in those training programs which
the member has spoken of.
I am hoping that I will be able to make an
announcement in the near future, but I would like to reassure him and reassure
the people of the North of our commitment to this northern nursing program, and
also our commitment to the students in the North.
He has also asked me to broaden an answer
to look at the issue of ACCESS programs.
I have spoken also in this House about ACCESS programs. As the member knows, there has been a direct
federal offloading in the area of ACCESS programs, where the federal government
did stop their funding, did pull back their support. I will tell him that I am in continuing
discussions with the federal government in order to press the federal
government to meet their commitments to present students and to new students
who expect to be taken into those programs.
So in that area again, I would like to
reassure him that the issue is being pressed with the federal government. It is certainly not an issue which has been
left aside but instead has been seen as extremely important.
Mr. Ashton: Just to finish off on that point. I appreciate the comments of the
minister. Indeed, I can indicate that we
will certainly work with the government on this particular issue. It is an area where we are in full agreement.
I do indicate my concern that we may end
up in a very similar situation as we did in terms of income security, where
initially the provincial government did not want to pick up the cost. I say this not as a political comment but as
a concern that I think we may end up being in the very difficult choice in the
next period of time, if the federal government continues to offload, or if the
federal government continues to provide funding to existing students only,
because that is just as much of a problem.
We do not necessarily have to look at
existing students being cut off, but future intakes that we may be in the
situation where the province may have to decide whether it picks up the student
funding, because it is key to the program.
We are dealing with students who by definition, because it is the ACCESS
program, do not have the financial resources to obtain this kind of education
anywhere else.
So unless the student funding is there,
the program in itself becomes a nonissue.
It really becomes nothing more than another kind of program that we have
in terms of mainstream programming. I mention the concern in terms of BUNTEP
because I know that is the indication that we have received from BUNTEP that
the problem in terms of Thompson campus is not so much to do with operational
funding but is to do with student funding.
My concern is that we may run into that in
other areas in the future. So I
appreciate the promise of the minister, and as we said on income security, we
will work with the provincial government.
This is one area of common agreement to fight against any federal
offloading.
I just express the concern that we may end
up, given what the federal government has done in other areas, including income
security, with the situation of having a very difficult choice as a province as
to whether to provide that funding itself.
I am not asking the minister to state a
position on that. I realize when one is
in discussion and negotiations, one does not.
If one, in the case of the provincial government, feels the federal
government should continue its funding, offers to put that funding in if the
federal withdraws, that is not a good negotiating position.
But, I guess, as one who is not part of
the negotiating process directly, I would urge that contingency be dealt with.
My feeling is that the only way to save the ACCESS program, if the federal
government continues to offload, is for the province to provide that kind of
student funding.
It may be the kind of thing that maybe
court action could be taken, perhaps in conjunction with the bands themselves,
on behalf of the affected students, because I believe it is a treaty
obligation. It is a clear aboriginal right
in terms of the federal jurisdiction in terms of education. That is one very clear principle in our
constitution, in our relationship with the aboriginal peoples. So I believe there is a strong legal case.
* (1440)
I raise that concern, and this is one area
we will be continuing to raise both in the context of KCC and other areas. I
know the Liberal member has some further questions on KCC. I will finish on hoping the minister will
pursue this point vigorously with the federal government on behalf of the
students.
Mrs. Vodrey: I take the honourable members comments, and I
appreciate the support offered in dealing with the federal government and his
interest in the well‑being of the northern students.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): If I could just have the same series of
information that I have asked for for the other two colleges about what
percentage of total revenues is comprised of fees, and what was the fee
increase this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: The percentage of student fees of the total
budget at
Mr. Alcock: So we see the same phenomenon, only in this
case, it is accelerated a bit with the decline in overall budget and well above
the rate of inflation and the rate of operating cost increase.
Now we have seen that now for all three
colleges. Is there a target that the
department has set? Are they prepared to
see student fees rise to a particular percentage of total revenue, or is this
just going to be a serendipitous development?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have assured the member when we
discussed the other two community colleges, I will assure him again with this
community college, that the government does not have a target in mind and also
to let him know that the fees at Keewatin Community College are again in line
with community college fees across this country but in fact lower than the
national average.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(e)
(f) Education and Training Assistance.
Mr. Alcock: I note from the Expected Results that this
particular unit‑‑I am sorry, is there another staffperson coming
in? There is? I will wait until the staffperson comes in.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to take a moment to introduce
Mr. Bob Gorchynski who is the Acting Director of Finance and Administration.
Mr. Alcock: I just noticed that the Expected Result here
is training not available in
In all cases for these 66 students, am I
to assume, based on the discussion last night, that all 66 of them are either
studying at other Canadian universities or in
Mrs. Vodrey: The answer is yes. The province enters into interprovincial
training agreements with provinces that have universities which offer degrees
which are not offered in
Mr. Alcock: Last night, we spoke specifically about some
I believe the number was 57 students who had applied for student aid or student
financial assistance, and 50 out of those 57 who were accepted for assistance
going south to
Am I to assume from the way that this is
structured that these 66 are different, that those who are receiving assistance
under the Student Financial Assistance Program, that this is a particular
program that has to do with interprovincial training agreements? The question then is, these 66, are they only
in Canadian schools?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, these are different courses than the
ones that we discussed last evening. For
these 66 spots, this is a purchase of seats, and these seats are purchased
through a signed agreement, government to government, and then students would
make the determination as to whether or not they wish to go and how they will
attend.
Mr. Alcock: So, for example, when the agreement was
struck to create the one veterinary college in
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Alcock: Do we support the same number of seats each year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the answer is yes,
generally we support the same number of seats.
Occasionally, there may be a plus or minus of one or two.
Mr. Alcock: So the number of seats would go up and down
depending on the number of qualified students, or are we committed to some sort
of floor support?
Mrs. Vodrey: The agreement commits to a specific number of
seats; in the case of veterinary medicine, 12 seats. Occasionally, we have a
student drop out, and we would have 11 students occupying that seat. Occasionally, we might have 13 students who
wish to attend and that may be possible.
Mr. Alcock: The optometry and surveying engineering,
where are they located?
* (1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: Optometry is located at the
Mr. Alcock: The four private religious colleges, are
these the colleges that are currently at the campus, or are these in addition
to those?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the four religious
colleges referred to are the
Mr. Alcock: A third Expected Result is Alternative career
options for training and retraining. Can
the minister define what is meant by that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that some
years ago, a fund was established through joint council to provide retraining
for college employees who had been impacted by technological change or other
changes. This SY allows us to access the
money in that fund.
Mr. Alcock: I am sorry, Madam Chairperson, the minister
just referenced an SY?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the staff year is made available for the
individual who will participate. The
salary dollars are made available through the trust account.
Mr. Alcock: There is a reference here to the
rationalization of provincial funding to South Winnipeg Technical Centre. Can the minister explain the nature of that
rationalization?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in the past,
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, does South Winnipeg Tech
receive any funding directly from the province, or does it all come from the
federal government and indirectly through the school boards and the various
school divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, there is no provincial
funding available for adults. There is
provincial funding for youth, for young people, and that is through the regular
Schools Finance Program.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I wanted to ask about the private religious
colleges. I believe there is an unusual
funding formula for those colleges related to tax assessment and numbers of
students.
I wonder if the minister could perhaps
reflect upon that. I believe it causes
some inequities for the colleges. I
wonder if the minister has recently received any correspondence on that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, these colleges did ask
government for some assistance, and there was some recognition that they did
have a case for some funding. So there
has been a formula which has been worked out which was mutually agreeable among
the colleges and then accepted by government.
The private colleges which grant degrees under an affiliation agreement
with a public university or which provide courses approved by a public
university are the colleges which are involved.
Through the introduction of Bill 79, The Municipal Assessment Act, it
removed the tax‑exempt status for residences from public and private
schools as well as private post‑secondary colleges.
Provincial funding support for private
colleges encompasses both operating assistance and tax relief in recognition of
their important educational contribution to Manitobans. As the member has mentioned, four colleges
have been identified as meeting the requirements to receive the additional
funding, based on a formula again proposed by those four colleges with
agreement among the colleges, using the number of full‑time equivalent
students enrolled in arts and science courses.
* (1500)
Ms. Friesen: I think the issue is that it is not just full‑time
equivalent students, it is a combination of FTE's plus some relationship to the
existing taxation or assessment base at the time the act was passed.
