LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
May 17, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration
of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 1.(c)(1) on page 34.
Shall the item pass?
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will talk about the
issue of the students in a few moments, but I wanted to go back to something
that we spoke about the other day, the Building a Solid Foundation for our
Future, and I have had a chance to go over it again.
I guess one of my first questions that I
would ask the minister is this appears to be a strategic plan from '91 to '96.
I am wondering within that five‑year time frame if there is any more
specific time frames as to when these objectives are to be accomplished, and is
there any further documentation as an update to this particular document?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the document that the member is referring to is our broad
strategic plan. It is a statement of
principle. It is a statement of policy
intent and it is approached by government as government proceeds through its
own budgetary process as well as its own policy development. In terms of the broad principles, I am not
sure that I can give the member more specific dates on that particular issue.
However, I can say that we do have a
number of issues which are ongoing now which flow from that document. I point to legislative reform which flowed
from that document that formed The Public Schools Act. We have spoken during the Estimates process
about a time frame for the legislative reform looking to some reform of The
Public Schools Act in the session 1994, and looking for feedback from the
educational partners within the next few months while we make an analysis
ourselves.
I also look at the Task Force on Distance
Education which has very recently reported and which we will be providing their
report to the field.
The university review is another of the
initiatives which flows from that document, and the time frame for the
university review is that it was set up last June, June of '92, and that we do
look for an interim report in the summer of '93 with a completed report we look
for in the fall of '93.
Then Francophone governance is another
initiative the Supreme Court has required provincial governments across
*
(2005)
Ms. Gray: I would like to ask the minister, it talks in
the strategic plan about evaluation and evaluative mechanisms. Can she tell us or is there anything that she
can table that shows exactly how this strategic plan is going to be
evaluated? Does she have any interim
evaluation for us, as we are about, I would suggest, two years into this
particular plan?
Mrs. Vodrey: In listening to the member's question, I
think she is asking: How do we measure
our success as we go along in that strategic plan? One way that we have looked at measuring our
success is by the initiatives that we now have ongoing which meet the
principles of that particular plan.
I have pointed to some of those
initiatives which are ongoing and which are measurable by the fact that they
are implemented and also by public response.
Then we do have the committee that we have spoken about in the Estimates
process, which is a within‑the‑department committee. That committee also is responsible for
looking at the strategic plans and looking at the initiatives of each of the
areas within the total and then being able to provide continued recommendations
in terms of meeting the obligations of the plan.
Ms. Gray: Let us take perhaps a specific example. On page 10 of the plan under Implementing
Priorities, the plan indicates "quality indicators, which are tangible and
observable." I am quoting. For example, it talks about in regard to the
"Kindergarten through Senior 4 and post‑secondary education,"
and it talks about "increased respect among students and teachers."
How is that going to be evaluated, as an
example?
Mrs. Vodrey: In looking at that particular recommendation,
if the member is looking for a statistical measurement, we do not have a
specific statistical measurement for that.
However, we have looked to achieving that goal, partly through
consultation that we have with the field on a regular basis. Also, when we look at Strategy 1 of Answering
the Challenge, that speaks to providing some assistance for the learning
environment. That is related to the
recommendation that the member has just mentioned in the strategic plan.
We will be releasing to schools, within
the next few months, a document on the learning environment. It will be able to be used by school
divisions and by schools to look at effective kinds of learning
environment. Flowing from that then,
divisions and schools will then submit plans which will allow them to reflect
also on the learning environment and meeting the most effective learning
environment for children.
Somewhat enlarging on the particular
recommendations which the member spoke about, we also collect survey
information. That survey information
will be collected from divisions. That
will be focusing very much on the service element that we provide as a
department to look at how we can support divisions in the most effective way.
Then, as I began my answer, we also do a
number of consultations. We work with
the field on some very specific issues such as task force representation. We also have the field represented on a
number of committees. We make every
effort to also keep the information flowing.
I know we will be talking a little bit
later in the Estimates process about the new management information system
which the Department of Education will be implementing. This is another way that we will be able to
do a much broader in‑scope tracking of information on behalf of students.
In terms of the actual measurement of
achievement, through the Council of Ministers of Education, we have been
discussing the SAIPER, the School Achievement Indicators Project for 13‑
and 16‑year‑olds.
*
(2010)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not necessarily
looking for statistics. When one looks
at that priority, as an example, increased respect among students and teachers,
or another priority, increased public confidence in Education and Training
programs and services, I guess I am wondering what is the methodology. What method are they using to actually
determine if, at the end of a certain time period, they can say that they have
met or partially met that particular goal or objective?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, our efforts
have been in a number of ways. One has
to provide for the field, where possible, a document which would assist them in
focusing on a particular area. One of
the roles of the department is leadership, to provide some leadership in the
area of thinking and planning in these particular areas. I did give an example of the one document on
the learning environment. The learning
environment has been an area where Manitobans have spoken to me a great deal
about the learning environment for young people and how we could be looking at
it.
One, we support through documents. Two, we also look at consultation, and we
look to talk with the field in an ongoing communication. Three, we look to the field to be represented
on a number of committees, where we would be working on a very specific issue in
some cases, and we would be able to address that in more of a working‑group
style to look at how we can measure the effectiveness and also where the issues
are.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, does the department
have any base line data for some of these indicators? If in five years one were to ask the
question, was there an increased respect among students and teachers, I am
assuming the only way one could answer that is to know where we were starting
from, what the starting point was.
What kind of base line data is there? The minister referred to surveys. Are there surveys that are done throughout
the schools? Is there some data
collected that is now there? Right now,
what is the respect among students and teachers? Where does that fit into education
today? What does increased respect
mean? What do we want to achieve? How much?
*
(2015)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just had wanted to
make sure I could give the member as broad an answer and as complete an answer
as I can. I would say that we do have
base line information on a number of issues, and we have surveyed every public
school in the province on seven indicators.
Those seven indicators are ones which are being used by the student
support branch and by way of example, issues such as migrancy, academic
difficulty, language skills. Those are
three of the seven. So we do have some
base line data which we have been collecting, and then we will survey again to
see where there have been changes.
In some of the areas, we do not have from
each school a specific statistical type of data. We do have more data which was gathered again
through interviews and which is gathered through consultations with
schools. We have not developed yet a
survey or an indicator that would be sensitive to the specific issue which the
member has raised.
Just in summary of the range of mechanisms
that we use to collect information, we do collect data from schools and school
divisions and that is on areas in addition to the seven indicators like student
enrollment, teacher information, school division demographics, financial
accountability and then we also collect K to 12 assessment data. We look at the curriculum assessment results,
and we also look at the designated high school final exam results. Then we also use other sources throughout the
Department of Education to look at things such as labour force surveys.
So we use external measures and reporting
so that we can then look at where the changes are. Some of the measurement is done, things such
as labour force surveys which occur on Friday mornings towards the end of each
month, that information is measured by
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell me then, and she gave
some examples of some of the seven indicators, and this one intrigues me very
much, the increased respect amongst students and teachers, because we read
about that so much in journals and magazines.
I still have not quite figured out from the minister's answer, and it
may just be my understanding of her answer, but how we are going to measure
that? How are we going to know if there
has been increased respect among students and teachers? Where is that now? What is the respect among students and
teachers? Do we have any information or
data that tells us something about that particular aspect?
*
(2020)
Mrs. Vodrey: In the particular area of respect that the
member references, that has been identified as an issue through the legislative
reform hearings, and that was certainly identified by Manitobans as an issue,
one that they would like to make sure that some attention is paid to in terms
of the relationships. As the member may
know, they have recommended in that report that there be a formalization of
what the rights and responsibilities are of students, of teachers, of parents,
so that people will be able to look specifically at what is the expected
behaviour and what should it look like from the outside.
That has been a specific recommendation
that flowed from the report, that flowed from The Strategic Plan, which we have
been talking about. I would say that we
are moving closer to the sort of database that the member does reference. This particular issue is one which would be,
the database would likely be formed by surveys of teachers' observations, and
perhaps we might widen that to include other kinds of observers too; it might
be parents as well. So we do not have
the specific database that is formed as a result of surveys. However, we have moved a step closer and, if
I look at the legislative reform again, there has been a recommendation to
identify certain types of behaviour that each person might be responsible for.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that answer. I do not want to put
words in her mouth, but I think then what she is saying is that when we look at
some of these indicators, perhaps as far as where these priorities are along
the strategic plan in terms of their implementation, some of them‑‑and
the one I used as an example, the respect issue‑‑really have not
started to be evaluated as yet and that in fact that evaluation will fall in
with the results of whatever this government decides they will do in regard to
the education legislative reform package.
Is that a correct assumption?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I said to the
member that if she was looking at observable mechanisms and how other
Manitobans suggest we might approach this, that does occur in the Legislative
reform. But I have also said that we are
in the process of doing surveys throughout the province and that some of those
surveys would be based on observable kinds of data. That would be one way in which we might be
provided that information from teachers in the field.
Then the other part of that is the
development of our management information system which will allow us then to
manage the quantity of information which we would like to establish, because we
have not had that capacity. Last year in
the Estimates process, we spoke about the need to expand our management
information capacity in the Department of Education, and we will be looking at
that when we get to that line this year.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, does the minister
have any samples of the surveys that she is referring to, perhaps not with her
tonight, that she could share with the members here that would give us an idea
of sort of the kinds of surveys that are going to be used or are now being
used?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, I am informed we
can table some of those surveys when we are sitting tomorrow.
*
(2025)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that.
Again, continuing on with this document, Building
a Solid Foundation, on page 5, it talks about one of my favourite subjects, how
governments have to put their house in order and be more responsible in public
spending, et cetera, and it talks about possibly redefining how government does
business. I cannot remember whether I
have asked the minister questions on this before or whether it was the Minister
of Family Services, but I am wondering what the department's plans are in
regard to looking at their own department in terms of its efficiency, its
efficacy. Are there any plans to
evaluate the department and how the department does business with a view to, of
course, providing the best quality service possible for Manitobans?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in making sure that our own
management practices in Education and Training are sound and are co‑ordinated
and are integrated, we have used a corporate approach to decision making. We have been looking to create an environment
that is conducive to change and also shared decision making and open
communication. That shared decision
making has been a very important part of the process to involve all of those
people who will then, in effect, be ones who will be putting into practice what
the new plan is.
We have made also a number of efforts to
be proactive rather than reactive. I
will just give as a way of example the PDSS division of our department or the K
to 12 side which is holding consultation meetings with major stakeholders in
order to receive information regarding our own service delivery. In addition to that, staff are also looking
at what the strengths and weaknesses are that they see were the areas of needed
improvement.
So we have been looking on that side of
the department, both internally for suggestions and recommendations from those
who are part of the department and also externally holding consultations with
stakeholders, to look at what the service is and how they receive information
and so on and how to make us the most efficient.
In addition, we also have internal
auditing as a process and the Treasury Board management practice review. We also have the provincial audit. We have been taking a number of steps to look
at making our own internal functioning as efficient as we can.
I have given you the one example from the
PDSS side. I would also point to the
reorganization now in the division called Advanced Education and Skills
Training, which is another reorganization to provide the service in the most
efficient way. With that reorganization, we have brought programs which were
previously with the Department of Family Services and the Department of Labour
into Education and Training so that we do have that continuum of service within
our department.
Our Schools Finance Branch has been
reorganized and it has implemented Total Quality Management practices. It is looking to be very service
oriented. It is using a consensus
management practice and also a process review.
We do have an ongoing commitment to
quality service. For the past two years,
our Instructional Resources Branch has also been implementing Total Quality
Management as well as a branch organization.
I know when we get to that line, the member might like to talk a little
bit about that. Again, the focus in that
area is of a team approach and also a systems‑wide review to service
delivery and to problem solving throughout the branch.
So we are looking at quality management
practices in PDSS, in Schools Finance and in all areas. We are looking again to be inclusive to bring
into looking at how we can be more efficient, the people who are actually
working within the department as well as externally.
*
(2030)
Ms. Gray: Are there any divisions or sections of the
department that there is a plan to amalgamate them or disband them? I ask that because I have no preconceived
ideas as to if there is, but it is just a question. Are there any other plans to probably look at
restructuring or amalgamating services in the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have done some reorganization, not of a
whole division but of areas within divisions.
It has been done to provide a service and a more efficient service. I have in our PDSS side, in the K to 12 side,
we have been looking at areas of curriculum implementation and design and we
have wanted to make sure that within that area we would have Distance Education
functions, for instance, now as a part and a consideration of the Curriculum
Branch. Then that organization would not
be developing something which would perhaps be then just laid on another area,
but in fact the development would occur at the same time in the most integrated
style.
I have spoken about the Advanced Education
and Skills Training and the reorganization which we are doing there. In our finance area, we have this year put
all administration and finance of schools in one area and the department in
another area to again be able to separate and look at exactly what is. So it will be very evident exactly what is
happening in each area.
Ms. Gray: When the '93‑94 budget was being asked
to be prepared by the Department of Education, what instructions were given to
the department, i.e., were they told that they had to look at savings or cuts
across the department? Were they told to
come up with creative ideas for saving dollars, or spending dollars in areas of
priority? What were the instructions
that were given to senior staff in the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I do not have to tell the member that
this has been a very difficult budget year.
However, we wanted to make sure, and the efforts of all our work have
been that all of our decisions were still to provide a very efficient and
effective system. In carrying out all of
the process that we have, all of that budgetary process, we still were guided
by those principles that I have spoken about during the Estimates process, and
they are important to the Department of Education.
We did look at issues such as
excellence. We looked at equity. We looked at the openness, being receptive to
ways of thinking and acting that result in renewal. We looked at responsiveness to help and make
the Department of Education and Training as responsive to needs as we can and
to take into consideration backgrounds and characteristics and geographic
location when we looked at needs. We
also considered choice and we also looked at relevance and integration
connecting the components within Education and Training. We also looked at accountability.
There have been a number of changes in
society. We attempted also to recognize
what those changes were as we made our budgetary decision and to continue, as I
said, to look at efficiency and effectiveness in all areas that we were making
our decisions.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, did the departmental
staff have suggestions for service reduction or dollar reductions in areas
within the department that, for whatever reasons, the minister and cabinet did
not act upon?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that we have
had an opportunity to speak about this before, and we did look at this. We look
to come forward with a number of ideas.
Then we look to make sure that, as we looked holistically across the
department, then we were able to look at and have to make decisions that we
felt would allow us, guided by those principles, to continue in the area of
service that we feel very strongly about.
Ms. Gray: Changing tracks a bit, and there are more
questions that I have under the blueprint, Building a Solid Foundation, but
they relate to special needs, and perhaps they would be more appropriate to ask
as we move into those sections within the department.
The debate this afternoon surrounding the
fact that we have a number of students within a number of school divisions here
in the city of
I think, suffice to say, certainly from
the number of students that I have spoken with, that there is probably a
mixture of that, that there are a number of reasons why the students have
decided to be heard by the administration and the school division.
I know that the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) talked about difficult choices, and I know the Minister of Education
has talked about difficult choices and talked about the responsibility or
perhaps irresponsibility of teachers and what they have decided to do, but I
wanted to ask the minister a few questions regarding this. When the budgetary decisions were made in the
Department of Education and that was communicated to school divisions, it was
communicated to MAST, it was communicated to the Manitoba Teachers' Society,
there certainly was a reaction to those cuts.
