LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, May 11, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brad Brown, David
Jacobsen, Ruby Reedman and others urging the government of
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Don Sullivan, Reg Cumming, Harry Mesman and others requesting the Manitoba
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) ask for a cumulative basin‑wide
federal environmental review of the
* * *
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Teresa Reynolds, Sheryl
Bernstrom, Jill Terrick and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000
young adults are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their
education through the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the
provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting in
increased welfare costs for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial
government is now proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program;
and
WHEREAS
eliminating the Student Social Allowances Program will result in more than a
thousand young people being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further
full‑time education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city
taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the
Canadian Wheat Board has played a vital role in the orderly marketing of
Canadian wheat, barley and other grain products since its inception in 1935;
and
WHEREAS the
federal Minister of Agriculture is considering removing barley from the
jurisdiction of the Wheat Board; and
WHEREAS this is
another step towards dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the
case with the removal of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no
consultation with the board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member
advisory committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the
federal minister has said that there will be no plebiscite of farmers before
the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
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 La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of
the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral
Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery
where we have with us this afternoon 25 visitors. There are 16 students from the Towa
On behalf of all
honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
No-Fault Auto Insurance
Advertising Campaign
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker,
Manitobans have received material across the province dealing with no‑fault
insurance which is co‑sponsored by the
Mr. Speaker, last
week when we asked even the most minimal of questions in the House, the
minister told us to wait and he would produce information. The bill was not even tabled in this
House. So we found it very strange, if
not antiparliamentary, that the government would be proceeding to advertise on
a program that is not even introduced in legislation in this Chamber for
purposes of debate and passage by this House.
Does the Premier
feel it is appropriate that a Crown corporation will spend close to $100,000
advertising a program that requires legislation in this House which has not
even been introduced in this Chamber?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very difficult
to accept the position of the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) who, when he was
part of a government, spent millions of dollars of public money on advertising
on anything and everything going, all sorts of apple‑polishing ads to try
and improve the image of a failed government.
Indeed, they used Crown corporations like MPIC to try and fund their
public relations gimmicks.
This is not public
relations. This is a matter of having
the public understand what is the largest change that has taken place in over
20 years in the operations of the Public Insurance Corporation, an issue that
Manitobans‑‑and particularly
The corporation
and the minister, obviously, felt that it was important to spend, as I heard
him say, something under $100,000 to ensure that the public understood the
principles of what is going to be a sea change in the way in which they will be
covered for their automobile insurance.
Surely, he cannot
take issue with having the public well informed about an issue of this
magnitude that will affect every motorist in
Mr. Doer: The Premier did not
answer the question. I asked the Premier
whether it was appropriate to advertise prior to the bill even being tabled in
this House.
I would quote, Mr.
Speaker, from Speaker Fraser when the same contemptuous Conservatives in
This is what
Speaker Fraser says about GST advertising before the GST bill was passed.
Does the Premier
now believe that it is appropriate for him to run this government and the
spending of his Crown corporations in an executive management function and
negate the parliamentary traditions that are so important to the Chamber and
the people of
* (1340)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I
remember the government of Howard Pawley of which that member was a minister
running full‑page ads about the constitutional amendment to make the
French language an official language of this province, to constitutionalize it
well before it was ever passed. In fact,
the member knows it was never passed.
They ran full‑page ads advertising their position on this with a
picture of Howard A. Pawley, it said.
Mr. Speaker, I
remember that happening throughout this province and he has the audacity‑‑and
that was hundreds of thousands of dollars of pure government propaganda to try
and persuade the public, who were 85 percent opposed to that, to approve that.
This is a
situation in which there will be a major, major change in the way in which
every motorist in this province will have their coverage for automobiles, and I
believe that it is incumbent on the government to make sure the public
understands what that change will do to affect them.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this is
the second example where this Premier and his government runs roughshod over
the traditions of parliamentary democracy in this Chamber.
On the one hand,
they instruct the police not to lay charges on Sunday shopping even though
there is no bill passed in this Chamber, and on the other hand, they have
$100,000 worth of advertising going on in this House after Speaker Fraser made
a ruling in
I would ask this
Premier: Is he going to continue to
proceed on the basis of executive management, or are we going to go back to the
traditions of parliamentary democracy which all members of this House should
participate in, unlike the dictatorship that is going on from the Premier
opposite?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite had nothing but contempt for those so‑called traditions
of parliamentary democracy when he was in government and participated in and
defended the expenditure of millions of dollars on advertising, including
hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to promote a wrong‑headed
constitutional amendment.
I say to him that
what he is doing is absolutely hypocritical, and I think the issue deserves the
lack of attention it is getting.
Gasoline Stations
Log Book Inspections
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Yesterday,
approximately 200 homes and two schools in the Elmwood constituency were
evacuated for several hours after a gas leak into the sewer at the Domo Gas bar
at
Mr. Speaker, under
the law of
My question to the
minister is: How often are the station
log books inspected by his department?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, recognizing that this falls
within the responsibility of the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) who is
at a meeting with his environmental minister counterpart in
I can confirm, Mr.
Speaker, that there has been regular examination of those log books as recently
as even within the last 10 days. The
department did not detect any leakage by virtue of the measurements in the log
book, and that has occurred even within the last 10 days.
Whether or not the
evidence leads directly to the conclusion that the member has reached or has
jumped to, Mr. Speaker, the Environment department, at the moment, cannot
substantiate that conclusion.
* (1345)
Gasoline Leaks
Environment Department Directive
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the First Minister should
check with the Environment people in the field who will tell you, if you want
to check, that there were shortages of gasoline noted in the log books as early
as the week before the 1st of May. So
that would be at least 20 days now that there have been substantial shortages‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Maloway: My question to the
First Minister is: Would he endeavour to
find out whether the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) issued a directive
to all stations after the last major spill last month?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I will take that question as notice and have
it responded to when the minister returns.
Contaminated Sites
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My final supplementary to the same minister is
this. Last month, I asked the minister
to release the list of 375 contaminated sites his department has files on.
Can the minister
confirm that the Domo site at
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. I will take that question as notice on behalf
of the minister.
No-Fault Auto Insurance
Income Replacement‑Seniors
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) raised the problem
which the government has created by beginning the debate about no‑fault
insurance without the substantive information being before the House.
I would like to
ask the Premier a very simple question since that information is not now
available to us. The minister has stated
that the plan is based on the
We would like to
ask the Premier: Is that the intention
of their model?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the minister responsible.
Pension Benefits
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): It is passing
strange that the Premier would have supported a policy without knowing the
answer to a question‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, let us
ask him another one.
Point of Order
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not
say I did not know the answer to that question.
I said I would take it as notice on behalf of the minister responsible
for MPIC (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First
Minister does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, if the
Premier will check, he will note that I asked him the question, not the
minister, so perhaps he will now be able to answer a second question.
To the
Premier: Will pension benefits be
deducted from payments on the no‑fault insurance plan?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will
take that question as notice on behalf of the minister responsible for MPIC
(Mr. Cummings).
Introduction
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): You see, Mr.
Speaker, the problem we have. The
government is sending out very limited information extolling the virtues of
this plan and refusing to answer any questions about it here in the House.
So I have to ask
the Premier a very simple question. Why
are you afraid to reveal the details of the plan?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this
question may well be out of order because it was not presented to the Chair, I
will take that as notice on behalf of the minister responsible for MPIC (Mr.
Cummings).
Government Departments
Service Co-ordination
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Almost two years
ago, the Pedlar report talked about the need for working together to deal with
domestic violence. In that report, Ms.
Pedlar noted that there is a tremendous need to provide commitment, consistency
and communication within and between government departments and agencies in
order to prevent family violence from occurring.
Subsequent to that
time and prior to that time, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) had been
promising this Legislature and the people of
My question to the
First Minister is: Will he now undertake
and commit the government to implement a public inquiry of the incidents in
Flin Flon so that we can understand why once again the government of
* (1350)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want to be able to provide a
reasonable response to the member for Flin Flon. I know that all members in this House do not
wish to have had happen what happened in Flin Flon. I also know that all members in this House do
not want to interfere with court actions that will ensue from the apparent
murders that took place in Flin Flon.
I think the member
opposite understands that in the case of a court action, the psychological and
behavioural conditions of the accused may well be a question in point, that
files and information available from a variety of government departments and
individuals who may have been in contact with the family and the individual‑‑all
of that may well be material to the legal action that is ensuing.
So I just say to
the member opposite that I would hope that we would just put aside the
opportunity for political gain and let the matter rest until the justice system
deals with it. Then we will examine
thoroughly, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has said, all of the
processes that have taken place.
I can tell him
that in response to the recommendations that followed the Reid tragedy, certain
things were put in place which were and have been in place with respect to
interdepartmental co‑ordination and communication on this particular
issue, but I believe that by going at the questions the way, apparently, the
member wants to do, we are not going to necessarily do the right thing vis‑a‑vis
the legal actions that will ensue.
James Philip Bridson Case
Public Inquiry
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, to say the least, I resent the implication that somehow
this is a political issue.
Mr. Speaker, the
people of Flin Flon, including the mayor, including the crisis centre board,
including service agencies and departments of this government, have identified
the lack of a crisis centre as an implicating factor.
My question
is: Will the First Minister, given that
he has the authority under The Evidence Act, appoint a commission to study the
role of the government itself and its agencies in dealing with events leading
up to this tragedy?
It does not have
to be a criminal investigation or touch on the criminal investigation. My question is to the minister: Given that
these kinds of inquiries have been done before, will he now launch a public
inquiry into the role of government and its agencies‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
* (1355)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says he
resents being accused of trying to make political hay on this case and then
proceeds to do exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, the
fact of the matter is, he has made the suggestion, as has the wife of his
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), made the suggestion that there is a direct
connection with the‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I believe, Mr. Speaker, that individuals in
their various roles and spokespersons across the province are treated as
individuals, not as spouses of somebody else.
I would ask the
Premier to be sensitive to that in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am very
sensitive to it, because I have learned from my colleagues opposite and their
cheap shots over the years.
Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite has made a suggestion about the role of a crisis centre. The principal resource that was represented
by the crisis centre that was no longer available was the ability to have
members of the family taken out of their home and housed in the shelter.
Mr. Speaker, there
continues to be in Flin Flon the Northern Women's Resource Centre that provides
both counselling and education, and there continues to be a 24‑hour
crisis line, and there is no evidence that either of those was attempted to be
accessed. So I think that the member is
drawing a long bow on this one, but we will be happy to have that investigated
at an appropriate time.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, as the
crisis centre board tried to explain to this government, the sick situation in
Flin Flon, the economic circumstances and the pressure the community is under,
require a quicker response. We cannot
wait for six months or a year or two years for the government to make these
decisions, to determine whether in fact this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the
First Minister has the power under The Evidence Act to begin an inquiry.
My question
is: Will the minister now admit that the
political decision to cut funding to the crisis centre was wrong? Will he now agree to reinstate funding and to
assess the role of the government agencies‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I
repeat, there continues to be in Flin Flon the Northern Women's Resource Centre
with funding of $123,800 from the
That centre
provides both counselling and education for women with an emphasis on family
violence as well as other issues to do with that matter. There also continues to be available a 24‑hour
crisis line. There is no evidence to
suggest that either of those was attempted to be accessed in the case.
ACCESS Programs
Future Status
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when the ACCESS programs were
created, they were meant to be a long‑term strategy to support programs
for people in
As we all know,
these have been extremely successful programs.
They are internationally renowned.
They have produced many teachers, doctors, dentists and social workers.
Last year, Metis
nonstatus students had their allowances reduced by $3,000. This year, the minister has cut a further 16
percent from ACCESS programs.
I would like to
ask the Minister of Education: Will she
tell the House today, what is her long‑term plan for those ACCESS
programs?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the member before, the ACCESS
programs have received some funding from the federal government and also our
provincial funding. This province has
maintained its commitment to ACCESS programs while the federal funding has
changed. The federal funding now flows
directly to bands.
Last year, as the
member may remember, there were then some students currently in their program
who were left unfunded. It was this
government that came forward with the supplementary funding to assist those
students to make sure that they could continue their program. I think that action speaks for itself.
Ms. Friesen: And so does the
Estimates page with the $1.2 million reduction.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Will the minister confirm that her
departmental delays and apparent absence of long‑term policy have meant
that the Winnipeg Education Centre has been unable to admit its regular first take
intake this year, something which should have happened on May 3 and which is
extremely disruptive for prospective students and their families?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, we have been making every effort to get information out to
all of the institutions regarding student financial assistance regarding ACCESS
programming. My department has now been
in touch with all of the institutions.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, that
still leaves 20 families in limbo.
Enrollment Statistics
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Will the minister tell us how many fewer
funded students will be in ACCESS programs this year?
Would she care to
reflect upon her comments of October 16, 1992, quote, that our commitment to
ACCESS programs underlines the province's commitments to educational
opportunities?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, again, we are in the process of intake in the ACCESS
programs.
As I explained to
the member before, when we look at the funding, we know that approximately 40
percent of the funding goes for living allowance and rent subsidies, and we are
aware that approximately 60 percent of it goes for administrative costs.
We have been
meeting with the institutions involved to look at how their administrative
costs may be reduced, so the greatest amount of money will then be there as a
benefit to students.
* (1400)
Government Departments
Protocols‑Information Sharing
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, in
reviewing the Reid report, one of the comments that was made by the individual
who conducted The Fatality Inquiries Act on this case was that, and let me
quote: However, Mrs. Reid, in her own fashion, appears to have been reaching
out for help with no positive results.
We have a similar
situation with respect to the case in Flin Flon.
Will the Premier
table today the protocol that had been put into place by his government to
ensure that information, sensitive information, travels from one department to
the next department so, in fact, it can be acted upon in unity together?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I might say that in drawing the
parallel to the Reid case, there were, throughout that period of time, crisis
shelters in
I am not sure if
she is drawing the parallel, but it obviously is not a parallel whatsoever.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I can
only assume the Premier simply did not understand my question.
My question is,
very clearly: What protocols are in
place by this government to ensure that sensitive information about families
which is learned by the Department of Education is shared with the Department
of Child and Family Services, is shared with the Department of Justice, if
applicable, and vice versa? There must
be protocols in place between government departments. Will he table those protocols?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will
attempt to get a fuller response to that, but I do know that there are
limitations to which we can go in terms of having so‑called sensitive
personal information about people and their behavioural or psychological
problems. It is not the sort of thing
that would necessarily be freely transmitted among departments and people
within government.
In fact, I would
be very concerned if it was so easy to obtain that kind of information that it
just got passed along, file to file, people to people, and was in everybody's files
in government. I would have to know a
great deal more about the kind of thing she is talking about.
I do know that
since the report on the Reid inquiry, a critical‑incident team approach
was established by government which is an interdepartmental action between the
Departments of Health and Family Services instituted over a year ago and which
prepared for situations such as the Bridson situation in reacting to a crisis,
a tragedy, of this nature and that, in fact, it has of course been engaged in this
particular circumstance.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, Mr. Speaker,
the Reid report states very clearly, and let me quote again from that
report: That a proper exchange of
information between agencies and police, assisted by legislation, if necessary,
would have shown where it was heading.
We know that the
Department of Education had information given to them in September of 1991 that
an individual was suicidal.
Can the Premier
tell us what the protocol was for the Department of Education to then share
that information with the Department of Health, so a mental health worker could
be called in to evaluate this particular situation?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I know
the member is familiar with the circumstance because I have a copy of her
correspondence on file. I have a copy of
correspondence with members from the New Democratic Party. I also have seen copies of correspondence in
the files with respect to other communication that went on amongst the school
board, the family, the Department of Education, psychologists and so on.
Mr. Speaker, there
is a great deal more to the circumstance as to the role of other people,
including the family in this circumstance, and what was offered and what was
accepted and what was not accepted. The
member knows because she was, in fact, urging a certain resolution at the time
of the correspondence.
I just say that I
do not think this is the place to be airing those private pieces of
correspondence between the family and‑‑[interjection] I answered the question of protocols before, and I
said that I would look into it and report back, Mr. Speaker.
But if we are now
trying to find out who said what and did what and who may have been offered
certain supports and services, and what their response might have been, I do
not think that it is appropriate for us to get into this. That is why we will have to have, at an
appropriate time, a full and complete review of this matter.
Children's Dental Health Program
Funding Reduction Justification
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I am going to
table a letter from the Dental Auxiliaries Association of
My question to the
Minister of Health is: How can he
justify his shortsighted move which will place the future of the dental health
of our rural children at risk?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this issue has been raised ever
since the announcement of the budget, that we were rtailing the treatment
portion of the Children's Dental Health Program, and I simply indicate to my
honourable friend that the founding principles of health care reform are on
preventative services and education around the appropriate personal activities
to maintain one's health status, and that includes dental health.
Mr. Speaker, I
simply reinforce to my honourable friend that this component of prevention and
education is to be maintained in the Children's Dental Health Program. I said, as I have repeated in the past, it
was with regret that we made the decision to curtail the treatment aspect of
that program, but we maintain, Sir, the very essence of health care reform in
terms of prevention and education services that my honourable friend thinks so
appropriate. We agree. That is why they are still there.
Study
Tabling Request
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the Minister
of Health table any information or any studies he has which led him to choose
this program as a target for budget cuts?
Is there any information which shows that the Children's Dental Health
Program was not effective?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, again, I have to say that no one on this
side of the House took any particular joy in making the decision to curtail the
treatment side of the program, nor did her confreres who govern in the
I do not even
suspect her confreres in
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the
minister should remember he is in
* (1410)
Consultations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
I realize that my honourable friend gets rather excited.
Mr. Speaker, I
attempt not to use the budgetary decisions of other provinces and how
consistent they are with decisions we have made in the
What I attempt to
do, in bringing examples like
It is only
irresponsible opposition parties that say they can be all things to all
people. They can lower deficits, lower
taxes, increase services and mislead the public, Sir.
Simplot Plant
Future Status
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
I have a question for the Premier or the Acting Minister of Industry.
Given the fact
that the Conservative government of Grant Devine financed the construction of a
new Cargill fertilizer plant in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have not had a recent briefing
from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), but as I
understand it, Simplot intends to carry on its operations at the level they
currently are in
Mr. Leonard Evans: My supplementary
question: Can the Premier be truly
confident that Simplot will be able to survive?‑‑because initially
it was reported that the company had to either expand or it would perish.
So the question
is: Is that situation now changed, and
is the company no longer seeking provincial financial assistance?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker,
according to Simplot, it is business as usual.
If the member has better information, I would be pleased to have him
share it.
Manufacturing Industry
Employment Decline
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, my questions are based on previous statements made by the
Industry minister where he says‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, with
his question, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask an auxiliary question to the Premier: Can he explain to the House why jobs in the
manufacturing industry in
Why are we going
against the national trend?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, during that same period of time,
of course, the member opposite will know that the total number of jobs in
The member will
probably know that we have a new plant in Morden from Monsanto that has been
announced and is beginning its construction, that Carte Electric yesterday announced
72 additional jobs in a manufacturing facility in Morden, that Ayerst in
That is our goal,
to continue the kind of trend that we are seeing of more people making investments,
of more jobs, new jobs being announced and more new opportunities for
Manitobans. That may be a great
disappointment to the member for Brandon East, but it is a great boon to the
people of
On-Site Inspection
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The Premier made
reference to the law. My question to the
Premier is: Can he tell this Chamber
when, in fact, there was the last on‑site check of that particular gas
station?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). [interjection]
Mr. Lamoureux: To the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), no, it does not surprise me. I would think that the Premier would‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Environmental Concerns
Gasoline Leaks
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Can the Premier
tell us what this government has done in the past three years to reduce the
risk of these incidents?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full
well that there has been the enactment of legislation and regulations with
respect to this. In fact, the very
legislation and regulations referred to in the question of the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) that require the examination of daily inventory logs of
the levels in the underground storage tanks are new and are intended to prevent
such leakage from occurring.