I am wondering if this is still acceptable
to the colleges. I realize that for some colleges, where the assessment level
was different and they will have a larger number of students, Mennonite
Brethren College, for example, perhaps does better out of the funding formula
than, say, does Nazarene with its smaller number of students and a different
form of tax base.
Mrs. Vodrey: The facts as I gave the member are
correct. The formula has not
changed. The colleges have raised some
concerns because they would like to receive some additional funds. At this point, I would tell the member that,
yes, I am aware of their concerns and there is some ongoing discussion with
those colleges.
Ms. Friesen: But I wanted to get precisely on the record
what the actual funding formula is. In
the last but one statement, the minister said it was only full‑time
equivalent students, but my understanding was it was a little more complex than
that and it related to a combination of the existing tax assessment. That was then to be altered in lieu of taxes,
plus FTE's.
Mrs. Vodrey: The answer is that the formula is not any
more complicated than I have been telling the member. The formula, as I have been explaining to
her, is correct. The only difference is
for the
In terms of the four colleges we
discussed: Canadian Mennonite Bible
College‑‑they have a full‑time equivalent student number of
161. Through the formula that translates
into some operating support of $124,800 or 26 percent of the total. The
Ms. Friesen: So the grant then is based upon only full‑time
equivalent students, only absolute numbers?
Mrs. Vodrey: The full‑time equivalent student is
based on four courses in arts and science, and the attachment to the arts and
science faculty is also an important point which I do not believe the member
raised.
Ms. Friesen: So there is a per capita grant, an individual
grant which is the same at every college based upon every student taking four
courses?
Mrs. Vodrey: There is a difference between full‑time
equivalent and a per capita, and the member is talking about a per capita. I
have been discussing this as a full‑time equivalent, and the full‑time
equivalent is identified as four arts and science courses.
Ms. Friesen: I am not sure I understand that, so could the
minister explain that again? I
understand the difference between per capita and full‑time equivalent,
but I am not sure of the distinction you are drawing.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the member says she understands the
difference between full‑time equivalent and per capita, but it seemed to
me that she was using them interchangeably, and what I want to reinforce is
that they are not interchangeable terms.
If there were two students each taking two courses in arts and science,
that would translate into one full‑time equivalent student.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, the example
clarifies it. Is there any allowance
given for students in first year or fourth year, for example? Is there any differential in the FTE
application?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, there is no differentiation between a
first year or a fourth year full‑time equivalent.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us something about
the fee structure that the colleges themselves charge?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have that information with us
because these are private colleges.
Their fee structure is set by themselves, and if the member is
interested, we could certainly contact the colleges for that fee structure, but
she is also entitled to do that on her own, if interested.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested in the differential between
the publicly supported institutions such as
Mrs. Vodrey: We will look into the fees charged by those
private institutions, and we will report back to the member.
Ms. Friesen: Is there any charitable tax status for any of
these colleges which would allow some of those fees to be offset as a tax
deductible?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, on those points the member
would have to check with Revenue
Mr. Alcock: It is so strange, why do you get all upset
about a question like that? That is the
silliest thing I have ever heard of.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Is the honourable member for Osborne raising
his hand to pose a question?
5.(f) Education and Training Assistance
$1,477,600‑‑pass; (g) Student Financial Assistance: (1) Salaries.
Mr. Alcock: I presume there is another staffperson coming
in, is there? Then we will wait until
they come in.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I would like to introduce
Carol Sigurdson who is the Director of the Student Financial Assistance Branch.
* (1510)
Mr. Alcock: The minister had a terror on the last
question about whether or not somebody had independent tax numbers. Perhaps we can get a few answers on this
one. I am still surprised.
I asked the minister a question about the
auditing of students attending schools in
Mrs. Vodrey: The member's attempt to characterize appears
to take him off his clear thinking in terms of his questioning which seems to
be the only tear within this department, but I guess that explains the lack of
clear thinking on the part of the other member.
So let me explain an answer to this question. There are no special arrangements to audit
students going to school in
Mr. Alcock: It is a curious thing that we seem to be
moving along and we have made more progress yesterday and today than we were
for the first part. It just seemed that
the minister has all of a sudden reverted to her behaviour of before. If she wishes to sit here‑‑I mean
I just find it astounding that they cannot answer a simple question like
whether or not a college has tax‑free status.
I am not certain what would be the great
policy vulnerability in answering a question like that. The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) asked a
very straightforward, for information, question which this minister was unable
to respond to. I confess I am somewhat
surprised by that.
Now, on the Activity Identification in
this particular line it mentions here:
"Collect special program and bursary debts according to MSFAP
accounts procedures." Can the
minister tell us currently how much is outstanding?
Mrs. Vodrey: The answer is $3 million in receivables.
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister tell us what would comprise
those debts?
Mrs. Vodrey: They are bursary over‑awards, special
opportunity loans and
Mr. Alcock: Of the $3 million, how much is in bursary
over awards?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to clarify
in terms of my first answer, there were four areas: over awards bursaries, special opportunity
loans and
Mr. Alcock: Well, perhaps if we could just step back and
clarify the clarification. Bursary over
awards is one, special opportunity awards,
Mrs. Vodrey: The first category is over awards on
bursaries. The second category is special opportunity loans. The third category is
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister tell us, in each one of
those four categories, how that $3 million splits up?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we will have to return
with that information on the detail of each category for the member.
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister differentiate for me between
a special opportunity loan and a
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the
Mr. Alcock: Let us just concentrate on the special
opportunity loans for a moment. Is this
the financial category that a disabled student would go to first, or is this to
provide some sort of supplementary support that is over and above existing
guidelines?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, no, this would not be the
first place that students would go to for support, and generally this support
would be offered in the form of a special opportunity bursary. The special opportunity bursaries are
available to full and to part‑time post‑secondary students, and
they are designed to provide support for the extra services that disabled
students require which are not covered by other support programs.
Mr. Alcock: Are there written guidelines for the special
opportunity loans program?
Mrs. Vodrey: The special guidelines are available in the
branch's policy manual, and that policy manual is available in the Legislative
Library, which the member had requested a list of those manuals earlier in the
Estimates process.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
that.
Can we now move on to
Mrs. Vodrey: Just to remind the member that in
Mr. Alcock: The minister, when she described it, called
it a grant or loan. Can she tell us the
difference? How is that differentiation
arrived at?
Mrs. Vodrey: The grant is nonrepayable money, and the loan
is repayable. Generally, the loan is
given to students in the professional schools where they have a higher future
earning potential.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, the loan portion seems to be relatively
clear, but can the minister differentiate between a grant under the
Mrs. Vodrey: As I explained to the member, the award
system is in three parts, the Canada Student Loan first, followed by the
Manitoba Government Bursary. If a
student is still in need of additional funds, then we progress to the third
part of the
Mr. Alcock: The $3 million that was referenced as being
the total overage in these three areas, is that the accumulated amount that is
being sought or is that an annual figure?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that this is the cumulative
receivables.
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister give us some idea of how
much is going into default each year?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member has already asked for some
information on the issue of receivables, and when I provide that information, I
will provide for him the amount of loans in default.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
that. I would like just to define that a
little bit further. Might I have the
amounts in default for each line, both cumulative and for the current year, and
the number of loans that this totals, both cumulative and for this particular
year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, we will provide that
information both on current year and on cumulative.
Mr. Alcock: Moving on, first a question as to area. Support for graduate student fellowships and
the like at the three universities, within that, there is a program called, I
believe it is called the Duff Roblin fund, something that this government has
started just recently. Is there any
support other than basic loan and bursary support for graduate students contained
in this particular portion of the appropriation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, there are no graduate
fellowships in this appropriation. We
recognize that some jurisdictions do provide graduate fellowships in this
appropriation, but within those other jurisdictions, they offer loans primarily
as their provincial support, and in this province, we offer as our provincial
support bursaries and grants.
The Duff Roblin award which the member has
been referencing, we will have more details for him when we get to the
appropriation under UGC.