I recall saying at the time, and I am not
sure whether it was to the minister or in the House or to the media who are
scrum in the hall, but I recall saying that because of the lack of consultation
of these cuts, what would occur would be a siege mentality in that we would
start to see, whether it was university professors or whether it was teachers,
basically act in such a way that they were under siege, i.e., they would feel
that they were under great duress, that they were isolated from the rest of the
world, that it was going to be survival of the fittest, and in fact that the
decisions that they would have to make would be based on survival, not
necessarily based on what might be the best solution to work out in a situation
where one might be negotiating. Because
in fact when you feel that you are under siege, that is not how you act.
*
(2040)
This is probably what has happened in the
case of some of the teachers in River East School Division and in some other
areas where they have decided‑‑and in being out in
I say that because also, on CJOB the other
day a number‑‑and again, this is certainly not a scientific study,
the people calling into that show‑‑but I was concerned about some
of the comments of callers made when they phoned in and talked about if in fact
teachers are under stress, that we could easily relieve them of their jobs and
get volunteers to teach in the classroom; and people phoning in and saying
well, it is really very easy to teach, you just have to stand up there and give
the same lecture that you have given for the last four years. It did concern me, the perceived lack of
understanding of teachers and their profession.
Whether right or wrong, the fact is
teachers out there feel that they are the brunt of everything that is wrong with
the system. They feel that the
administrators are passing the buck to them.
They feel that when something goes wrong, the parents are saying that. They also feel that that is the public
perception. They are starting to feel
burnt out and morale is very low.
One of the things, and I refer to the
First Minister's (Mr. Filmon) comments about public perception, and probably
the First Minister certainly knows better than I do because we do not have the resources
in the Liberal caucus to do ongoing polling, so it is hard for us to know what
the people of
One comment is from one group of people
and they are saying, we have to be concerned about the amount of money we are
spending in education, and perhaps there are no more dollars to go around, so
therefore how do you best manage that?
That is one side of the issue. I
say that very honestly because I have been getting that feedback at education
forums.
The other comment that we are getting is
from other people, educators and noneducators, who are saying, but maybe there
is not more money to go around, or yes, we need to put more money into the
education system. So we are getting
those two opposing views, but the one thing that is coming out by educators and
noneducators, by parents and school trustees is, there has to be a better way
to ensure fairness across the system.
That is the one thing that I have heard
consistently in my meetings with people throughout the province. I recall asking a question when the minister
provided her staff to sit down and go through Bill 16 about: Was there a different way of developing a
funding formula so that there would seem to be more fairness across school
divisions?‑‑because that is one of the complaints that school
divisions are talking about; that is one of the things that teachers are
saying, is that if some school divisions are going to be losing administrative
days and professional development days, they are feeling put upon because in
the school division next door, that is not happening to those teachers.
I usually hate to give speeches in
Estimates, but after all of that, I guess really what I am asking the minister
is two questions. One is, is there a way
to try to get back to school divisions, school trustees and teachers as a
government, and say, okay, the communication perhaps has not been that good? We know that there are a lot of concerns out
there. We are getting a lot of reaction.
What can the minister do and what can her
department do now, given what is going on in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me start by
saying that I certainly understand very well what the role of the teacher
is. I also understand very well what is
happening in classrooms. I think that it
is important that we help Manitobans know, as well, the changing kinds of
students that we have in education and more about what the situation is in
schools.
I have said many times that though I began
my work teaching at the university level and then in a hospital, I did spend a
number of years working directly in the school system. In those years, and it was over six years, I
worked in the system from kindergarten through Grade 12. It gave me an opportunity to look at the
issues of students, the pressures of teachers and what is being required in the
system at all levels.
I was not confined to working at
particularly just an elementary level or a junior high level or a senior high
level. I had an opportunity to work through the system, and I think that was
very beneficial because it has allowed me to work also as part of a team. That is an approach that I have
advocated. I have been using the term
partnership.
I use that with great sincerity because it
is in partnership and as a part of a team that I believe, in the work that I
was part of within the school system‑‑the team being the teacher,
the parent and the speech therapist, and in my case, the psychologist did have
an opportunity to work on behalf of a student and to look at forming a plan and
making a difference.
So I can tell you that I certainly do have
an appreciation of the issues within the school system and, particularly,
within the classroom. That is where I
have spent a great deal of time in terms of working with students and also
families on behalf of students.
So I think that is one place for us to say
that I have really made a great effort to integrate that knowledge and that
information into all of the decision making and the discussion that I have had
as minister. Since I have been minister,
I have not worked as a school psychologist, obviously, but I have spent a great
deal of time in schools.
I am very comfortable in the schools in
this province. I have spent a great deal
of time actually being in the classroom, having a chance to speak with
teachers, having a chance to speak with students, and that is students of all
age ranges as well. As I said earlier this afternoon, I have spoken with
students who are in kindergarten and Grade 1, and I have spoken with students
who are in their graduating year in Grade 12 and students in between. So I can also look at what students hope for
as well. That is certainly a point of view that I have brought to the issues
and to the approach that I have taken with all the partners in education,
whether it is working again with teachers in the classroom, in schools or with
the formal organization.
I think that that does allow us to make
sure that our communication remains open.
That would be very important. I
think that it is important that that communication continue. I want to remind the member, too, that in all
the communication that I have had with teachers, because she did speak about
teachers specifically, I have let teachers know that they have not been
targeted.
I have asked teachers to look, first of
all, around this province, as a matter of fact, even as closely as within their
own community, and to look to people within their own community and to look at
the changes that many people have had to make, and it might even be within
their own family. When we were at the
Principals' Forum a couple of weeks ago, there was a teacher there who said,
well, in my family‑‑the spouse in that family was undergoing a
major salary reduction in the work that that spouse was doing. The teacher knew first‑hand that the
efforts being made in many sectors across this province did not target teachers
alone but that there were being efforts made, both in the public sector and the
private sector, where there had to be a control of spending.
*
(2050)
So what I have said to teachers is, first
of all provided an appreciation of the work that they do, but then wanted to
remind them that they have not been targets, that adjustments have been
required within their own neighbourhood, with parents of students that they
teach within this province. Then we only
have to look across
So we did institute, as a result of a very
difficult series of budget decisions, two ways in which we wanted to look at
the fiscal situation of this province, and we have attempted, through Bill 22,
through looking at the in‑service days, to preserve the quality of
education in the classroom and also an attempt to save positions. It was one way that we could look at
attempting to preserve the quality of education that we looked for in
I would say, too, that there are a lot of
Manitobans that have given me the same message as the member said that she has
received. This is our situation. We cannot afford to pay more. Let us look at
how we can do the very most and the very best with the money that we have
available. Many Manitobans have said,
more money does not mean necessarily a better quality, because we know a great
deal of that money does not necessarily flow directly into programs, but
instead it flows into areas such as salary, which we spoke about this
afternoon, also potentially into such areas as administration. So this year we did direct that
administration be reduced so that the money available was actually available
for students.
In terms of the funding model and
fairness, and the fairness that I think the member is speaking about, we attempted
to introduce fairness when we introduced our new funding model. In the past, the way schools were funded was
not fair. It was very much on an ad hoc
basis. It did not provide a degree of
certainty. Now, with the new funding
formula, it does provide a degree of certainty in school funding because
schools now know what they will be funded for, what is the foundation of
education.
When we introduced that funding formula,
we agreed it would be subject to review, that we would look at it to make it the
most efficient formula we could. We
formed and continued the Education Advisory Committee, which had been operating
in the development of the formula and which continues to operate now. Where
school divisions have concerns and issues which they would like to have
considered in terms of the funding formula, they are submitted to that
committee. That committee reviews
them. That committee is representative
and it reviews it in terms of a geographical light and educational
concerns. That committee did make
recommendations this year, and I have said several times, we accepted those.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I want to ask
the minister, though‑‑I mean, she talks about communication and her
understanding of teachers and what it is like for them. I do not dispute that. I am not about to sit here and judge the
minister in terms of what her feelings are or her thoughts are in regard to
teachers and their ability to do the job.
Again, it does not matter in some ways
what the minister or her department feels in terms of the kind of job that they
have done to try to communicate to the partners in education what is going
on. The point is, there is a terrible
lack of understanding out there in the education community about the funding
decisions, why they were made, whether one group is targeted or whether another
group is not targeted. Perception, as
they say, oftentimes becomes reality.
So we have the Teachers' Society, we have
teachers in general, we have the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, we
have administrators in school divisions, we have town councillors, we have city
councillors, particularly in the area of
We have at the bottom of the rung these
teachers who feel that in fact they are the brunt of everything, and we have
parents out in the community who are feeling that the children perhaps are not
getting the best education, in some of the comments that we hear, or they are
in support of the teachers and saying that the teachers have a very difficult
task and do not have the resources at their disposal to do the job.
My question for the minister is: What can she do, unless she does not think
that there is a problem out there in terms of communication? Where are we going now in education? What does she feel she can do as a minister
with her senior department to try to repair some of that damage out there and
to go back‑‑
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): There is no damage.
Ms. Gray: There is damage out there. I mean, I have heard it enough. The Minister of Highways says, there is no
damage. I disagree, because there are
too many letters coming in, there are too many people making phone calls, there
are too many comments by people in various sectors of society who are involved
in education. It does not matter whether
they agree with the government in terms of the government's decisions on
funding or whether they do not agree because they are still saying the same
thing. They are saying, we have to do a
better job of working as partners and we are not doing a good job.
I have sat in meetings where school trustees
are pitted against teachers, and yet I know that really their goal is the
same. They want to see quality education
for children, but they are sitting there arguing with each other, and I think
we have pit some of these groups against each other, and I do not see that as
very productive for education here in
So I would ask the minister‑‑and
this question is not necessarily judging or prejudging what has happened so far
in education or what she has done or what her department has done or what this
government has done, all that aside, whatever you think about that, the point
is there is damage out there. There are
misconceptions possibly. There is not a
partnership. So given that, what can we
do to change that?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member referred to
statements I have made and comments that I have made, and I thought that
perhaps it might be appropriate since the focus of the comments that the member
for Crescentwood is making‑‑and I want to say that I compliment her
on taking a very constructive tack. I
mean, I think she genuinely sees that there is conflict and that there is a
degree of unhappiness among those in the public school system, and that this is
something that obviously cannot help in providing a better quality and a better
atmosphere for education in
I think a number of things should be
addressed, and one is that I would hope that those who are involved in the
education system would see themselves as part of the greater community and not
something that is in some way isolated from the rest of the community and
immune to the same pressures, be they social or economic, that affect everybody
else in the community. It is my view
that only if they see themselves as being part of the same broader community
and subject to the same economic pressures as everyone else can they take an
objective and positive view of the circumstances that face funding for
education in the '90s.
Because the reality is that all
governments of any political persuasion, in any province in this country, will
be facing a situation of shrinking revenues vis‑a‑vis any other
time period in recent history, whether you look at the '70s when government
revenues by way of personal income taxes and consumption taxes were growing at
a rate of 13 percent a year, or whether you look at the 1980s in which they
were growing at just under 8 percent per year.
You look at the '90s and the best estimates that we have is that they
will not grow at any greater rate than 3 percent per year, so a quarter of the
rate or less than a quarter of the rate that they did in the 1970s.
That means that all government departments
in all areas that government is responsible to fund have to be part of any
solution, unlike this afternoon, when the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
suggested that if we were going to try and reduce expenditures, we did not have
to deal with the salaries of those people who work in education. When that is more than 70 percent of the component
of the cost of education, that is impossible to deal with.
So you have today the situation where we
have to in some way engage the education community in the understanding that
the funding that is available to them is going to be under the same pressures
as the funding available to everyone else.
For five straight budgets, we have made a priority of essentially
isolating Health, Education and social services from the realities of
reductions in spending of all other government departments.
*
(2100)
The problem is that those three departments
collectively represent 65 percent of the total spending of this government, and
if you add to it another 10 percent of spending, that is the cost of interest
on the debt, you are left with only 25 percent that you have to play with. So you can do as we have done in other years
and reduce spending in some departments by 10, 12 percent or in all other areas
reduce spending overall over a course of five years, and you still cannot cope
with the shrinking revenues unless you take Health, Education and Family
Services into the tent and say, you have to be a part of any solutions that we
find vis‑a‑vis control of government spending.
Once you conclude that that is inevitable,
and I might say governments of all political stripes in all provinces in Canada
have arrived at the same conclusion, then you have to go to those people who
are in Education and say, the solution is either to reduce the numbers of
people who are involved in Education to reduce the payroll cost or have
everybody take a little less. Now, that is not a novel solution. That is a solution that has been fixed upon
by everybody throughout the rest of society, be they public sector or private
sector.
In private sector, the reductions in
incomes have been significant in many cases, in many industries, wholesale
reductions that people are taking and in cases that never would have been
thought possible. The airline industry
and others that have been well‑paid professions are globally taking
reductions and saying it is a part of staying in business, and, therefore, it
is the way in which I am going to protect my job.
There seems to be a different thought when
it comes to certain fields of endeavour in the public sector, where people say,
well, there is a bottomless pit out there and all we have to do is tax more or
run the deficit up and everything will be okay.
Well, that obviously has come to an end, not only in this province but
in every other province in
We would prefer to do it together, and we
would prefer to offer alternatives and have people, such as school boards, in
positions of responsibility, work out whatever is the best choice with their
employees, whether that is a voluntary rollback of their wages, whether that is
a reduction in the number of days that they work or a variety of different
options, but the inevitability is that they have to get by with a reduced
payroll.
We do not prefer to be that way that they
go out and have a conflict with their employers, the school divisions or
attempt to engage in conflict with the provincial government or conflict with
their students over it. We would prefer
that the employees, that is the teachers and all of the support staffs and
administration, find a way of coming to grips with reality and recognizing
reality all around them. The member
opposite says that she has heard comments on phone‑in talk shows in which
people are being negative toward the teachers.
I regret that just as she does, because I think that it does not need to
come to that.
I for one understand why the teachers are
being held responsible, because every study that has ever been done with
respect to education suggests that the real critical part of education is
always in the interface between the teacher and the student, and that is where
all the most important things in an education take place. Therefore, much as we can talk about the
responsibility of administrations, of school boards, of all sorts of other
people, that interface between the teacher and the student is still the
critical point at which this education does take place. That is why the teacher is being held
responsible.
The second aspect to that comment is that
people who live in the real world, out in society, are all looking around and
seeing their friends, their neighbours, their families having to take reduced
incomes or having to take temporary layoffs, or losing their jobs and they say,
nobody is immune to this. Why should
anybody in society, whether they be in education or health or anything else,
feel that they are automatically entitled, that they have some predisposed
right to get more money all the time, above the rate of inflation and above the
ability of the society to pay for that, and all the rest of us have to suffer,
and, in fact, suffer doubly, because not only do we have reduced incomes but we
are asked to pay more taxes in order to fund that.
Obviously, there are a lot of people out
there who are hurting and who are making comments about that hurt and directing
it to those people who are making demands that they see as being
unreasonable. So that is the situation
that is being faced today. That is
reality, and if the member opposite, the member for Crescentwood or the member
for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), whom I see shaking her head, have better solutions,
then I would like to hear those solutions.
I would like to see what they say is a better way of doing it and how we
can isolate those in our education system from the realities of the economy or
the rest of society.
But, if not, then I think that what we
have to do is sit down, knowing that those realities exist, examining options
that are available to us to deal within those areas and try and come up with a
collective solution. But if the only
solution is to say no, we do not have to reduce, and, no, we do not have to
take less income, that is not possible.
It is not possible for most of society and it is not possible for those
people who depend upon the taxpayer for their income from society.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would ask the
minister, because she is part of cabinet then‑‑and the First
Minister spoke of other options or suggestions.