There are a number
of other matters that are underway.
There have been a series of outcomes from the passage of legislation and
regulations within the last couple of years to ensure that underground storage
tanks were safe and that we did not have the prospect of leakage, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral
Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
* (1420)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (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 Education and Training;
and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Reimer):
Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
This afternoon,
this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume
consideration of the Estimates of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 1.(c)(1) on page 34 of the Estimates book.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, last night when we finished, I just asked
the minister about her views on professional development and asked her, as
well, whether she had changed her mind on the importance of professional
development between the period of January 19 to February 19, when she had
issued in January the press release indicating that there would be 10 days
available for professional development.
Then, in February,
when the announcement was made, she indicated that there would be options given
to school divisions to reduce professional development. Of course, that has manifested itself in the
form of Bill 22.
I want to just
explore that a bit with the minister.
Perhaps the minister can tell us precisely what change in decision was
made between those two dates. The
minister mentioned yesterday that there was additional information given to the
Finance minister, and I understand through him to the ministers that the
financial situation of the province was somewhat different than was anticipated
on the 19th of January.
Would it be
correct to assume that the minister was preparing to undertake funding for
schools that was substantially different a month earlier than what was finally
announced, and that there would have been no impact on professional development
days when that release was put out to the public?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have been working very hard as a
government on the budgetary process for some time. As we were working on that process and
attempting to meet, in Education particularly, the date on which we would like
to announce school funding, more information was received and government had to
look at the amount of money that is available across government and how we
would deal with our financial situation.
What it was, as I
have said before, and we used the term last evening, it was a budgetary
process. When we received the
information, then we were able to make the decisions across government on
behalf of Manitobans.
Mr. Plohman: I do not understand
how this was going to save the government money, to eliminate professional
development days. The minister is still going to provide us with the amount
that may be saved as a result of the professional days being cut back, the
amount that is budgeted, the $4 million figure that was budgeted by the
department to go towards professional development. We had asked about whether some of that money
would actually be spent on those professional development days that are
allocated and how much of it would go for that purpose, therefore what the
saving would be. The minister was going
to provide us with some of that information today.
Other than that,
where was the saving that the minister was finding as a result of the budgetary
process that she was talking about? It
was obvious that the government had to make a decision. Were they going to increase the funding to
the public schools, decrease it, freeze it, whatever? How was the cutback in the professional
development days going to save the government money?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the government
had to make decisions based on the amount of money that it had available, and
those decisions were made across government.
What we looked at then, was to say in government, specifically with our
employees, how could we save some money in terms of our own budgetary process? Then when we looked at the amount of money
available for schools, we also offered that same tool to school divisions, that
they might also have the opportunity to look at and to use up to the 10 days or
the eight days within schools, but that was an issue which school divisions
would be making a decision about, and they would be looking at their own
budgetary situation.
* (1430)
I would just like
to go back to clarify for the member again, too, last evening when we were
speaking, we spoke about the in‑service days and if every division were
to use the maximum number of days, up to eight days, because for schools that
would reach about 3.8 percent to 4 percent, then I did give him the number that
the maximum savings would be $32 million, but the actual savings that school
divisions will have will depend upon how they wish to use the option, how many
days they choose to use within their own school divisions. When we spoke about the $4 million I
explained to him that that is money which flows through our ed funding formula. That money was not ever flowed through a
formula before, and it is money which flows through the formula to school
divisions, and school divisions then decide how they will use that money.
As I said last
evening, sometimes school divisions choose to use that money to send a staff
person away to look at a program. Sometimes they use it to offer programs other
than on the professional development days.
So I think the
member should, within his own mind, make sure that he is clear about the
professional development funding which flows through our formula, how school
divisions will, in fact, use their option with in‑service days and what
the government's decision was with its own employees.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I understand
the maximum amount that could be saved if all the divisions decided to cut
eight days of professional development from their school year would be $32
million, estimated by the minister. But
that saving would accrue to the school divisions. I ask the minister, through her budgetary
process, how she could make the statement that this was going to save the
government money when it was the school divisions that would incur the
savings? So it was not an impact on the
bottom line of the dollars being paid by the Minister of Education and the
government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, government had an amount of money which they could make available
to school divisions. That was my
announcement when I announced the funding for the school year '93‑94. But with the recognition of the difficult
time period, the really extraordinary circumstances that
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is
saying that the professional development days were chosen because in the
minister's mind they were the least important part of the teacher's work, or because
it was something that she thought could conveniently be done?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, what was
given to schools was to look at a version of the workweek reduction with days
such as the in‑service days, and it is up to the employer to decide which
days that the employer wishes to use.
Mr. Plohman: So is the minister
saying that there are other options there for reducing the workweek? Could a school division decide to cut other
days, other than the in‑service days or professional development days?
Mrs. Vodrey: If schools wish to
reduce the days that they are in school, they cannot reduce days in which there
is a pupil‑teacher contact, and that was made clear, that it would have
to be days which were not considered to be days that teachers and students were
working together. I also made it clear
that those days were not an option and if they were used then funding would be
reduced, because as I said in the beginning it has been important to protect
the integrity of the classroom.
Mr. Plohman: The minister is
really saying then that the professional development allocated days are, in her
mind, the lowest priority work of the teachers, and therefore they can be
eliminated.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, they are not all in‑service days, though some are in‑service
days and others are administrative days.
It is up to school divisions if they wish to use that option to use
those days.
We are saying,
however, a priority is that the days in which teachers and students are working
together are very important days. We
wanted to make sure that the integrity of the classroom was protected.
Mr. Plohman: My colleague has
some questions on professional development as well. We can deal with a number of issues here. I
do not know whether the minister would like us to move through a number of
policy issues. We could do that at this
time, and then come back to this, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, when you
recognize someone else for questions. I
do not know about the Liberal critic.
She did not have an opportunity to make a statement last night either as
to these issues.
I want to pursue a
couple of other policy decisions that were made by the minister and her senior
planning staff. It certainly would, I
think, be appropriate to discuss those at this particular line.
I first want to
ask about one of the latest decisions that was announced. That was the elimination of bursaries for
students. Can the minister indicate what
the rationale was for eliminating something that is so important, particularly
for rural
The minister has
now changed the system so that any assistance is going to be based on
loan. In other words, these students who
have very great difficulty finding employment in the present condition, the
economic situation of the province, are now faced with having to pay back every
possible cent of assistance. How can the
minister justify that kind of decision, especially during the difficult
economic conditions when tuition fees have increased dramatically over the last
number of years, when rural students have these additional costs? What was the rationale and thinking behind
this kind of a decision?
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, it was another of the difficult decisions which we had to make;
however, we did look across
Let me start with
the Canada Student Loan, because I think that is the first place in previous
answers that I have given. Students' first supplementary assistance does come
through the Canada Student Loan program.
We have been very active in
Just in summary to
that point,
So
One choice would
have been to reduce the amount of money that students would receive weekly
through the bursary system; secondly, we could have made another choice. We could have said there is this amount of
money, X amount of dollars available in the bursary system, and it will be only
available on a first‑come, first‑served basis to students. Therefore, if you did not get your
application in first and you were not right at the front of the line, then you
might get no second supplementary assistance.
That did not seem fair. Both of
those choices, operating on the bursary system, seemed unfair and limiting in
access to students.
So we made a
decision that we would move to a loans guarantee program. The loans guarantee program makes sure that
there is funding available for students, and that it is not offered on a first‑come,
first‑served basis but that students need apply to that second
supplementary level and where they meet the qualifications, and the
qualifications have not changed since the bursary program, they remain the
same, students then would have access to those additional funds so that they
would then have access to post‑secondary education. In addition to that, we also said that for
the most needy students we would provide a bursary as a third supplementary
step for students.
Mr. Plohman: The minister has
limited herself by her own policies. She
said that the only options were to reduce the amount by bursary, and I think
these are areas that we will explore in some detail when we get to this line in
the Estimates.
I want to move on
to another area at this particular time, that being the issue of the cuts in
clinicians and services to special needs students. Again, a decision that was made by the
minister. She was going to tell us, as a
result of a very difficult process‑‑and the minister probably would
say that she did not have any choice but to do this. I want to know what the rationale and the thinking
was behind this kind of decision prior to it being made.
Was the minister
of the opinion that the service could be reduced? Was the minister of the opinion that there
would be an enhancement of the service by way of the action that was taken? Was
it the minister's position that perhaps it was not needed to the extent that it
was being offered in rural areas? What
kind of thinking went into the minister's decision to cut these positions and
then to say, well, school decisions could hire them back with funding that was
insufficient to do the job?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the role of clinicians is a very important one in schools, and I
think the member knows that being a school clinician is my background, so I am
very familiar with the work that those clinicians do and how valuable they are
to schools.
Through our new ed
funding formula‑‑it is now in its second year as the member knows‑‑we
did look at the grants that were available to clinicians, and we did change
them, we did increase them. We put
together what was previously a salary grant, an administrative grant, and we
also increased the amount. Again, with
the formula changing, there was an allowance of $23,000 for clinicians and it
did go up to $45,000.
So because we recognize
the importance of the role of clinicians, we did increase through that funding
formula decision the level available. I
will remind the member, too, that 19 school divisions do operate with their own
clinician services. Because we provided for the funding, we made the decision
that then we would move to the school division's hiring the clinicians as their
own employees. But the member has said,
what about regional services?
We certainly have
supported the idea that school divisions may come together and they may wish to
hire their clinicians on a regional basis.
So the decision was made with an increase in the funding formula last
year and with the knowledge that divisions may decide how they would like to receive
the services.
Mr. Plohman: What relevance is it
that 19 school divisions operated with their own clinicians? The minister has used that a number of
times. What is the relevance of that
statement to this decision?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, I mention the number because I would like the member to know that
this model is not one which has just been developed this year with this
particular decision. He should know that
there are school divisions who are currently operating under this model and
have done so successfully.
Mr. Plohman: That is certainly
something I think anyone associated with the school divisions is aware of, but
that does not make it a relevant point because they have chosen to do that for
whatever reason. I asked the minister how
that justifies forcing all school divisions to operate on that basis.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can say to
the member that this model has been in effect.
It has been an option for school divisions, and this year we decided
that with the enhancement to the grants‑‑now we are in the second
year of the funding formula‑‑that school divisions now would become
the employers of their clinicians.
However, we have
retained the responsibility to make sure that clinicians have the supervision
that they require in order to become certified.
We will continue to assist divisions if there is any concern around
hiring. We will assist divisions in
terms of finding a clinician, a person who would be interested in going to work
in their area, and we also support where divisions have come up with plans of
regional service. We also support that.
* (1450)
Mr. Plohman: Did the minister
undertake this then‑‑I am not going to ask her at this time how
much money is going to be saved. When we
get to that line, we will deal with that question but was this basically a cost‑cutting
measure?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member says,
when we get to the budget line we will be able to have a full discussion around
the issue of whether money is being saved because we will be making every effort
to support divisions, and they may receive additional funding through the
supplementary support available through the funding model.
We can look at the
issue of whether or not money is actually being saved, as the member said, when
we get to that line. This was a decision
that was made. It was one of many
decisions that we had to make during this process but, again I can say to the
member, when we get to the budgetary line then we will be able to discuss in
detail if in fact there were any savings by this measure.
Mr. Plohman: Is the minister
saying she does not know if there are any savings?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am saying that, as
the member said, the monetary and financial areas would best be discussed under
the line in which the clinician services are noted.
Mr. Plohman: I did not ask the
minister how much she is saving, we will get to that when we get to the
line. This is a decision that was made
by her senior staff and herself as minister and brought forward to Treasury
Board. I am asking the minister whether
it was brought forward as one of the objectives being saving money for the
provincial government for her department‑‑yes or no?
Mrs. Vodrey: Just for the
member's background information, most provinces do have a decentralized service
and a service where the school division is the employer and the employing
authority is then closer to the area where the service is being delivered. I understand that
Mr. Plohman: It sounds like a
pretty straightforward answer to the question.
Can the minister tell us
whether one of the motivations for this decision to decentralize was to save
the department money?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I have said
to the member we have discussed the issue of service, the service issues, the
decentralized service and the service being within local control. I have also said that the clinician grant is
available through our funding formula and that it has been an increased grant
for clinician services. I have also said
that we will also be endeavouring to assist school divisions where they require
it through supplementary funding.
However, there will be some savings to government but there will not be
a loss of service. There will be an
increase in local control.
Mr. Plohman: I congratulate the
minister for finally admitting that she was attempting to save money here. The many questions that we have asked in the
Legislature, and now even in the committee, the minister has avoided that
question. It is encouraging that she
finally has decided to reveal what has been suspected all along, and that was
that one of the motivations‑‑and I will not say primary at this
time, but I believe it probably was‑‑was not to increase local
control and not to provide better service but simply to save dollars and look
good in terms of the number of SYs eliminated from the department. I say look good insofar as the minister and
the government being able to report that they have cut civil servants. It sounds like something the government feels
is popular at the present time.
I think that is a
revelation today that is significant, that the minister has finally admitted
the fact that the government will be saving money here. I think there is another revelation, though,
that we are going to be needing. I am going
to be following this up later on to find out the precise number of dollars that
are projected to be saved.
The issue of
service now, and I think we can approach this by asking the minister, first of
all, how long was this being planned.
Was this something that the minister has been working on over the past
year, or was this something that is simply arrived at as a result of budgetary
requirements these last few months?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I would say
to the member that there have to be critical choices, but I reject the fact
that he is not understanding the issue of service is an important one. The issue of service has been considered by
this government in this decision. In the
making of the decision, there was an alternate way, funding through the funding
formula, to provide for this service.
Therefore, the service would continue to be available, and the service
would continue to be available within local control. Those are important issues.
Discussions around
the devolution of clinician services have occurred for many years. It has been a discussion that has gone on for
some time. There needs to be a readiness
in the field in terms of making this decision.
That has always been a factor. But I can tell you that the funding
formula added by virtue of its formula.
The formula changed, not just in money.
I will just remind the member that previously the number of clinicians
was calculated in a ratio of 1 to 900 and the funding formula changed that to 1
to 700. It provides for then, if funding
is through the funding formula, an additional nine clinicians.
Mr. Plohman: The formula that was
put in place the previous year, as the minister said, reduced the ratio from
one to 900 to one to 700 and increased from 43,000 to 45,000, but those are
just numbers.
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of
order. The number was from 23,000 to
45,000.
Mr. Plohman: Oh, pardon me.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): There was not a point of order, just a dispute
of the facts.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, you have to say that, eh?
It was okay that we have that clarified.
* * *
* (1500)
Mr. Plohman: So there was a
rather significant increase in the grant available. However, those numbers are all relative to
the real cost. The minister may find
them particularly significant, but they do not mean anything insofar as the
decision that was made this year if they still do not cover the actual
costs. The minister has admitted that
they do not cover the actual cost, because in fact there is going to be a
reduction in costs. [interjection] Well, the minister can clarify that later on.
I want to ask her,
she said there have been ongoing discussions, is she saying that the trustees
have been asking, has MAST been asking, as an organization, and have individual
boards been asking for the minister to devolve this service completely to the
school divisions? Was there a resolution
to that effect? Have they been
clamouring to have this change instituted by the government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, I just would like to correct that I did not, in the member's
words, admit the funding did not cover the cost. That was not a statement that I made. I think it is important to clear that up.
In terms of the
discussion with school divisions, no, a resolution did not come from MAST. The discussion has been with the department
and school divisions making sure that school divisions understood the
availability and, certainly, when the new funding formula came out that there
were now changes. There were changes in
the amount of funding available and also changes in the ratio or the numbers
available. As I said to the member, that
change allowed for nine more clinicians to be hired.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, that was the previous year that that formula was changed. So the minister is misrepresenting that
insofar as how it impacts this year.
That change was taken the previous year, and it would result in
additional clinicians being hired as a result of that change in that formula. However, that does not mean additional
clinicians have been hired by school divisions at the present time. We do not know and I hope that we will find
out. Maybe the minister knows at some
point how many have actually been hired by these school divisions throughout
the province.
The point is school
divisions are saying this does not cover the cost, and the minister has
admitted that there will be cost savings today.
She also has said that MAST did not ask for this. There was a permissive process in place that
allowed school divisions to hire their own previously. So they were not asking to be forced to do
this.
So, once again, I
want to ask the minister then on what basis, on what consultation, did she
arrive at the decision to in fact force school divisions to hire these people,
these clinicians, these specialists, on their own. Every single school division in the province
that wants to have that service available to their students, whether it is
practical or not in terms of numbers, in terms of critical mass of activity to
make it efficient or practical to do so.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me start by
saying the service is important. Believe the service is important which is why
the changes were made in the funding formula.
With the recognition of the changes in the funding formula, the
increased amount of money available for a clinician grant, the change in the
ratio of the numbers of clinicians available to students, with the issue of
local control being a possibility and with the effective working of 19 school
divisions, decisions were made this year, but they were made with the knowledge
and the background that I have set out for the member.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister
has proudly talked about partners in education, and we are dealing with reform
of the legislation. When she is talking
about reform, she continuously talks about the consultation with the partners
in education.
What happened on
this important issue? Where was the
consultation with the divisions that are being forced to hire these clinicians
on their own whether they have the money or not?‑‑keeping in mind
the capping, Bill 16, and the inability to raise funds locally, plus the cut
that the minister made of 2 percent which manifested itself in much higher
amounts for many divisions.
How could she
decide unilaterally that this decision should be made and that this would be in
the best interests of those school divisions and the children in those school
divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, again I can go over the list, the background which I believe is
important, which is known to the school divisions. I think the number of clinicians is an
important one because the member has spoken about concern for special needs
young people and we share that concern too. Certainly that was the work that I
did in working in schools was direct work with special needs young people.
Under the current
situation and our current employing, we did not have the nine extra
clinicians. When school divisions move
now to the funding through the funding formula and the ratio available through
the funding formula, that makes available nine more clinicians for services in
the area of special needs. I think that
that is a very important issue to be considered in the decision making.
The issue of local
control is an important one. School
divisions themselves may come to a model of regional service. They may also
sell or purchase services among themselves.
They may come to a variety of ways in which to have the clinician
services that is the most beneficial to the divisions.
We wanted to make
sure that the clinician service would be continued, therefore the issues which
I have been reciting for some time were important in the decision‑making
process. It was important to make sure
that the clinician services would be continued.
Mr. Plohman: The minister should
not misrepresent that the formula yields nine additional clinicians because she
said through some magical process here that we are going to have nine
additional clinicians in the province, and we are going to save money.
Now are we going
to pay the clinicians less? Is that what
the minister is saying? Is that coming
from her grants or is it coming from supplementary dollars then for these
additional costs, or if they are not going to pay the clinicians less, is it
coming from the school divisions? Are
they having to supplement the $45,000 grant in order to hire these people?
Let us give credit
if that is what we are going to do to those that it is due to, not attempt to
take credit for something that is not an enhancement of services at all on the
part of this minister.
Mrs. Vodrey: We are moving into a
very detailed discussion of the funding of clinician services and, again, I
believe that the funding issues, the money, if any saved to the province, would
best be discussed under the financial line which deals with clinician services.
Mr. Plohman: I did not ask the
minister for the amounts, and she knows that I stayed away from that. We will deal with that in the line. I was asking the minister how she could claim
better service as a result of this policy decision by herself and her senior
management; how she could claim enhanced service and take credit for it as a
result of the grant system that is in place? It just does not add up, and that
is my point.