* (1530)
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, just to help us move
along, then, would that be true of all other graduate fellowship support, that
they will all be dealt with under UGC?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Alcock: Well then, if we can come back to this
question that we talked a bit about last night, on the support available for
students studying in non‑Manitoban schools. If I understood the minister correctly‑‑first
to deal with out of Canada‑‑the only schools that a Canadian or a
Mrs. Vodrey: Currently, the Student Financial Assistance
Program does provide Canada Student Loans and bursaries and loan rebates to
undergraduate students at Canadian universities if the program is not available
in
Now, undergraduate students studying
outside of
An exception is made for students studying
in
For post‑graduate students, post‑graduate
students will be considered for both the Canada Student Loan and the
Mr. Alcock: Approved for funding by the Manitoba Student
Financial Assistance Program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes.
Mr. Alcock: Well, just relative to that last statement,
can the minister table a list of institutions outside of
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I did just table for the member earlier
today this list of institutions which have been approved for the Canada Student
Loan. I believe that was the list that
he had requested at an earlier sitting of the Estimates.
Mr. Alcock: Let us come back to the question then of
undergraduate students. Can the minister
tell me how many undergraduate students are currently receiving financial
assistance and studying outside of
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that there are 150 students in
professional programs, and further information, we will need to search the
computer sheets which we have available to us, and we will do that research and
provide the member with that information.
Mr. Alcock: In doing that, if you could differentiate
between
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am informed that these are different
students from those which the member just mentioned. As I said, we will provide that further
information that he has asked.
Mr. Alcock: I am interested then, if we‑‑well,
I am sorry, first, let me get the number of graduate students. How many graduate students, Master's and
doctoral?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, this information the
member is asking for is extremely detailed and, again, we have a computer run
of approximately 15,000 documents, but we will be pleased to go through that
information for the member. We will
provide him with the graduate and undergraduate type of program and college,
which I believe he has asked for.
* (1540)
Mr. Alcock: Well, alternatively, they could give me
access to the database, and I could do my own searches, if you would like. I
would certainly want to save the department some time and energy.
What I am interested in is how the
department, how the government differentiates between schools. It seems that we have a considerable number
of students who are studying outside of
The criteria for that, as I understand it,
is support in approved programs. Now I
have just received this list before Question Period. It was on my desk when I came in, and I have
been through it very quickly, but I note here that the
I have a question from a student who is
attending the chiropractic program at the
I am trying to get a sense of what the
policy is that assist the staff in differentiating between which students will
receive support and which students will not.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that for the
University of Chicago, there is an eligibility for the Canada Student Loan
only, and I did provide the member just a few minutes ago with the four
criteria.
The reason that Canada Student Loan at
Mr. Alcock: So, Madam Chairperson, the 150 students, plus
or minus a few who will emerge from the searching of the database studying in
undergraduate programs outside of Canada plus the graduate students, Master's
and doctoral, who are also studying in approved programs outside of Canada,
they are all studying in programs which are not available in Canada?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, again, that requirement
pertains only to the undergraduate programs where they are available in
Mr. Alcock: So to clarify then, let us just come back to
the 150 undergraduate students, just to be perfectly clear about this. None of
those 150, plus or minus whatever it may be, no student is studying at a
university outside of
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I have told the member
that we will review all the information that is available to us and that we
will provide him with the information for the number of students studying
outside of the country by the level and program which I think is the
information that the member is seeking.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, that actually goes a
little further than what I was seeking.
I was seeking some assurance from the minister that no student is, et
cetera, et cetera, and I shall not bother repeating the question, but if she
wishes to give me the details of every student that is receiving support
outside of the province.
I guess the only question I would ask then
is given this government's extremely poor performance in producing information
that I requested on a timely basis‑‑and not this department's. I will say that thus far in these Estimates,
the department has responded in a very timely way to my questions. I shall not repeat the debacle of the deaf
policy, but certainly I have a number of requests for information outstanding
that make me a little nervous.
So to provide me some comfort, perhaps the
minister could give me a time frame for the production of that information.
Will we see it before the end of this week, before the end of this month,
before the end of June?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we will be pleased to
provide that information by the end of next week for the member.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
Might I ask the minister if the same
information would be forthcoming on students in the graduate programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, we will provide the
information that the member has requested in the time frame that I have assured
him.
Mr. Alcock: With this list, this post‑secondary
campus list that the minister tabled at the beginning of Question Period today,
or I guess it was on our desks at the start of the session today, how does a
program become approved? What is the
process that a program goes through in order to appear on this list?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the information that the
member is seeking is quite detailed information, but I will be pleased to table
it for him today if that would be helpful to him.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, before we get into the
provision of the truly vast quantities of paper that I suspect exist within
this department, perhaps the minister could just assist me in understanding how
this form is structured.
I note here it says review date opposite
some of these things. Now some of them
start with a 91‑‑I am looking now on some page number. It says page 1. They all say page 1‑‑no, they do
not all say page 1. Well, let us take
page 1 of the entire document.
* (1550)
When they say the review date, the first
two numbers would seem to be the date.
There is a 91‑01‑08, and the first one I have is 64‑09‑23,
a 90‑11‑23. Are those first
two numbers the year of the review?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, those numbers are the
year in which the institution was first designated.
Mr. Alcock: Are these institutions reviewed on some sort
of regular schedule?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the area of public institutions, new
programs are, of course, reviewed when they receive a designation, and the
private vocational schools are reviewed every five years.
Mr. Alcock: In this indicator code one‑two‑three,
one is approved, two is not approved and three is something that is listed here
as de‑designated, which I think we will hear on CBC Radio at some
point. The de‑designated, is this
something that is as a result of this five‑year review, or would it be
the department acting on a complaint, or is it simply that the school has gone
out of business, or does the fact that something is de‑designated and
still sitting on this list indicate that it is still in existence but somehow
it has lost something which it once had?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, sometimes a de‑designation occurs
as a result of a review. But as the
information sheet that I provided the member with states, the de‑designation
is usually a result of the institution no longer being in business.
Mr. Alcock: Why then is it still maintained on the list?
Mrs. Vodrey: The purpose, I am informed, is that when
people do apply then the de‑designation is on the record. It is faster to let individuals know that
program, that institution is de‑designated.
Mr. Alcock: I am just trying to envision the person who
is applying for a loan to attend a school that is no longer in business, but I
presume the department has its own purposes for this.
In the case of approvals for more
significant schools than some of the private vocational schools that appear to
be listed here with the de‑designated indications against them, I am
thinking of major public and private universities and the like, when someone
applies for that, I am wondering how the determination is arrived at that a
particular program is okayed or not okayed if you are only approving them at
the time at which you register them.
The only review takes place‑‑you
have some here 1964, '67‑‑is there no process whereby a student
comes forward and says: I can get
accepted into this school, it meets a national‑international standard; I
would like some assistance to go and study there? Is there no process for reviewing that?
Mrs. Vodrey: An institute is designated and then as new
programs are instituted they are then considered for designation. It is a detailed process. It is outlined in the document which I am
prepared to table for the member, and it is listed in detail on page 1, the
criteria for designation of institutions and the criteria for approving a
program of study and the minimum criteria for designation of institutions.
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister explain to us the reason
behind the policy that prevents a
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the student wishing to attend the
chiropractic college in
But as I have outlined for the member,
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister
then. The 150 students, more or less,
whom we talked about in undergraduate programs outside of Canada, and the yet
unspecified number of graduate students in Master's and doctoral programs, am I
to understand that none of these are receiving bursary or grant support, they
are only receiving Canadian Student Loans?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member has asked for the information
relating to graduate and undergraduate students who are studying outside of the
country and their particular status. I
would want to be very careful not to provide the member with any hypothetical
information, so as I have said to him, I will be happy to include that
information in the information which he has requested to this point and which I
have told him I will be happy to see he receives.
Mr. Alcock: I have one dilemma then. The minister is not able to give me an
assurance. We seem to be talking on two
different sides to this question, and I am not certain that we are talking
about the same thing. My question is
whether or not students receive‑‑now the minister differentiated
between Canada Student Loans and an institution being eligible for a Canada
Student Loan. It seems be fairly clear
that a student studying outside of the boundaries of Manitoba can receive
Canada Student Loan support if they are on the approved list. Great.
But there is a different step, it appears,
when a student is seeking bursary or grant support. If I understood the minister correctly, what
she had indicated was that, no, because they have this secondary program,
students may receive the Canada Student Loan, but they would not receive the
bursary and grant. I just want to ask
whether there is a consistent application of that policy. Are all students who are studying outside the
Mrs. Vodrey: The answer again is that students who are
studying at institutions outside of Canada and outside of Minnesota in a program
which is not offered in Canada, those students, and the institution as
designated, would be eligible to apply for both the Canada Student Loan and the
Manitoba support through the bursary and loan grant program that we have in the
three stages that I described for the member.