My question would be, given that Education and Training is certainly
seen as very important and has been indicated as very important as far as the
throne speech, were there other options that were looked at outside of the
Department of Education in terms of savings that could have been found within
other departments, or even looking at merging other departments, or perhaps not
even having all those departments there?
Were there some suggestions that were made that, for whatever reason,
were not used, so that in fact there could be savings in other
departments? I mean, what kind of
options were looked at?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are probably out of
order in talking about other departments while we are in the midst of Education,
but since that is clearly a question that cannot be answered by the minister,
but has to be answered by somebody from Treasury Board or from the other areas,
the reality is that for the previous five years, the overall cuts in government
were all in all of those other departments.
All of the savings in administration, all of the reductions in staff,
almost 10 percent of the total provincial civil service, primarily, were in
those other areas of government.
It is not possible, when 65 percent of the
entire expenditures in government comes from those three departments, that any
three departments could be isolated, especially those that account for two‑thirds
of the spending.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the comments
made this evening was the importance of the interface between students and
teachers. I certainly agree with that.
One of the difficulties, I think, that the
teachers are also facing, and, in fact, some of the parents have commented on,
is that whether teachers are facing a cutback in salary or whether they‑‑a
couple of things are happening: they are
losing professional development days; and they also feel that over the last
number of years‑‑and this does not necessarily just mean five, but
over the last 10 years‑‑the resources that are available to them in
the classroom are diminishing.
I specifically refer mostly to teachers
who have children with special needs in their classroom. I use that term "special needs"
very broadly because there are a lot of children now in the classroom who have
behavioural problems, never mind the children who have special needs and
medical problems. The teachers are
saying and the parents are saying, it is very difficult for teachers to be able
to do a good job in the classroom because they feel they do not have the
resources or the supports available.
When you have a situation where not only
are a group of professionals asked to take fewer professional development days
or not have professional development days, and where they may be asked to have
their salaries rolled back, but you combine that with them feeling that they do
not have the same amount of control in their classrooms because they do not
have the resources available to them, I think that the issues that teachers are
facing in the classroom today and over the last five years are certainly more
complex than what we might have seen 10 years ago, because of a number of
things such as deinstitutionalization, et cetera.
*
(2110)
I would ask the minister how she might
reconcile that particular aspect, particularly because it certainly has been in
need. I have not heard one teacher that
I have talked to who has not brought up the issue of lack of resources in the
classroom.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to speak
about special needs for a moment because we certainly have examined special
needs with a great deal of seriousness, and we have done several things that I
would like to point to as very concrete steps to assist the field in the area
of special needs students.
First of all, our funding, we have very
dramatically increased our funding in special needs. We have increased the funding in the past two
years from $53 million to approximately $81 million. That is a significant dollar amount attached
to a commitment to special needs children and the resources required in the
area of special needs. I would also like
to say that for the emotionally, behaviourally disordered young person, this
year it is true. In the past, those
young people were not recognized for resources or recognized at the highest
level for the child in most severe need.
This year, one of the recommendations that
came from our Ed Finance Committee was to look at funding both at Level II and
Level III, depending upon the severity, those emotionally, behaviourally
disordered young people, and we have done that.
We have now included the funding for young people who have that
emotional behavioral disorder in our funding formula. It is not being done for the first time, a
real recognition for the need for support in that area.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
The third point I would like to stress is
that we have last year in February 1992 founded the Student Support branch
within the PDSS division and the Department of Education and Training. That is
the only branch of its kind which deals with students at risk. It is the only one in
We have funded that branch to
approximately $10 million, and individual schools put forward plans and
recommendations. With those
recommendations, that means that the individual schools can look at their own
regional needs, their specific needs as the result of the demographics within
that school, and they are able to look at how they would like to begin to solve
the problem. That is a real grassroots approach. It is an approach that deals with a great
deal of respect with the professionals who are working in that area and in that
particular school.
So that is three very strong commitments
that this government has made in the past few years in the special needs
areas. As I said, we have increased the
funding level significantly. We increased
it quite significantly in '92‑93 with the new funding formula. Then, again, as I said, we made an additional
modification this year for students with emotional and behavioural disorders,
and we have a position for a consultant in special education which has been
reprioritized to increase consultative programming support to school
divisions. We are providing, as I said,
Level III support in this area. Our
Child Care and Development Branch and Curriculum Services and Native Education
and the Student Support branch are all collaborating to provide some
professional development activities for schools districts and divisions in the
area of prosocial skill development.
I would also like to remind the member
that we do still provide, through our funding formula, funding for professional
development, and that works that a school may then have a teacher come and we
will pay the substitute cost to assist in the area of curriculum where there
have been changes and to assist school divisions to the extent that we
can. So that is also, I think, another
commitment.
I would just like to close in that answer
by giving a quote to the member, because we did gather a number of quotes from
eligible schools across this province in response to the programs initiated by
those schools funded by our Student Support branch. This one person said: I chose to evaluate the success of our
efforts by having all staff respond to a questionnaire. If you skim through the comments, you will
find that co‑operative learning is now entrenched in this particular
school and has been implemented at all levels.
Needless to say, we feel a little smug about our accomplishments,
justifiably, I think. A sincere thank‑you
to you for your support, encouragement and, of course, money.
Ms. Gray: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
referred to an increase from $53 million to $81 million. Was that Levels I, II and III? With those extra dollars, will that then mean
that so many more children will be able to receive special needs funding, or is
that increased funding for existing children?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, it is
funding for Levels I, II and III. It is
funding which we now provide through the funding formula.
In the past, sometimes it has been school
divisions who have funded in those particular areas. We are now funding, so it is not the
responsibility of the local school division.
In some cases, it is not a matter of funding additional numbers of
children but rather having the funding being done by funding that flows through
our Ed funding formula rather than funding which would have been done alone by
the school division.
Ms. Gray: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, perhaps the
minister does not have them with her this evening, but I am assuming the
minister has detailed statistics, et cetera, on the various levels of funding
and how they are used that she could table, by school division.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do have
that detailed information which might be best made available when we actually
get to that budget line.
Ms. Gray: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
referred the other day to workweek reduction and talked about professional
development days and administrative days.
I am wondering if the minister could tell us the rationale behind
deciding that administrative days and professional development days perhaps
should be options that school divisions should look at in terms of saving
dollars.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, we looked at
days in which there was no contact‑‑which was not a teaching day‑‑between,
on a teaching basis, the teacher and the student. When we looked at the
reduction we did not want to reduce the number of teaching days within the
school calendar. However, there are,
within the school calendar, 10 days which are in fact not designated as
teaching days, so those were the days.
In our effort to protect the classroom and
to protect the students and the quality of education within the classroom, we
suggested that school divisions might look at those particular days, those days
without student contact in terms of a workweek reduction.
*
(2120)
Ms. Gray: Does the minister see professional
development as part of a strategic plan, either for professionals and teachers
or for staff within her own department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, professional
development is an important part of development for people in their work. We do know that a number of teachers use the
summertime for instance, when they are on holidays in that two‑month
period, to increase their level of certification to take courses so they can
increase their level from perhaps a Level IV to a Level V. That then brings with it, for teachers,
increased salary and benefits. We do
know that there are many ways in which teachers are able to look at
professional development.
Ms. Gray: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, does the
minister feel that an employer, whether that employer be a school division or
whether that employer be a government department, that employers have a role to
play in ensuring that their employees do receive a certain amount of
professional development or staff training and development?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, from the day
of the funding announcement, we did say to school divisions that school
divisions were the employing authority, and as the employers they had the
opportunity and the option to negotiate directly with their employees about any
changes they believed that they needed to make.
However, we also did provide for them,
with Bill 22, enabling legislation where, if they were not able to come to an
agreement in terms of salary and benefits through negotiation as employer to
employee, that then we, as government, were looking at the workweek reduction
and we would provide enabling legislation, should school divisions wish to also
take advantage of a version of the workweek reduction.
But in terms of the professional
development or the in‑service, we do believe that there are a number of
effective ways that staff development programs can be accomplished. A number of ways which are already operating
now are the summer institutes, where teachers concentrate on a specific
teaching strategy, and they do so for up to five days in a very intensive way
to look at strategies which they will believe will be effective.
We also look at Training for Trainers
programs, where division staff‑‑where a trainer can then work with
division staff and work with classroom teachers in a classroom setting to
provide the ongoing support to teachers.
The Training for Trainers program has been a very popular one. Also, trainers or facilitators can
demonstrate a teaching strategy for classroom teachers. They can observe the classroom teachers and
coach classroom teachers in classrooms.
In addition, study groups can be
established and some have been established, I am told, after school hours for
every two to four weeks with a discussion leader. Teacher select a topic, and they determine
what they already know about an area and what they would like to know about an
area. They design ways to gather
information and to assist each other in implementing the strategies in their
classroom.
Then, as I have also said before, Manitoba
Education and Training has provided school divisions with an opportunity to
access professional development activities by providing several grants through
our funding formula. It is a $450 to
$500 grant per eligible instructional unit for professional and staff
development, and a $2,500 grant per division in support of professional
development activities related to the provision of courses using distance
education technology. That was a new one
this year; that one was another that was seen as very important in response to
our Distance Education task force. Divisions
then decide, with that professional development money, how they would like to
use it.
So when the members asks what is the
responsibility of an employer, Manitoba Education and Training, through the
funding formula, does provide money. It
is up to school divisions to decide how they would like to use that money. Some divisions, I am informed, use it to send
a staff member away and then bring that staff member back to train staff who
are in the schools now, or they may wish to use it in any number of ways, but
we have provided for the money within the funding formula to assist employers
as they determine what their priorities might be.
The Student Support Branch also has
provided staff development opportunities for schools with very high
concentrations of students at risk. The
school staff identify the teaching approach that they want to implement on a
school‑wide basis and develop a staff development plan for one to three
years, and comments from the staff, and I did read you one, about the use of
this comprehensive school‑based staff development approach have been very
positive. The approach has been
successful and teachers have been volunteering to attend sessions during the
summer and on Saturdays.
Ms. Gray: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, these staff
development opportunities that are done on a school‑wide basis, are those
then conducted during the regular school day or when do they occur?
Mrs. Vodrey: Some of this is done with the total staff
outside of school hours. However, others
are also done within school hours. The coaching
and the mentoring of teachers is done while teachers are conducting their
classes to assist the teachers on an ongoing basis and to help them while they
are actually doing their work.
I did mention for the member that we do
provide funding through the school funding model, and approximately $4 million
will still be provided in support of professional development. In total, school
divisions spend approximately $5.3 million or .5 percent of their budgets on
professional development, and a large amount of that budget is provided through
the ed funding model, a large amount of the money which is being used.
I would also like to speak for just a
moment on summer institutes because these also take place. As I said, they are intensive, and just for
the member's information, 35 workshops were offered and sessions on computer‑assisted
learning at all grade levels. There was
quite a large client group from regions across
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us what is the number
of teachers who participate in the summer institutes as well as the other staff
development opportunities that she has referred to? Does she have a number for
us in terms of the number of teachers across the province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, in order to get
the member the numbers, we would have to go through our list of summer
institutes and then calculate each of the institutes and numbers for each of
the regions. In the example that I just
gave the member, a session on computer‑assisted learning for all grade
levels, I can give her some of the numbers:
from the Interlake, 26; from south central
Ms. Gray: This information she said her staff would
have to get, is that a complicated process?
Is that easy enough to compile for the next sitting?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, I am informed it
is a fairly major collating job, and we would not be able to have it for
tomorrow.
*
(2130)
Ms. Gray: How many hours are we talking about to get
that information?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, we could certainly
have the information available by next week if that would be helpful to the
member.
Ms. Gray: I would only ask for the information provided
it does not take a lot of hours of some person's time to get the
information. Otherwise, I do not think
it is worth it. So I will leave that to
the discretion of the minister's staff.
Could the minister tell us what type of
staff training and development plan that she has within her own department for
her staff?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, our department
does have a human resource development policy and a human resource development
plan. I do not have it at this moment,
but I can look to provide it to the member as quickly as possible.
Again, with this policy, we look for this
policy to enhance the organizational environment for decision making. The policy contains a commitment to build an
organizational environment which operates on some principles which we have been
speaking about: fostering trust and
respect and integrity, and a way to recognize excellence, and also fostering a
shared sense of purpose among employees.
That was in giving examples of some of the work that is being done
directly with staff within, for instance, PDSS.
We spoke about that earlier tonight in terms of looking at strengths and
areas of improvement. That is one way,
in a concrete way, in which we have been looking at that plan.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, is the expectation
then as staff enter into professional development activities within the
department that they do so on their own time, or do they do that within
government hours?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, we look for our
staff to do both.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister elaborate on what she means
by "do both"?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, some of the
professional development which the staff engages in on their own time and at
their own expense are various areas of management training, for instance, which
they might do. Some do that through
management institutes. Others are
pursuing advanced degrees and training at the university level or at the
college level. Again, a number of people
do that on their own time and at their own expense.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
In terms of some of the short‑term
professional development which occurs, some of that involves meeting with
counterparts across
Ms. Gray: Is the expectation that when a professional
development or a staff development plan is worked out with an employee that it
is clearly identified that some of the training, depending on what their career
goals are, will occur outside of work hours and on their own time and at their
own expense?
Mrs. Vodrey: Through our human resource development
policy, there is a growth section. In
that growth section, managers are expected to sit down with staff and discuss
steps of where they see themselves, and what kind of skills they would like to
develop, and how that person himself or herself intends to reach that point,
and what we could also do to help that person reach that particular goal.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to proceed
from where I had left off, and it is discussing the policy functions of this
particular unit.
The minister had said last time that of
the five to eight people‑‑we never really I think determined how
many actually did work on policy, but certainly of those who do in this
section, they spent approximately, over the long haul, about a third of their
time on post‑secondary issues.
I wonder if the minister could give me a
list of policy papers, position papers, discussion papers that look at the long‑range
planning of the department in this area that perhaps have been conducted in the
last year, last two years.
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have a list of those activities here
at the moment, but we could certainly draw up that list and provide it to the
member.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister perhaps give me an
indication of one or two papers that have been produced?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have spoken about the Task Force on Distance
Education and Technology; and, as I have said, the Planning and Policy
Development area did provide support for this task force. It included
assistance in the development of the task force's reports.
As a second example, I would speak about
Adult Basic Education where preparatory work was completed by a departmental
committee in the area of Adult Basic Education, and Planning and Policy
Development chaired the committee and assisted in compiling and analyzing the
relevant information. We have also spoken
about‑‑and I have provided the member with a copy of it‑‑the
departmental submission to the Northern Manitoba Economic Development
Commission, and again this was a departmental presentation made to the
commission where Planning and Policy Development prepared a paper called
Contributing to Economic and Social Prosperity in the North for this purpose.
Ms. Friesen: Then my sense is that the role of this group
is co‑ordination and compilation, chairing of meetings and compilation of
final reports from others rather than the initiation of long‑range
planning, in the case that I am discussing, for post‑secondary education.
*
(2140)
Mrs. Vodrey: We have spoken about this part of the
department as, in some ways, corporate organizers where they do perform the co‑ordinating
function which the member has spoken about.
We do operate, as frequently as we can,
with cross parts of the department working together and being able to put
together ideas, because we have spoken about the goals, needing to make sure
that there was more than just one person who was aware of the goals of a
particular area or of a particular initiative.
In this way, the Planning and Policy
Development is able to draw on strengths that are available across the
department and also from the community.
They also take the major role in terms of preparing a report, but I am
also informed that that is a process whereby the report is also then again
looked at by senior managers or by those people who have been a part of the
work to make sure that it reflects, really, what the members believe has been
accomplished.