The second point
that I was making to the minister was that she seems to try to leave the
impression that consultation is so important, and that the partners in
education are very important, that she values their input. What happened in this particular
instance? Why is it suddenly the
minister deciding that this is good for the school divisions, that this is
appropriate, that this gives them local control and they should want it when
they did not ask for it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can go over
for the member how the funding formula and the funding applied through the
funding formula with the changed ratio does allow for nine more clinicians than
were currently available through our direct employees through the Child Care
and Development Branch. In addition,
there is local control of direct service to students which will allow for
divisions, and I have given the member some examples‑‑that the
divisions may decide to share the services of some clinicians. They may decide
to purchase service of one clinician for the amount of time that they believe
they need it, and it may allow them then to make sure that they have the amount
of clinician services that they determine they would like to have at their own
level as employers.
* (1510)
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, how much time did the minister give advance notice to the
school divisions to do this kind of planning to decide if they wanted to have
regional delivery of services, if they wanted to work with other school
divisions, if they wanted to hire additional services locally? How much time were they given prior to the
deadline for the budget being prepared?
Mrs. Vodrey: School divisions
were told in early March about the clinician services, and we have made every
effort to help clarify for them the flexibility that they have in terms of
hiring clinicians. When I spoke at the
MAST convention, there were questions then about, could divisions come together
for a regional service? Could divisions
in fact purchase service from another division?
All of these issues have been clarified, and we are now hearing daily
from school divisions what it is that their service agreements will be, and we
expect to have the totals and the total numbers in by towards the end of May.
In terms of
consultation, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have to say that we do believe
in consultation. We certainly have
consulted on a number of issues. In
fact, the member seems sometimes critical about the consultation. Last night he was speaking about the making
of decisions. So I will tell him that
again, yes, we do believe in consultation.
It is important to get the input of the partners in education and also
the input from Manitobans.
Government does
have to make decisions, and government does try to make decisions with the most
information possible. Some of those
decisions will be fiscal decisions, and some of them will be decisions which,
as I said to the member, also make sure that service is still available for
young people.
Mr. Plohman: If saving money was
not the primary motivation for this change in how these services would be
delivered, why did the minister not plan for it? She is talking about a reform process. That is what we discussed yesterday about the
many stages of consultation in that reform process. There is really no outlined process or time
line. We found that out, but the
minister is going through several steps of consultation.
Why would she not
do the same thing with this kind of an issue, give the school divisions notice
that the government intends, for whatever reason, to move towards a different
form of delivery, a different method, a different system? Then give them notice that this would take
place in the coming year, in the following year. Why not do that kind of a logical step‑by‑step,
systematic, planned process instead of dumping this on the school divisions a
couple of weeks or less before they had to finalize their budgets, especially
when the minister had thrown them into chaos with a late announcement, a late
financing announcement that was substantially less than the previous year?
There was a great
deal of last‑minute work that had to be done by these school
divisions. There was a tremendous
pressure and, I think, a great deal of confusion as a result of the minister
being so late with her announcement.
Then throwing this kind of a thing on top of them to add to the
confusion, it was a chaotic way to make decisions by this minister, and I have
to ask why she did not do it in a more orderly fashion.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the pressure
that school divisions were under with the timing of the funding announcement, I
have spoken to the divisions about that.
It was a very difficult time. It
was a very difficult time for government, and I understand that there was a lot
of work and a lot of effort that was then put forward by school divisions in
terms of their decision making.
That was not done
leaving them completely alone. My
department was out visiting school divisions.
My department made sure that they were available to school divisions to
assist them as they worked through their budgets. That has been the case every year.
I think it is very
important to make sure that the member understands the resources that we have
attempted to make available to school divisions to assist them. The Finance Branch has been out visiting with
divisions, helping to clarify, helping to work through questions and concerns
with school divisions. We did appreciate
the pressure that school divisions were under. When I spoke at the MAST
convention, at that time as well we made every effort to clarify areas where
there have been questions to make sure that divisions in the area of the
clinician services, in particular, that divisions understood the kinds of
service that they could engage in. I
have used examples where divisions may wish to come together for a regional
service, or where divisions may wish to purchase service, one from another.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the point is they were not given notice of this, so none of this planning
could be done in advance, whether they wanted to purchase services or plan
together as to the best way to deliver the services, because it was dumped on
them at the last minute.
Now the minister
said, this is the same every year, this pressure. It is not.
Does the minister know that the average date for releasing the figures
over the last five years before public schools is January 20? Not February 20 or approximately that, which
the minister did this year. She took one
month out of their planning and added a month of pressure to those school
divisions, so it is not satisfactory to say that this is the same as every
year.
In addition to
that, she dumped on a last‑minute decision with regard to the clinicians
which does not happen every year either.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me just provide
the member with maybe some information that he has forgotten. Letters were sent to school divisions. They were sent before Christmas to let school
divisions know what the funding may be this year, and the very difficult
funding announcement that would follow.
In that funding announcement school divisions were then to begin
planning their budget to understand that they would not be receiving any more
than last year and perhaps less. Should
the member like to look at the letter, we can find the letter again and
retrieve it.
So school
divisions were in the process of planning for several months before the
budgetary announcement. I would not like
to leave the impression that school divisions received no notice because they
did receive notice. Then again, the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and I had in representatives of school
divisions so that we could discuss with them the fiscal position of the
province and reinforce the message of the difficult funding year that this was
going to be.
In terms of
"the same every year," what I was referring to was the support that
the Department of Education and Training offers to school divisions, that when
the budget is announced, the staff from the Department of Education then go out
into school divisions to assist school divisions as they work through the
budget process.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, I have a copy of the letter, not right in front of me, but I have
read it. It did not give a specific
figure. It talked about not expecting
more funding, but it did not say there was going to be a 2 percent cut or 3 or
4 or 5 or 6 percent cut that many divisions experienced. It said nothing about
the transfer of clinicians. So again, a
precipitous decision, total lack of planning.
This is what we
are finding with this minister, except when it is convenient to say that there
is planning, such as not knowing what to do about reforms, so say we are
planning. But it sounds to me from the
information that the minister has given us, that these are not made as a result
of careful plans, but rather chaotic decisions made in a precipitous way at the
last minute.
That is what we
have seen here with the clinicians.
There is no rational reason given by the minister for not alerting
school divisions that the government intends to move in that direction many
months before it finally did so in this particular case. That is what we are
pointing out to the public and to this minister, and saying that is not
satisfactory.
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, again, I point out to the member that there was in fact warning to
school divisions. Many school divisions
were working on several scenarios for a budget so that they would be able to
look at what a budget might look like within their division. So we have in fact made sure that school
divisions in
I will say to the
member that this government has been very open about doing that. This government has sent letters, which I do
not believe were received in the past when the critic was in government. This government has had Manitobans in and
shared our fiscal situation with Manitobans.
The Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) has brought Manitobans in and has shown them very openly
the position of this government and our fiscal realities. I do not believe that that was ever the
practice when the former member was in government.
So I would say to
the member that we have made very effort to, when we have not been able to give
the exact figures because government is going through its budgetary process,
that we have in fact made sure that Manitobans understand the process that we
are going through and what we are working with as a government, that they have
access to the same kinds of numbers and that they have an understanding of the
realities of this province that has been shared with Manitobans, that was
shared with school divisions.
Then school
divisions, when the announcement was made, we acknowledged that this was a
difficult budget and that there was some pressure in terms of time to get the
budgets produced, but the school divisions were able to do that and we did
provide all the support that we could from our department to assist school
divisions to prepare their budgets.
Mr. Plohman: I want to just add
on this matter at this time that the minister is even going so far as
misrepresenting the letter that was sent out in November. It was sent out by her predecessor before her
in November. I have seen those letters
as well.
She said, so they
could have the same numbers and share the same information. There was not a lot of information shared in
that letter, no numbers given, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order,
it was not the numbers within the letter.
The letter itself provided a global sense of what the funding might be,
that it would be no more than last year and perhaps less, and the numbers were
shared in a presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), a
presentation that this government has initiated to make sure that Manitobans
understand the reality. So there were
two separate pieces of information.
Mr. Plohman: It sounds quite a
bit different the second time around, and I am happy the minister has clarified
that. That is exactly how I would
characterize the letter. It was
global. It did not give any numbers, and
the presentation by the Finance minister then was not in November, months in
advance, because the minister talked about these in the same context as if
school divisions had this information in November when they got the letter.
The fact is, when
the Minister of Finance made his presentation, it was only a couple of days
before the funding announcement in February.
So there was not a great deal of time added to the school divisions'
ability to plan and to make budgetary decisions. It was a matter of a couple of days. So let us not overstate that issue so far as
the role the Minister of Finance had here.
I want to just say, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that there is no
other way to characterize this as an unplanned, chaotic, precipitous decision
by the minister and this government.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: I want to mention to
the minister that perhaps if she has additional staff here that are involved
with other sections of the Estimates, she might consider advising them‑‑and
I am doing this out of courtesy and out of respect for their time‑‑that
we do not plan to move from this section this afternoon, so if they are waiting
in anticipation of us moving forward, in fact they need not do so.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to
thank the member for that. That is very
helpful for the department to be able to continue its work. Thank you.
Mr. Plohman: I think I am going to
leave it for now.
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): I am not going to begin with any opening statements. First of all, I would like to welcome the
minister to her portfolio. I think this is
the first opportunity I have had to do that publicly, so I welcome her to her
portfolio and to this Estimates process.
I would also like to welcome the staff from her department here. I recognize that the Estimates process is a
very time‑consuming and resource‑intense occupation for a number of
weeks. I had spoken with the member for
Dauphin, and again, because of the nature of the Administration and Finance
section, where we have an opportunity to ask a number of questions, we
certainly will be doing that until private members' hour at five o'clock.
I will not be
giving an opening statement because I think, as I ask the questions throughout
the Estimates process, it will become clear what our policy is in regard to
education in our caucus. I think sometimes
that politicians, with all due respect to all politicians in the Legislative
Assembly, like to hear themselves talk.
I have some
general questions on reform and goals, but before we do that, I wanted to pick
up on an issue that has been discussed over the last number of days, and this
is the co‑ordination of services amongst a number of departments:
Education, Justice, Health and Family Services.
I recall, from a Seven Oaks School Division debate a number of months
ago, where the minister was in attendance, that she had indicated that the
deputy ministers committee had reached a point where they were now looking at
an implementation plan for co‑ordination of services. I am wondering if the minister could give us
an update as to where that process is at.
Mrs. Vodrey: The committee that
the member is referring to was a committee which came about at the
recommendation of a committee of cabinet.
It involved a steering committee of deputy ministers and then a working
group of our staff from the four departments who have been involved. The steering committee has been working, has
met and has met also with the working group who has met more times again then
to do the work of the project.
The working group has
now submitted a report to the deputy ministers; the deputy ministers have
reviewed it. It has, as I said
yesterday, now come to the ministers, and the ministers will now be reviewing
the report, but we will have to look at the report together as a group of
ministers, as we now look at exactly what the implementation will be and what
the effect can be.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, so the
minister is indicating then‑‑can she tell me that in the interim,
while this process is underway, are there any agreements amongst the
departments or any protocols in place or even interim protocols in place with
respect to sharing of information and sharing of potential cases and referral
of potential cases amongst departments?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chair, from the working group, there certainly was a recognition of the need
for the sharing of information. I think
that has been brought to us very clearly by the initial report, which was
considered by government and led to the establishment of this committee.
There has also
been an increased willingness and an understanding of the need for us to speak
and to share information.
Yes, there are
some protocols which are now in place.
One that I have spoken about in the House is the protocol for the 24‑hour‑‑It
is called 24‑hour crisis planning, and it is between the Departments of
Health, Family Services and Education, which does look at the planning on
behalf of a young person. Most often
these are severely emotionally disordered young people or behaviourally
disordered young people who need that consistency over the 24‑hour period
between school and home life, so there is that protocol in place by way of
example.
* (1530)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there
is no question that there is a recognition of a need for co‑ordination. I think it went well beyond the
recommendations in the last five years. This is a problem that has been there
for the last 10 and 15 years. So it is
not a new issue and the recognition is there.
I am familiar with
the 24‑hour planning process. Can
the minister tell me, other than the 24‑hour planning, are there any
other protocols in place with reference to perhaps even calls that come in or
material or information that comes in directly to ministerial offices?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chair, well, there are other protocols.
Because we are not at that line in terms of the PDSS or the K to 12 area
of my department, which has been dealing with this area most specifically, we
do not have the lists available today for the member. However, there is another protocol, and there
are also a series of other joint initiatives between departments to assist and
to show the co‑ordination where departments are in fact already co‑ordinating.
In terms of the
work of that committee, the committee was looking at an inventory of
service. It was looking at what services
are currently provided by departments and then bringing those services together
so that then they could be looked at. The availability of services would then
be made known so that there was not just a reliance on the knowledge of a
single department or the services of a single department, but rather we could
look across those departments in which services to people are given and know
what range of services are available.
As I said, the
report will now be discussed at the ministerial level, and the ministers will
then make some decisions based on the report that we will have received.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, perhaps the
minister misunderstood me, but I was asking actually what protocols were in
place within the ministerial offices, i.e., what protocols are in place, if in
fact the minister's office or any of the ministers' offices receive, let us
say, calls on an ongoing basis from a particular individual? They are obviously expressing concerns and
seem to be having difficulty, et cetera, and although there may be, as the
example this minister's department, an educational focus to it, it may seem
obvious that there are perhaps potential services that might be utilized in
other departments, let us say, Health or Family Services. Is there protocol in place and in fact are
the staff in the minister's office trained to know what to do with the
information that they receive or how to refer people on to other departments
should that be required?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can tell
the member that, yes, co‑ordination does occur between departments where
there is a concern that has been raised.
Again, and the member is likely aware of this, sometimes individuals,
when they phone, do speak to our office staff and tell them the whole issue but
sometimes they do not. Sometimes they
wait until they can be directed, and in our case we do make every effort to
direct through our department in particular, if they are asking for a support
to make sure that people are connected with the service that they require,
where people are able to tell us what it is that their need is.
As I said, we do
not always know if people then do follow up on that. The member comes from a services‑to‑people
background as I do. Sometimes when
information is provided, people are not able to make that second call.
Ms. Gray: I am not even interested in and
perhaps placing any blame on any particular circumstance or any particular case
to a department. I mean, this lack of co‑ordination
in services, unfortunately, has been longstanding for well over 10 years,
whether it is this government or the former government. It certainly has been raised as an issue with
governments in '84 and '86 and '88. My
concern is that I know what it is like when you get committees together in
government. First of all, you have to
get them together to meet, and then trying to reach a decision oftentimes when
you are dealing with a number of departments can be a very difficult task.
I am concerned
that we do find people who are falling through the cracks because staff are not
necessarily trained and there are not protocols in place. Now that this particular working group has
made recommendations which are now with the ministers, can this Minister of
Education tell us how long it will be before a decision is made as to which of
the implementation pieces are accepted and when we might see some protocols in
place?
I would suggest
that those protocols would be very useful to members of the opposition as well,
and perhaps we should even be looking at some training for all staff in the
Legislative Assembly when it comes to issues such as this. I am not suggesting this is just something
government staff need to be worried about, but perhaps all of us here.
Mrs. Vodrey: Just to go back to
when a call comes in, again it does depend on how much information that a
person is able to give the person on the other end of phone. When we get enough information from that
individual‑‑and many times it is important for us to make the
calls, and certainly some of our support staff will then, when an issue is
defined, make calls within departments and then return the call to the
individual who has called to give them the information that they require so
that they can then make the call on their own behalf.
* (1540)
So the support
which is available‑‑and again I speak for my department, and other
ministers will speak for theirs, but when a call comes in, again we make every
effort to direct an individual, or where there is further information required,
we will very often make those calls ourselves to get the service numbers for
the individual and then phone the individual back and provide them with the
information that they need.
In terms of a time
frame for the implementation, again it is very hard for me to, as a single
minister, give an exact date of implementation because it does involve other
ministers and other ministries. But I
can tell you that it is an, obviously, important issue, and, as the member
says, yes, it has been an issue for a long time. As I had said last evening, I remember in my
own practising in the early '80s sitting in the minister of the day's office
and saying to that minister, we need to have some co‑ordination.
So I can tell you
from a personal point of view, I understand the needs in the field. It is an important issue and Education has,
in fact, chaired the committee, so we will be looking to have some developments
to report as soon as possible.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us when next is
this group of ministers meeting, and will that particular report be on the
agenda?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to
give the member a date at this time as to when that meeting will occur and as
to the agenda at that meeting.
Ms. Gray: I can appreciate the minister has to
get some support from other ministers in order to quickly move on this, but can
the minister tell us when she would like the report acted upon and actually
protocols in place?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chair, well, again, as soon as possible because it is a high priority and it is
a very functional priority to have the information actually available. As the
member knows, we will be looking to co‑ordinate as a group of ministers,
and we will be doing it as soon as possible.
Ms. Gray: Could that as soon as possible be by
the end of June?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy
Chair, as I said to the member, I certainly see the issue as a priority. I will be taking it forward, but I cannot
give the member a date at this time.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, moving on
to some more general questions in this area of Administration and Finance, it
is always difficult in Question Period to really get a lot of answers because
of the nature of the question and answer and the time factor.
I am very anxious
to hear from the minister, now that we have more opportunity for discussion, if
she could give us a sense of when she refers to reform of the education system,
does she have a framework or some type of blueprint in mind, not in terms of
what all the answers are as far as education reform, but really what components
does she see as a part of that reform?
Has her department developed goals and objectives around that reform
that they would be able to share with us?
Mrs. Vodrey: The issue of
education reform is a major initiative.
We have spoken about it very briefly in terms of questions and answers
in the House, and yes, we did have an opportunity in our last sitting to
discuss it as well.
I would like to
just outline for the member some of the issues that are important in education
reform. First of all, a series of
principles, which we have developed through our own strategic planning, which
we believe should be reflected in all of the education reform. Our decisions and our actions would be based
on principles such as excellence and equity, and principles such as openness
and responsiveness‑‑I think those are some of the issues which we
are discussing even here this afternoon‑‑choice and relevance, and
integration and accountability.
The whole process
is one which does require consultation.
It is a process which, as I have said before, we need to be careful not
to develop strictly in isolation and then just lay it out to the field, but
that we should involve the field. I have
described the people who have been involved as partners in education, but I
call those people‑‑they are teachers and superintendents and
trustees. They are also business and
industry and labour. They are also
parents. They are Manitobans who have an
interest in education, who must be involved in the process.
There are a number
of areas in which we are looking to reform.
One is the area of legislative reform of The Public Schools Act, and
that does provide the legislative and legal framework for education in
I did just release
the document not that long ago. The
document contained the suggestions of approximately 6,000 Manitobans. When Roy White, who was the chair, released
the document, he said, this is how Manitobans see the issue of legislative
reform.
So we have had to
look at that document and say, what within that document is currently in The
Public Schools Act, because some things are in the The Public Schools Act, and
Manitobans may not have known that. What
is in The Public Schools Act and requires changing as a result of some of the
recommendations that have been put forward?
What is in the reform package which is not in The Public Schools Act and
will require us to look at the act and also the effect.
We also have had
to look at that first part of the reform and we have had to view it with its
impact on organizations, its legal impact and also the impact of funding
because again, when Mr. White released the report, he said that that was not a
consideration of those people who made recommendations and made presentations
to their panel. The committee was very
careful to accept the ideas of Manitobans and not try and in any way only pick
those which appeared to have an organizational effect or otherwise. So that is one area, and that does provide
the framework.