Mr. Alcock: Okay, then that maybe brings us to the policy
question, which is, the purpose of the policy is to make support available to
allow people to avail themselves of additional training and education, and I am
wondering why we would be concerned about limiting or why we would want to
limit the number of students who could take advantage of that kind of training.
I assume that we want to have some limits
around the quality of the program. We
want to make sure they are going into a program that is going to give them a
credential that is of some value in their home province, but having ascertained
that, why do we further limit them?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, our first obligation is to
see that post‑secondary opportunities are available to students. We look at where those post‑secondary
opportunities are available, and we look for those to be available within
But as the member knows, if the course is
available within Canada and within Manitoba, but within Canada on a wider
basis, then I think he knows that the tuition fees for programs within Canada
are less expensive than the tuition fees at some of the American universities,
by way of example.
So we have to look, first of all, at how
we are going to allocate the funds that we have available within this province.
We do look to make sure that post‑secondary opportunities are available
to certainly those students who would like to undertake them, and we look to
support those students. Again, we look
to support those students in a way in which the funds are expended in the most
efficient way possible.
Mr. Alcock: This question, I mean, I can understand. I might argue the
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that there
is no consistent policy across Canada, but I will remind the member that most
jurisdictions do provide additional support from the province in terms of loans
and that we in Manitoba provide our assistance to students to assist them
within their post‑secondary studies by way of bursaries and then the
third step, the Manitoba loan or grant.
Mr. Alcock: But it seems curious that we would act in a
way that would limit the potential opportunities available to Manitobans in
this manner. Why has the government made
this particular determination that a student who can gain access to a high‑quality,
non‑Canadian school cannot go and study there and bring back those skills
into
* (1610)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as I have described to the
member, this is a matter of balance, and it is a matter of access and student
desire and availability. Again, I will
remind the member that, if the program is available in
Where a program is not available in
Mr. Alcock: Is this a recent policy decision taken by the
current government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, no, it is not a recent
policy of this government. It is a long‑standing
policy.
Mr. Alcock: Then there is no reason why the minister
could not change the policy. If in fact
it was a policy of the bad old days, as this government is often fond of
saying, then perhaps we could strike out in bold, new directions if there is a
desire, a sincere desire on the part of the government, to see more Manitobans
trained, and if Manitobans are able to access high‑quality, accredited
programs in other parts of the continent, why would we limit the number of
Manitobans who can achieve that kind of success?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, access to programming is a
top priority of this government. I will
remind the member that this government has stood by the policy of a bursary
first, but there are financial limitations to the taxpayers of
Mr. Alcock: I guess now we are into it a little bit. It is interesting that as recently as in
Question Period today we had the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) waxing eloquent
about the lack of desire on the part of this government to build boundaries
around the province of Manitoba, to reach out to the rest of the world, et
cetera.
I am not suggesting in any way that there
be a differing level, size, amount or whatever.
There is a support rate that is established for students studying in
programs, period. If the programs are
not available in the
But for some reason the government has
drawn a boundary. It is saying that
Manitobans can only be educated at these schools which we have chosen, despite
the fact that in any other school a state over or a couple of provinces over‑‑well,
not provinces I guess in this case‑‑that are equally good or potentially
even better.
For some reason the government has drawn
an arbitrary line. I do not understand why, because we are not talking about a
huge expansion in the number of students.
Students still have to meet the entrance requirements; they still have
to be accepted into the programs; the programs still have to be accredited; and
there are a whole series of criteria that are going to hold down the
numbers. Frankly, if we had more
students achieving professional accreditation or professional credentials in
higher levels of learning, is that not something that is good for the province?
Yet for some reason the government has
continued a policy of the previous government that seems to mitigate against
people accessing this kind of training, and I am simply asking the minister to
defend that policy. Actually, what I am
asking the minister to do is to reverse it, is to consider changing the policy.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, again, I believe that wise governments
do monitor trends, they do look at the supply and demand and I believe that is
one of the things that the member is asking me to do. He is asking me to have a look at what the
supply and the demand is and to make sure that we are well aware of the kinds
of requests and trends which students might bring forward to us.
Certainly as part of a government that I
believe is very responsible, that is certainly one of the things that we
do. But as I have already stated to the
member, it is very important for us to set a balance that is one in which taxpayers
can afford the balance that we have set, one that also does look at the issues
of access and the future needs of the province and the money, as I said, that
is available.
Mr. Alcock: Well, Madam Chairperson, maybe we could get a
sense‑‑I mean, does the minister have some study that suggests that
if we allowed additional Manitobans to study at high quality professional
programs in other parts of the country, that this would open the flood gates
and we would have, what, another five, 10, 50, 100, that somehow this would
increase the deficit to a point that Manitoba could not sustain? What is the evidence of that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, well, I believe that the
evidence lies in the fact that students who wish to study outside of
Mr. Alcock: Well, Madam Chairperson, I said in my earlier
question that there can be a rate set that is consistent with the rate of
support available at a Canadian university.
It does not need to be a sliding scale to meet‑‑one does not
expect them to meet the fee scale of Stanford or Harvard or Yale or any one of
those. I mean, there can be a rate set
that is consistent with the rate provided to a Canadian student attending a
school at a Canadian university. The
question, though, was: what is the
evidence that doing this would cause a dramatic increase in the number of
people applying for it?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do have empirical information regarding
the average cost for students studying outside.
We do not have specific information which, as the member has said, would
suggest that the specific numbers would increase to a certain level.
I think that at this point we have a basic
difference of belief, but what I have told the member was that I believe that
responsible governments, responsible departments, responsible ministers do
monitor the trends, do look at the issues of supply and demand, do look at the
requests, and I have told him that I am certainly prepared to do that
monitoring.
* (1620)
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, I have been interested in
listening to the recent exchange, and I would like to ask the minister also to
send me the same information on loan defaults. I think that would be useful for
both critics. I was also interested in
the list she provided of educational institutions, and I suppose everyone comes
at this with different preconceptions, but one did strike me and just out of
curiosity, I am interested in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that the
process for the designation of that particular school under the Canada Student
Loan would be that a student would have applied to receive Canada Student Loan
assistance to attend that institution.
We would have written to that institution. That institution would have replied back with
their particular information regarding what the information is. That information then would have been checked
against the criteria, which I have tabled earlier today. If that institution met that criteria, then
the institution would have qualified under the Canada Student Loan designation.
Ms. Friesen: But there are a variety of criteria which it
can meet within that Canada Student Loan Act, and I wondered which particular
ones this one met. For example, I assume
it has a certificate, is it 50 percent of the faculty having Master's degrees,
what is it? It seems such an odd one.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as the member knows, there
is a list with virtually hundreds on the list, which I provided her, of
institutions which have been designated.
If she has a series of institutions which she would like us to check
into their historical designation, then we will be happy to do that. Certainly
we can look at that one.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to have some information on that
one. Another one I am interested in is the Flanders Foot Care Techniques of
Esterhazy,
The minister said that this department
monitors the trends in Student Financial Assistance, and I wonder if she could
give us an account of the changing trends in the uptake of student assistance
loans and bursaries over the past three to five years. What kind of changes has the department seen
in terms of, for example, the number of single students, single parents, male
students, female students, continuing students and mature students?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, I have some trends
that I can speak to the member about.
There has been a decrease in 1988‑89 of the total amount of money,
and that decrease is due to less claims of the previous year's loan rebate
commitments. From 1986 to 1992, there
has been an increase of assistance to post‑secondary students, and the
average yearly expenditure increase is 9.4 percent. This average 9.4 percent increase is meant to
cover increases in tuition fees and living costs, and this year, 1992‑93,
the increase to post‑secondary assistance is $615,000, 615.2, which is a
6 percent increase. The level of
assistance provided to Manitoba post‑secondary students increased by $3.7
million or an average of 9.4 percent yearly over the past six years, and the
total amount is close to $50 million, of which 95 percent, or $47 million, is
nonrepayable assistance, unlike other provinces which, as I have said, do
provide provincial assistance in the form of provincial loans.