Ms. Friesen: Can I proceed from that to the other area
that I finished up discussing? That was
the sense that we are left with‑‑taking in sum all of the
minister's actions in the post‑secondary education area over the last few
months, we are left with the sense with that the government's policy is to take
from those that have the least.
The arguments that I have made, of course,
have given as examples: the ACCESS
programs, the Student Social Allowances, the New Careers programs, the
transition to loans rather than bursaries.
All of those programs seem to hit at those people who, first of all, are
at the lowest level on the educational rung, who are trying to get a step into
a very long system for them, and second of all, people who also seem to have
very few alternatives.
So it is in both of those senses that I
suggest the government's actions reflect a policy which may or may not have
been consistently articulated, but certainly appears to be one that is taking
from those who have the least.
I wonder if the minister could comment
upon the policy role of her department and essentially coming to those
conclusions and initiating and substantiating policies that have taken from
those who have the least and who have no other alternatives.
For example, are there policy papers that
have dealt with the implications of each of these changes? Are there policy papers which have looked at
the alternatives for those who are the recipients of these particular kinds of
attacks? Are there policy papers which
have looked at the choices within the department of what other kinds of changes
could have been made? Are there policy papers which look at the implications of
these cuts for the long‑term economic future of
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me start by
rejecting the words of the member in terms of attack, and let me just reject
some of the notions that she has put forward.
What I would like to tell her is that in a
number of the changes that we have made, first of all, there is a reality in
which we have had to look at a number of difficult decisions. I have said that and prefaced each answer
that I have given her with that.
However, I would also say that we have
maintained a commitment in a number of areas, and as we get to that budget line
in each of these areas, it will be clear to the member that there has been a
commitment which has been retained in the areas in which she has spoken about.
I know in the time that we have been
discussing in Estimates, she has spoken about northern issues and concerns
there. I have been able to demonstrate
to her the efforts that we have made to assist northern people in terms of
their education and was able to give her a number of concrete examples.
Earlier this evening we were also talking
about how we do collect data and we do collect information about education in
We also collect information from external
data sources and I have spoken earlier this evening about labour force surveys,
and how we as a government are able to use that information within our
department and also to examine the statistics.
We also use Statistics Canada reports and
census data. We also use CMEC
publications and data collection. So we
are able to use some external sources in the process of developing policy and
looking at the way that this government will make plans and will look to make
sure that programs are available for Manitobans.
I also point to the reorganization of the
Advanced Education and Skills Training area, which does provide for a very
broad range of programming in one place where it has not been provided before,
and where Manitobans had to look before in a number of places if they were able
to be steered to the right place. With
this reorganization, we have been able to put those together so Manitobans will
be more knowledgeable.
In addition to that, staff will also be
more knowledgeable in terms of being able to discuss what is available with
Manitobans and in the programs that they are working.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, perhaps we can save
time in the rest of Estimates by saying that as an opposition party, we made
the amalgamation of post‑secondary education and training as one some
time before this government did. So I do
not think we need another recitation‑‑I think it is about the third
time I have heard it‑‑of the importance of having amalgamated
education and training. Let us take that
one off the list. Now the second‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
it is not the amalgamation of education and training I have been speaking
about. It is the amalgamation and the
reorganization in the Advanced Education and Skills Training division of this
department which has now incorporated programs which previously were in the
Department of Family Services and were in the Department of Labour.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, the minister
wants to reiterate it yet again.
The second answer she gave me seemed to be
redoing, revisiting questions that I had asked some time ago, on the north, on
the collection of data and statistics, but that was not what I was asking.
The question I was asking was‑‑the
government's policy, and I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, appears to
be attacking those who have no alternatives and who have the least. Was there a policy statement? Was there policy evaluation which essentially
looked at a range of choices, and said, yes, that is who we are going
after. That is what we are going to do
and here are the consequences. We are
going to take that risk and we are going to do that because we have evaluated
it and we have said, yes, those are the people who are most expendable.
*
(2150)
If we have difficult choices to make,
these are the people who are going to go because the appearance of the policy
so far, the most severe cuts and the ones that from my perspective are
certainly final in the sense that people do not have an alternative, are
leaving us with, I think, a very harsh perspective on this government, and I am
giving the minister the opportunity to say:
Yes, we did do some policy research; we did in this group co‑ordinate
all the people in the department; we looked at discussions with people outside
the department‑‑all of the things that she says they do. Did they do it for this line of policy?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to start
by saying to the member that the Advanced Education and Skills Training
Division has a budget of approximately $91 million. In that budget we have preserved ACCESS
programs. ACCESS programs account for
approximately 10.9 percent of that budget; in addition, literacy programs
account for approximately 1.3 percent.
Student Financial Assistance accounts for approximately 13.2 percent of
the budget. Employability Enhancement
Programs account for approximately 12.9 percent of the budget. Each one of those programs, in effect, works
with and looks to assist Manitobans who are in need of‑‑
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask those honourable members wanting
to yell across, back and forth on this table to step out in the hall and do it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I would like to say to the member that
we have, in those areas‑‑I have named four of them, four areas
where we believe that Manitobans need support‑‑preserved a budget
line. I have also explained to her the
percentage of the budget in the Advanced Education and Skills Training Division
which is devoted to those programs, so we have made sure that we have been able
to continue to provide accessibility in the areas of ACCESS Programs and
Student Financial Assistance and literacy programs and Employability
Enhancement Programs.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but did the
minister's policy staff do any policy evaluations that looked at the impact of
the cuts in each of these lines?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can say to the member who
consistently seems to be believing somehow that these have disappeared. They have not disappeared, and I have
explained to the member that there is still a commitment in each of these areas
to support Manitobans. That commitment
is fairly significant in the light of the budget. The programs that I have named are
specifically aimed at the Manitobans that I think she is referencing,
Manitobans who need some support in accessing post‑secondary education,
in the funding for their post‑secondary education.
In some cases with the literacy programs
it might be the first time a Manitoban has re‑engaged in a program as a
learner for some time, and these literacy programs are community‑based
programs. They are programs which allow
Manitobans‑‑we look for a successful experience. Then we also have maintained the
Employability Enhancement Programs.
These programs are still available, and we still look to serve
Manitobans in those areas and others because they are a part now of the wider
department of Advanced Education and Skills Training.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if I had meant
elimination, I would have said elimination.
I said cut. In each of the areas
that the minister made a reference to, there are reduced opportunities for
Manitobans, and, in some cases, there are no opportunities for Manitobans where
previously there was.
Yes, the minister has what she calls a
commitment. I think probably she has
expressed it better this last time which is essentially preserving a line on
the budget, and that, I think, is what commitment means in this case.
I assume from my now having asked the
question three or four times that the minister did not do research or the
minister's policy group did not do research on the implications of the cuts,
the reduction in these lines to the people who have the least and for whom
there is no alternative.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the member has
not had this experience before. She
speaks from a position of simply just no experience in the making of decisions,
unlike her colleagues across
In looking at those concerns, we were able
to make sure that we have retained funding in those four areas that I have
mentioned, which, I thought, were of particular interest. When the member speaks of a budget line, we
are in the Estimates process when we are looking at the funds allocated. I point to that budget line in terms of the
funds allocated to reassure her that, yes, there is still a commitment to these
programs.
Ms. Friesen: Then, if the minister says that these issues
have been weighed‑‑and I am quite happy to believe her‑‑could
she then table the reports that do weigh, in the balance, the cuts to these
programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, as we have
discussions and as we consider the effects, and as we consider the decisions,
those are a process of decision making which is done by government, and the
process is often one which takes quite a lot of time and which involves always
adding new information or looking at new and creative ways to think about the
issue.
Ms. Friesen: So I gather that the answer is no. The minister is not prepared to table those
kinds of reports.
Could I move on then to look at
particularly the ACCESS programs and the specific decisions that are being made
in a policy basis in those ACCESS programs?
It seems to me that we seem to be at a turning point in the ACCESS
programs. Again, I am concentrating on
the policy perspective here and what the long‑term plans are for the
ACCESS programs.
We have asked this question a couple of
times in the House already, and there has been no response on the long‑term
prospects for ACCESS. I do not think I
have to, perhaps, go into a great deal of detail, but the origin of the ACCESS
programs was an attempt to find a way to lead to success for people who, for a
variety of reasons, but largely systemic reasons, have not had the opportunity
or have not had the opportunity to be successful in university and post‑secondary
education programs. It was based upon
research, I think, which was done in this department in earlier administrations
which said‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I please ask the honourable members to
tone it down a little bit. I am having trouble
hearing the honourable member, and she is sitting next to me.
Ms. Friesen: I was suggesting that the ACCESS programs
were based upon some principles of philosophy that said, large scale‑‑that
the best way to enhance accessibility was in fact through very special programs
which targeted selection, recruitment and constant supports to students while
they were in a program, that was what ensured the broader accessibility in
university and post‑secondary education programs. What we are seeing now in the ACCESS
programs, it seems to me, is a reduction in a number of those principles.
Again, I am asking from the point of view
of long‑term policy. Is the
minister intending these changes to be a long‑term policy, or is this a
short‑term difficulty that the minister anticipates for a couple of
years? Is there going to be a change in
the overall programs in ACCESS? For
example, what we are seeing now‑‑I think what we will see at the
end of this year is that recruitment cannot be on as broad a scale as it has
been, and that recruitment has been one of the key aspects of the success of
the ACCESS programs.
*
(2200)
When you are forced, as it seems to me as
what is happening, that when you are forced to only take students who are
funded by outside agencies‑‑and in particular, the main agencies
which have the ability to fund students at the moment are band governments,
although not all of those‑‑then in fact you are reducing the range
of your recruitment. That is one
principle.
A second principle, I think, is the amount
of supports that are available to students once they get into the program, even
those from a reduced capacity. The
minister has talked a number of times about reducing the administration costs
of the program, and I am not clear in my own mind, that when the minister talks
about administration costs whether in fact she is not really talking about the
educational supports. That has been a
second principle of the success of the ACCESS programs. So when we start to change that mix, are we
also changing the basic principles of the ACCESS programs?
Recruitment and academic supports seem to
be changing. Is this a long‑term
policy change in ACCESS?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think I need
to remind the member that ACCESS programming and the funding for ACCESS
programming has changed and that the federal government has withdrawn their
funding for ACCESS programming. We have
made every effort to support those students who are currently in ACCESS
programs, and we have in fact maintained a commitment to ACCESS programs and
maintained funding to ACCESS programs.
I know when we get to the budget line
where we can discuss the ACCESS programming in detail, I will be able to talk
to the member again about more specifics in terms of the action in ACCESS
programs, the action that I have taken in terms of the federal minister and how
I have been attempting to encourage the federal government to again support
ACCESS programs. Again, when we speak
about whether or not the programs are valued, the programs do continue to be
funded by this government, so they are seen as important programs.
We are, again, looking to‑‑and
I continue to speak about the reorganization that is taking place in the post‑secondary
side of my department. With this reorganization,
we will be looking at the whole range of programming which will be available to
Manitobans and the needs of the groups will be very important.
So, in summary, I think that the detail
under this budget line that I can provide her with is simply to say again that
we know that those programs have retained funding, that this government has
continued its commitment to these programs and that the federal government has
not maintained its commitment to these programs.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour is now a little bit after ten
o'clock. I understand there was a
willingness to go till midnight. Would
there be a willingness to take just a 10‑minute break to stretch our
legs? [agreed]
* * *
The committee recessed
at 10:04 p.m.
After
Recess
The committee resumed at
10:17 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The committee will reconvene.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we were last
speaking, we were looking at the ACCESS programs, and I was trying to find out something
about the long‑term prospects for ACCESS that the government was looking
at, and the minister replied in terms of funding. Now I particularly had not asked the question
about funding at this stage. If the
minister prefers, we could certainly discuss that, but maybe that would be more
appropriate on the actual ACCESS line.
What I am really looking for here is an
issue of policy and what seems to me to be a crossroads in ACCESS programs.
Certainly, yes, as a result of funding decisions that have been made this year,
but I am not particularly addressing those funding decisions. I am looking at the consequences that flow
from them or in the terms of this particular line, the focus on results of the
management in this area.
There are consequences that flow from the
particular cuts that have been made this year and last year to ACCESS, and the
understanding of people who are dealing in the ACCESS programs is that they
will only be able to take students who are funded by external agencies. Now that seems to me to represent a different
kind of policy for ACCESS, first of all, in the level of recruitment. I indicated two areas that I was concerned
about; one was recruitment and the other was academic supports.
So perhaps we could take them one at once
then and the minister could perhaps discuss for us whether in fact she is
making a long‑term change in ACCESS programming at the level of
recruitment, or is it a short‑term change that perhaps she thinks might
only last for a couple of years.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I just want to clarify for
the member that in the area of recruitment it is universities and colleges
which also have responsibility for the recruitment of students, and I am not
sure whether she has taken that into the thinking that she has been doing about
ACCESS programming.
Ms. Friesen: Yes, of course, it is the university that
does do the selection, but when you are only able to select from a smaller pool‑‑that
is, only people who have band funding, as seems to be the case, or other types
of funding, while band funding is the most common‑‑then your range
of recruitment and your ability to select is somewhat changed, diminished.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member has said several times that ACCESS
students will only be band‑funded students, and I think she is mistaken
in that area. I can say that there will
be, with the figures that I have presently, 712 continuing students in the
ACCESS family of programs. We have
approximately 128 students which are expected to graduate in the '93‑94
ACCESS programs, and so of those students, all of those students are not band‑funded
students. I think that we better clear
up right now any suggestion that the only ACCESS students are band‑funded
students.
*
(2220)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, the minister is right
to clarify that. Students who are in the
program do come from a variety of types of funding. The difficulties that people are finding in
ACCESS now, and which is why I am pursuing the idea of a long‑term policy,
is that the new recruits, the new selection and particularly, for example, the
new intake of students at the Winnipeg Education Centre which should have begun
May 3‑‑the fear is that under the present conditions people will
only be able to have access to ACCESS programs if they have external funding.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said several times, I have had
meetings between the universities and the colleges, between those ACCESS
institutions which provide ACCESS programming and members of my staff. We are at those meetings looking at a number
of issues, and I hope that, when those meetings are concluded, I will be able
to provide the member with some more detailed information that I think she
would like to have.
Ms. Friesen: Is it the minister's understanding then that
the fears of people involved in the ACCESS program are indeed that they will
only be able to take funded students? Is
that what she is hearing in these policy discussions with the institutions
involved in ACCESS?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said, members of
my department, representatives of my department are having meetings with the
institutions, the universities and the colleges, which provide the ACCESS
programming. I can tell the member that
there will be both funded and unfunded intakes into these programs.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister elaborate on what she
means by "unfunded" students?
Mrs. Vodrey: The unfunded are those students who are not
receiving funds from the province and are therefore providing their own funds
or other funding.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister
perhaps give me a more precise description of whom these people are who are
able to obtain funding that is not band funding and which enables them to
proceed under the ACCESS label?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I am informed,
and I would like to tell the member the kinds of funding. Some students do have band funding. Some students do have ACCESS funding, and
some students who do not qualify specifically for the ACCESS funding may go
through the institution and may then access other student financial assistance.
Ms. Friesen: The one I want to focus upon then is the
ACCESS funding. Yes, I understand that
everybody believes there will be band‑funded students in that program. There may, in some instances, be people who
are able to get funding from the institution, relatively few, I would think,
but certainly some.