(Mr. Marcel
Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
In addition, we
also have to look at some reform in our whole area of curriculum and in our
area of standards and in the accountability of education in
As I have pointed
out, that document, the document on legislative reform also has to be co‑ordinated
with the other parts of reform because there are recommendations within that
document that speak to what a curriculum should be or what a curriculum might
be in terms of, I believe the term that they use in the report is a basic
education.
Reform then looks
at the framework document. It looks at
also the areas of curriculum and standards and accountability and reform will
also look at the issues of Mantobans wide interest in terms of education, in
terms of the partnerships in education. That is one message that we have been
receiving very clearly. What we are leading to then is to hear from Manitobans
their views of education and leading up to an Education Innovation forum in
which Manitobans will then be able to provide us some information on some of
these basic questions.
Ms. Gray: The minister refers to a framework
document. Can she tell us, is there a
framework document or a plan that indicates goals and objectives and time
frames, a brief outline that she has that she could table for us today?
Mrs. Vodrey: The framework
document I have been referring to is the legislation, and that then is what
provides for the powers of the minister and the school boards and parents and
rights and responsibilities of students.
* (1550)
Ms. Gray: What about the overall education
reform? Does the minister have a
planning document or brief outline or idea of what that is that she could share
with us?
Mrs. Vodrey: A starting document
is the document, Building a Solid Foundation, which is the strategic plan. The member may have seen this. It is a five‑year plan in the
Department of Education which has laid out principles, and actions will be
measured based on those principles.
In terms of a
document for this next few months leading up to the education fora, we will be
looking at the best way to put forward the views of Manitobans and the views of
government. Some of those interests that are represented may be competing
interests, and Manitobans may want the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons
and also to develop priorities. So in
order to look at that in a very focused way, we are leading up to the Education
Innovation fora.
Ms. Gray: I certainly was given the impression
from various organizations interested in education that they felt that they did
not seem to have much information on this entire education reform, and you
refer to the document, the strategic planning.
Organizations and
school divisions and MTS and MAST and
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I have met with each of those groups. We have begun starting points of discussion
around issues of priorities and around areas of reform, and I can say that in
some areas among organizations‑‑I met with the organizations
individually because I felt that it was important for them to be able to
express their interests, concerns and priorities without feeling that they
would have to defend those with other people at that point.
However, among
those organizations, the priorities are not always the same, and so now the
next step is to put together the information that we have been receiving as a
government, that partners in education have given to us. We will be working towards the Education Innovation
fora where then some‑‑we are looking for a very concrete discussion
on education reform.
I also wanted just
to say that the organizations are working with the department on a number of
initiatives. When I look at one of the
initiatives, that being Distance Education, they were represented on our
Distance Education task force as were representative Manitobans, other
Manitobans who had an interest in the area of Distance Education, and that is
one large area of a reform initiative within this government. I have just received the final report of that
Distance Education task force. I plan to
release it.
So there are a
number of issues which are ongoing and which the member groups, the groups that
the member has mentioned, have been working very directly and very closely with
the Department of Education.
Ms. Gray: With the document, the report on the
education legislation reform, at the news conference the minister certainly
made it clear that this was a report of the group who had worked on it and was
not sort of government's recommendations, the report, and that is fair enough.
Can the minister
tell us, what is the process for determining which recommendations in this
document will be taken forth and actually used as part of legislation
changes? If in fact, that where there
have been no legislation changes, can she tell us of the process? How will government decide which ones they
are going to utilize out of here and which ones they are not?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we
will be examining the recommendations again in the light of the principles that
I spoke about in the beginning. Through
our strategic plan, we did identify principles that would be guiding us in
terms of moving education ahead, and that was within our five‑year plan
that those were developed.
We recognize we
are moving education ahead into the year 2000.
We will be looking at the recommendations based on those principles and
we also will be looking at the recommendations, as I said, through those three
areas. We will be looking at the impact
on the organization; we will be looking at the financial impact; and we will
also be looking at the legal impact to see if there are legal ramifications for
some of the recommendations.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister tell us, will it be her departmental staff, or will it be herself as
minister, or will it be cabinet who will actually be making the final decisions
once this analysis is done?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair,
again the department staff will do a great deal of work and then that work will
be brought to me and I, as minister, will look at what the potential changes
will be. As the member knows, in the
development of legislation, which is where this report is leading, the
development of legislation and the legislation itself then is a government
decision.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chair, can the minister
tell us, in regard to establishing this particular budget for '92‑93‑‑I
am not sure if the process in all departments is the same, but I am assuming
that the minister was aware and certainly made it known to her department that
in fact many of the departments were looking at in general a 2 percent cut
across the board. I am wondering if the
minister can tell us did she ask her staff to give her various options and
suggestions on where there could be changes in funding within her department,
whether those changes meant decreases, total cuts, or whether in fact there
were increases in some of the areas?
Did she ask for
that information from her staff, and could she give us some examples of
suggestions that were made from her staff as to ways to make changes within the
various divisions within the Department of Education?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the
member that numerous options were examined.
As she knows, during a budgetary process, we do try and look at many
potential options. However, in the final
decision making we also look to what will be effective, what will be fiscally
responsible and what will also be, among difficult choices, the decisions which
will assist Manitobans. I think that is
an important part of the decision‑making process because we have to keep
in mind that we are dealing with services.
So we were looking among options again to be fiscally responsible but to
look at effectiveness and also to look at the effect.
I am not sure how
much additional information the member would like. We do have a very well‑developed
decision‑making process where staff input is facilitated through a series
of internal committees, and staff is brought together across the department around
specific issues and tasks. There are
intradepartmental committees also which work and include strategic‑‑some
examples are areas of strategic planning and teacher training and so on.
Our department
also follows the cyclical planning process, and we always are looking to
strengthen that process as well. So I
just want to assure the member that there is a process in place within the
department to deal with the bringing forward of suggestions and the generation of
ideas.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, were there
suggestions of reductions in funding or monies within the Department of
Education that were recommended by her departmental staff that she rejected?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can confirm
that numerous options, as in a budgetary process, were brought forward. Then there was an attempt to look at the
effect of those options and the effect in a total sense, and then an option was
recommended.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister give us just one
example as an example of one that was rejected?
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: The budgetary
process is a complicated one. It is one
that we work very hard at, but now I think that what is important to have on
the record are those budgetary decisions which were made.
Ms. Gray: I can appreciate the budget process
is complex but the examples actually would not be, so perhaps if she could just
give us one example.
Mrs. Vodrey: Sorry, I did not
hear the last part of the member's question.
Ms. Gray: It is the same question. If the minister could just give us one example.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said, the
process was a complicated one. It is now the decisions which have been made
which are of importance to Manitobans.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us the
decision in regard to changes in clinicians?
Where did that recommendation come from?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, that was a
part of the budgetary process. It was discussed, and then the decision was made
to accept that and to recommend that.
But as I have said this afternoon, I think it is important to know that
in making that decision we were also very careful to consider the changes in
the funding formula, that we were able to look at the changes in terms of the
amount of money available in terms of the ratio of clinicians, and that we
would make sure that the service was still available.
Ms. Gray: The minister has said earlier today
that the allowance for clinicians had changed over the last year or so from an
allowance of $23,000 to an increase of $45,000.
Can the minister tell us, for those school divisions, the 19 who hire
their own clinicians, are there dollars within their budgets that they receive
that allow for that and has it been changed from 23 to 45?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that formula
does apply to each division.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what if a particular
school division under this new arrangement chooses not to hire their own
clinicians or does not share resources with another school division, will that
be brought to the minister's attention?
Will there be anything that is then done on the part of the Department
of Education to ensure that a service is provided?
Mrs. Vodrey: In order to access
the funds, divisions must hire the clinician.
So there is not the ability for a division to hire and not offer the
service.
Ms. Gray: What if the divisions do not access
the funds?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, it is a very
hypothetical question. We do work with
divisions. Divisions do submit annual
division action plans which talk about how they will plan for their special
needs students. We also have special
needs guidelines, and I believe that there is a recognition of the need for
support. Again, we do check through the
aid apps that the divisions submit.
Ms. Gray: Of course, it is a hypothetical
situation, but I know that this minister and her department like to be
proactive. So I am sure that they have
thought about the fact that should a school division not decide to take the
grant‑‑and the minister as well has ensured that those services
would be available‑‑so I would ask the minister what provisions or
what plan has been put in place should a school division, for whatever reasons,
decide not to accept the grant and therefore not hire clinicians?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, with the clinician services, when the clinician services were
divided among some school divisions through our Child Care Branch, if the
divisions did not want to use the service at that time, they did not have to
then. Divisions made their decision on
the kind of service that that division wanted and how they would use it.
In this case, the
funding is provided. If divisions do not
provide the clinician services, then the funding will not flow. So, as was the
case before the devolution, if the divisions did not want to have the service
or did not have a sense that they needed the services, then, in fact, they did
not use them.
In this case, the
funding is available, and divisions will again have the ability to have
clinician service through the funding formula.
I am informed that
no divisions have indicated that they will not have service.
Ms. Gray: Is the minister saying, were there
school divisions before who did not use those services?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I am informed that all the divisions did use the service in the
past. However, if they did not wish to
use the service, they did not have to use the service.
Also in the past
the divisions were able to determine which service they wanted to have, and
divisions now will decide how they want to use that clinician grant. Again, our own staff are in regular contact
with the divisions. They are in regular
contact to support the transition from the clinicians being employed by our
Child Care and Development Branch and as they move to being employees of school
divisions.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, what plan
has been put in place with this transfer of staff to school divisions? What plan is being put in place to ensure
that, now that these clinicians will have different and separate employers,
there is some co‑ordination of services that will occur and something in
place to ensure standardization and consistency of service?
This is certainly
a concern that has been expressed by not only the clinicians themselves, but
other professionals who work with the clinicians in the school division.
* (1610)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, we are providing support during the transfer. We are providing support for the hiring
process of clinicians. We are also
providing support for local models as school divisions decide which clinician
services that they wish to employ. We
also will continue to offer the supervision.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us how will
her department ensure, while respecting local school division autonomy, that
there is a co‑ordination of services amongst clinicians and that there is
still some consistency and standards in place in regard to the delivery of
those services?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, divisions, as I said, do put forward their annual division action
plan, the ADAP plan. In that plan, they
put forward how they will deal with issues such as special needs within their
division, how they plan to address the issue of special needs. They are specific to divisions because some
divisions have some specific needs based on the young people who are currently
living in that division. Those needs can
change, so the ADAPs are put forward on a yearly basis, and we do look at those
plans.
Those plans also
put forward a division's philosophy as well as planning in terms of how they
will deal with the young people within their division. So that is one very important way that we
will be able to look at how the needs of special needs children in particular
are being met and plan to be met by the local school division.
In addition, we
have continued contact with school divisions.
As I said, we are prepared to offer the supervision. We will most
certainly offer the supervision until a clinician is certified, and then
following that certification, where divisions would like it, we can offer
ongoing supervision.
We will still have
also a regional approach with regional co‑ordinators to support the co‑ordination
for the Level II and the Level III support, and as the member knows, the Level
II and Level III support is support offered through our funding formula for
those young people who are, in fact, most in need as special needs young
people. So we do provide that continued
support through our regional co‑ordinators.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us then, these
plans that are submitted, does the department then have to approve those action
plans before any funding flows?
Mrs. Vodrey: I know one of the
issues the member is concerned about is the issue of standards, and I can tell
her and I am informed that since the ADAPs have been in place, the local
policies and the services at the local level have been developed. They have been more clearly articulated since
the ADAP plan has been in place, and the programming has been improved.
In addition, we do
review the ADAP plans. We provide feedback
about the ADAP plans which are submitted by divisions. We do not, however,
supervise the implementation, but we do look at how a division plans to work
with its students and particularly its special needs young people.
Ms. Gray: The minister indicated that none of
the school divisions had not asked for funding for clinicians. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: To our knowledge,
every division will be looking to use the clinician grants.
Ms. Gray: Are the school divisions allowed to
apply for partial grants, or one‑third, or one‑quarter if they only
want to use so many hours of a clinician's service?
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of the
clinician grants, divisions may apply to use for a portion of a whole grant,
.5. I am not sure there is anything in
addition that I can add.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us that with
the clinicians that were in place before, through the Department of Education,
were there waiting lists at all for services?
Or is that a question that the staff are not here to answer right now?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that
students were seen on a prioritized basis.
There were, in fact, no specific waiting lists because with the young
people needing to be seen, the effort was made to see them. However, I am also informed that there were
always young people who would be worked with.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I think we are still on this line,
16.1(c). I am looking at Planning and
Policy Development.
The minister has five
Professional/Technical people in this line, and I wonder if she could tell me
how much of the time of those five people is devoted to post‑secondary
education.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I think it is
important to say we do not have a specific breakdown of time because it does
depend upon the project and also depending upon the issue. However, we do make every effort to see that
the issues as they relate to the K to 12 side or the post‑secondary side
do receive the attention and the work and are integrated within the workload of
the technical staff.
Ms. Friesen: I am looking for an
estimate. I realize that projects differ
from year to year and over a five‑year period, but I am looking for an
estimate of how much time in this section of the department, which is listed as
the Planning and Policy Development, is related to post‑secondary
education.
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed from
staff that, again, it is very difficult to come up with this estimation because
there is time spent on both sides of the department on some issues, and it has
been very difficult for us to conceptualize a person's work within one
box. I would use, as an example, the
Task Force on Distance Education, which looked at the issue of Distance
Education, but looked at distance education as it applies to the K to 12 side
and the post‑secondary side, universities and also training. So, with that in mind, again, it is
hard. I am informed that if the staff
were to estimate at this time, and again it would be a very difficult estimation,
they would say approximately 30 percent might be specifically devoted to post‑secondary.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, and I
recognize that is an estimate. Within that 30 percent, could the minister ask
her staff for another estimate on how much of that is devoted to colleges and
universities and how much is devoted to other post‑secondary education
issues?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, it seems to be very difficult.
We have not looked at the issue in that specific a way to break it down
as universities and then colleges. As
the member knows, we do have at the moment the Roblin commission, which is
examining all aspects of university education and university accountability and
mandate at this time. It is also very
difficult. I did speak about the Task
Force on Distance Education and technology as being one in which there was post‑secondary
involvement, as well as involvement on the K to 12 side. It was hard to say how much time could be
broken down.
The issue is
similar in the area of Adult Basic Education; the issue is similar in the
departmental submission to the Northern Manitoba Economic Development
Commission. It is also difficult in the
area of our strategic direction. I am
not sure that I will be able to provide her with the specific, even estimated,
number that I think she is looking for.
Ms. Friesen: So, essentially, we
are looking then at less than two people who are doing the planning for
colleges, universities and other post‑secondary issues in the
Mrs. Vodrey: I did speak earlier
in the Estimates process about the interdepartmental and intradepartmental
committees which deal with some of the issues as they relate to the wider
educational issues within our department.
Therefore, it is,
I do not believe, really accurate to suggest that it is only two people working
on the policy issues as they relate to post‑secondary education, because
we do have people who are representative on the intradepartmental and
interdepartmental committees for strategic planning, again the Task Force on
Distance Education. We had also a
committee which was working on college governance to bring our colleges into
the governance model. We also have
people who do not work in this policy branch but instead work in the post‑secondary
side who are working on the labour market development strategy.
Ms. Friesen: But we are looking
here at the overall implementation, evaluation of the department's direction
and progress. We are looking at
departmental policy options. All of the
things that the minister has mentioned‑‑the interdepartmental
committees, the people elsewhere in the department and in other departments who
have work that affects tangentially the post‑secondary education area‑‑presumably
those all feed into a unit within the minister's office essentially which
develops options and has an overall perspective on what the goals and
evaluation processes should be for post‑secondary education. That is what
I am looking for. Does this mean, then,
that there are, in effect, in
Interdepartmental
committees look at specific projects such as Distance Education. People who are on the post‑secondary
side are looking at specific issues, but the whole long‑range planning,
policy options, choices for the government presumably come from this unit, and
it amounts to less than a third of the five, I gather.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed in
terms of the detailed workings of the staff by the director that it really has
been very important‑‑and we support this throughout the Department
of Education‑‑that there be a broad corporate perspective, that it
not just be a single individual who is the repository for a single bit of
information.
Instead,
individuals working within the department‑‑and I know we will get
into speaking about that when we move into all other aspects in our K to 12 and
post‑secondary side‑‑that individuals, when questioned by
Manitobans when they are in the field, are able to speak about more than just a
small, single area.
* (1630)
So I think that is
one reason why it is very difficult to simply then reduce it down to looking at
it as two people because there is a responsibility, a more general
responsibility to all the people, all eight people who are working in that
area.
In addition, the
Planning and Policy Development branch does provide leadership. It also co‑ordinates the departmental
planning process. I think the term
"co‑ordinate" is an important one because that also implies the
kind of work that I have been speaking about where then we bring together
people within the departments, and the co‑ordination is done through our
Planning and Policy Development branch.
They also provide
some consultative support to the branches in doing their work and also are of
assistance to me in terms of making sure that I receive information on the
status of all of the committees and how they are working.
Ms. Friesen: The reason I am
putting some emphasis upon this and trying to get at the priority which is
given to planning is that it seems to me, and I have said this in Question
Period and on other occasions, that what is missing in this department is any
sense of long‑range planning.
What we are seeing
is ad hoc activities that do not seem to examine policy options but simply
respond in only one way‑‑with a cut. I wonder if the real weakness in the
department is, in fact, the long‑range planning. Is it not here that we should be looking at
some rearrangement of staff?
The minister
mentioned eight people, for example. I
know that is what it says on the Total line, but who is actually doing the
research, planning and development of alternatives, development of policy
options? Is it the full eight people?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, well, again I would like to say that we see the planning as a
process, and not just specifically as a single unit but rather the planning is,
and I think that this is then the most efficient way for me to describe it, as
a process, and it does involve this corporate perspective, and it does involve
people in addition to our policy and planning area, which does provide the co‑ordination.
I am also informed
that during the legislative reform process there were literally thousands of
Manitobans who saw our principles, and they liked the principles that they had
seen, and there was a great deal of support for those principles. Then I would also point to the document,
Building a Solid Foundation for our Future, which is a five‑year strategic
plan of the department, and which we do review every year and which we will
look at building upon. This does provide
the basis for long‑range planning.
Ms. Friesen: My concern is
specifically for the long‑range planning in post‑secondary
education. The minister has spoken of
the hundreds of people who dealt with the legislative framework. I think we can
also find hundreds of thousands of people who are very deeply concerned about
the long‑range future of post‑secondary education, people who are
sitting on those two‑year waiting lists at
Where is the long‑term
planning for that kind of change? Yes, in part there may be in the long run
some suggestions which come from the Roblin review, but where is the long‑range
planning for the other part of post‑secondary education? Where is the overall perspective?
The minister
refers to planning as a process, and, yes, that is good bureaucratic language,
but process has to have an outcome, and what I am looking for in this section
of the department is, in fact, outcome.
Where are the ideas? Where are
the policy options in post‑secondary education? Where is the indication of‑‑and I
think, and I do not use this term lightly‑‑the crisis that we are
facing in the provision of post‑secondary places for
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, well, I would like to say that we have, as a government, a strong
belief that we will find direction and we will find ideas from the Roblin
commission. We are looking to the Roblin
commission to provide us on the university side with the latest thinking, and
also with some guidance and direction.
They have worked very hard and we know that they have examined a wide
number of issues. This province has made
sure that we were able to look at university education in a very detailed way.