* (1630)
Since the total cost of tuition fees is
included in the student need assessment, this increase did come also including
the tuition increases at the institutional level. The department will continue to recognize 100
percent of the cost of tuition to determine the student assistance level.
Ms. Friesen: What the minister has done is outline the
increases in amounts paid out by the department. I was also interested in the other side of
that question, the changes in the nature of the students who are requesting the
assistance.
So I was looking for changes, as I think I
said, in balance between genders, single parents, mature students versus
continuing students, students who have family responsibilities, et cetera. Have there been some noticeable changes in
those proportions over the last five or six years?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do have the information that the member is
interested in for this current year, and we are just in the process of
assembling that information. The
information which she has asked for, trends in terms of the past five years‑‑I
think that was the amount of time that she was referencing‑‑again
that is information that we do have available through computer printouts.
It is a detailed activity, but we will
assemble that information if that is what the member would be interested
in. I will report to her this afternoon
as soon as I have the figures assembled here, what the figures are in terms of
the student type. I believe she was asking
for those students who would be classified as a dependent single, living at
home or away from home, an independent single living at home or away from home,
and a married individual with or without dependents, and then single parents.
I also have for her, if she would be
interested, some information on the average loans while we are assembling the
numbers. For the dependent single living
at home or away from home, the average Canada Student Loan is about $3,108,
with an average
For single parents, the information that I
have is an average Canada Student Loan of $3,286, and average
In terms of the statistics that I believe
she has been asking for, for the year 1990‑91, the number of dependent
students who approached‑‑the number of total applicants in the
dependent category was 4,799. The number
of independent applications of students living at home was 1,500; the number of
independent students was 4,901; the number of married students was 1,927; the
number of applicants who were married who were both students was 404; and the
number of single parents was 1,304‑‑for a total number of
applicants of 14,431.
Ms. Friesen: Those figures are interesting for this year,
but in terms of looking at departmental policy they really do not have very
much meaning without knowing what the changes have been over a period of
time. Actually I would be interested in
having the rolling analysis, but I am curious as to why the department does not
have them. I would not necessarily
expect you to have the numbers here, but are you asking those questions? For example, if one of your purposes is to
"increase the participation and success of Manitobans in education and
training" and to meet the needs of underprivileged students‑‑and
I am quoting from the section dealing with the purpose of this part of the
department‑‑it seems to me that those kinds of things will be the
basis for any kind of analysis.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we certainly do monitor
the trends. We do have this information
available at the Student Financial Assistance branch. As I have said to the member, we will make it
available, but to bring it into the Estimates process would require cartons of
computer paper to come with us. So we do not have it at this moment, but, as I
said, we would certainly provide the information for her.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, I do not want to belabour
this, but it does seem to me it does not require cartons of paper brought into
Estimates to have an analysis of who your clientele are and how they have been
changing over the past five years, if one of your stated aims is to meet the
changing needs of the clientele.
* (1640)
I mean, it is an obvious question. What are those changing needs? What kind of information and questions is the
department asking in this area that, presumably, is the basis for annual
reports, for annual analyses, for meeting the Planning Secretariat, if there is
one?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, well, we certainly do
analysis within this branch, and some of the analysis which we do year over
year are numbers such as last year's participation rates, historical
participation and trends, participation by institution, cost tuition,
transportation and living costs. As a
result of this analysis which is done regularly, it does lead to some of the
changes then which have been brought forward.
In 1991‑92 some of the changes were increase in local
transportation to meet the actual costs and there have been a number of changes
which have been brought forward and have been analyzed and then have led to
changes within the program.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, when the minister says the
participation rate is monitored, what exactly does that mean? What criteria are
being looked at there?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, we look at the participation level by
application, and then we also look at the awards by type of program, and I did
read into the record for the member the student types which we look at. I did read into the record some of the
average Canada Student Loans that have been awarded to those specific category
areas, the amount of the
So, as I explained to the member‑‑and
also I would like to add the average debt load for students or participants
within that category. So what we have
done, what I have read to her today is the average amount in each of those
categories, and I have also read her today the participation rates by number in
each of those categories. We do monitor
those, as I told her, year over year to look at, again, issues such as
participation and the awards.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister discuss, for a little
while perhaps, some of the new ideas or new policies she might be looking at in
relationship to student funding? There
are a number of new ideas which were suggested in the Stuart Smith report. There certainly have been some that have been
reported on in the press recently. The
funding of students and issues of accessibility are ones which concern every
government, and I wonder what, since 1988, have been the new ideas in this
department, and what kind of proposals are being discussed within the
department for any kind of restructuring or new approaches to this particular issue?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I would hesitate in answering the
question to speculate on policy, but I am prepared to outline some areas of
concern for the member. The first is
that before we can make any change to our program in
In looking at our program in
We are aware of some of the
recommendations in the Smith report, particularly the area of the income
contingency, but again I would remind the member that our program in
Ms. Friesen: Has there been any discussion with the
federal government about new approaches to student funding? Has the minister, for example, raised this in
any of the meetings, or through letters with the Council of Ministers?
* (1650)
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have answered previously in our
discussion regarding student financial assistance in this Estimates debate, I
did tell the member that there was a meeting in
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what proportion of
post‑secondary students in
Mrs. Vodrey: We believe, based on the figures of knowing
the enrollments of the various institutions and also looking at the awards by
way of institution, that it is approximately a third of the students in post‑secondary
institutions.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have any sense of how that
has been changing over the last five years?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that number is fairly static
over the past five years.
Ms. Friesen: And how does it compare to the Canadian
average and perhaps to a similar western province or eastern province,
something on the same scale?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is difficult to compare because the cost
of programming is somewhat different across
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister give me a footnote to
that, or somewhere I can check it? Does
she have something more precise on, compares similarly to? And how does it compare to the national
level?
Mrs. Vodrey: We can provide information on trends over the
past three years for students accessing the Canada Student Loans across
jurisdictions, but the member would have to recognize that there are some
differences across the provinces. But we
will certainly provide her with the information that we can.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me something about
the audit and investigation aspects of this branch's program? How are those audits carried out?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the audit section ensures that first of
all problem areas in policy and procedures are identified, that all the
conditions stated on the declaration of the application form are met, and that
the information provided in support of an application is true and complete, and
that an accurate assessment of the student's financial need has taken place.
All applications which are audited are
referred for very specific reasons. Some
of the examples are: A discrepancy in
the information reported may be noted by a Student Financial Assistance Branch
staff; sometimes, for instance, the student's income tax return may indicate
interest income from a bank account which was not reported on the application
form. An application, secondly, may be
returned to the audit section because a previous investigation or audit
revealed a misreporting or sometimes concerned citizens inform the audit
section that they suspect a student has misrepresented that student's financial
situation.
Once a file has been accepted for audit,
all the information reported on the application is verified by contacting the
student, banks, employers and other agencies with which the student may have
dealings, and once the requested information is received then it is examined
and a report is prepared. The student is
notified of the areas in which the inaccuracies may have occurred and also of
what changes then were made to the award, if any.
Ms. Friesen: I just wanted to go back to an earlier line
of questioning and to ask the minister again, over a three‑ to five‑year
period how long do students remain on average on student assistance and has
that changed?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, within the program, the
program allows for, as a maximum, the number of years required for the study
plus one. I am informed that most
students do complete within that time period.
However, there has been a modest increase in the special opportunity
loans, and those special opportunity loans were those which I spoke of earlier
which are available to students who for some reason, and there may be‑‑I
referenced a potential couple of reasons in which those students are unable to
complete their course of study within that maximum length of time which has
been outlined within the Canada Student Loan.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(g) Student Financial‑‑
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, I know that the hour is
drawing close to five o'clock, so perhaps I could just lay out a couple of
issues and then the minister could bring information back to the next sitting
of the Committee of Supply.
In this discussion of student loans, the
question of average burden accumulated by students is one that I will be
wanting to discuss at some length. The
second is the average length of time for repayment of loans, given the loans
that are being proffered by the province.
I am going to want to discuss the means by which the
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me
to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on
House Business, before we move to the calling of private members' bills 39, 52
and 90, I would like to indicate that there has been discussion between House
leaders. What we would anticipate doing,
collectively, is to call third reading of Bill 39 as shown on the Order Paper
today, also to see Bill 52, a motion brought forward by the member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin), discussed and possibly passed at second reading stage.