The ACCESS funding is the one that is the
issue. Again, I come back to the
context, which is the long‑term policy for ACCESS and what the fears are
of people involved in ACCESS programming‑‑are that that category of
ACCESS‑funded students, which enabled that broader range of selection and
recruitment, is the one that is disappearing.
That is the origin of my concerns about a crossroads, really, in the
ACCESS programs.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can say about the ACCESS programs
that we have provided funding for ACCESS.
We will make sure that students in the program will be seen through. I can say too that was a commitment which we
assisted with last year when the federal government withdrew its funding and
the province stepped in and made sure that those students did receive
funding. The amount was over $1 million
that the province came forward with.
I can tell her too that we are, as I have
said, still negotiating with the institutions, still in discussion with the
institutions, so I am not at this time able to provide her with some of the
other details.
Finally, in the area of skills enhancement
training, I have spoken about this whole area of skills enhancement training as
one in which we are looking at through the reorganization of our department,
and which, when that reorganization is completed, I will have more information
on exactly how that continuum of skills training, that whole spectrum of skills
training will fit together and how Manitobans will be able to access it.
Ms. Friesen: That last part came out of left field. I was talking about university and college
education, and the minister is putting that in the context of skills
enhancement training, which is an interesting perspective, and I look forward
to her reports on that.
Could I get at, again, the long‑range
planning for ACCESS? The minister says‑‑we have established, I
think, that it is the issue of how many students, if any, will be able to be
funded by ACCESS in the future. Again, I
relate that to the availability of recruits and the nature of selection or at
least the extent of selection.
Could the minister give us a sense of how
those discussions are proceeding and what kind of timetable she thinks that we
are on for that?
*
(2230)
Mrs. Vodrey: Those talks are proceeding very well. They are very amicable. In fact, I am informed that the department
has received a number of compliments from the institutions for taking this team
approach and for involving institutions in the discussion process. We will be concluding those talks as soon as
possible. I think it is important for me
to let the member know that the talks are ongoing now.
Ms. Friesen: Perhaps the record should show that I was not
questioning at all the nature of the talks or the tenor of the discussion but
simply the timetable. The timetable is
important because, as the minister knows, I have raised this in the House, in the
context of the Winnipeg Education Centre, which was anticipating having an
intake which should have started May 3. In order to select the people for that
May 3 entrance, they should have given their selectees notice at least two
weeks before that so they could give two weeks' notice to their employers if
they were employed.
Everything is very much backed up at the
Winnipeg Education Centre. It affects
students not only who are expecting to be brought into the program, but those
students who are in existing and continuing programs and who find that the
range of courses that should have been available to them is not yet available.
So the timetable is of some concern. Again, I ask the minister, in the context of
the long‑range policy, what is the timetable for the discussions on
ACCESS?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, again, the talks are going
quite well and staff in the institutions are working very hard. I do see the position of the Winnipeg
Education Centre and it being the only one of the institutions which had an
intake which was to occur in May, the others with an intake in the fall. Because of that pressure and acknowledgement
of that pressure, we are working as quickly as we can to bring to conclusion
the talks that we are having with the institutions.
Ms. Friesen: Given the difficulty that both groups seem to
be having in coming to a policy statement, which I think is what it is on
ACCESS, is there any way that the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the answer is no, the
allocation of money does affect all institutions and all the institutions do
need to be treated with the same measure of respect and also the same measure
of respect for process so, unfortunately, that is not possible.
Ms. Friesen: Well, is the minister planning to make any
allowances for those students who, in effect, are being denied the range of
courses they had anticipated when they had come into the program?
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would ask the
member to clarify her question, because I am having trouble seeing what she is
referring to as the reduced options.
Ms. Friesen: The particular example I am thinking of is a
student who is already in the program, who was ready on May 3 to begin a new unit
of courses and, because there had not been a new intake, because those
decisions had not been made, the courses which would have been prepared for the
new entrants were not prepared and there are no teachers in place. Hence, those students already in the program
who had expected that range of courses to become available to them as well,
find that they are not available.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I think the best answer I can give the
member at this time is to say that we are proceeding with those discussions,
and we are looking to bring them to conclusion as quickly as possible for the
benefit of students. We look to continue
those discussions to bring them to that conclusion as quickly as we can.
Ms. Friesen: Just to conclude this discussion on ACCESS, I
began with the assumption that we are at a crossroads in the ACCESS
programs. It is partly a result of
federal funding; it is partly as a result of the choices of this
government. I wonder if the minister‑‑again
I am trying to get at the sense of it, is it time, given those conditions, to
make different assumptions and provide different roles for ACCESS funding? Or is the minister assuming that essentially
we are on the same course, fulfilling the same needs, with more or less the
same kind of program, and that is the long‑term strategy?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, as we have
discussed in the many parts of my department when we have looked at the
strategic plan and also a number of specific issues, we are always examining
the needs of the client population and the specific needs and interests of
clients.
We also continue to examine the
environment, and by that I mean the environment in terms of what is needed and
what people have expressed as needed.
That has been ongoing, flowing from the discussion that we had on the
strategic plan. However, in this case, I
can say that we are, as in all cases, doing our best to provide programming to
the client population and with the kind of programming that is the most
appropriate for that client population.
In terms of ACCESS programming, we have
continued funding this year. Last year
we did add supplementary funding, additional funding for the ACCESS
programs. We will be continually looking
at what the client groups' needs are and looking for the most efficient way to
serve the client groups, but I think it is important that the member not
misunderstand and that she see and recognize that there has been a support to
ACCESS this year.
*
(2240)
Ms. Friesen: I think there has been a change in the
support to ACCESS this year, and I wonder if the minister could define for the
record who the client group is.
Mrs. Vodrey: The client group would include individuals
who are aboriginal, women. It would
include members who are immigrants or English second language. It would include those Manitobans who would
be perhaps described as undereducated.
It would also include those Manitobans who might be described as
economically disadvantaged, and I believe that is the basis of the target group
for the ACCESS programming.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have figures which would
give us an idea of the proportions of each of those client groups who are in
existing programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do have some figures in that area. I wonder if they would be most appropriately
discussed under the budget line area where we are looking at ACCESS
programming.
Ms. Friesen: Well, we are looking at policy issues here,
and how the department's policy is being applied to the particular client
groups of the ACCESS programs. I would
be happy if the minister wanted to table them or bring them to another session.
Mrs. Vodrey: I can give the member some percentages in
terms of the ACCESS programs and the target groups served. Approximately 71 percent were aboriginal, and
that was from all of the ACCESS programs.
Approximately 8 percent were visible minority. Approximately 65 percent
were female, and of that, approximately 45 percent were aboriginal female.
Ms. Friesen: So the minister does not then keep numbers on
immigrants, English as a second language, the undereducated or economically
disadvantaged which were the other categories she listed, or should we conclude
that those people are not part of the composition of existing ACCESS students?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have not classified these particular
statistics in the way of educationally disadvantaged or economically
disadvantaged. That was not part of our
calculations with this particular statistical series of figures.
Ms. Friesen: So just to be clear, Madam Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the only areas that you in fact designate as collectable
statistics are aboriginal, visible minority, female and I suppose from that,
necessarily, aboriginal female.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am
informed by the department that we can access those statistics from the chart
that I read for the member tonight because she did want to cover it in this
particular area. Those figures were not
available on that chart.
Ms. Friesen: Again, to clarify, does that mean that the
government does in fact collect the other numbers or you do not collect them?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as I said to the member in exactly the
same words, let me say it again. Yes, we
can provide access to those statistics and to that information. It was the chart that I had before me tonight
that I provided her with the statistics that I did. Those statistics could be broken down further
as the member might want and would be best discussed under that budget line.
Ms. Friesen: I will try and remember that when we get to
the right line. Of the 71 percent
aboriginal, could the minister tell us how many of those are band funded or,
should we say, members of‑‑no, let us say band funded?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, we do
have that information. We do not have it
with us this evening. We will be happy
to provide that information under the budget line.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Will the minister be prepared to table a list
of projects that are undertaken by the Planning and Policy Development branch?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I will be happy to table the next time
we are together the list of completed projects.
I have this evening given a number of
those projects by name, and I will be happy to list them for the member of the
completed projects by the Planning and Policy Development area of the
department. We have completed projects
and strategic objectives and an Estimates linkage.
We also have a report on legislative
reform process, a report, a completed project on the Task Force on Distance Education
and Technology, one on Adult Basic Education, one on the human resource
development plan, another which I have already tabled on the departmental
submission to the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission, and CMEC
elementary‑secondary profile publication and a series which I will be
happy to table for the member.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Task
Force on Distance Education and Technology, was that report tabled in the
House?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, it has not been tabled yet. It has not been released yet. I am looking to release that report very
shortly.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister define what she refers to by
very shortly? Is it a question of weeks
or months?
Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly within the next few weeks, because
I know that it is going to be a report that will be of interest to Manitobans.
Mr. Chomiak: The report on adult basics, I believe, the
minister indicated‑‑can the minister just briefly outline for me
what that report entails and when that will be tabled?
*
(2250)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Adult
Basic Education is a report which was done for the department. It was preparatory work completed by a
departmental committee in the area of adult basic education. Planning and Policy development chaired the
committee and assisted in compiling and analyzing the information.
In Building a Solid Foundation for Our
Future, which is the department's strategic plan, there is a section which said
that this department would look at basic education for adults to ensure that
adults in
The purpose of this review will be to
establish a co‑ordinated approach for the development of basic education
for adults who require upgrading to pursue post‑secondary education to
participate in skills development programs or to participate in the
workforce. That is the basis of the
report which was done for the department to assist us in that policy
development.
Mr. Chomiak: Who undertook that report? The minister indicated it was by a
departmental committee co‑ordinated‑‑who undertook the
report?
Mrs. Vodrey: It was the minister through the strategic
plan which asked for this report to be done.
Planning and Policy were the co‑ordinators of the work, and there
was representation on the committee.
That representation came from BEF, the bureau or the francaise part of
our K to 12 side of this department; also, PDSS, which is the Program
Development and Support Services part of this department.
There was also representation from the
post‑secondary side, the adult continuing education part of the
department, and the work that they did was to look at developing an inventory
of all possible areas where adult basic education was occurring. This was a preliminary‑‑it was a
start, and from that we look to continue developing the policy. We think that this policy will also be able
to assist us in the labour market planning.
The role of the committee, which was
operative, is to explore all forms of basic education programming for
nonsequential adult learners 18 years of age or older. Such educational programming includes
instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, science and technology, oral
communication, interpersonal communication and critical thinking skills. Not included in this area are the general
interest courses or any form of skills training courses at the post‑secondary
level.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister define Total Quality Management as she understands it in the
department, and can she indicate where it is being applied?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, Total
Quality Management, I know the member and I did discuss in the Estimates of
last year. As he knows from our
discussion at that time, it is seen as a way of making decisions, and in fact
one of the more important features is that it is a shared decision‑making
process. It does allow then for the
development of a corporate view. It is
best applied where members of a department can be involved in the decision
making. One very good example of where
this has been applied is in our Schools Finance branch which I was discussing
earlier this evening.
In this particular branch, we are looking
very strongly at a client focus. We also
look at the work that people do in a cross‑functional way, and what Total
Quality Management has allowed us to do in this area is to use the expertise of
all of the people. With that cross‑functional
way, though we can use the expertise of all of the people, that expertise can
become shared. Then when members of the
department are out in the field, they are able to speak with a much broader
sense of exactly what the goals are, and they have more information than just
their one little pocket.
It has also been applied very effectively
in the Instructional Resources area of my department. We will have a chance to talk about this when
we get to the budget line. That area of
the department has undergone some reorganization because this has been a very
successful way to look at the skills and the expertise that is available and to
be looking at, again, client focus and also to involve the department in the
process of decision making.
Total Quality Management, as the member
also knows, is something that is best applied when there is an acceptance and
an interest on behalf of the staff, not necessarily in an imposed style but
rather a style in which people begin to see the benefits for use in the
development of the corporate view.
Mr. Chomiak: Is Total Quality Management being practised
across the entire department, or is it confined to only specific branches of
the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, our senior
staff have been looking at the use of Total Quality Management. They certainly use it as frequently as
possible. I also would like to just
speak about the development of the funding model and the use of Total Quality
Management in the development of the funding model.
The funding model, under other
circumstances, would have been developed alone by the Finance Branch. With Total Quality Management as a method,
the new funding model was developed with the Curriculum Services Branch
involved, with the Finance Branch involved, and we were able to look at, again,
much more of a corporate view and where the areas of important expertise lie.
I think that was a very important point
when the funding model was introduced last year because we were able to speak
about the financial side and the curriculum side, for instance, or the program
side being able to have some ways now to speak to each other.
* (2300)
Total Quality Management is used very
frequently by modeling, and certainly its use is encouraged by senior
staff. Areas of the department are
looking at ways they can apply it. Total
Quality Management, as I have said, also works with a client focus.
Over the course of the evening, I have
been speaking about the PDSS division.
In that, there has been an effort to look at a client focus. I have spoken about the surveys that have
been sent out by that particular division in which they are asking stakeholders
about the services they receive from the department.
They are asking for feedback on how the
department can improve its services and, in addition to that, asking also among
the staff of the Department of Education and Training so that the staff are
involved in the process of providing the most efficient service and the most
beneficial, as well as information coming from the field about how they would
like to see the service and where they see the improvements.
Total Quality Management, as the member
knows, I am sure, is not achieved overnight.
It is important that it be introduced throughout in all levels. It does require an exposure to its principles
through senior staff. That is what we
are doing, making sure that senior staff are familiar with the principles and
are able to provide modelling within the department. Different divisions are at
different stages in the implementation of Total Quality Management.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Chomiak: Does the minister envision the Total Quality
Management being expanded to include outside of the department?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Schools Finance
Branch, by way of example, is very much focused on the issue of client need and
client service, and we have really looked to ensure that through the frame
reporting and also through the electronic transfer of data. School divisions, I think, were really quite
impressed with the amount of information which could be delivered to them very
quickly and that particularly following the school funding announcement. Because school divisions have seen how Total
Quality Management and the client‑oriented service model have worked with
our department, some of those school divisions have expressed an interest
themselves and will be looking at it.
Again, our department is looking at
providing leadership and looking at providing some information and also the
effect of that model to the partners in the field. Then they will make some decisions about
whether or not it would be applicable.
Then, as I said in my previous answer, PDSS is doing an outside survey
of its clients, and that is another example of looking at the client service‑oriented
interest of Total Quality Management. We
are asking clients how we are being seen by them in order to make sure that our
service is the most efficient for people of
Mr. Chomiak: Has the department engaged in focus groups?
Mrs. Vodrey: No.
The department does not operate with focus groups.
Mr. Chomiak: There is $133,000 in professional fees. Can the minister outline what those
professional fees are for?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the line which
says $133,000 in the area, Professional Fees, a good portion of that, almost
$97,000, will be used in the area of education reform and also provision for
the educational fora which we have been talking about to take place in the next
while, certainly by the fall.
Also, there is approximately $36,000 which
would be allocated for various research which might be required, particularly
in terms of other provinces, what is happening in other provinces, and to
provide us with information of what is happening. I use that by way of example of information
from other provinces.
Mr. Chomiak: The $97,000 in professional fees to be used
for education reform and provision for the forum, will that be to outside
individuals and people to plan and co‑ordinate those activities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the whole area of education reform is
a very exciting one, a very large one, and we do look to explore certain
initiatives in the area of education reform.