In terms of the
colleges, we have just finished a three‑year transitional process to move
our colleges to governance. That was a
very large and very detailed and significant planning process which now has the
colleges functioning under governance, and as they are now functioning under
governance. I know we will get into this
when we get to the community colleges area.
We will be able look at how the colleges now can become more responsive
to their communities and to their regional areas.
That was a very
important issue in the decision to move the colleges to governance. It was not something that could occur
overnight. It did require long‑range
planning, and, now, we have moved to the end of that three‑year process
with the successful movement of our community colleges into governance. So those are two of our post‑secondary
programs‑‑universities through the Roblin commission, colleges
through governance.
We are also
looking to‑‑and we will be discussing this when we get to the post‑secondary
side of our department‑‑labour market policy development, and we
understand how that will very closely influence our decisions regarding
training. So there has been, in the
past, and there continues to be planning, and there continues to be major
initiatives in the post‑secondary area.
From our strategic
plan, and I am not sure if the member has seen this strategic plan, but it
looks at moving from the vision and principles into strategic initiatives, then
into specific plans and activities, and it does move into the outcome areas.
What are our expected outcome areas? We
have answered that through the strategic plan and through the vision, as well.
We have looked at
what would we like the outcome to be. We
have looked at outcomes such as expanded program offerings to more Manitobans
in the northern, rural and urban areas.
As we look at that, we have recently completed the Task Force on
Distance Education, which will be one way to address some of those specific
issues.
So I know as we
move into the discussion, it may be more clear by way of more examples to look
at how we are, in a very thorough way, moving ahead with the plans that were
laid out in a broad outline. The details
of the plans are being worked through, through steps, some of which have
already been accomplished.
I would say that
the colleges, having moved to governance, are the accomplishment of one major
set of goals and objectives.
Ms. Friesen: The move to
governance does not expand the offerings.
In fact, it has reduced them, so in the minister's long‑range plan
for expanding offerings at colleges and in post‑secondary education, it
seems to me the only example she has been able to give is Distance Education.
Yes, there may be
some improvements there in the long run.
I have no difficulty at the moment with the kind of planning process
that is going on there, but, again, the outcome is some distance away. [interjection] Yes, I did not mean the
pun. I am not a punner.
So I really do not
see that as a major achievement. It is a
beginning, and it is addressing part of the issue, but the three‑ or four‑year
process that has gone on in transferring the colleges to governance, it seems
to me, has not had the effect of expanding opportunities and will not have that
effect for some years.
Indeed, it is
difficult to see from the planning process, that is, from the minister's own planning
unit where the direction is for the colleges to do that. Where is the overall planning for the three
colleges? Where is the needs study that
says what the different regions of
* (1640)
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, in moving the
colleges to governance, it provides a two‑way communication which assists
in that planning process. The board
members, for example, all represent various segments of the community. They bring the expertise and the knowledge
that they have about needs and about skill needs and labour market needs to the
college and put that into the decisions that the boards of governors make in
the planning process.
In addition, they
have another role. The process is a two‑way
communication. The communication also
then flows from the board governance table, from the decisions that the board
of governors make, out into the community, where they will be able then to have
their community see that the communities are connected to the community
colleges, and that two‑way communication was a very important part of the
movement to the board structure.
So that now, when
the member asks about regional needs and regional planning, we will have that
information on an ongoing and a very dynamic basis within the community college
boards. I know the boards are working
very hard and I know they are working very hard now in their new role also of
negotiating directly. They now have the power to negotiate directly with the
federal government, and directly for other kinds of training contracts to work
with CEIC.
I know that the
boards are in the process of now doing that. That is where the boards have now
a greater flexibility, a greater flexibility in responding to, for instance, if
the federal government does say that it wishes to put a particular program on
at a community college, and they would like to do it in a very short time, the
colleges now have the ability to respond to that, whereas in the past it had to
go through the whole process of government.
So we believe that
we will see some very positive results, one from the involvement of community
members in the two‑way communication process and from the ability of the
colleges now to do that negotiation on their own.
Ms. Friesen: I am surprised to
hear a minister of this government say the power to negotiate directly with the
federal government is a great advantage.
It does not seem to have done this government any good. It is almost like a Chinese curse, I would
think, in these times.
Certainly in the
case of Red River Community College, what we have seen is the result of their
ability to negotiate with the federal government, is that the federal
government has simply withdrawn even more money in the former Canadian Jobs
Strategy, cutting the courses and leaving Red River Community College in a very
unpredictable situation and one which it does not have the power to
control. So, I suppose there is a better
analogy, but all I can think of at the moment is it is like offering a Chinese
curse to anybody.
Point of Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, just on a point of order, I would just like to say that more
detailed information on the community colleges and exactly where they are will
be available when we do get to that line, and when we are able to discuss the
college's secretariat also.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable
minister did not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: We were talking about
the long‑range planning again in this department, and my attempt to find
out whether, in fact, one‑third of eight people or one‑third of
five people, I am not sure which the minister means, is really enough to
provide the kind of information and direction that is needed by all of our many
varieties of post‑secondary institutions.
I noticed the minister said that she is expecting to have the latest
thinking from the Roblin commission. I
think we also certainly look forward to that, but I wonder if she could tell us
how many research people and how much staff were assigned to the Roblin
commission for their work of‑‑what was it?‑‑six months.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I do not have
the staff from the Universities Grants Commission who will be able to provide
the details of the supports that were given to the Roblin commission here at
this time, but, when we get to that line, I will be happy to answer those
questions.
Ms. Friesen: The minister also mentioned
that this section of the department presented a position paper to the Northern
Economic Development Commission. I
wonder if that has ever been made public or tabled, because I was very
surprised and very disappointed to see the one paragraph on education in the
Northern Economic Development Commission's interim report. Has the department's position been presented
since that interim report, or was in fact the department's position represented
by that one paragraph which essentially said, oh, yes, education is important
to the future of the North?
Mrs. Vodrey: My department did
present to the northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission, and a
document was prepared by my department.
The document outlined the role education and training play in the long‑term
development of the North. The report
placed particular emphasis on such areas as labour force development and skills
training programs meeting the education needs of target groups, pre‑employment
and on‑the‑job training opportunities, the use of Distance
Education as a means for improving access, and the need to be more responsive
to the needs of the North.
This document was
submitted to the northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission, and then
the commission provided their report.
Ms. Friesen: At the moment, we
have an interim report from that commission, I understand. Was the substance of the department's report
accurately summarized in that interim report?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the
report that has been released was an interim report. I am also informed that the commission did
receive the information that was presented to it by Education and Training with
a great deal of interest, and, as a result of the submission and the interest
that was generated, I understand that the Task Force on Distance Education then
also made a submission to this particular task force.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister
share my disappointment that the Northern Economic Development Commission paid
so little attention to education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, as we have said, this is an interim report, and so I will look
forward to seeing the full report when it is released.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister
prepared to table the report or the presentation that her department made to
that committee?
Mrs. Vodrey: The report that we
provided to that commission, again, was for their use. Now we will wait to see their report to see
how education is represented in the report.
Ms. Friesen: Does that mean no?
Mrs. Vodrey: It means that our
report was submitted to another commission, and now they will look at how they
will be using it.
Ms. Friesen: Well, this is a
little puzzling. We have a report by one
government department to another government commission which the minister is
not prepared to table. Is that the case?
Mrs. Vodrey: The submission which
was made‑‑and I would like to make sure that it is called by its
correct name, the submission‑‑was prepared by this department to
that commission, and now the commission will have to look at all of the
information that it has received, and we will look for the final report of that
commission.
* (1650)
Ms. Friesen: Well, I do not know
whether I want to comment any further on that.
It strikes me as very surprising and quite unnecessary. If the minister is pleased with the work of
her planning section, her Planning and Policy Development, if she thinks that
it in fact does have the ear of northern Manitoba, that it has long‑range
expertise in the area of the needs of northern Manitoba, if it has long‑term
concerns about the future of education in northern Manitoba, what on earth can
be possibly served by not presenting that submission now?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I have read
out for the record the areas that were covered in that report. So what had been discussed by the Department
of Education in that submission would not be a surprise to the member.
I have covered the
topic areas within that submission, and the submission was for that particular
commission, and now the commission will decide how it will use the information
contained in the submission.
Ms. Friesen: The minister should
not underestimate my capacity for surprise at this government. I would very much like to read the
report. I would like to understand what
the department's perspective is on northern
That certainly is
not served by, essentially, chapter headings.
What the minister is offering me is a description of topics. I am asking for analysis, comment,
information and a chance for Manitobans to have some access to essentially the
official mind of the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair,
the member says she is looking for the
I understand the
member is particularly interested in the North and is particularly interested
in northern issues. I can say that, when
the commission does provide its report, the report should provide for the
member all of the information because she is asking for an integrated view,
government's view. I look forward to the
report also from the commission.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, but
what we are looking at here is the perspective and the expertise of the
Education department on the role of education in the future of the North, and
that seems to me a legitimate matter of inquiry for Manitobans.
The report has
been done. It has been based upon the
long‑term work of the department in the North. Why? I
mean, when one does not table a report like that, which has been presented to a
public inquiry, it seems only obvious for any critic, any Manitoban, to inquire
why. What is there to be worried
about? What are the anxieties here? Why can Manitobans not read it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair,
again, I want to distinguish that this is not a report. This is not a report that was given to
us. This was work that was done
internally by our department as a submission to the commission.
The member has
asked about the issue of vision, and I can give her some statements on
vision. We would include that the vision
for this province, including the North, is one of a vibrant economy and a
healthy society. The development of
That is the vision
statement, and the member had asked for a vision. However, the staff has informed me that this
was presented at a public hearing, and I had not known if it was done in a
private hearing. Because it was done in
a public hearing, then I am prepared to give the member the submission
tomorrow. I am sorry, Thursday, the next
time we are together.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, I
thank the minister for that. I hope that
the report does have perhaps as much analysis as it has vision, and I will be
looking forward to reading it.
I wanted to ask
the minister if, since the department had presented a submission to the
Northern Economic Development Commission, whether it had also presented one to
the Rural Economic Development commission.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, one
of the major ways in which we have been looking at issues as they relate to
rural and northern Manitoba has been through our Task Force on Distance
Education. I am informed by the staff that they believe that task force made a
submission to the Rural Economic commission, but I would want to make sure and
to check with the Distance Education task force before I am able to say with
certainty that occurred.
Ms. Friesen: Why, in policy terms,
is the department putting all its rural eggs into the Distance Education
portfolio‑‑yes, basket? It
seems to me, yes, I quite see that the Task Force on Distance Education might
want to make representations to the Rural Economic Development commission, but
surely there is more to the problems of education in rural
Mrs. Vodrey: When I was
discussing the task force last evening, I did say that I understand that the
Task Force on Distance Education also has an impact on the urban area and
recognize very fully the fact that its impact and its scope are not only rural
Manitoba. However, it has been one issue
and one initiative which rural Manitobans have raised as a priority issue for
themselves, and that is why I have spoken a great deal about it.
It is not the only
way in which we are attempting to address the issues of rural
* (1700)
In my term as
minister, I have certainly tried to have a good contact with rural
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being
five o'clock, time for private members' hour.
Committee rise.
AGRICULTURE
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): 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
Agriculture. We are on item 4.
Agricultural Development and Marketing, page 15 of the Estimates manual.
Would the
minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Item 4.(a)
Administration (1) Salaries $105,400.
Shall the item pass?
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
We touched briefly
on sustainable agriculture on organic farming.
The minister indicated last night that organic farming could not replace
all other farming. I can understand
that. We would not expect it to replace
it, but from some of the statistics that are available it is certainly
warranted. There is information that the
products are in great demand and that there is a benefit to the soil by going
in that direction.
Again, when we
look at our soils and the water and the impacts of chemicals on this, I want to
know where any research is being done.
Is there anywhere in the department that is doing any studies, and what
kind of information is being made available?
Are there any steps being taken to encourage farmers to move to more
organic fertilizers, and are there any steps being taken to discourage the use
of the large amount of chemicals that are being used right now?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): We discussed this topic to some degree last
night. The member is looking for further
information.
The department
does not do research per se. We have a
grant at the
As I mentioned
last night, through OPAM, staff are working to assist the association. The member says the product is in
demand. I do not know that this is
totally consistent with the facts, the reality.
The association realizes that there has to be a stronger marketing
effort in order to market what they are now producing both domestically and
export. So there is a limited
market. Percentage‑wise, it is
small. I reiterate what I said last
night. It will not replace conventional
farming. The member may want to dispute that fact, but I do not believe it will. It will serve a niche market for those people
who want to buy food produced in this fashion, but that market may well be
limited.
I contend very
strongly that there is nothing wrong with the methods we now use in the process
of registering chemicals and fertilizers and all the extension research that is
done and all the production research that is done in terms of trying to
determine the appropriate levels to apply, when to apply and the waiting
periods after application. That has all
been very adequately researched.
I think the
farming industry and agriculture industry has done a very good job of
developing itself in what we would call the conventional practices. To say that we are in any process
discouraging conventional practices, the answer would be no.
* (1430)
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson,
the minister talks about just being niche markets out there and not doing
anything to discourage the present practices, but what I am looking for: Is anything being done to encourage organic
farming? Is information being provided?
If we go back a
couple of decades, two to three decades, all our food was organically
grown. In fact, there is an article here
that says that organically grown food is becoming more in demand because of the
safety, purity and excellence of the taste and that there was the ability to
grow that food, but it is just a change in thinking and the promotions that
have gone on by the agribusiness to encourage a switchover to the synthetic
chemicals and products that are used in the production of food. There is also concern with traces of
chemicals that are in food that cannot be washed off.
Although, as the
minister says, it may be a niche market, it is a growing interest. People are wanting healthier food. I think that the government should be taking
steps to provide that information and encourage the production of healthier
food. If the minister is indicating that
food is as safe that is grown with synthetic chemicals, then perhaps some information
should be made public that clarifies that it is as safe, because there are many
doubts and a large number of people who want to see more organically grown food
in the marketplace
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson,
the member commented that agriculture production used to be organic. I am sure she is referring to many, many
years ago in the primitive stages of the development of agriculture production
in
Certainly, the
settlers did come here, and they broke up the sod. There were not any natural weeds around and
there were not many diseases because there were no plants, no wheats or barleys
or canolas upon which they could grow or multiply or survive.
As we developed
our agriculture industry, we broke more and more land, we got to more and more
of a monoculture, and along the way, we certainly, inadvertently I would have
to say, introduced weeds and diseases, many of which were foreign to this part
of the world. Mother Nature did not
bring them. Man did. It is man's response
to control the threat of the diseases wiping out crops.
I am sure she
might remember the potato famine in
I think, as I said
earlier, we have also done it in a responsible and realistic way. As I said last night, we are living longer
and we are more healthy in the latter years of our lives. So that speaks well for the nutrition and the
food that people get.
To say that
organically produced foods are more healthy, I beg to ask the member where
there is evidence of that. There is a
perception that chemicals and fertilizers were not used in the production of
them, and if you get down to fertilizers, you are talking the elements‑‑nitrogen,
phosphorus, sulphur, potash. If you
green manure a field or you apply manure, essentially, you are applying those
elements in a different fashion‑‑you may say in a natural state as
opposed to a synthetic state.
Whether that makes
any difference to the chemical reactions within the plant, I am not aware. A nutrient is a nutrient, and plants do the
appropriate chemical conversion as they absorb them and metabolize them in the
process of growth and maturity.
So we encourage
the process of organic farming for those who are interested. Staff work with the OPAM in a wide variety of
ways, have done right from the inception.
I met five or six years ago with the association, and since I became
minister, we have made sure that we have promoted it to the extent producers
were interested and helped them as much as we can along the way in many different
regards.
If there is a
market for what they produce, I think they should serve it, and I hope the
process in the end is economic for everybody involved, but at the same time, I
will not say things in the negative sense about the overall conventional
process.
I think in the
overall conventional process, we have done the appropriate things to ensure
food safety and continue to do that.
Certainly the total processes of nodding thistle and leafy spurge shows
an indication of trying to find all possible alternate means of weed
control. We have done integrated pest
management studies with vegetable growers to again minimize the amount of
chemicals that have to be applied and improve the timing so you have greater
effectiveness with less actual application.
So it is an
ongoing process, with I think two driving elements. One is the cost. People want to reduce the cost of synthetics
and chemicals and fertilizers they have to buy.
The other is strictly the bottom line:
what is the most cost‑efficient way to produce a crop. The food safety is critical at the end of the
day, because if residues are found that are above tolerance levels, that food
product and the producers of that food product will be getting into trouble and
losing a potential market, getting bad publicity and all that.
I am not aware of
any incident in
I would say one
should be equally concerned of all the things that might happen to that food
product in the processing and handling and getting it onto the shelf and to
maintain its shelf life. Some questions
might be answered in all of that process. I think at the basic production level
we have done a very responsible job of using the inputs appropriately and
responsibly as farmers.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I
agree with the minister that the goal is to get a safe food supply to the
consumer. He indicated that they were
looking at alternate ways of controlling insects and ways to use less chemical,
and that is what I was getting at.
I think there is a
place for organic farming, but we also have to be careful about residue that
might be on foods and that in some cases we are not using too much chemical,
because let us face it, the chemical companies want to sell as much chemical as
they can. That is their business, but we
have to be sure that the information is there and the regulations are there to
control the amount and get the proper information that we do have a safe food
supply. That is the main goal.
I want to move
onto another area and that is in forage production. I think all of us, particularly the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and myself, were very concerned with the closure of
the alfalfa plant in Dauphin and the impact that is going to have on the
economy in the area, not only as far as jobs but to a number of farmers who
will suffer because of it.
We are
disappointed that the government could not step in and support those farmers
when all they were asking for was a guaranteed loan to help them carry through
this year. I find that very difficult to
understand when the minister has indicated that they are looking at expanding
markets for various forage products and he had indicated earlier on in the
session that they had made trips to
The people in
Dauphin have the contacts. They have a
market for their product. Granted they
have run into some difficulty, but they were looking for some help, and I am
disappointed that the government did not see fit to help those people. I would like the minister to address that,
because what we have is people in the other parts of the province being
encouraged to produce different alfalfa products.
We saw just last
week a large plant opening, a successful plant in
* (1440)
Mr. Findlay: There is no question
that the process of producing alternate products and doing the value‑added
processing in the province is a very desirable route to go.
Yes, I have been
to Japan twice and in both cases talked to different people about alfalfa
market potential over there, and yes, we did sponsor, pay costs on a trade
mission that went over about a year ago.
The principal people on the tour were people interested in establishing
a plant in Arborg for dehydrated alfalfa.
What I found out,
what that mission found out and what staff in the Marketing branch had found
out is yes, there are markets, and yes, there are fairly good economic
opportunities in those markets, but the quality that has to be supplied there
is very, very topnotch. The margin for
error on quality on any produce out of
The Dauphin plant
has been in operation, under one type of ownership or another, for a number of
years and really went on to co‑operative ownership in 1986 and has been
in a process over the last number of months of trying to determine how to
address the future.
People from the
Marketing branch and the Economic Development Board have been in discussion
with them, the most recent meeting of April 19 talking about ways and means to
structure themselves to deal with the current problems and future market
opportunities, contracts that they have with producers to produce alfalfa.
That process has
been, I hope, helpful to the Dauphin alfalfa plant. Certainly, we are of the understanding they
were developing a business plan to take forward to the Federal Business
Development Bank, but we have received a note from the Economic Development
Board which would indicate that Farmer's Alfalfa Products Ltd. in Dauphin has
received an offer of purchase from a local business interest.