Mr. Speaker, then for Bill 90, I will move
a motion at that time, transferring the sponsorship of Bill 90, by the leave of
the House if that is granted, from the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) to the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema). I
understand that bill then would be spoken to, again with leave of the House, on
Thursday.
So that is what I am contemplating at this
sitting, Mr. Speaker.
I will change the sponsorship of Bill 90
at this time.
I move, seconded by the member for Gimli
(Mr. Helwer), that sponsorship of Bill 90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le
"
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to change the sponsorship of Bill 90 from the honourable member for
Gimli to the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)? [Agreed]
Motion agreed to.
REPORT
STAGE‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 39‑The
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that Bill 39, The Salvation Army
Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation "The Salvation Army Grace General
Hospital"), reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be
concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
THIRD
Bill 39‑The
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): With leave of the
House, I would like to call third reading now of Bill 39.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to call for third
reading on Bill 39? [Agreed]
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 39,
The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Salvation Army Grace
General Hospital"), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): I just wanted to
indicate that we, by the expedited passage of this particular bill on second
reading and we have just, by leave, support of all parties, agreed to deal with
this on third reading.
I would like to thank the government House
leader (Mr. Manness) for, I think, recognizing the importance of these three
bills and the importance of dealing with them in a co‑operative
fashion. I would like to indicate on the
record that I appreciate the move the government, in terms of the other bill in
which the sponsorship was changed‑‑because we had agreed with the concern
expressed by the Liberals, time of introduction, and indeed I really believe
this is the kind of precedent we should be setting in private members' hour
with these kinds of bills, where we can deal with them in a co‑operative
manner, and we can expedite the passage, as indeed we are doing on this bill by
passing it through third reading and report stage today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to add a few words.
This is a bill which we are glad to see finally receive third reading
today and very near in the future will be receiving Royal Assent, and just to
commend all those involved in wanting to get Bill 39 passed and enacted for
their actions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I just would like to thank the
honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness) and all members in the House
for their support on this bill on behalf of the
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House, third reading
of Bill 39, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Corporation Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Salvation Army
Grace General Hospital."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion? [Agreed]
* (1710)
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 52‑The
Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Loi constituant en corporation "The Pas Health
Complex," standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr. Ernst).
Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): The member for The
Pas (Mr. Lathlin) is unable to be here today.
In fact, he is in hospital himself, unfortunately. I know he has been very anxious to see this
bill pass, and he is, as I said, unable to be here. I know he would have liked
to have spoken in closing on second reading.
It is important to The Pas Health
Complex. It is time sensitive. They have an annual general meeting coming up
fairly shortly, and this would, by changes to the board, add to The Pas Health
Complex. In particular, the board is
looking at, for the information of members, expanding aboriginal representation
on its board to ensure that many aboriginal people using the services of The
Pas Health Complex are represented.
I know that, had the member for The Pas
been able to be here today, Mr. Speaker, he would have put those comments on
the record, the importance of this bill, not just to The Pas Health Complex
itself, but to the broader community and particularly the aboriginal community
in The Pas and in surrounding areas and making sure that their concerns are
represented.
I would also, I am sure, on behalf of the
member for The Pas like to thank the government House leader (Mr.
Manness). I know the member for The Pas
has discussed this matter with the government House leader, and I know that he
is aware directly. I believe he has
spoken to individuals in The Pas and The Pas Health Complex.
Once again this is, I think, an excellent
precedent, Mr. Speaker. It is something
that we can learn from in terms of all bills in having a co‑operative
approach on bills that are not political bills.
This is a private bill. It
affects a hospital in the same way that the other private bills do, and I
think, where we can on these kinds of bills, which are nonpartisan bills, have
a co‑operative approach, it is to the benefit of everyone and, most
importantly, to the constituents we represent.
So with those few comments, we are pleased
to be able to have this pass through to committee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I, too, would like to stand and lend the support from our caucus on
this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the fact that
The Pas Health Complex serves the community very admirably. We will support the bill in going into
committee at this time.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House, second
reading of Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Pas Health
Complex." Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before
you proceed to the rest of the items, I will indicate that, as soon as we deal
with Bill 90, maybe even the next day after second reading of Bill 90 I will
call a Standing Committee on Private Bills to deal with those two private
members' bills, so that we may deal expeditiously with their conclusions.
Mr. Ashton: Just on a matter of House Business, tomorrow
being Wednesday we would not normally call bills, but we would like to
indicate, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be willing, by leave, to call bills
tomorrow in order to accommodate the very excellent suggestion by the
government House leader (Mr. Manness).
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
SECOND
READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 90‑The
Mr. Speaker: Bill 90 (The Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le
"Seven Oaks General Hospital"), are we proceeding with Bill 90? No, okay.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The
Health Care Directives Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 16, The Health Care Directives Act;
Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante, standing in the name of
the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 18‑The
Franchises Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 18, The Franchises Act; Loi sur les concessions,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), Bill 25, The University of Manitoba Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 27‑The
Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 27, The Business Practices Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, standing in the name
of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 31‑The
Municipal Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Bill 31, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 36‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 36, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Stand? Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 50‑The
Beverage Container Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition Party (Mrs. Carstairs), Bill 50, The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Stand? Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 51‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 51, The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, standing in
the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 54‑The
Consumer Protection Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 54, The Consumer Protection Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) who has five minutes
remaining. Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
Bill 55‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 55 (The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail)‑‑that
is mine. Okay.
Bill 56‑The
Public Health Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 56, The Public Health
Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique, standing in
the name of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Stand?
Is there leave? [Agreed]
Bill 66‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs), Bill 66, The Child and Family
Services Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les services a
l'enfant et a la famille, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). Stand?
Is there leave? [Agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few
concerns that I have in regard to Child and Family Services on the record at
this point in time, because I feel that there are a number of things that are
going on right now within the government, or what the government is doing, that
I do not necessarily support.
I believe that this particular bill
addresses a number of issues that I think the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) should be taking very seriously and dealing with.
An Honourable Member: Irrelevant.
Mr. Lamoureux: To the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), it is
being somewhat relevant. If he does not
believe I am being relevant, I would ask him to stand up and tell me how I am
not being relevant.
Mr. Speaker, I think that The Child and
Family Services Amendment Act is a very serious act in itself. Child and Family Services deals with the
children of the province, if you will, and there are a number of issues that
need to be addressed regarding child welfare issues.
I wanted to make reference to a couple of
specific cases.
An Honourable Member: You cannot read from notes anyway, Kevin.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), I
would not read. I would not want to
disappoint them.
Mr. Speaker, I did want to say a number of
things in respect to the welfare of the children of the province, something
that, no doubt, we all believe is a priority.
I know the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) had asked some
questions to the minister, that the government has a role to play in terms of
the welfare of the children of the
We believe that The Child and Family
Services Act deserves or warrants some amendments and that this is one of the
amendments that in fact should be at least considered from the government. I
know the minister responsible has not spoken to this bill yet, and we hope that
he will take the opportunity to speak to the bill, because it is something that
we would like to at least see it go into the committee stage just as much as
the minister himself would like to see his bill go into committee stage.
* (1720)
I can assure the minister that, in fact,
the Liberal caucus will be speaking to his bill, as we would hope that he would
be speaking to this bill and point out where he feels that this bill or why
this bill should not pass this Chamber, as we will do for his bill. Just as he feels that this bill is important
to him, we feel that this bill is important to us. Every member is entitled to have their
concerns expressed and ultimately voted upon if at all possible.
Mr. Speaker, I would only encourage the
minister to do as we will do to his bill and stand up and speak to this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today
to rise and speak to the proposed motion of the honourable member for
I know that the honourable member for
I know we spent a lot of time tracing our
history. I think until we ran into blank
corners and blank areas that we could not trace, back in the 1700s and 1800s,
it was not until that time that I realized that you have lost a section of
heritage from your family, when you have no longer got that window of
opportunity to be able to go through any type of search mechanism.
I think we as a province, we as a country,
have to start realistically looking at what the family units are and what we as
a government can do to assist not only the biological but all identities of
families to reunite themselves in a family matter for health and other reasons.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this government has
worked strong and hard throughout the years to see that adoption processes‑‑and
Child and Family Services has worked with the communities in a very positive
fashion. I know the honourable member
who used to represent St. Norbert, Mr. Gerry Mercier, had a very strong, strong
feeling towards the issues of family services throughout the province. I know he took a very strong stand on child
abuse and on other issues.