This will allow us to bring in some experts and to have them assist us
with some particular tasks.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister kind of illustrate perhaps
for me what kind of outside experts she is referring to? I will help perhaps clarify it. Are these consultants? Are these media people? Are these researchers?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I can look at one example, a
specialist who is in the area of change process. Change process in education reform will be an
important one, and there is a person who works at the
*
(2310)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to clarify, the
minister earlier on said the money would be expended. Am I correct in stating on educational reform
and for the educational forum to be held in the fall? Did I get that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, in terms of exploring the issues of
reform, we look for this money to provide us with information, to provide some
background research and also to help us identify the issues, to acknowledge
current initiatives and to look to ideas for future action, but we also have
said that we would like to have an educational fora, and I use the term
"fora" because it is in the plural.
We are looking for a way to involve
Manitobans in regional fora which would allow us to provide and receive
information, to discuss the issues and to identify potential action
recommendations.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline where she is
anticipating these fora to take place?
Mrs. Vodrey: I will be making announcements further to the
regional fora as the time comes closer.
Mr. Chomiak: How is the department doing on the MASBO,
MAST, MTS report that the minister was to provide a response to by December of
1991?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have discussed this at length through the
Estimates process, and what I have described as having occurred so far is that
the ministers of the departments involved had set up a committee and the
committee had two parts. There was a
deputy minister's level which provided the steering committee function, and
then there was a working group level with our staff of our departments.
That working group did a number of
tasks. They reported then to the deputy
ministers, and the deputy ministers have now provided the report to the
ministers, and the ministers will be looking at the report. Then we will have to determine what the next
step in terms of our action will be.
It is an issue that I can tell the member
we have taken seriously. There are four
ministers involved, so we will be looking at it now as ministers in terms of
the next most appropriate and effective step.
Mr. Chomiak: Have the ministers met as a group to review
the report?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have reported in this Estimates process
so far, no, we have not because we have only recently received the information,
but we will be looking to meet as soon as possible.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister outline how many protocols
are in existence in her department at present?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have described during
the Estimates process a number of the protocols and also some of the shared
services which are already in action among the four departments and also other
departments. Just to give the member
some ideas as well, among the four departments, particularly three of the four
departments, some we have discussed even earlier today‑‑the 24‑hour
intervention plan, that being particularly for students who are emotionally or
behaviourally disordered and need some continuity between school and home,
because we know in terms of management of their behaviour that continuity would
be an important one.
We also have a protocol for transitional
planning and that transitional planning from school to work, and that is
another important one as we look at Manitobans moving from school into a
successful workplace.
We also have other protocols involving a
Curriculum Services Branch, which is involved in following joint initiatives
with external jurisdictions. I mention
these because one of the issues that has been raised is, are we co‑operating,
are we working alone in
There is the Western Canadian Consortium
for Computer‑Assisted Learning in Mathematics, which our Curriculum
Services Branch is involved in. There is
also the Western Canadian Protocol on the Sharing of Curriculum and Learning
Resources, and that is another of the areas which Manitobans have asked us to
look at. Then, there is also the
Manitoba Government Libraries Council and the
*
(2320)
So through this list, I am attempting to
provide some of the protocols that are currently in place. Some of these, again, have applied to our
Instructional Resources Branch. Some of
them have applied to areas of our department which deal directly with students,
and others deal with areas which look more specifically at curriculum.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how many of those
have been entered into in the last year?
Mrs. Vodrey: The newest one is the Western Canadian
Protocol on the Sharing of Curriculum and Learning Resources. At a meeting of the Western Canadian
Directors of Curriculum in February of '93, several potential areas of
collaboration were identified and from this, four areas of support for collaboration
were identified.
Mr. Chomiak: I would term that particular protocol an
"intergovernmental protocol," but notwithstanding that, presumably it
would be a correct statement to say that no new protocols have been entered
into by the department in the last year.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the examples which I
have given so far are examples which have been ongoing. I have also given some examples in the House
during Question Period of examples where there is co‑operation, and those
have been ongoing also. I say that
because there seems to be a sense that there has not been co‑operation
and there has not been some work already ongoing in the area of co‑operation
between departments or among departments.
I point to those which have been ongoing
and which have had measures of success in terms of that co‑operation. With the report that the deputy ministers
have just provided to us, we look for recommendations for further co‑operation. I believe that was part of the basis of what
the working group will have provided us, and the ministers will now look at
these additional ways that we might begin to co‑operate.
Mr. Chomiak: So the answer to my question is yes, there
are no new protocols that have been entered into in the last year despite the
existence of the MASBO report, et cetera, and despite our going over this over
and over again in Estimates to see what progress has been made by the
department.
Without taking away from the past
accomplishments of the department, the minister has to agree that they have
made no movement forward, and I would venture to say that if we are here next
year, we will probably have a report that the minister is going to have some
hearings on or is going to have forums on with respect to this particular
aspect of departmental activities despite comments by the minister and the
First Minister that this is a high priority area.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I gather from the
member's comments that hearings would not be something that he would be in
support of. In fact, he would probably
like to make decisions completely at arm's length and based strictly here
without the input of Manitobans. We have
in many areas provided Manitobans an opportunity to have input into the
process.
In terms of this particular development
and work that has been done by this committee, the committee has been a working
committee, and I think it has worked very hard over the past year. It has met frequently, and I certainly call
that progress.
I certainly call the report to the
ministers progress, so I find it very hard to see that the member seems to not
understand that work has been done. Work
most certainly has been done, and we look to do the next step of that work as
soon as possible.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to come back
to the original context that I was looking at for the policy line in this
department, and that was that the apparent policy of the government appears to
have been to cut in areas where people had the least resources and where they
had the fewest alternatives once the government had reduced or cut their
support.
I want to address particularly now the
Student Social Allowances Program, perhaps to begin by asking the minister what
the rationale or what the justification was in the government's mind, because I
realize this comes, in effect, between two departments, so what was the
government's rationale for the elimination of this program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, that Student Social Allowances Program
is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), and that minister is the person who would be best able to
describe the changes that were made by his department.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand that the
Minister of Family Services did not answer questions on this and indicated that
it was the policy of this department and this government to answer those
questions. In any case, it seems to me
that this is a minister responsible for education, a member of a government, a
member of a cabinet which has cut and eliminated student social allowances.
So, if the minister is refusing to answer
questions on it, I find that extremely disturbing, and I wonder if perhaps the
minister would like to reflect on that again since she did answer questions in
the House on this and has appeared to have been in the last few weeks certainly
the spokesperson for the government on this issue. Is that a change of policy?
Mrs. Vodrey: I wonder if the member is speaking of the
student financial assistance and not the student social assistance. Student
social assistance is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Family
Services, (Mr. Gilleshammer). I believe
that he has answered questions on that, and he did respond to the member in the
House.
I was not present at all of his Estimates,
so I am not sure how many times he answered this question in Estimates. But the member did, I know, explain that we
were the only province in
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
If the member would like any further
background on the process of making that decision, again, my colleague the
Minister of Family Services is the person who could provide more of the detail
in terms of that decision making.
Ms. Friesen: Perhaps we can address this from the context
of process. Was the Minister of Education
consulted in the elimination of the Student Social Allowances Program?
Mrs. Vodrey: I want to clarify again with the member that
my department does provide training for social assistance recipients and we do
provide that training through a number of the employability enhancement
programs which we have discussed and which do fall under my department. The living allowance portion has fallen under
the Department of Family Services and my colleague (Mr. Gilleshammer), who is
the minister of that department.
*
(2330)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the question I asked
was, in the elimination of that program, what kind of consultation was there
with a Minister of Education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, very
difficult decisions had to be made. We
had to look at making decisions when there was only a limited budget available,
and decisions again had to be reached by ministers and then there was a very
difficult process throughout all of this time.
The member, had she been in government,
would be more familiar with the process.
She has not been in government. Therefore, she is not familiar with the
process that goes on in terms of a budget.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, well, I am disappointed
to see the minister take those kind of personal kinds of responses. I do not
think it is particularly worthy of you.
My job is to act as opposition critic.
My job is to ask these kinds of questions. I do not criticize the minister personally. We deal with this in terms of issues.
My question was, and it was a relatively
simple one, was there any discussion, any consultation between the Minister of
Education and the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) when this
decision was taken?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, my response to the
member was one of fact. There is a
budgetary process which goes on within government, and it is exactly that, it
is a process, and it was this time, a very difficult process. There are within that process a number of
steps which are taken and then decisions are reached, and all of that is the
work of government.
Ms. Friesen: So the answer then, Mr. Acting Deputy Chair,
is that there were no specific consultations, but the decisions took place under
the normal conditions of cabinet and Treasury Board discussion. I assume that is what the minister wanted to
say.
Could I ask the minister then what the
implications of this decision are for the planning in this department? Because essentially what has happened, and I
am sure she is aware of this, is that, as I said in Question Period, we have
taken 1,200 students approximately and we have essentially, in terms of the
policy of this government, turned them away from schools, from trying to
complete the education, the path that they have been on.
I tried to demonstrate this in Question
Period by saying that this is the equivalent of closing down three inner city
high schools‑‑certainly, albeit, the smaller ones of Gordon Bell,
of Children of the Earth and Argyle. But
that is really quite a dramatic undertaking for any government to take that
number of students and to essentially say that this program is closed, you must
now find other alternatives to try and complete your Grade 12 education.
What concerns me about this policy is that
so many of these students have no alternative, and I am sure the minister is
hearing this from many of these students as we are in the opposition. I know that many people have signed petitions
upon this. I know that many letters and
phone calls have been made certainly to me and, I am sure, to the minister as
well.
As Minister of Education, the minister
participated in this discussion in a collegial way, but she is, as minister,
essentially stuck with the implications and the long‑term issues that
flow from this decision. I wonder if she
could tell us something about what alternatives she thinks are available for
the students.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as Minister of
Education, I certainly am prepared to say that the institutions which provide
the programming are funded through my department. The fact that those
institutions are available is an important part of my work as Minister of
Education, to make sure that is possible.
Where there are other arrangements to be
made in terms of living allowances, I know my colleague the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has ongoing communication within the
community. I am sure that minister is
doing his best, from his side, in terms of looking at what is available for
students.
As Minister of Education, again I stress
that my role as minister, and the member did ask what is my role, is to ensure
that the educational institutions are available and that the programming is
available. I would say to the member
that where she would like further information on the Minister of Family
Services and the side of the funding that he provides, he would be the most
appropriate person for her to question.
I cannot speak for my colleague the Minister of Family Services.
Ms. Friesen: But the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
does have to deal with the long‑term implications of the decisions that
her government has made. What we have
here are, certainly at face value, 1,200 students who were proceeding anywhere,
I think, from a Grade 9 to a Grade 12 level in high school. Now those students, because of the decisions
of this government, are no longer able to proceed in, at the best, a full‑time
manner. Some of them may have the opportunity, if they are able to get one of
the few part‑time jobs that is out there that is available to people with
a Grade 9 or 10 education, to proceed on a slower basis in a part‑time
kind of education.
In any case, what we have, obviously, are
a large number of people who want to complete Grade 12 and have been unable to.
Many of them are, let us say they are older students‑‑I do not know
enough to be able to put age groups on them.
It seems to me that there is a long‑term implication for a
Minister of Education if we have this large group of students who now can no
longer proceed on a full‑time basis.
They have to proceed at best on a part‑time basis or simply go on
to welfare.
What are the implications for the
education system across the province and, I would say, particularly in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, earlier this
evening I spoke about the Adult Education Policy Development Committee. We do
recognize that there are some nonsequential students and so we do have this
committee which will look at adult education.
*
(2340)
The role of the committee is to explore
all forms of basic education programming for nonsequential adult learners 18
years of age or older. Such educational
programming includes instruction in reading and writing, mathematics, science
and technology, oral communications, interpersonal communications, critical
thinking skills. Not included in this
area of adult education is the general interest course or any form of skills
training at the post‑secondary level but, instead, we are looking at
adults who perhaps would be coming back for high school education.
The next step for the department is to
develop a framework for the adult basic education policy. The results of this internal review which we
looked at provided useful information, and it will contribute along with relevant
issues and recommendations from other departmental initiatives such as
legislation reform and Distance Ed task force.
The University Review will add to the further development of policy and
action in the areas of adult basic education and adult education.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us when that
committee began and when its final report will be completed? Could she also tell us what the composition
of the committee is?
Mrs. Vodrey: The committee began its work approximately
one year ago and completed Phase 1 and now it has begun work again, began its
work on the next phase, which I have just reported to the member, began that
work on April 5, '93. The people who are
involved in that committee are Devron Gaber, who is chairing the committee, and
he is the Director of the Literacy area; it includes representatives from the
Advanced Education and Skills Training committee, Terry Lumb and Reta Owens; it
also has representation from the Program Development and Support Services
division, Milt Reimer and Barbara Foreman; and also the Administration and
Finance division, Gerald Farthing, and also Beth; the Bureau de l'Education
francaise and that is Anna Labelle [phonetic]; and the planning and policy
development branch, Dallas Morrow; and also a representative from Internal
Audit, Jane Holatko.
Ms. Friesen: A year ago the department began Phase 1. Could the minister be more precise about what
was involved in the planning in Phase 1?
It took a year, and what were the conclusions?
Mrs. Vodrey: The work of the first phase of that committee
was to provide demographic information on adult education. I am informed that that certainly was quite
time consuming, and it also looked at what was happening in other provinces. Then it had to provide a conceptualization of
options and delivery.
The main task for the committee was to
conduct the preparatory work of compiling and analyzing relevant departmental
information. Detailed information was
contributed by all the branches in the department which directly or indirectly deal
with the adult learner.
Ms. Friesen: What was there in that report that could lead
to the conclusions that 1,200 people who are in Adult Basic Education should no
longer be in Adult Basic Education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member's
questions were to me: What as Minister
of Education was I providing? The
information that I have been giving to the member is what I as Minister of
Education have been looking at. The
member's questions have focused on adult students, and what kind of work that
we have done in terms of the adult and perhaps nonsequential student, and that
is the information that I have provided her with so far.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Again, where she would like to ask more
specifically about decisions made by the Department of Family Services, it is
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) who would be best able to
provide that information. I have said
that my responsibility specifically as Minister of Education, which I have been
speaking to her about, has been in the area of programming and also in the area
of planning, to look at how to accommodate these students. That is the information that I have been
providing the member with.
Ms. Friesen: I appreciate the minister providing that information,
but I am still puzzled by a decision which was taken about the education, about
the educational future of 1,200 people who wanted to be in school. The minister sat at a cabinet table which
essentially closed the doors to those students.
It seems to me to do it also in the middle of what seems to me to be a
commendable process of analysis of the issue; that seems to me even more
difficult to understand. If you are
beginning to understand the process, to look at the demographics, to look at comparable
policies, that is a good start. Why do
you stop in the middle of that? Why was
the government taking a decision to close the doors on 1,200 students?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) did explain to the member how the
decisions were reached from his department, and again I believe that he is the
one who is the best able to look at how the decisions have been arrived
at. What I have been able to speak to
the member about are the issues of education.
The question that she has been asking is in the area of social allowance
or living allowance, and that particular issue, again, I can say, is best
discussed in detail by my colleague the Minister of Family Services. I think that it would be really not
appropriate for me to attempt to answer in his place.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, can I get back
then to the educational aspects of this?
I am disappointed in the minister's answer. I thought that she had been part of this decision
as a member of the cabinet.
The issue is that suppose that the best
possible outcome for those 1,200 students is that they find part‑time
work which would enable them to continue part time in school. Now let us suppose that all 1,200 of those do
that. That is the best possible outcome
in educational terms, given the conditions which this government has laid upon
these students. Now, if they do that, it
is going to take them presumably at least twice as long, if not three times as
long, to complete their high school education.