To the best of our
knowledge, they made a decision to move forward with that purchase. The plant will operate in 1993 and process
alfalfa under new ownership, having been purchased by a local business person. That is our most recent information, and it
is a decision by the shareholders. So I
would have to assume from that, that the end result is positive and the plant
will continue to operate and process alfalfa in Dauphin for a market somewhere
in the world, and that the alfalfa producers will have a market for their
alfalfa in that process.
The member says,
why did we not just help that operation? Well, it is very difficult to help one
of a group of people all competing for the same market. There are similar plants elsewhere in the
province. There are other plants looking
at developing, particularly the Arborg one, and they are doing it without the
request or need for financial assistance.
If you give
financial assistance to one, then all the others have every right to say, and
why not me too? So we were trying to
work with them to restructure them in a fashion that they could continue to
operate on a level playing field with their competitors.
What turns out to
have happened, on the surface at least, looks like a positive deal for everybody
involved, and it is going to be living with the marketplace. Somebody saw an opportunity and has come in
and decided to make an offer that the shareholders appear to have accepted.
Ms. Wowchuk: If that deal works
out, and the plant still survives and there will be jobs in the area, that is
good, but for a length of time‑‑and I am not sure where it is at
right now, whether that deal has been accepted or not.
I also heard there
was an offer on the table, and it quite likely would change hands, but it is
the whole idea of the impacts on that area and the risk of losing that economic
base in the Dauphin area where, as in many other parts of the province, they
are facing quite a lot of difficulty and really have a lack of jobs.
This was income,
off‑farm, supplementary, value‑added jobs, extra income coming onto
the farm, and we will continue to say that we were disappointed that the
government did not make the decision to secure that loan, just the loan they
were looking for. They were not looking
for actual money. They were looking for
a guarantee of a loan, and if the government was committed to jobs in rural
I want to then ask
the minister, what supports or what involvement does his department have with
the Interlake group of people who are working to develop the Arborg plant. Are there staff spending time helping them
develop a market on that? Is that group
applying for any financial assistance, and what is the minister's position on
helping that group? Does he believe it
is a viable operation, and is he prepared to support that operation?
* (1450)
Mr. Findlay: Well, that is a‑‑I
am very shocked at the most recent reply from the member for
We criticize other
governments for doing exactly that, like
Our approach was
to attempt to stabilize the company and find a way in which it could deal with
the present problems and the future, and if the sale has come forward it is a
win for everybody‑‑for the investor, for the former owners, for the
staff, for the farmers and for the government.
It is absolutely the right solution, and I wish them all the best, and I
hope that everything works out the way everybody would like it to.
The member asks
about the
I would have to
think that they are looking at REDI funds, Grow Bonds, as ways and means to
finance themselves. Certainly they have
looked for joint ventures with a potential buyer of the product in some market,
particularly in the
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, the
minister has indicated that he is supportive of the project in the Interlake,
but one of the keys to having this proposal, or this project, fly, so to speak,
is that they have natural gas in that area.
I want to ask the
minister whether he has lobbied his counterparts, other members of cabinet, to
encourage the gasification of rural
I want to ask the
minister where he is on that proposal.
Has he lobbied his cabinet to pursue that quickly?
Mr. Findlay: Certainly, in the
meetings that I have had with Interlake Dehyd Alfalfa Products, gasification or
the ability to have natural gas as an energy source has been discussed, and I
agree with them. They need lower‑cost
energy in order to compete.
In all of rural
I am really
encouraged with the attitude of people in rural
It is something
that has worked very well in certain communities in this province for a number
of years. Other communities have not
been as aggressive. It is really
encouraging to see many other communities taking their own personal initiative,
and we are working with all those that are interested in a fashion to help them
along the decision paths that they have to go on, because it will all come down
to where is the money going to come from for the investment?
Often you have
potential joint ventures or investment partners where everybody has comfort,
and you are doing the right thing for the right reasons. A lot of these opportunities are focused on
value‑added processing related to agriculture production. It will help diversification on the
farm. It will help jobs in the local
communities through the value‑added process.
None of this
happens overnight. We have increased our
effort in the department in terms of trying to assist people in these
directions, whether it is farmers or farmers in association with other business
people, to improve opportunities for value‑added activities and job
creation related thereto.
Ms. Wowchuk: I feel it is really
important. We had electrification of
rural
I think it is time
for the next phase. How are we going to
provide that next step, that energy source that is needed for rural Manitoba,
whether it be natural gas or whether we make use of the energy that we have
right in our own province? I believe
that it is time that those steps were taken, and we give the opportunity for
rural Manitobans to have some of the opportunities for value‑added jobs,
so all of those jobs do not have to have to go to the larger centres.
Part of our goal
is to keep people in rural
He continues to
talk about value‑added jobs, and now if we can see the action on the part
of his government, we will see that more of a reality. Government will have to show the leadership
and be prepared to make the investment.
But, just as government made the investment to bring electricity to
rural
Mr. Findlay: I am pleased the hear
the member say that we need to have diversification and we need the value‑added
jobs. I preached that for five years,
and I believe in it very strongly, and I think there are a lot of people out
there who also believe in it. I see a
lot of things happening that would indicate people do understand we have to do more
and more of those activities.
There is always a
bottom line one must pay careful attention to.
At the end of the day, whatever is done, whether you diversify your
production on the farm or whether you get involved in value‑added
industries, it must be economically viable in the marketplace. The decisions along the way must reflect that
reality absolutely.
In the past,
people have said, well, I want to do this, just give me some government money,
and I will be off and running. There is probably a failure down the road, if
that is the beginning scenario, because people have not really addressed the
marketplace and determined the business plan to determine if their costs can be
covered, plus a reasonable return for the investment from the marketplace.
They have just
gone and done something to source government money, and when the government
money ran out, suddenly, they were not viable in the marketplace, and that was
the failing of some of these initiatives in the past. I think almost everybody I have talked to
understands that very clearly, that if you make the decisions, remember that
you have to live with the marketplace.
* (1500)
The government is
here to assist in a wide variety of ways, but in terms of just putting money in
to try to make you competitive is not likely going to be an answer in the
immediate term or the long term. We have
seen other governments do that, and in the long term I do not know whether it
does anybody any good. The bills never
get paid at the end of the day in terms of the government grants; they are
still on the books as deficit.
So I raise that
with everybody I talk to: be sure it is
economically viable at the end of the day, and you make the decisions focussed
on the marketplace, and you know you can compete price‑wise, quality‑wise,
and all the other ways that you have to compete. If you do all those proper analyses, and use
the appropriate government assistance in terms of extension people or resource
people, contacts, maybe a loan guarantee, this sort of thing set up in the
proper fashion, so that the government has low risk in terms of the loan ever
being called, I think that is the way of the future.
I am not saying
that government should not be involved at all, but they have to be involved in
a very constructive fashion, that the probability of failure is almost removed‑‑not
totally, or, obviously, you would not have to be there. Sometimes, with these operations, the private
lenders have great reluctance to deal with them until they have proven
themselves, and that is where government can play an initial role for a short
term until they get up on their feet.
But it does
require an awful lot of homework to have a comfort zone for all involved, so
that the investment risk is minimized to the greatest possible extent, and you
have all the expertise you need at the table in the process of arriving at the
decisions that lead to starting the construction and getting the operation
going.
The Arborg people
are a very good example of going through a very long process, and I compliment
them on their perseverance as they work their way through a long process of
decision making.
Ms. Wowchuk: The government does
have a role. The government has a role
to provide supports, to do research, to identify markets. It would be very difficult for every
individual that had an idea to try to do all the work and to research whether
it is possible.
I believe that the
government does have a role to guide people, so to speak, as to where the
markets might be, and help them out with their feasibility studies. I believe there is a role. There is a role at times for government to
invest in certain areas. Sometimes
government has to be prepared‑‑and I do not think government should
be investing in every proposal that comes along, but when there are sound
proposals that are put forward, and it will benefit the economics of an area, I
believe that there is a role for government, in a combined effort, to support
the people, whether it be only with guaranteeing the loans. To see the operation get off‑‑if
it is viable, I think that the government cannot completely wash its hands of
investment.
With the work that
government has done in identifying markets, last year there was, as the
minister said, a trip to
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson,
the member asked about this fiscal year in terms of missions. We are anticipating somewhere between 30 and
35 incoming trade missions to the province from many parts of the world. We are presently going to be involved in 12
outgoing trade missions: three to
Mexico; three to Japan; four to the U.S.; one to Southeast Asia; and one to
Europe, dealing with such things as dairy, swine, canola, pulse crops,
vegetables, beef cattle, forages and whatever else. But it is across the board in terms of
agricultural commodities, in terms of the missions, concentrating in North
America and the
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, I
wonder if the minister could tell us where the costs of those trips show up in
the budget. Is it in the Agriculture
budget, and if it is in this budget, what would a trade mission cost? For example, the mission to
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the
expenditures that are encountered in the various missions are really covered in
the Marketing branch. When those
missions occur, government does not pay for it all. It pays a portion. There are usually industry reps on the
missions, and in many cases, they will pay all or part of their expenses, so it
is a case‑by‑case consideration as to the level of government
expenditure.
We do not have a
breakout of the total costs or our portions on any of the particular missions. If the member would like that, if she has a
specific one or two she would be interested in, we can do that, but we do not
pay all the costs. The other industry
members pay their costs.
For instance, the
ones I am most familiar with, of course, are the two times that I went on
marketing missions to
Ms. Wowchuk: If it is something
that is available and is not too difficult to find, I would not mind if at some
point I could be provided with that information as to cost, just for interest's
sake, and then we can look at the benefits of the mission versus the costs of
it.
When the minister
talks about industry reps paying their own fare, does that mean that it comes
out of the marketing board budget? Is
there another way that the department pays for it, through the marketing board,
or is it picked up through the membership?
* (1510)
Mr. Findlay: If, say, Manitoba
Pork has people on the mission, Manitoba Pork pays it and government does not
pay a dollar, directly or indirectly, on their behalf, or if it is Granny's
Poultry, they pay, and the people who do business obviously pay through the
cost of operating the co‑operative there.
That is how it is paid, so there is not an indirect way in which
government pays for these people.
In most cases,
these people want to go because they see a great opportunity to maintain their
exposure in those markets, and they see a minister being on the mission as
being very helpful to get them to meet people at higher levels that they
otherwise could not source.
In
I can tell the
member that the department‑‑when they have people in, one of the
common things is to have a luncheon downstairs which I attend and try to make
the people feel welcome and try to keep the doors of communication and business
opportunity open. It is generally a very
rewarding experience to do that and to give people a sense that we are really
here wanting to do business, and we look upon them as being friends in the
process of trying to do business with them.
I am sure
everybody else is trying to do the same thing.
We definitely believe, and certainly the industry believes that this
must be done if you are going to create economic opportunities in the
intermediate and long term.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):
Madam Chairperson, I have a question here. I do not know if it is the right area to ask
it. It is in regard to the Inwood Creamery's letter that was written on March
10 to the minister. They expressed
concern in regard to an injustice that was occurring in the dairy industry.
Could maybe the
minister give us an outline of what was the response to this letter, because
there are several questions that were raised on this, and I will raise a few
others.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, a
lot of the statements in that Inwood letter, I do not know what motivated
them. There were a lot of anti‑Milk
Board comments in there.
Just to give the
member some idea of the milk industry in
Back about 1988 or
'89, I guess it might have been '89, we set up a quota exchange for milk in the
province. It was opposed by many people
at the time, but it worked magnificently ever since, a monthly exchange for a
milk quota. It took out a lot of the
inefficiencies of transfer of cow ownership, facility ownership and quota
ownership.
Over the course of
time, the consumers have changed their preference for what they want to drink
in the form of milk. The member and I
probably grew up on whole milk.
Pasteurization came in and we obtained it that way. We did a little pasteurization at home. Then homogenization came along, and we drank
3.5 percent milk, 3.5 percent butterfat.
Then a little
later in life, 2 percent milk came along, and then they have gone to 1
percent. The consumer preference is to
have less fat in their diet. There is even
skim milk on the market. What has taken
place is that consumers bought less and less of the whole milk and also less
and less of 2 percent milk, and more and more of skim milk and 1 percent milk,
because they want less fat in their diet.
So when the cow is producing milk at 3.5 to 3.7 percent butterfat, there
is obviously a surplus of butterfat in the system.
Where there was a
market for cream 20 years ago, that market is no longer there to the same
extent for the cream‑derived by‑products, because there is a skim‑off
from the fluid milk side, another skim‑off of excess cream that is
available for the industrial side of the milk industry. The Milk Board has the responsibility to
manage the milk and the cream to supply the necessary demands for all the
processors.
So the Milk Board
has been going through considerable discussion and meetings with its producers
over the last two or three years trying to deal with this dilemma of the excess
cream in the system. They have had
meetings across rural
In fact, if I
remember the figure, there was a six‑million kilogram surplus of cream
last year in the country.
The industry has
gone through quota reductions for milk over the last two or three years, and
now they are trying to deal with the reality that the consuming market is for
less and less butterfat, in other words, less and less cream. With the cream surplus that is in the system,
there is lots there to satisfy all the industrial needs.
This is the
process the Milk Board is going through, is dealing with. They are not easy decisions. In the process of offering cream shippers
alternatives, they have been out and discussed it. They made their decision in amalgamating the
quota. The exchanges from the cream and
the milk quota have been amalgamated.
Producers have, as I understand it, three options: one is they can
continue to produce cream and accept whatever price would be attached to that
cream in the future; they can sell their cream quota I think at a fairly
handsome profit right now; or they can convert from cream production to milk
production.
I have been
adamant when talking with the board that they keep all these options open for
producers so you do not force somebody to quit.
If they want to quit, they can.
They can sell the quota. If they
want to convert over to milk, they can. There are criteria, in most cases,
certainly, there are health‑related criteria that have to be met.
There has been
quite a strong push to get producers who want to stay in the milk production
business, who have been in just cream, to convert over to milk, and many have. I think it is fair to say that approximately
30 producers have exercised that option over the past period of time. The Milk Board has worked aggressively and
hard to facilitate this transition which is driven by the consumer. They are responding to reality. I think they have gone through a very
positive process in otherwise difficult circumstances. I have responded in that general context to
the creamery, and the board is continuing to remain in contact with them, too.
Mr. Gaudry: How many cream producers
do we have in
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, in
answer to the member's question, there are around 500 cream shippers in the
province and approximately 900 milk producers in the province. Most of the cream shippers are a little older
than I am; an awful lot of them are down to two, three, four, five cows‑‑not
large operations. There are a few that have 10 or 15 or 20 cows, but the vast
majority were people that it was something they did for extra income, and it
worked well through their lifetime. The
number of cream shippers is dropping drastically as they have the opportunity
to sell their quota, and many are doing that.
* (1520)
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson,
the minister indicated that he has responded to this letter. Would it be possible to get a copy of their
response to the letter?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, we will supply
it as soon as we can get our hands on it.
Mr. Gaudry: They mention here,
of course, all the way through the letter, and you said it was a lot against
the Milk Marketing Board; they have indicated injustice, of course. It says the decision of the Milk Board to
consolidate milk and cream quotas on April 1, 1993; they wanted that
stopped. Has that occurred on April 1,
1993?
Mr. Findlay: As far as we know,
yes.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson,
another here‑‑an investigation into the advisability of the
continuation of supply management under the authority of marketing boards where
a few treacherous old men can meet behind closed doors and make decisions that
adversely affect the lives of thousands of people. Can the minister comment on this?
Mr. Findlay: I am surprised that
the person would make those comments. As
far as I am concerned, the milk industry has conducted itself very responsibly
over the course of time. As I said
earlier, they are dealing with difficult issues, and the process of managing to
supply the consumer in a changing consumer preference period of time requires
some difficult decisions. I do not agree
with the gist of those comments at all.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, I
thank the minister for his answers and his comments on this issue. I will look forward to seeing his answer to
the letter.
Madam Chairperson: Item 4.(a)
Administration (1) Salaries $105,400.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson,
the member for St. Boniface raised the whole issue of the elimination of the
cream quota and moving over to milk quota, and that, indeed, did cause a lot of
concern and a lot of communication back and forth from those people who are in
the cream industry who felt that they were unfairly treated by the Milk
Marketing Board and that they were not listened to, that they did not have very
much input into this decision, that the cream quota representatives on the
board were overruled and basically did not have any say into this.
The minister says,
it is changing times and changing habits of people in what they are consuming
that has caused this change, but this change is affecting an awful lot of
people. There are 500 cream producers,
as the minister has indicated. Although
they are small operations, this small income is important to those families who
have set up in that way.
The minister says
that they have the opportunity to sell their quota or convert over to milk
quota, but is it not a fact that the milk quota has now gone to such a high
price that the price of the quota has increased to the degree that it will be
more difficult for small producers to buy that quota and the investment that
they will be required to make to convert over to milk virtually makes it
impossible for many of these small producers to make that changeover?
To go from a cream
operation to a milk operation requires a much larger investment. In reality, they will be basically forced out
of business because the quota becomes quite expensive and it will be absorbed
by the much larger producers and the smaller producers will not have the
ability or the funds to make the conversion over to a milk production.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson,
the member for
I hope she is not
attacking the principle of supply management.
I wonder, you know, because the member is chastising the Milk Board for
going through a process of making decisions of managing the supply of the
product they are producing to the market they are selling to. That is the very reason for operation that
they were set up. They have the
responsibility to manage the supply of the product off the farm to the industry
that is buying and consuming it.
I wondered in the
past when the member attacked the Milk Board on this issue whether she was
attacking supply management. She might want to correct the record, but I have
said in my earlier answer that supply management, the people have done a
responsible job, particularly the milk industry here, in dealing with this
issue. It is not easy.
I tell you, the
egg industry is going through equally difficult times dealing with I say a very
illegal activity on behalf of Ontario and Quebec because they do not want to
agree that the principles they signed up to 20 years ago still exist, although
they have never been changed in the legal context of the agreement. So the people representing supply management
in the province, who are people elected from amongst the producers, are doing
the appropriate and right thing and making decisions to address industry
change. The Milk Board has done
everything it can to alleviate the pain of change.
Now I do not have
the exact figures here, but the value of cream quota, and I am just sort of
guessing here a little bit. I could be
off. Do not hold me to these figures. It was down around $4 or $5 a kilogram, and I
think that you can now sell it in the vicinity of $21 a kilogram. So for a person who has some cream quota, it
has value they never dreamed of. So
there is a good economic incentive to retire that quota and the board is buying
that quota.
* (1530)
I think they have
responded very responsibly. They have not
taken away the value of the quota in the process of giving the opportunity of
termination of the quota by the producer.
They are giving them a real economic, I guess, retirement policy. They
could be milking cows for another five or 10 years to make that money, and now
they are getting a chance to get it out of the system. So I think it has been a very responsible
approach.
In terms of the
conversion to milk production, yes, anybody who is in milk production now,
there is high investment in buildings and equipment. There is a high level of technology needed, a
high level of management needed to meet the health standards, to have high‑quality
milk on the consumers' shelves. All the regulations that are presently in place
and supported by the department are there for a justifiable reason. In order to meet all those specs, you have to
have a certain quality of equipment and lines and stainless steel and all the
appropriate health considerations have to be addressed. Yes, it is costly for somebody to get into
milk production.
In balance, I
think the board has, over the course of the last two or three years, done the
responsible right thing in trying to help this industry adjust and ease the
pain of the adjustment to the best possible . . . . Do not forget, the long‑range
projections are that the total consumer consumption of dairy products continues
to go down. So the total Canadian quota
that is shared between the provinces continues to decline.