Mr. Speaker, I learned a lot from Mr.
Mercier on his values, and how the values of the system have to be initiated
not only by one member of the government but by all members of the Legislature,
so that we as a unit can protect the children of today, because they are the
true future for tomorrow. I do believe
that is the reason we are here today, to protect the future for those whom we
will leave behind what is left.
At times I wonder what it is we are going
to leave behind. Governments of the past have at times fallen asleep at the
wheels. They sometimes forgot that they
could no longer spend to no limit and just continue to spend and raise
debt. They thought that there was no
issue as long as they just did what they wanted for the day. Well, to do what is right for our children,
we have to understand and understand very clearly that what is left after we
have increased the debt for our nation and for our province is nothing but a
debt for our children.
I do not think you will find anyone in
this House who could speak negatively towards a system that will aid a family
to reunite. What is it all about? That is exactly what it is about: reuniting family. I do not think you will find anybody who does
not believe in the family unit, at least not on this side of the House.
You might on that side, Mr. Speaker. I think when I look at some of the situations
on that side of the House, I do believe that sometimes they do not believe in
the family unit. If they truly believed
in the family unit, I do not think they would take the negative attitude they
have towards government. I think they
would really get constructive and try working with government to aid government
to bring forward legislation that would aid our children.
I do agree with the honourable member for
I am hearing some rhetoric from the other
side. Mr. Speaker, excuse me while I
just take a listen here.
An Honourable Member: What is the family unit?
Mr. Laurendeau: You see, Mr. Speaker, already they do not know
what a family unit is, and that is not my fault that they do not know. I mean, they have to ask, what is a family
unit?
Mr. Speaker, of all things, if the member
does not know, I am not the one who is going to tell her. I come from a family unit and I am not the
one who is going to explain to her how the family came about.
Within our family we were taught what a
family unit was. I am sorry if the
honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for
I really appreciate it when she gives me
the time and the opportunity to get up and speak in the House. I really do actually enjoy when she speaks
from her seat and attempts to take me off the path‑‑
Mr. Bob Rose (
Mr. Laurendeau: Righteousness, as the member for
Within our family, Mr. Speaker, we were
taught a lot‑‑I am sorry, I do not hear the honourable member for
But these people just do not know, Mr.
Speaker, they continue to just jab, jab, jab.
It is hard to keep on to an issue when you have this type of flow coming
across the House, but I am learning to enjoy it, I am learning to enjoy it.
I do have to thank the honourable member
for
Mr. Speaker, Family Services is a very,
very important issue here in this province.
The honourable member for
I do not know exactly all the
ramifications around it because I have not had the opportunity to really go
through and dissect all the separate sections of the bill. I am not about to start speaking to each
individual section, because as we know, Mr. Speaker, we are not allowed to, we
should not speak to specific sections.
It is one of the rules that we are not allowed in the House.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to
give the opportunity for the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk)
because I see she has been standing there and waiting for me to sit down, and
being the gentleman that I am, I will sit down at this time and give the
honourable member for Swan River the opportunity to rise and say what she has
been saying from her seat. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer).
* (1730)
Bill 77‑The
Liquor Control Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), Bill 77, The Liquor Control Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des alcools, standing in the
name of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 32‑The
Immigration Consultants Registry Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 32, The Immigration Consultants Registry
Act; Loi sur l'inscription des conseillers en immigration. Are we proceeding?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: We are not proceeding? Okay.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 27‑Issuing
of Government Contracts
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS these contracts involve
substantial amounts of taxpayers' money; and
WHEREAS publication of a list of awarded
contracts would better inform Manitobans how their tax dollars are spent; and
WHEREAS the business community would gain
a better understanding of how the competition process operates from the
disclosure of contracts; and
WHEREAS greater understanding of the
process in the business community will lead to greater participation and, by
extension, greater government savings on the issuing of contracts; and
WHEREAS disclosure promotes open
competition and discourages patronage.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba recommend to the Department of Government
Services that it publish a monthly listing of all capital, construction, and
maintenance contracts valued at $10,000 or more that were issued by the
government of Manitoba; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
recommend to the government that it publish a monthly listing of all tenders
and proposals issued by all government departments.
Motion presented.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem in
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): It is called the NDP.
Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) likes to
think it is the NDP, and in part he is right, but that is only in part. One of the real problems that I have
encountered in all three elections that I have participated in and ran as a
candidate is when I knock on doors there is a lot of cynicism towards
politicians, elected officials, Mr. Speaker.
The reason why that cynicism is there is
in part because of the manner in which contracts are given out, jobs are
filled. Unfortunately, I will not likely have an opportunity to introduce the
second resolution dealing with patronage appointments because of the vast
number of resolutions that we have before us.
I think that the two of them go hand‑in‑hand
in the sense that you have the cynicism that is being levelled by all of our
constituents, is that the contracts, the manner in which contracts are handed
out and proposals are issued and jobs are filled is wrong. The perception on it is very, very negative.
I believe that what is necessary, as the
resolution itself deals with, is in terms of a monthly listing of tenders and
proposals issued by all of the government departments. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) will
try to convey the message that all of this information can be sought through‑‑whether
it is Freedom of Information or Public Accounts and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things,
through Freedom of Information, that are denied. Public Accounts is not necessarily called on
a regular basis, unfortunately. In fact,
I would call into question whether or not all aspects of this particular
resolution are covered currently through the Public Accounts committee, that
there are some things that the government can do to assure the public of
It said a lot. The number of calls that I did receive
regarding it were very negative. They
wanted to know how it is an organization or company can receive a contract, and
the manner in which this company received, and how things changed.
At one time there was request for
speculative drawings for the Tourism contract.
That seemed to have been abandoned on this particular round. I did talk to a number of individuals that
did vie for the contract, and their message was quite clear that they were of
the opinion it is because they did not contribute in the right fashion, that in
many cases, for some contracts you have to be of the right political persuasion
or, at the very least, contribute in some fashion or another in order to plan
that contract, and I know what the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is
going to show me.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that is wrong, that
it should not be based on politics, that you should not have to reward
individuals for what they have done towards your political party. There is a way in which things can occur, in
which the best tender contract, the company, the individual, whatever it might
be, is selected. After all, it is by far in the public's best interest that we
forgo some of the patronage, some of the blatant patronage, that we see that
governments of all stripes have done over the last number of years.
* (1740)
I have received criticism from both the
official opposition and the government in regard to patronage and contracts and
the way they are awarded out. I have
been forewarned that if we form government, and hopefully that will occur some
day, Mr. Speaker, that my attitudes will change on the whole question of this
particular issue. [interjection] I personally agree with the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) that in two years we might have that opportunity to show
that.
But, Mr. Speaker, the arguments that the
government and the NDP use by saying, well, you know, the Liberal Party in
Canada under Trudeau, no one knew how to dole out the money or fill the
political positions as well as he did‑‑is the criticism that both
the NDP and the Conservatives have levied against myself. I am not going to try and say that the
Liberal Party of Canada or Liberal administrations across Canada in the
different provinces are innocent, but I can assure on a political note that the
Liberals in other jurisdictions could not be compared to what we have in Ottawa
currently or what we have in the Province of British Columbia right now.
Mr. Speaker, all three political parties
at different levels have participated in reinforcing to the public this
negative attitude from the people towards the politicians, but I would suggest
to you that, even though we all acknowledge that fact, there are only two
political parties inside this Chamber that practise it. To say that some Liberal administrations have
used it and done it and that we, if given the opportunity, would do the same is
not fair. The public will get an
opportunity to see what a Liberal administration will do in the
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), if
he was not to run and we did form government, and he was the most capable and
able and was able to go through the competition of whatever sort it might be,
and he is a pretty bright guy, you know, he might be able to succeed and get
that position, but it will be one based on merit.
To say that we cannot change the system,
because that is what it has been based on the last number of decades of
parliamentary procedure, is wrong. If
the government will‑‑
An Honourable Member: What has this got to do with the contract
that he is talking about?
Mr. Lamoureux: I will let the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) read and figure it out himself.
There is no justification for a government taking the role that has been
done in the past, there is nothing wrong with doing it in the future. It is
inexcusable for the official opposition to take that very same role.