The industry wants
to find ways and means to reverse that trend.
It will require more aggressive activity in terms of consumer friendly
products, more processed products as opposed to just raw products and their
traditional industrial products. A lot
of competition is coming from the people in the world of the soft drinks and
the other beverages, fruit beverages, all competing for that consumer dollar
for a beverage, and the milk industry is being challenged to maintain its
present share of the domestic market and try to prevent the continued erosion.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to assure the
minister that I have always been supportive of supply management and will
always continue to be supportive of it.
However, I see nothing wrong with constructive criticism. You can criticize without opposing the
idea. I believe that when I talk to
producers some of them feel that they have not been treated fairly by some of
the things that have happened over the past couple of years. There are a couple of producers who question
the whole idea as to why, in the last couple of years, if there was so much
less demand for cream, why the Milk Marketing Board did not have that advice
sooner and told them, and not sold quota to these people to start up a cream
operation.
This has happened
in a couple of cases that I am aware of where producers bought cream quota to
start up an operation to supplement their farm income, and then very shortly
after they got it, were cut back on the amount of quota that they have and now
we have the other change coming in where we have a conversion over to a
combination of the cream and milk quota.
I believe the
marketing board that has control over quota should have been more open with
these people when they were setting up these operations, and should have given
that information up front and said, you know, you want to get into this
business but we want to discourage you because these are the changes that are
coming. I do not think they should have
encouraged and I believe some of these people have been in contact with the
minister that have bought this quota and started their operations and now are
required, if they want to continue, to convert over to milk production.
Mr. Findlay: As I said earlier in
answer to an earlier question, we set up a quota exchange for milk. That was the first quota exchange set up, and
then a cream quota exchange was set up, an egg quota exchange was set up. All those quota exchanges are working
reasonably well, a much more efficient way of transferring quota amongst cream
producers.
Now I do not know
the specifics of the individuals that the member is talking about, but I would
have to presume that when they bought the cream quota, they bought in on the
quota exchange, in other words, they bought it from other producers. So I
cannot see how the Milk Board encouraged them to buy it. They operated the
exchange and somebody who wanted to sell the quota offered the quota up and
somebody who wanted to buy it bid for it.
There was free determination on behalf of seller and buyer in the
process of making a decision as to whether they wanted to sell or wanted to
buy.
In terms of
whether the Milk Board should have been more open, I think that they have been
constantly. I am sure we can go back and
all the information they sent to their producers, or at least I have to assume
they were sending it because they talked to me about it, and this has been
happening very much in the open. Other
provinces were reducing the amount of quota in the cream sector and ours was at
17 percent which was the highest in the country. If I am not mistaken, I do not know the
figures, the next highest portion of total quota that was in cream was
So there was a
clear signal there that we were way above the average, way above, and the milk
quota has been coming down about 2 percent each time they reduce the total milk
quota right across the country.
Everybody is reduced 2 percent, so the handwriting was on the wall. Consumers are consuming less in total,
therefore the total quota is being reduced, and in the egg industry if you
watched what was happening there, they did not reduce quota fast enough and
they ended up with tremendous surpluses and then levies had to be paid by
producers for surplus removal. Certain
degrees of debt were incurred that seemed a very, very heavy burden because
they did not respond fast enough, and I think the milk industry saw those
examples and were responding.
The board sent
around bits of information which indicated the realities of the marketplace,
and followed that up with a decision that they thought was necessary and gave
the options to the producers, as I said before, three of them: Continue to produce cream at what the market
value is; secondly, to sell your quota; thirdly, convert to milk. They have been advocating the conversion to
milk for some time. If I am not mistaken
approximately 30 producers are in the process of, have either completed that
exercise or are in the process of conversion.
In the milk quota, when a producer offers his quota for sale, there is a
15‑percent levy, or 15 percent of the quota is turned into the board to
be used for giving quota to new producers or small producers to get up to I
think a minimum of 600 litres, some criteria like that.
I honestly feel
that the board has done absolutely an admiral job in dealing with the realities
of the marketplace, trying to help its producers adjust. A little simple high management can be seen
as a bit of a protection mechanism for producers and for processors. You cannot escape the realities of the eventual
marketplace. It does not mean you can
hide from change, it means that change occurs in a more managed fashion. I think that is what has taken place in this
particular sector.
Ms. Wowchuk: Some of the people
who were concerned about this change when the announcement was being made about
changing cream to milk production were the creameries. The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)
mentioned the one in Inwood. There is I
believe a creamery in Neepawa, or Minnedosa, and there is one here in
They can be
selling butterfat, but now by this change their supply of cream is going to be
restricted. The minister shakes his
head, but in reality if it is sold as whole milk and the processor of the whole
milk then has control of the butterfat, it will not go back to these small
creameries. Where are they going to get
the supply of cream? What we are doing
is taking the butterfat supply away from these small creameries who say that
there is a demand for butterfat and are feeling very frustrated by what is
happening and concerned, again, about loss of jobs that they are providing in
their communities.
* (1540)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the
member, if she would listen to her own questions, she would have seen an answer
in the early part. She says that the whole milk has come in, there is a surplus
of cream. Now where does she think that
cream is going? There is no magical
disappearance. There is a surplus of
cream. I believe the figure is and in
all of
She says, where
are those creameries going to get their cream?
What she just said, if she had listened to the early part of her
question, she gave me the answer. It is
in the surplus from the fluid side, in the skim‑off process. When the cow produces 3.5‑ to 3.7‑percent
butterfat and the consumer only wants to consume zero percent, 1 percent or 2
percent fat, there is obviously a surplus taken out of that whole milk, and
that is available.
She mentions
certain creameries, now I do not know how they run their business. But I understand, and I say I understand,
that Neepawa, which is Schwan's Ice Cream, is buying the appropriate butterfat
that they need from the fluids milk plants.
They used to buy direct from cream shippers, but they made that change.
I have to assume
everybody else has done that too. I have
asked exactly those questions of the Milk Board, and they give the appropriate
response. They say exactly what I have
just said; I am giving the answers I have received. I say, I have no reason to think that there
is anything that is wrong in the system.
Maybe some people cannot get along, and they do not like to have to
change the way they do business from the way it was. But supply management does
not mean no change; it means a managed process of change. Everybody has to adapt where change is
necessary.
If these
creameries want to buy their butterfat directly from the farm forever, what is
going to happen to this mountain of butterfat in the skim milk process? What is going to become of it? Who is going to take the loss? The consumer does not want to consume it, so
I think it is only appropriate that it go into the industrial market.
I think the member
will be well served if she called up the Milk Board and asked for a review of
the complexities of the industry and how it has operated, because they will
give her the full story. I have talked
with them and asked the same questions, and I am giving the answers that I have
received, and I believe the answers that I have received.
Ms. Wowchuk: I can assure the
minister that I have met with the Milk Marketing Board and I have discussed
this issue. I will consult with those
people in the industry who earlier this year expressed a concern that they
would not be able to get their cream supply because the cream supply would be
controlled by someone else. They were
concerned about‑‑[interjection]
The minister talks
about a bogeyman; he is being rather ridiculous. Wherever the milk is going, whichever company
the milk is being bought, somebody has control over the cream that is skimmed
off. I agree, they have to work
something out, but there was concern that cream would be processed by other
companies, that we were going to be losing industries in processing in rural
Manitoba.
He talks about the
one at Schwan's; there is also the People's Co‑op at Minnedosa, and there
is, on Dufferin, a co‑op here in
We should be
concerned about all people. Granted, we
do have to have change. Change does
happen, but in the process of change we have to think about minimizing the
impacts of that change and try to be concerned about the people that are
affected by this change. That is
basically what I am concerned about: are
we still going to have those jobs? Those
people had a concern, whether or not they would be able to get a cream supply
and continue their operations. If the
minister says that the Milk Marketing Board assures him that there will be
cream supply available so that those operations can continue, then that is
fine, but we have to look at jobs for
What are we
losing? Is the butterfat being shipped
out and being processed in another province, the skim‑off? That is the question that I think we should
think about, the jobs in
Mr. Findlay: The way our market system
works, if you want to buy something you have to bid for it, you have to buy
it. If whoever is selling the butterfat,
whether it is a company or whether it is the marketing board, they should be
selling it to the highest bidder. I am
sure with transportation costs there is no way that somebody outside of here
could outbid somebody that is inside the province. The board's job is to sell the raw commodity
at the highest price advantage to the producer.
I think it is important that that principle be recognized. That is the very purpose of the marketing
board existing, to access the best market for the commodity that is produced on
the farm in the process of selling it to the processing industry.
There is no
evidence that I am aware of that the skim‑off is being exported out of
the province. I cannot imagine the
economics of that, and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to accept a loss
in that process in order to do that. I
am fairly confident the cream is available here to maintain the jobs in the
industrial processing sector.
We are going
through a process of adjustment, there is no question. Maybe there is a bit of antagonism between
some of the parties, maybe there are a few personality conflicts, et cetera.
Some of them may have been boiling over for a number of years. Let us face it,
some of the people in the processing industry do not like marketing boards, and
the letter from the Inwood Creamery clearly said some uncomplimentary things,
because they would like to be able to drive down the price of the product they
are buying, and the Milk Board says no, here is the price. The very reason for setting up marketing
boards was to extract a better price from the industrial sector for commodities
farmers are selling. The industry's job
is to drive the price down. If they can
get the marketing boards out of the way they know they can drive the price
down, and I do not agree with that.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson,
the minister has indicated that he does not believe there is cream leaving the
province. Is there then surplus milk
leaving the province? Is all milk being
processed in
* (1550)
Mr. Findlay: Over the course of
time, as I recall, the milk board manages the supply of milk coming in to the
demand first in the fluid sector and then, secondly, meeting the industrial
sector request for product. Certainly
there are times‑‑well, you think back over the last 20 years, they
have evened out the production cycle over the course of 12 months to a very
significant extent so you do not have surpluses in the summer and deficits in
the winter. Even in that management
process there certainly are times in the year when there might be a surplus of
milk being produced in Manitoba that they may well send a few loads to some
place like Yorkton because there is no place, no processor that wants it in
Manitoba, and the reverse happens if there is not enough milk being produced in
a particular day or particular week or particular month in Manitoba; they might
have to bring some milk in.
You have some
manufactured products come into
We have a little
less than 4 percent of the population.
We have about 4 percent of the milk quota in the country. So in terms of population, our production at
the farm level is in balance.
I cannot comment
whether over the course of a year our movement of milk and manufactured
products is in a surplus or deficit with other provinces but, in the overall
management between the milk boards in the various provinces, raw product does
move back and forth in trying to even out supply with processor demand.
Ms. Wowchuk: So then there would
be no guarantee. The minister talks
about supply moving back and forth between provinces, and I would assume that
applies to butterfat, that applies to milk. There would be no guarantee that
the needs of those processors who are in Manitoba, those that we raised earlier
who are saying they cannot get an adequate supply of butterfat, there is no
guarantee that their needs would be met before the butterfat was shipped out
somewhere to another province.
Mr. Findlay: It comes down to, if
they want to guarantee themselves supply, they have to bid for it and return a
higher price to the farmer at the farm gate.
I support that principle.
Mr. Gaudry: The minister mentioned
that the surplus of butterfat‑‑Schwan's was probably one of them
that was buying some of that. Was
Schwan's buying direct from the farmers before?
Mr. Findlay: When Schwan's came
into the province, they bought the Neepawa Creamery, which had for years been
buying cream directly from producers, and they continued that process up until
a number of months ago when they made the switch.
Schwan's is a
rather interesting story. We talked
earlier about consumers wanting less butterfat in their diet. Yet the ice cream that Schwan's produces is a
high butterfat content and it is delicious.
The member for
Swan River‑‑look at all the jobs being created in rural Manitoba by
Schwan's in terms of all those trucks travelling around and all the gas they
buy and she is against it. I am
surprised. I apologize.
It is an
interesting marketing concept. They have
found a niche market for a high‑fat ice cream, and I love it; I am an ice
cream fan. They are selling it door‑to‑door
throughout rural
The price of the
product is higher than what you could buy it for in the normal retail outlets,
but it is a superior quality and a superior service which satisfies the
customer. It is an interesting marketing
principle; it bucks all the trends.
It is a higher fat
content, higher priced, but they are selling.
It is creating a lot of jobs, I do not know how many, in rural
I have talked with
the management of Schwan's. They are
broadening the spectrum of products that they are selling, and they say,
wherever possible, absolutely, we want to source all our food products,
particularly the processed ones, and basically everything is a processed
product, in
So it is totally
counter to the earlier discussion. We
said the consumer preference is less fat in dairy products, and this is really
an example of more fat, but it sells‑‑so consumer preference again.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, you mention
that they bought a Neepawa creamery.
Where did this firm come from? Is
it a Canadian firm or an American firm?
Mr. Findlay: Well, it is an
example of free trade. It is American in
terms of ownership and marketing principles, but what they are doing is hiring
Canadians and promoting business and business activity in
To the best of my
knowledge, this is the first province they have entered. So we have the benefit of their investment
right off the bat. The investment in
Neepawa, expansion of the plant, and expansion of jobs in Neepawa has been
rather dramatic.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, that is what I
understood that it was an American firm because I did meet a gentleman who was
transferred to Portage la Prairie and who came from
I have no
objection to the fact of whether they are American or not, but like you said,
they create a lot of jobs here in
With those
comments, I will pass it on to the member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Just to set the
record straight, I have no objection to the quality of Schwan's Ice Cream. They provide service in our part of the
province, and there are many people who enjoy the product. Every individual has their own preference,
and some of us perhaps are a little more concerned about the fat quality and
there are others who choose to enjoy that luxury, but I have tried the ice
cream and I have no objection to it.
I want to go on to
another area that has caused some concern within the city of
I have a copy of a
letter here, and I would just like to read parts of it and get the minister's
comments on it: I am writing to inform you
of the concerns with a new price war on milk started by SuperValu. As indicated in Superstore's full‑page
ad, they plan to make these new prices a permanent discount‑price
policy. This unfair pricing would
disrupt the retail industry causing undue hardship to all convenience stores
and probably placing several small stores out of business. Dairies could go out of business which could
allow for larger and more efficient American dairies to gain the foothold on the
Canadian marketing board.
There were many
concerns when the minimum price was removed from milk, that it would have an
effect on consumers and also on the dairy industry, that this was the wrong
direction to take. I am wondering
whether the minister has had any concerns raised to him, and whether there are
any steps being taken to bring back the minimum pricing of milk, so we can have
stability and not put undue pressure on many of the smaller businesses that
they are feeling when a larger business can lower their prices and cause
disruption for people.
It is a benefit in
the short term, but on the other hand, if it is going to affect the businesses
of smaller areas who cannot compete at that price, there is a concern. I wonder whether there is any move towards
bringing back a minimum‑price regulation as has been suggested by many
people.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, we
removed the minimum price on milk because we felt consumers had a right to be
able to source the product at whatever price the retailer wanted to bring it
down to. If you put a minimum price in,
you are effectively raising the price to the consumer, and I do not hear any
consumers complaining about being able to source food products at a lower
price.
The producer is
not being affected in this. The price
the producer is receiving is not being affected. If the stores want to attract business by
offering a special, a lower price to the consumer, the consumer is the winner
in this and the lower price probably stimulates consumption to some
degree. So I stand on the side of the
producer and the consumer.
* (1600)
If the business
world in between wants to fight, and the consumer gets a lower price and the
producer is not affected in terms of his farm‑gate price, I mean I think
that is business operating as business operates, all struggling for the
marketplace and satisfying the consumer in terms of keeping the price down.
I think we all
want to keep the prices of consumer products down. We do not want skyrocketing prices. If somebody says they can sell it at a lower
price to the consumer, the consumer benefits, and the producer, where my prime
interest is, is not affected in this process.
In fact, more milk or more dairy products in total might well be sold if
the prices are kept down to retail level.
I said earlier
that milk is losing some market share because people are looking at soft drinks
and fruit drinks as being competitively priced and maybe more attractive
because of flavour and price. If you
bring down the price of milk, and they say, okay, now milk is a much nicer,
better price, I will buy more milk and less fruit juices. So you end up with more dairy products being
consumed. I think that is positive.
Now the Milk Price
Review Commission has been reviewing this.
They sent letters to the companies involved, the retail outlets
involved, saying that we have a policy that if you want a special‑‑milk‑‑you
should apply for the privilege to do that, and that has been an ongoing
process.
Whether they are
predatory pricing, it would appear not because they are not selling‑‑the
prices that we have seen in the store are not below the cost of acquisition of
that dairy product. This is going on in
other locations in the country, and the consumer is the winner in this. The consumer is the winner when the prices are
reduced. I do not want to prevent a
consumer from being able to source a product at a lower price.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I think the
minister has to realize that in the short term the consumer may be the winner,
but in the long run the consumer can lose and so will small business, because
it appears then that the minister is not prepared to support small
businesses. He is prepared to say to big
business, you go ahead, you drop this price to whatever you want and put those
small businesses out of business. Then
they have control of the market.
Is that the
minister's opinion that it should be big business that controls everything and
small business should not have any protections, and we should not have standard
prices on products like milk, that it is an accessible price that consumers can‑‑it
will be available to consumers at a reasonable price. At the same time, I believe we have to be
concerned about what is happening to small business, and really this is just a
ploy by big business to squeeze out these independent producers and small
retail businesses.
Mr. Findlay: The member says I do
not support small business. Absolutely I do, and the vast majority of jobs
created in this province are created by small business. In fact, the country of
Now we are not
aware, as I said earlier, that the retailers are selling the milk below the
cost of acquisition or below the wholesale price. She says that small business will be driven
out of business. I heard that long before
we removed the minimum price of milk, and it did not happen.
Again, it is this
concern that I will be hurt. Well, if we
followed that scenario all across the board, how far would prices rise because
people say I cannot compete? There are
market niches out there and, as far as I understand‑‑now I have not
been in a retail store for years‑‑but as far as I understand, the
low price is offered on the four‑litre container. A lot of people do not want to buy it in that
large a volume, and at our corner stores and our home delivery, they sell it in
smaller packages more conveniently packaged for the consumer, whether it is a
half litre or a litre or a two‑litre container.
Many of the
consumers, if that is what they want to buy, will pay whatever they have to pay
to get the product in the proper container that they would want to buy it
in. As far as we know, the home delivery
by Dufferin dairy‑‑is it Dufferin Co‑op Dairy?‑‑it
has been business as usual because they have a certain clientele that they
offer the home delivery service to. That
is why the consumers buy from them, not really affected by the fact that there
is a four‑litre container in the large store where they could buy it
cheaper.
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
The business world
sorts itself out over time, and we are not aware that the small business person
is going to go out of business over milk by itself where we see the consumer
getting a good price on milk if they want to buy it in the four‑litre
container. I know that the member comes
from this concept that we can control everything. Well, the world is not about controls
anymore. The world is about a
marketplace that works things through the system. If she said, if you are going to do it on
milk, why not do it on eggs, why not do it on meat, why not do it on
cornflakes? Why not? Everybody says, well, I have to have this
kind of price in order to stay in business, and the costs go up and up and up,
and all you do is increase the cost to the consumer. Then the consumer wants higher and higher wages.
We make all the
products we produce in our factories to export uncompetitive. We are in a whole mode as a country trying to
be competitive on the global marketplace and living with realities in the
marketplace, and you cannot go in these special little niches and hide from
that. You cannot. Now I know the member will not believe that
philosophy, but if she looks around, that is what drives our system,
absolutely, and I will not demand that consumers be forced to pay certain
prices because somebody says they need that in order to compete. That principle‑‑we will put on
cornflakes next, put it on puffed wheat, put it on cheese‑‑where do
you stop it? You cannot live that
way. The planned society of the U.S.S.R.
failed.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
What we are
dealing with right now is the issue of the recent price war on milk that
happened in this past February and started by SuperValu. The minister has just stated that price war
did not have a negative impact on the small retailers and distributors. I think that, if the minister would check, I
am sure he would find that for the period that the price war on milk lasted it
did have an impact on the Dufferin Co‑op distributor, and I think if the
price war had continued it would have been felt in a very serious way by that
Co‑op Dairy. We could be looking
at a situation of losing a very long‑standing institution in our
community that provides a valuable service to consumers, and the loss of that
firm, that co‑op, would be a blow to the consumers. There is real danger that with price wars and
the absence of a minimum price on milk it could happen.
* (1610)
That scenario,
coupled with the fact that SuperValu and other large retailers no doubt are
looking at and implementing these new plastic jugs, which provide milk to
consumers in much larger quantities than has been the case up until now. That happened around the same time as the
price war, and that has an impact on small retailers and on places like the Co‑op
Dairy.
I would like to
ask the minister two questions. One, if
he does not see that, in the absence of a minimum price on milk, price wars,
which will rear their heads every so often, that in fact these price wars do
have an impact on the small corner stores and small distributors like Co‑op
Dairies. That is one question, and
related to that is, what are his plans for preserving those small businesses in
our community and protecting them against serious fallout from the price wars
of major retailers like Supervalu?
The second
question is, is there not a role for this government to play in terms of
directives to retailers for the kinds of containers in which they sell their
products? I refer specifically to
nonrecyclable jugs, the kind which were just introduced into the market very
recently, and whether or not there is not a role for government to play in
terms of ensuring at least that containers in which milk is stored are
recyclable.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting
Chairperson, well, the member really likes the planned economy. She just thinks that I can plan everything, I
will decide what the prices are and I will decide what the size of jugs are.
She did not listen
to my last answer. Those things are
decided between the consumer and the retailer.
If the retailer puts on the shelf something the consumer does not want
to buy, they will find they had better change the product on the shelf and put
something on there the consumer wants.
We have a law, a
Canadian law, against predatory pricing.
We are not aware that any predatory pricing has occurred in this
particular instance. The consumer has
had lower priced milk. I cannot imagine
the members of the NDP saying consumers should be forced to pay more, they
should not have the benefits of lower prices.
Whether it is a milk war or a gas war, it is of benefit to the consumer.
There is this
great fear that business will be lost.
Well, there is no evidence of that.
They say, I have heard. Oh yes,
we have all heard. We all have to
adjust. There are adjustments. The consumer is the winner in this, and the
dairy producer, our primary interest, is not negatively affected at the farm
gate in terms of price, and he is probably seeing an increased consumption of
milk in the process.
Milk has to be
competitively priced with the other fluid products that a consumer can drink,
so I say that I am amazed that now we are going to have to decide what
container size you can sell in. You are
going to do that for cheese? You are
going to do that for meat? You are going
to do that for soft drinks? We are going to decide the container size? If the consumer does not want a certain
container size, they will not buy it.
But if it a lower priced product in a certain size of container, I think
the consumer is the winner in this.
In terms of the
recyclability of the container, I cannot comment. I can tell the member that we have made
inquiries to the Department of Environment about that particular concept of
whether it is recyclable or not recyclable.
That is my answer.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just to go at these
issues again, I think there is some area for clarification and still some room
for some responsible action on the part of government. The minister suggests that, basically, it has
advocated the hands‑off approach by government in this whole area of milk
markets, pricing and types of containers.
He has argued that the current hands‑off approach is absolutely
beneficial to the consumer and that government has no business interfering with
the marketplace whatsoever and that approach will always benefit the consumer
in the short and the long term.
Well, I think that
the minister has enough experience in terms of the marketplace and economic
theory to know that it is very possible, and it certainly happened in the past,
where price wars, which large retailers are able to initiate, do end up hurting
small retailers and distributors. That
has absolutely been the case in the past and it is quite likely the case in
The minister says
we are making speculative statements. Well, there were real concerns expressed
by representatives from the Dufferin Co‑op about the impact of the price war
on milk if it had gone on for any period of time. If it had had that kind of impact to the
point where a place like Co‑op Dairy would have to shut down, or local
corner stores, or family stores would have to shut down, then who suffers? In actual fact, it would be the consumer that
will suffer, because the marketplace will be totally controlled by a couple of
large retailers.
There will be a
monopoly situation with that kind of control.
Those retailers can set the price they want and consumers are at the
whim of those retailers. That is
inevitable under that kind of situation.
So, I think, given the minister's stated commitment to small business in
this province and given his adamant remarks about acting on behalf of the
consumer, he should be concerned about this kind of situation and begin to
think about some protection for both the consumer and the small retailer, whose
very existence is beneficial to come full circle for the interests of the
consumer.
So I would ask him
to look at that again and at least admit or acknowledge that there are very
serious problems down the road if we end up with a monopoly situation in terms
of supermarkets and retailers of milk products.
Now onto the
second concern once more, and I will leave it alone after this, I was not
suggesting that government intervene in the marketplace and dictate to
retailers the size and type of containers except when it comes to meeting
standards with respect to preservation of the environment.
We have heard a
lot from this government about environment, about economic sustainability. We have heard a lot of words, commitment and
promises around the three Rs.
* (1620)
Here we have a
situation where a nonrecyclable container has been added to the
marketplace. We know it is a plastic
container. We know we have very serious
problems in
The plastic
recycling industry in
This government
has taken some action in some areas. It
has intervened in the marketplace. It
has put a tax on disposable diapers because we know that disposable diapers
take so long to break down, and they are very hazardous to our environment.
The same holds
true for plastics. So I think it is an
area where we need some action which would also help deal right now with a
difficult situation for small retailers and distributors who cannot compete
with that kind of ever‑changing packaging and enticement around
products. So I think it is an area that
needs to be addressed, both from a point of view of the environment and the
consumer.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting
Chairperson, I cannot comment too much on the recyclability. That is for another department, and, as I
said earlier, we have asked the Department of Environment for some comment on
the issue of recyclability.
The member says
they are not recyclable because of the size. I have a hard time believing
that. There are businesses built on the
basis of using old, unused plastics, recycled plastics in terms of grinding it
up and putting it into other types of products.
So I have a hard time believing that, because of the size and because it
is plastic, it is not recyclable. I have
to believe that there is an awful lot of plastics out there that are recycled
by grinding it up and putting it into a variety of products.
In terms of saying
that retail outlets will close because of a price war on milk, I have a hard
time believing that the corner stores live and die on the sales of milk. They provide a lot of other products that
they sell, retail products that they sell to consumers, and the corner stores
exist. I would have to believe that most
products sold in the corner store tend to be a little higher priced than in the
big super stores, simply because the super stores work on volume, and the
smaller stores work on quality, service and convenience for the people that do
business there.
They do business
there. It is like the Schwan's example.
People will pay more for a certain quality of product that they can get, a
certain convenience of doing business there, and other human factors that are
important to the person who is buying.
So I do not buy the argument, and it is all built on hypothesis over
there that we are going to go to rack and ruin in small business over some
lower prices in milk for the consumer.
That is not going to happen.
Trust me, it is not going to happen. [interjection]
Trust me. I will not run federally
either.
The corner store
is not built on underpricing the big stores on very many commodities. They are built on convenience, quality of
service, and the hours of convenience for the consumer who is buying. Milk is, obviously, a major attraction, but
many, many other products are sold in those corner stores. I do not think we should be forming
government policy on a lot of hypothesis.
I heard those same hypotheses when we removed the minimum price of milk,
and none of them came true.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just a couple more
quick points based on the minister's response.
First off, I want to say that to his words "trust me," I am
afraid we cannot just accept those words and assume that the worst will not
happen, because we have seen it too many times.
Was it not the current Prime Minister of Canada who said, trust me? We know the kind of situation
With respect to
the ability of small corner stores and small distributors to be able to
complete with big stores like SuperValu and Safeway, I think the minister is
mistaken and he is wrong. He knows it is
impossible for a place like Co‑op Dairy to be able to turn around their
whole operation and keep up with the latest fad of packaging every time
SuperValu or Safeway is able to do that.
A small
distributor like Co‑op Dairy made a big leap from going to glass milk
containers to the plastic cartons to keep up with the changing marketplace and
the large retailers setting the trend, now finding that those large retailers
are able to come up with new packaging and new sizes of containers to attract
and keep consumers. That is, clearly, a
difficulty for those small distributors and for corner stores. It just is not possible for them to compete
on the same basis. I just put that on
the record for the minister.
I do ask a
question again about the plastic containers, the new ones introduced by
SuperValu, because, in fact, there is no market in
So we do have a
problem. In fact in the last year, one
of the Winnipeg 2000 newsletters talked about the need for someone to attract
business to Manitoba or encourage a business to start up in Manitoba that could
get into the plastic industry in a big way and recycle all the types of plastic
we have on the marketplace which range, as I understand it, from No. 1 plastic
right through to No. 9 plastic. We have
a serious problem, and we now have a new plastic container being put on the
market, and I think it is an area, and I will just say it once more, for this
government to play a role and exercise some responsibility.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
* (1630)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, on
the basic philosophy we will have to agree to disagree. I will not change your philosophy, you will
not change mine. In terms of the four‑litre
containers, my understanding is that they are a fairly large item in
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess as I listen
to the minister's comments about these jugs and opportunity to attract
industry, it appears that we have the cart before the horse. We have all the jugs piling up but the
problem is not being addressed, and the member for
An Honourable Member: As normal.
Ms. Wowchuk: This is really
getting heavy here. First it is trust
me, and then it is as normal. We have to
be very careful about what we believe is being said here.
I want to move
into another area that is a concern in the city of
I remember last
year raising it with the minister, or it may have been the year before, when we
had a discussion about Lythrum and the Morden Pink is the name of the plant,
and whether or not it should be for sale in the province. At that time, the minister indicated that
there was no connection between the purple loosestrife and the Lythrum, but
there is indication now that there is a connection and that recommendations
have been made, based on research from the
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson,
the department is very much aware of the circumstances and the problem, and is
involved in an interagency task force which is assessing the severity of the
problem and the appropriate remedial action that can be taken. Certainly, the
member mentions the city, and the city is involved in this task force and is in
the process themselves of removing this particular plant from any plantings and
parks or wherever it might occur.
Here is where I
will ask the member if she really thinks we should, or should not, use a
chemical agent to control this particular species, because it is very
competitive. It has no natural predators
that we are aware of. It will expand its
population very aggressively over the next few years, so something has to be
done to put it in check. There is no
registered chemical at this stage to control it.
Certainly it is
fair to say that efforts are being made to determine what will control it and
maybe whether it can be registered.
Also, some work has been done on a biological control agent. That work is going on, whether it will or
will not work, I guess that is still a somewhat unknown question.
It is being
addressed, but I think it is a relatively serious problem. I have been on the
Really, right now,
removal is the only remedy against it that exists, and that is quite a
formidable task. Whether there will be a
chemical agent or whether the biological agent that is presently being investigated
will work remains to be seen. I guess,
really, it is the overwintering aspect of that that is being researched right
now.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson,
the plant, as I had indicated, is listed on the noxious weed list, but it is
still being sold by many greenhouses. I
wonder whether this is one area where the government can move.
The minister has
indicated it is a serious problem and it is spreading into many areas. If this is one area that we can move in,
since it is under The Noxious Weeds Act, why can control not be brought in
there? Why are we allowing the sale of
that plant to continue when we know that it is causing a very serious problem?
Mr. Findlay: The department is
working with the nursery associations trying to get them to voluntarily accept
the principle that they should not be selling it. Apparently, there is some technicality as to
whether the ornamental varieties fall under the strict definition of the purple
loosestrife as listed in The Noxious Weeds Act.
There are attempts
being made to reduce the sale or in fact eliminate the sale by the nurseries
and it is being done in consultation with them.
We would hope that there will be compliance.
* (1640)
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson,
the minister says there are attempts being made. I think this is a very serious problem, and
there is indication from research that says that there is cross‑pollination
with the wild population and that the plants that are being sold by nurseries
are increasing the problem.
I think that it may
take more than asking nurseries to co‑operate. I am asking the minister what steps he is
prepared to go to to bring this under control.
If it is a plant that is under The Noxious Weeds Act, it is causing
problems to our environment and having an effect on the other species that grow
in that area, overtaking slews and affecting the Red River and
Is it only going
to be just asking them to come under control, or is he prepared to take steps
that this plant will be banned and they will not be allowed to sell it?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, there
are really two areas of activity. One is
the ornamental area, which is the plants being planted in a controlled
environment. Yes, seed might spread from
there, but limited potential. The other
is that which is growing on the riverbanks wild, where seed can obviously very
easily spread, and that is the serious area.
The member says, why do
we not just ban it? Well, as I said in
my previous answer, the purple loosestrife is listed in The Noxious Weeds
Act. There appears to be a problem with
enforcement because the ornamental varieties, I mean, they may not fit the
definition exactly. We could change
that, make that amendment but, in the meantime, we are working with the nursery
association to get them to understand the relative seriousness of it.
Let us face it, we
could ban it, but that will not stop it from being sold. We have to have voluntary compliance. Even though there might be a regulation you
can enforce, the people are going to abuse it.
There are not enough Lythrum police in existence to stop it from being
used, if somebody really wants to have it and grow it in their yards, unless
you run around and pluck it all out.
That would create quite a little scene here and there.
The big issue is
on the riverbanks and, if the biological agent process will work, it may well
get the plant in check. There are the riverbanks here, and there are the lakes
and various locations, marshes outside the city where it also is expanding its
area of growth. So it is well recognized
what the problem is and we are attempting, in a reasonable and responsible way,
to address it with the nursery association.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, the
minister said that there is not the mechanism in place, and perhaps it is
through actions that he has taken as the Minister of Agriculture and his
government has taken that there are not those people in place. I refer to the Weed Control Districts and the
support that the‑‑
Mr. Findlay: They were not in the
city of
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says,
they were not in the city of
I want to go on to
another area. That is the area of
sustainable development and irrigation.
We have had a lot of discussion about‑‑[interjection] You want to close that, okay.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the
member wants to take a shot at us for Weed Districts. Weed Districts only covered half the
province, half the R.M.s or slightly more than that at the very best of
times. To say that Weed Districts are
not here is the cause of the Lythrum problem is drawing such a long bow I
cannot even see the rainbow here. It is
not a fair comment.
The department's
activities in terms of trying to control this plant have not been affected by the
removal of the Weed Districts. The
problem she identified is to a large extent in the city.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, just
responding to that, I did not‑‑the minister said the Weed Districts
were only covering half the province.
That is true. We do not agree
with him that that was a reason to remove them if they were serving a viable
purpose. They were people that were
doing what was necessary and I think we should have looked at how we could
enhance that rather than reduce it.
Also, the reason for
my comment was the minister said we do not have enough people to police all the
Lythrum that is growing all over the place.
I was just saying, yes, we did have some people in place that might have
been able to help. Although the problem
is in the cities, at the present time it has to be addressed because it could‑‑and
in other provinces it is not only a problem in the cities. It will not take very long before it spreads,
and we will have a problem outside the city.
I do not know whether the minister wants to respond to that.
Mr. Findlay: In the weed
districts, the member must be aware, we are in the rural part of the province,
not in the city where she says the Lythrum problem is, and I can assure her
that it is and will be addressed.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I
was getting onto another area and that was sustainable development of
irrigation in
I want to ask the
minister, though, what is his department doing as far as promoting irrigation? What role has his department played in the
* (1650)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson,
the present proposal, what the member refers to as
I want the member
to be very clearly aware that the proposal‑‑and I hope she will
take this to her caucus and be sure that they understand this. We have said this many times, but people
refuse to listen. It is a proposal by
municipal officials for municipal and domestic water. It has no reference to irrigation. It is for municipal and domestic water.
We have technical
people assisting the Central Plains Water Task Force, which is the
I represent
agriculture. We in agriculture live and
die on water. I am sure the member has
heard of things called droughts. That is
because of a lack of water. It is one of
the limiting factors to our production in agriculture in this province,
availability of water and the proper timing of water.
We have some
irrigation going on in potatoes and in vegetables. Those are the primary irrigated crops. Irrigation of potatoes does two things. One, it guarantees the quality of the potato,
and we have a superior quality which we can market around the world. We market potatoes on quality. It can also guarantee supply or quantity or
yield of the potatoes.
There is nothing
wrong with irrigation, because if we did not have irrigation, we would have
less potatoes produced here and maybe not even have a potato industry because
you could not guarantee supply or the high quality that we now have. I think it is fair to say that around two‑thirds
of our potato acres are now under irrigation, so irrigation is not a swear
word. It is a component of agriculture
production that is critical for our ability to expand in special crops. It creates jobs in the value‑added processing
sector, because more quantity of products is produced, and the high quality we
want can be obtained in the process.
Although the
proposal we are talking about that is under review does not have an irrigation
component, I also want to say that irrigation is important to the agriculture
industry. We, as a department, will
attempt, over a course of time, to work with people interested in irrigation,
so we have a strategy, a process and research done so that we can do irrigation
activities in the future that are responsible from every direction, water use,
environment, soil quality, all those factors.
Research, indeed, must be done on the use of irrigation. Irrigation is positive. It can be
positive. We have to do the research to
be sure it is in terms of production and job creation.
The project that
she is talking about does not have an irrigation component. It is municipal and domestic water use. I hope that she would support it on that
basis.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I
was asking the Minister of Agriculture whether any funds from his department
had been spent on the proposal. What was
the cost of services provided in the last year?
Is there any money budgeted this year for studies of the impacts of this
diversion or in putting the proposal together.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, as
I said earlier, we have technical people that assist where assistance is
requested to give people the kind of technical input they want, whether it is
the Pembina Valley Water Co‑op or whether it is the Central Plains Water
Task Force. So our input is whatever
staff time is offered to or requested by these various groups.
In terms of
studies, no, we do not have a study on it.
As I said, it is not an agriculture‑based request. It is for municipal and domestic water.
Now, the member
may well be aware of another project which is under development, and we will
assist them, too. It is not part of the
present
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson,
the minister says the Assiniboine diversion is for municipal and domestic
water, but it is going to have an impact downstream, and I am thinking about
the
Mr. Findlay: The whole question is
Mother Nature gives us a certain supply of water every year, and man has got
the challenge of managing it to meet all the needs that everybody has, whether
it is irrigation in the
Mother Nature is
challenging man to say, manage the water I give you. I cannot give it to you at the right time
every year, but I am giving it to you in total.
You just have to manage it so it is available to you at the times and
the places you want it. Surely we can respond
to that.
Ms. Wowchuk: I take that to mean
then that there is no assessment being done by the department as to whether or
not there is going to be an impact downstream on the agriculture production in
the
Mr. Findlay: I said we have
technical people involved, the Central Plains Water Task Force, and I am sure
that is the major initiative that they are undertaking‑‑is there
going to be enough water for us given this proposal? We are offering or have made available
technical people to assist in that analysis.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister alluded
to another diversion proposal that is being studied right now. Can the minister tell me which proposal that
is and whether or not that is a proposal for water for irrigation purposes rather
than for municipal and domestic purposes.
Mr. Findlay: There is the proposal
by the Agassiz Irrigators Association, that is the building of dugouts to
impound water in spring runoff time to hold it back for use in irrigation. It is in the same region, but it is not part
of the
Let us say, I
think the proper management and use of water is critical to the survival of agriculture
in the future.
* (1700)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
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.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of
the House to call it six o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and
stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).