I believe if the government was sincere
and was wanting to make a difference, there are many things they can do to
improve the image of politicians in general in dealing with the whole concept
of how contracts are issued and the whole question of the tendering process,
and how we as elected officials can make it much more public and much more
visibly seen, so that concerns or allegations of misuse and abuse would be,
well, minimized. I believe that would
change or would at the very least help to change quite often the mind‑set
of many members of the public. Until the government comes to that realization,
we will continue to see, when we go to the doors of our constituents during
elections, that negative attitude toward politicians.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that
everyone in this Chamber who knocks on doors during elections, and I assume
everyone does, that every one of them, including the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), will have that very same experience. If he were to say no, I would
somewhat question it. I think or I
believe that this belief is not in just one constituency, that in fact it is
province‑wide. In fact, we have
seen polls that have been conducted and politicians have not fared very well in
terms of credibility and honour and so forth.
In part, and some might argue in most
part, it is because of things of this nature.
Unfortunately, because we are likely going to run out of time, this
resolution will not be voted upon. In
fact, it likely might even be amended. I
know the minister had suggested that he had an amendment that he would like to
move to it. We will not see it appear on
the Order Paper again unless, of course, we get some sort of unanimous approval
from the Chamber itself.
Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, that this
resolution and the other resolution dealing with patronage are two very
important resolutions, and I believe that this Chamber would do well by
adopting both resolutions and could send a very strong message to the public
that this is a government, this is a Chamber that believes in genuine political
reform in trying to change the attitudes of the public towards
politicians. I believe that it would be
a very positive one.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): It is a pleasure to
stand and respond to this particular resolution. Mr. Speaker, let me say I am totally dismayed
that the member would get up, the ethics critic‑‑the member for
Mr. Speaker, he has brought forward these
resolutions. Here is a resolution, when
one reads it, given that one would not know what is the case today, one would
say this does not sound so bad on the surface.
On the surface it does not sound so bad, but let us dig under the
surface.
Firstly, let us listen to the presentation
made by the member in support of his own resolution. All he did was jump into the pork barrel and
keep throwing out the muck one way and the other to try and make the point, and
he failed miserably in making it, that if you are in government and if you are
not a Liberal administration, obviously you are interested in only one thing
and that is providing patronage to supporters.
That is the essence of the remarks he made on the record today.
Mr. Speaker, of course, that is the myopic
view from somebody who, I guess, has never been close to the government, who
does not understand the general manual of administration, who does not
understand the Treasury Board policies in place, who does not understand that
there are today in place practices and procedures that address almost all of
his points.
Mr. Speaker, I have knocked on thousands
of doors in the city of
An Honourable Member: When?
Mr. Manness: When?
Over the years. Over the years,
yes. Oh, Mr. Speaker, long before the
member was even representing.
I want to tell you that I have never had
this question brought up. Never have I
had the question brought up to me as to disclosure, as to procedure. It does not mean that I have not had the odd
business person, since I have been in office, knock on my door‑‑usually
an individual who has not won a contract from the government‑‑and
said: I do not understand the process; I
do not understand the procedure; I think it is unfair. I said, well, is it unfair because you do not
understand it, or is it unfair because you lost it? They said, well, what is the difference?
* (1750)
Mr. Speaker, what the member is talking
about now is disclosure. Public
Accounts. Every cheque issued beyond
$10,000 is a matter of the public record to a corporation, to a company, to an
individual. Part of the public
record. Every cheque written over top of
the signature, one Charlie Curtis, is public record. Now, it is not classified in such an easy
way; it is not catalogued in the neatest of ways‑‑I acknowledge
that. But, Mr. Speaker, it is all part
of the public record.
Every untendered contract, I believe, over
$1,000 is filed with me, for the members opposite and the media and, indeed,
any member of the public to come forward and go through. As a matter of fact, ministers quite frankly
get sick of that process, and we are trying to find a way to streamline
it. Indeed, with the money that we are
putting into the Wang system in this building, if we cannot find a way of
streamlining it, then we have failed.
The reality is, though, it still is filed
publicly by every minister in this House, undisclosed contracts over $1,000,
part of the public record filed every two weeks for public review. Every two
weeks you can come into my office, and it is there. Every two weeks.
[interjection]
That is right, that is what I mean. He does not even know what is going on
here. Well, you know, there is this old
saying: There are some people that rightfully
so spend the right amount of time in this House, and some people spend too much
time in this Chamber. That is not
meaning you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, we have freedom of
information. Mr. Speaker, we have a
manual that thick that says what you have access to as a member of the public,
and never could I conceive of a time when we would deny access to this type of
information under freedom of information, not once. No, because this is not internal cabinet rationale
leading into a decision.
I do not know if it is well known, but I
am going to sit down shortly and let the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme) address some of the procedures that we have in place. But the
Department of Government Services and certainly the Department of Highways and
other departments of the government have long lists of individuals, people in
the community, businesses or individuals who have an opportunity to become
knowing of the government work of the day, and there are tendering processes
almost in every instance. When those
tenders are open, of course they are eligible to be there and to watch. So
there is a process in place.
Mr. Speaker, it is better now that I sit
down and let the Minister of Government Services stand if Gerry does want to
speak.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): We will speak for a time. I know I normally am known for speaking my
full 15 minutes in private members' hour, but actually I would be interested in
hearing the comments of the Minister of Government Services because I think it
is rather ironic the Liberals are bringing in a resolution. I know, not serving in cabinet but having
been part of the government, that the Liberals are somewhat misinformed about
procedures within government.
Now I know many Liberals in this province
knew very much about the federal procedures up until 1984. In fact, they knew it only too well. I think that using and, in some cases,
abusing the federal procedures probably kept the Liberal Party alive in western
I do find it ironic sometimes when
Liberals talk about patronage appointments.
I mean, pork was a Liberal institution as much as anything for many
years at the federal level. We can
debate that back and forth about who started it and who is worse and
whatever. Indeed, we have questions
about the government on some issues, 280 Broadway, the way that has been
handled, et cetera.
But for the Liberals to take a holier‑than‑thou
attitude on this issue is absolutely incredible, when people sitting within the
caucus knew a heck of a lot about patronage and about public procurement
procedures when they were in federal government, Mr. Speaker.
Given that, I would be very interested to
hear the Minister of Government Services perhaps give some information to the
Liberals on what is the current procedure that has been in place, with its
advantages and faults, over many years.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I did have an amendment to this resolution; however, not
to take the time, I would maybe just explain to the member across the way and
give him time to withdraw this particular resolution. After he explained, first of all, on
undertendered contracts, he mentioned those in his resolution. The general manual of administration
stipulates under which conditions contracts do not require tendering. On a bi‑weekly basis, each department
submits to Finance a listing of all untendered contracts over $1,000. For its annual report, the department, at the
present time, appends lists of capital construction tendered value at $25,000
and over and service maintenance contracts tendered. Public Accounts‑‑Finance
publishes a listing annually by department of corporation, firms, individuals,
et cetera, to whom a payment was made in excess of $5,000.
Furthermore, for construction contracts
that we may expect to be greater than $20,000, we invite bids publicly, and the
bid prices are made available to the building, new services. Traditionally,
most contractors seriously interested in commercial and institutional
construction have subscribed to or have been members of at least one of such
services that are available.
It should be noted, for instance, under my
department, Government Services construction work, anyone who is interested is
welcome to attend the opening of the bids.
If the member would like to attend any bids, when they come in he can
attend any of these openings, and the prices are treated as public
information. People may inquire about
prices by telephone, so all the information that is suggested in the member's
resolution, I know in a little over a year that I have been Minister of
Government Services, is all appealed to by my different departments.
I know every minister and every person is
very, very cautious of what goes on. We
do not have any lists that give anybody preferable treatment. I know the previous administration, when I
came into office I noticed that they had lists of people who they might want
used as consulting firms, but we do not have any such lists, and we have never
had‑‑[interjection]
Yes, we do not have any particular list
whatsoever. I know the previous
administration had lists that apparently had been going on for four or five
years. So, to the Liberal member, we do
not have any list like that. Everyone
can tender, everyone can write to this Department of Government Services and
put their name forward to bid on our particular projects.
As I mentioned to the Finance minister
(Mr. Manness), I would love to move a resolution. The resolution, all it does is stress what we
are doing now. For the member present,
if I had more time, we have a WPIN organization that people now quote from
computers across western
* (1800)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable minister will have 11 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).