Could the minister perhaps comment on that
and indicate to us where it fits in the context of her policy analysis and
policy development in adult basic education?
Essentially what you are doing is prolonging the impact of these people
or the bulge of this group of people within the educational system. So, presumably, there has been some potential
planning for that and for its impact upon the schools where these students are
concentrated.
*
(2350)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, through the
Department of Education and Training we provide funding for educational
supports to students.
I can tell the member, at one of the
schools she mentioned, Gordon Bell, we provide special grants in the area of
career assistance and infant lab, Conflict Resolution and portfolio
assessment. At
The kinds of educational grants and
assistance that we are providing are the way that the Department of Education
and Training is looking to assist students, particularly in areas where they
may be at risk and where they need assistance.
I point to career assistance in particular.
It is very hard for me to comment on her
speculation of exactly the numbers of students and how long it will take those
students to finish a program. I am not
able, at this point, to look at her speculation because at the moment it is
speculation.
In terms of the living allowance side, my
colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is the one who can
speak for his department and the decisions made by his department. What I am able to provide the member with is
detailed information on the educational supports which we have in place for
students, particularly at the three schools which she has referenced.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, it is
speculation. I would think it was a
speculation or at least a prospect that the government had considered.
There is a best‑case scenario, which
is the one where all the students who find part‑time work are able to
continue their education. There is a
worst‑case scenario that says they are not able to find part‑time
work, and essentially they drop out of school and never are able to break that
cycle of poverty which their education will leave them in.
It seems to me that anybody who sat at a
cabinet table which made that decision in the middle of a policy program and
analysis which was addressing the long‑term issues here, which made this
short‑term decision to cut this and which was responsible for a
Department of Education which was going to have to provide those supports for a
short or a longer period or for a government which, for example, might have to
look at a much longer and a more permanent welfare load. Surely the department looked at the best‑case
and worst‑case scenario; surely the cabinet looked at the best‑case
and worst‑case scenario; surely the much vaunted links between
departments which this government is fond of making reference to looked at that
best‑case and worst‑case scenario and looked at the larger
implications of that for the economic policy of the government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would say to the
member that my colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)
would be the person who would be the best able to comment on his department and
on a background of reasons and further information which the member would like
me to comment on.
I am making every effort to provide to the
member the information provided in support of the education of students. I am directing that it would be more
beneficial for her to ask my colleague the Minister of Family Services about
the supports for the living allowance of students.
I can say, as that minister has said
before, that there were very difficult budget decisions to be made. They were very difficult budget decisions to
be made across all of government. In this particular decision that was made, it
was the only program of its type across
Ms. Friesen: I guess I am still having difficulty
believing that a Minister of Education did not give consideration and her
policy branch did not give consideration to the long‑term and short‑term
implications for the educational system of these 1,200 students.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I can say to
the member that we certainly have given to students where there is a concern of
their risk educational support. I have
described to the member some of the educational support which we have
provided. The role of the Department of
Education, specifically, is to be sure that there are programs for students and
those programs are available.
I have described to the member, and I am
happy to describe again, some of the special grants which the Department of
Education provides for students. I have
given an example of special grants for Career Assistance and special grants for
Infant Lab and Conflict Resolution, Portfolio Assessment and Pre‑employment
at
Ms. Friesen: Yes, I am sure the minister does supply all
kinds of assistance to different schools across
What we are specifically addressing is what
appears to be an abandonment of 1,200 students.
What I am looking for is what the the policy discussion is that went on
around that decision from the perspective of the Minister of Education. Particularly, as I say, I am very pleased to
find out in fact that there is some planning and some analysis going on about
the Adult Basic Education. Why make that
kind of dramatic decision in the midst of that planning process?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the budgetary
process of this government at this time was a very difficult one. The circumstances and the fiscal situation is
extraordinary, and I point the member to look across Canada at the
extraordinary circumstances facing other provinces, where decisions, and very
difficult decisions, have had to be made by other governments and other
governments of her political party, and so again very difficult decisions have
had to be made in very extraordinary times.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has explained to the member how the decision was reached by the
Department of Family Services and speaking on behalf of the Department of
Education, as Minister of Education, I have been describing to the member what
types of educational supports are available.
And she is right, a number of these programs certainly apply to many
kinds of students, students who would be at risk, students who have various
kinds of needs, and that is the responsibility of the Department of Education,
to look at making sure that there are programs in place and that there are
special grants available where required.
*
(0000)
Some of those special grants may be for
counsellors who would provide specific and needed support, and those
counsellors are able to help students with the resources which are available in
many areas, and will assist students and point students in a direction of a
number of areas of help required.
So I would just like to end by saying that
the Department of Education does take its role with these students very
seriously, and other questions which the member might have regarding the
Department of Family Services would be best directed to the Minister of Family
Services.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being after twelve o'clock, is it
the will of the committee to carry on until morning?
Twelve o'clock. Committee rise.
AGRICULTURE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture. We are on item 6. Policy and Economics, page
17 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Item 6.(a) Administration.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the minister what work his
government has done, whether there has been any promotion of the production of
ethanol in Manitoba and whether there has been any cost‑benefit analysis
as to whether it is worthwhile to convert grain energy as a replacement
energy. What type of work has gone on in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chairperson,
the member asks about what studies have been done on ethanol. I guess the best study is an ongoing study
which has been in existence in Minnedosa for around 14 or 15 years. Sometime in the late '70s the ethanol plant
in Minnedosa was started. Certainly Mohawk has proven that you can extract
ethanol from various plant types. Over
the course of time, they have used wheat, corn, low‑grade grain, and I
think now they are primarily using feed wheats as their starting stock. They have had the tax forgiveness‑‑it
has been around four cents a litre. I
think now it is three and a half or three cents a litre is the degree of tax
forgiveness that they have.
Mohawk is also involved in an operation at
*
(2005)
I know that other people have looked at
establishing like facilities in
Ms. Wowchuk: What I am wanting to know is: Is there anybody in the department looking at
a cost‑benefit analysis? The
minister talks about the tax break of four and a half cents a litre‑‑
Mr. Findlay: It was four cents. I think it is a little less‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: ‑‑down to three and a half cents
a litre. But there is a tremendous
amount of encouragement right now. The
federal government in November announced a $12‑million, five‑year
initiative to encourage production and use of ethanol. That was announced by Charlie Mayer, who
said, encouraging ethanol use has three benefits: to reduce the use of fossil fuels in favour
of a renewable fuel; ethanol blends are a boost to the agricultural sector and
to the rural economy; also, it is environmentally friendly.
So there is encouragement on the federal
side to go ahead with production of ethanol, but what I am wanting to know is
whether the province is doing anything at looking at whether there is a cost
benefit to it, whether it is worthwhile doing and whether anybody is doing any
research into markets.
I ask these questions because there is a
group of people in my constituency who are very serious about establishing an
ethanol plant and, in fact, have visited the
That is why I am asking whether the
government is playing any role right now in seeing whether there are
markets. We are told that if there was
encouragement to using ethanol blend in all fuels we could have many more
plants like the one at Lanigan.
I think that there is a role for
government to play in doing some of the feasibility and, if it is not feasible,
if the cost benefit is not there, then maybe communities should be discouraged
a little bit if the benefit is not there.
Mr. Findlay: The member says, there is tremendous
incentive from the federal government. I
would caution the member on that kind of statement. Yes, there is a stimulus. I would not call it a tremendous incentive.
I think that anybody who is investigating
this opportunity or any other opportunity should look very carefully at whether
it is economically viable in the marketplace and not build a plant on the basis
of trying to attract government money, because that often turns out to be a
mistake down the road when that government grant or the time frame of that
government money runs out.
*
(2010)
I have been in contact and discussion with
a member of the economic development board in
The Economic Development Board of Cabinet
has also been involved as they are with many projects, people looking at
feasibility, whether they get into a full‑scale feasibility process. For a long time there has been an
interdepartmental committee in government involving I, T and T, Finance and
Agriculture looking at the ethanol question.
I view it as one of those diversifications
to produce some product that does not go into the food market, so it does not
compete in the food market. I think we
can produce a good feedstock for those kinds of operations. The long‑term economic viability here,
you know you are dealing with tough competition in the petroleum industry. They do not like to see these things start up
and whether governments can remain there forever with the tax forgiveness
remains to be seen.
I think
So I think anybody that is looking at it,
drawn all the expertise they can from government and from private sector and
try to make an informed decision in terms of the economic viability over the
long run, I think it is a great initiative. In many cases it is the right thing
to do, but I am a wee bit nervous about the long‑term economics of
it. I will be very open with the member,
it is a great theory, but whether it will work out economically in the long
run, I am not so sure.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess I want to correct
myself. I said that there was tremendous
incentive. I realize that that is not
that great an incentive, but there is some encouragement. When I met with the people from
That is where I am wanting to know whether‑‑and
the minister has indicated which people are doing some work on it and that is
the kind of thing I am looking for is whether there are the supports
there. I talked to the people about
looking for a market, but basically doing a feasibility study and looking at
this, whether in the end there is any money to be made and how long you could
make money at it.
*
(2015)
The person who spoke to the group at
This is what he says and I will read
this: The market for ethanol in the
I agree that all of the fuel companies are
not going to want to blend unless there are regulations brought in. Somewhere if the federal government is
encouraging the production of ethanol, I think if they are encouraging it, if
they are prepared to regulate that a certain amount of ethanol has to be
blended into all gases, then there is a market there.
Does the minister think that is a
possibility and is that something he would encourage for environmental reasons,
for economic reasons in the agricultural industry, that he would see that at
some point we would see regulation that would mandate that all fuel have a
certain amount of ethanol blended into it?
Mr. Findlay: I would like to ask the member if the person
who was so enthusiastic about this might have been somebody from outside the
province, particularly
I think his optimism on the
I think if somebody is looking at the
economic viability here in
The member says, well we should put a
regulation in requiring the use of it, and that remains to be seen down the
road whether Canada or any of the provinces in this country are prepared to do
that. So I think it is critical that
anybody, as I said earlier, looking at it use all the appropriate expertise to
look at the overall issue and beware of somebody from out of province who is
coming to sell a package, because you want to know that it will work here in
our climate. The feedlot side of it,
there is tough competition in the feedlot business, very tough.
*
(2020)
Ms. Wowchuk: Just following along those lines, has this
government done any analysis of the Pound‑Maker operation in Lanigan
where the feedlot is right beside the ethanol plant versus the Mohawk plant
here where there is no feedlot operation, and whether it is more economical to
produce this in that kind of setting?
Basically, I am looking for any information on what this government is doing,
seeing that there is an interest in Manitoba to produce ethanol, what kind of
information government is prepared to provide people who have an interest, and
what kind of analysis the government is doing on various plants.
Mr. Findlay: Certainly I would have to think that Mohawk,
in conjunction with Pound‑Maker feeds, have done the appropriate economic
analysis to arrive at plant size in terms of 12 million litres per year and
around a 14,000 to 16,000 head feedlot.
They must have done the appropriate analysis to have decided that it is
economically viable to make that investment, because it is not a small
investment. It is a big investment and
it is a long‑term commitment.
I would think anybody running a feedlot in
the last six or eight months has probably done okay because the market price of
finished cattle is really 10 or 15 cents a pound higher than it was over the
last two or three years, so it is probably doing quite well right now. But I would have to give them the credit of
having done their homework to make that decision.
Mohawk has been very cautious and careful
in their Minnedosa operation as they developed it and have done some research,
have done some internal expansion, and I would not think they would be making
an irrational decision in the joint venture in Lanigan, Saskatchewan.
We are limited in what we can do within
the department. As I said earlier, we,
involving I, T and T, Agriculture and Finance, have done some work along the
course of time, and we will work with anybody like the
I would caution all members to be very
careful that it is economically viable in the marketplace without a constant
government infusion or subsidy, because the ability of governments to always be
there is certainly in question in the future, more so than it has been in the
past.
Ms. Wowchuk: Earlier on, during the budget stage we talked
about the tax forgiveness of 4.5 cents going down to 3.5 cents, and when I talked
about that being a discouragement to produce ethanol, the minister said, no,
that was not a discouragement. What difference will that reduction of a cent a
litre make on the Mohawk plant? Will
that cent a litre make a difference in their operation, and will it be a
discouragement for other people to produce ethanol?
I ask the question because I am just not
quite sure what the difference is.
*
(2025)
Mr. Findlay: I think the appropriate person to ask is the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), because that is where those kinds of
decisions, those tax decisions are taken.
It is not a promotion to produce more, obviously, but I would have to
think that the impact on Mohawk is probably relatively minimal now.
You know, in the start‑up phase and
the development phase, they probably, I know when we came into government, I
think it was two and a half cents a litre, and we raised it up to the
four. I would have to assume that along
the way there was some discussion that said, okay, we do not quite need the
whole four, and we can live with a little less.
That would be my assumption, but I think if you want to get more
specifics, the minister involved with taxation is the one to ask.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just leaving that issue alone for now, under
the Economics branch it talks about reviewing Agriculture policy and the third
line of defence. There have been people
who, in other provinces, have asked that the third line of defence come into
play because the needs of the farmers are not being met by the marketplace.
I want to ask the minister whether he has
done any encouragements, whether he feels that the third line of defence should
kick in at this time.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, along the way certainly we
have talked about first, second and third line of defence. When we were in negotiation on provincial
cost sharing on second line of defence, I can tell the member that it was not
an easy discussion. It was prolonged, it
was difficult because, when the discussion started that we should share equally
with the federal government, eventually we got them to pay 41 percent and our
25 percent on premiums instead of 50‑50 on deficit. We are at 35; they are at 65. But in the final analysis I got a trade‑off
that the federal government would be fiscally responsible for the third line of
defence. That is on the record back two
or three years ago.
Certainly, since then the federal
government has kicked in money like FSAM I, FSAM II, third line of defence
money that helped the start up phase of GRIP and NISA. The policy ADMs, over the course of the last
couple of years, have had it as an item of discussion at meetings, federal‑provincial
meetings of ministers. It has been on
the table for discussion, but to say that the federal government is trying to
avoid having anything in writing about a formula that kicks in regularly would
be an understatement. They do not want
to have something that kicks in automatically.
Although in the process of discussing second line defence, we wanted it
there as a backstop in case of some disaster.
The member talks about some provinces
needing additional help, and over the course of the last two or three years I
have constantly been using the figure of realized net income. In the late 1980s, it averaged around $365
million a year. It seemed to be enough
realized income that farmers did not make big money, but, you know, a lot of
farmers had black bottom lines and got on with farming the next year. So it was reasonably good. Our realized net income in 1991 dipped to
$158 million, which obviously had an impact in rural
*
(2030)
So, Madam Chairperson, the figures for '92
and '93 would indicate that Manitoba is right around the average of $360
million per year realized net income and would indicate by and large things are
about where they were in the late 1980s which was $360 million as a reasonable
figure. GRIP here is targeted, is
predictable. It is individualized. I think that is leading to some of the income
stability in
Take
If you look at the figures for
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to move on to one other section and
that is the Farm Lands Ownership Board.
I raised it in another section, and I believe the minister said it had
to come under this section.
The report says there are 241 applications
made for exemptions in the last year.
What I want to know is: How many
exemptions are rejected? Are there many
rejections, or is just about every exemption that is applied for approved?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, in 1992‑93 there
were 243 applications for exemptions; five were denied. The member must realize that a lot of these
applications are made in conjunction with a lawyer and he knows the guidelines,
and if it obviously does not fit within the guidelines they will not make an
application.
Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, the minister says applications are made
with a lawyer, but what I am getting at and what some people have raised is
that the board has been weakened and there are very few applications that are
turned away. That is the point I was
getting at when I was asking how many were denied.
Have the regulations been loosened up to
make it less difficult to acquire land if you are not a resident in the
province? That is what I am trying to
get at. The minister says the
applications are screened more thoroughly by lawyers and these applications are
not made. I am just asking for
clarification if there have been some change in the regulations that make it
less difficult to transfer these lands.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, there has been no change
in regulations, no change in guidelines.
Madam Chairperson: Item 6.(a) Administration (1) Salaries
$100,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $23,000‑‑pass.
6.(b) Economics (1) Salaries $538,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $134,800‑‑pass.
6.(c) Boards and Commissions Support
Services (1) Salaries $332,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$204,800‑‑pass.
6.(d) Agricultural Research ‑ Grant
to the
Ms. Wowchuk: Just one question on this line. There has been a reduction in the amount of
money that is going to go for research, and I just want to put it on the record
that I feel that this is the wrong place.
I think that in the changing economy that we have and the need to, as
the minister so emphasizes many times, diversify our economy and look for new
ways to sell our products, the need for different new kinds of crops to be
grown, I think that we should be looking at increasing our funding if possible
in the area of research.
If we are going to have growth and enhance
our productivity and increase the farmers' ability to get an income from the
agriculture sector, then this is some place that we should be increasing
funding.
I know the minister has said earlier that
it is a small reduction, but I believe that this is going in the wrong
direction. I only want to put that on
the record to say that I think we have to enhance our research funds rather
than decrease them.
Mr. Findlay: What the member sees is Grants to the
Madam Chairperson: Item 6.(d) Agricultural Research ‑
Grant to the
Item 6.(e)
6.(f) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $35,100‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,616,600 for Agriculture, Policy and Economics, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Item 8. Income Insurance and Support
Program (a) Administration.
* (2040)
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Chairperson, a few
questions here. First of all with the
Sugar Beet Stabilization Plan, you are showing at $350,000, and there has been
an increase somewhere around $600,000.
Where did that money come from?
Mr. Findlay: If the member has a pencil, I can give him
the complex mathematics of this. The
total projected contribution of the province to the industry was about $675,000
for the '93 crop. The way the
stabilization has been funded year after year after year is that 75 percent of
the money goes in the given fiscal budget and 25 percent next year.
So in this year's budget we have 75
percent of that for the '93 crop and 25 percent from last year. Now, out of the contributions this year of
the $675,000, Industry, Trade and Tourism is putting in 1 percent and
Agriculture is putting in‑‑I am sorry, 1.5 percent from I, T and T,
and 3 percent from Agriculture.
Industry, Trade and Tourism puts their
whole 1.5 percent in this year, which will amount to $225,000. Agriculture, then, to put in our 75 percent,
requires us to put in $281,000 in this budget from the '93 crop, and the
carryover from last year, the 25 percent that we have to pay from the '92 crop,
amounts to $52 million‑‑I am sorry, $52,000. They would love $52 million‑‑$52,000.
So the required payment on our behalf is
$281,000 and the amount of‑‑
Mr. Gaudry: Is that new money?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, this is new expenditure. The $281,000 is new expenditure. That $281,000 plus the $52,000 takes us to
$333,000, and we have on the budget line $350,000. So the arithmetic works out that we have
enough on the budget line to deal with paying 75 percent of the 3 percent this
year and 25 percent of the stabilization for '92. The remaining 25 percent for this year will
come in next year's budget. That is the
way it has always been done, 75 percent in the crop year and 25 percent the
next year.
I can give the member the arithmetic
later, but that is how it works out.
What you see on the surface is not how it works in the end.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, I would appreciate for the minister to
give us the figures so that we have a record of that question that I asked, and
then we can look at the figures if somebody asks.
Another question‑‑I have to be
careful on this one here. It is the
Cattle Stabilization Plan, I see it has increased. The minister has been talking and been saying
that it is the highest price that the cattle producers have had for a number of
years. Why would there be an increase this year in the budget in that case?
Mr. Findlay: How the premium is calculated, the premium
that we have to pay as a province, the premium per animal was $8.10 for
slaughter animals, $4.85 per head for feeder cattle and $6 a head for cow‑calf.
The premium is driven not by the market
price but by the number of animals that are enrolled. I think the slaughter cattle, feeder cattle
plan as an example, every quarter a person is required to put in his inventory
and make his premium payments ahead of time, and we are required to match those
premiums. We match it and the federal
government matches it. So it is a third,
a third, a third.
So the more cattle that are on feed or the
more cows that are having calves and the more feeder cattle in the system the
more premiums we pay to the farmers and the more we have to match. Now it is
obvious that it will not be a payout in the existing period of time because the
cattle prices are so high, well above the stabilization price.
So the money that is paid in goes either
into the plan and sits in surplus or pays off any old deficit. The
Mr. Gaudry: The minister mentions that it pays out old
deficit, but he mentions that there is a surplus in all of it. So if it pays out old deficit, there is not
any, the money stays there in the fund?
Mr. Findlay: The slaughter plan had been in deficit up
until very recently and with the premiums paid in over the past, I guess, two
quarters really, I would think, have brought it into a very small surplus. The cow‑calf plan has never had a
payout because calf prices have been very strong for many years, six, seven,
eight years, so it has built up a fairly sizable surplus.
*
(2050)
Mr. Gaudry: Could the minister explain the one for the Hog
Stabilization Plan? Does it work the
same way?
Mr. Findlay: The Tripartite Hog Plan was in small surplus
in '86; surplus at the end of '87; surplus cut in half by the end of '88; into
a sizable deficit at the end of '89, some $26 million in the name of the
province; $16‑million deficit at the end of 1990; $15‑million deficit
at the end of '91; and almost $21‑million deficit at the end of '92. Currently, the figure as of April 1 of '93
puts the plan in deficit to the tune of about $14 million; that is on behalf of
the province only. It does not include
the federal part.
The overall Hog Plan nationally is in hock
for $100 million; that is including all provinces, federal and provincial
deficit components. So it is in the
largest deficit of any of the tripartite programs but, if hog prices turn
around for three or four quarters, it can very quickly get peeled down or put
into surplus through the payment of premiums on an ongoing basis. The plan will balance out by the end of 1993.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, the next question is on the Bean
Stabilization Plan. We show a big decrease
there of $180,000, which it says "represents the white bean component of
the Bean Stabilization Plan now covered under GRIP." But as we look at the GRIP program, where
there has been a substantial decrease, how do you expect to cover this $180,000
under GRIP?
Mr. Findlay: A fair bit of discussion culminated in a
decision about 14 months ago, particularly with regard to white pea beans. The tripartite plan was $45 million in
deficit nationally, a sizable deficit, and called by the federal government
bankrupt.
A lot of discussion took place about what
to do. Some people wanted to increase
the contribution from governments beyond the 3 percent, which was the max for
contribution in all the tripartite programs when we went into the
programs. The end result of that
discussion was to roll white pea beans into GRIP for the '92 crop and coloured
beans rolled into GRIP for the '93 crop.
So what you see there is the money to pay
out any indemnities for the coloured beans for the '92 crop. For the '93 crop, all beans, all categories
are in GRIP, and that decision was made in conjunction with the pulse growers
association a little over a year ago.
Mr. Gaudry: My last question would be on the Tripartite
Onion Stabilization Plan. The minister
says that they have withdrawn from the program.
What is the purpose of withdrawing from that program?
Mr. Findlay: Again, decisions were taken approximately a
year ago. Onion growers came to me and
said, you know, we have a surplus in our plan and it might be a good time for
us to terminate the plan. We would
prefer to be in NISA rather than in NTSP.
One principle we operated on is if you are in NTSP, you cannot enroll in
NISA. They said, we will voluntarily
withdraw from the program if you will concur as a minister, which I did. I said
no more NTSP for onions, but they would be eligible for NISA. It was a request of the growers to do that,
and we felt it was timely and appropriate to do it because I think all NTSP crops
eventually will be in whole farm stabilization which looks like it will be
NISA.
Madam Chairperson: Item 8.(a) Administration $506,300‑‑pass.
8.(b) Tripartite Cattle Stabilization Plan
$1,441,100‑‑pass.
8.(c) Tripartite Hog Stabilization Plan
$6,402,000‑‑pass.
8.(d) Tripartite Sugar Beet Stabilization
Plan $350,700‑‑pass.
8.(e) Tripartite Bean Stabilization Plan
$95,600‑‑pass.
8.(f) Tripartite Lamb Stabilization Plan
$150,400‑‑pass.
8.(g) Tripartite Honey Stabilization Plan
$127,100.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Chairperson, could the minister give us a
small explanation of the decrease in the Tripartite Honey Stabilization Plan?
Mr. Findlay: The premium request is basically the same as
what we talked about earlier. It is less
volume expected to be involved and requiring premium contributions by us, plus
a small decrease in premium on the national level, a small decrease in premium
and less volume or less honey on which the stabilization premiums will be
called forward on.
Madam Chairperson: 8.(g) Tripartite Honey Stabilization Plan
$127,100‑‑pass.
8.(j) Net Income Stabilization Account
$12,136,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $21,209,400 for Agriculture, Income Insurance and Support
Program, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Item 9. Lotteries Funded Programs (a)
Agricultural Societies Grant Assistance (1) Operating $274,900‑‑pass;
(2) Capital $99,000‑‑pass.
(b) Keystone Centre Grant Assistance
$150,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $523,900 for Agriculture, Lotteries Funded Programs, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
At this time, I would ask that the
minister's staff please leave the Chamber and we will revert to item 1.(a)
Minister's Salary.
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary.
* (2100)
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess I want to just go
back to a few things that we have talked about in these Estimates and what we
have talked about in many of the questions that we have raised through Question
Period, that being some of the positions that the minister has taken, or lack
of position, to stand by farmers, Manitoba farmers who have asked for the
minister's position, asked the minister to stand by them on the whole issue of
barley sales.
They have asked for a plebiscite. They asked that the minister would lobby for
that, and they have asked that they could have a vote here and, if the federal
government will not allow it, whether the minister would arrange for a vote in
We also have concern that the minister has
not taken a position on the whole issue of method of payment. Farmers, again, in
I would ask the minister if he is prepared
to change his mind on these issues, whether or not he is prepared to stand with
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, we spent, I think, several
hours talking about these two issues over the course of time. I have tried to give the member for
I said to her over the course of our discussions,
particularly this afternoon, that she is focusing on a small portion of the
overall question of being able to survive in the business of producing cereal
grains and exporting them. I think it is
very critical that the member for Swan River understand that, whether it is 5
or 10 or 15 percent of the issues which she is focusing on, I am trying to draw
attention to the remainder of the issue, and that is that over the course of
the last dozen years the costs have gone up to the farmer from the farm gate on
and have been passed back to the farmer.
Most of those costs have doubled over that
course of time; whereas, the value the farmer is getting for his wheat and
barley has dropped in half. She seems to
refuse to accept that reality, and I do not think farmers can put up with that
any longer. She says status quo, stay
where you are, and I do not think farmers can put up with that for another 10
or 12 years of facing higher and higher costs, because the system will not
respond in a process of efficiency and the farmer has to accept less and less.
Governments, whether it is
The regulated system, as we told her this
afternoon, is cost base plus, cost‑plus, and it is just passed on to the
farmer. We used to have that kind of
surplus in our system. We could afford
to pay those but those years are over.
They were over about four or five years ago, and we have just been
pushed to the wall over the last few years, and we cannot carry on like that.
That is the big question, and I am
surprised she will not support me in that.
She is saying, let everything stay the way it was. It is quite okay that the farmers pay more
and more and more and accept less and less for their product. I do not accept that. I will not put up with that, and I will not
stand still. I will continue to argue the question that everybody from the farm
gate on has to do a better job. They
cannot just cost‑plus and pass it back to the farmer.
The farmer cannot live on $1.50 barley, he
cannot live on $2.50 wheat. I think the
member knows that, but she will not address that. She says leave things as they are, they are
okay. I say they are not okay. The whole
question of being economically viable in the grain industry by exporting raw
products is under challenge. I think it
is very difficult to see, well, if we can carry on in the next 10 years like we
have in the last 10 years.
Farmers have done all they can within the
farm gate to be efficient, keep the costs down, and I say beyond the farm gate
I have not seen the kind of results that we are going to have to see in the
future.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, the minister says we cannot live with
$1.50 barley and low‑priced wheat, and I agree with that. Farmers cannot live with that, but the
actions that the minister is taking, there is no proof that by going to a
continental market, by changing the method of payment, we are going to increase
the return for the farmer.
In fact, what we are told and what farmers
believe and what farmers have asked the minister to listen to them on is, they
feel that this is going to be additional cost to them and a lower return for
farmers. That is the part that the
minister is not listening to farmers.
Farmers believe that they‑‑and the member says I listen to a
handful of people. Well, I will tell
you, it was not a handful of people that spoke out against the Carter
report. All farm organizations have
spoken out against that recommendation.
Madam Chairperson, the minister is, I believe, not listening to farmers.
For that reason, I move, seconded by the
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that the minister's salary be reduced to
$10,300 because of the Minister of Agriculture's (Mr. Findlay) refusal to stand
with Manitoba farmers who are opposed to the recommendations in the Carter
report and the minister's refusal to lobby the federal government to hold a
plebiscite on how barley should be sold to the United States.
Motion presented.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Chairperson, I
am outraged at that type of an amendment, not as outraged as I would be if they
had moved it to a dollar, but I cannot believe that the NDP would move a motion
like this with respect to one of the best, if not the best, Agriculture
ministers in all of Canada.
Madam Chairperson, what we have here is a
wish to assassinate the character of an individual minister of the Treasury
bench. I say that not in a spreading of
aspersions of character mode; I say it in the fashion that we have some
skulduggery at work here by the NDP in attempting to draw out the ending of an
Estimates which I say to them is unfair.
*
(2110)
I have been listening from a distance to
some of the Estimates that have gone on in this section over the past several
days. I have heard the barley issue
discussed and I have heard, of course, the change in method of payment and I
have heard some of the other areas, and I guess I am troubled. I am troubled particularly by the view that
is brought forward by the NDP and the critic, the member for
What we have as portrayed by the comments
of the member for
An Honourable Member: Hey, I remember when it was 14.
Mr. Manness: Sure‑‑the days when I cannot
imagine that there would not be a farmer that did not make a significant
contribution by way of income tax to the wealth of the nation.
I can say to the members opposite, I wish
those days were back. I wish the days
were back when indeed we farmed on average 600 or 700 acres of land, and those
of us who were two sons and a father farmed 1,000 acres and yet that kept three
families, and when the communities were such that the schools were large in a
relative sense, although they were not as large as they were in the '50s, but,
nevertheless, you still had community schools.
I would love to have those days back but,
Madam Chairperson, a lot has changed over the course of the last 20 years, and
I do not know, and I have had various debates.
I think I have had debates with members of my own party and have called
into question what technology has done for our industry and, indeed, the advent
of significant new inputs, higher levels of fertilization.
As I was telling my sons the other day, I
can remember when fertilizer came onto our farm and we started loading 80‑pound
bags and it took them out of an old trailer and I had to lift those bags and
took the bags out of a trailer and walked along, in our case, a disker‑‑[interjection]
No, and 10 tons of fertilizer on a farm was an awful lot‑‑an awful
lot.
Then it went to 50‑pound bags, but
all of a sudden we were handling 40 tons of fertilizer in 50‑pound
bags. I tell my sons that that is the
way it used to be, and they kind of look at me like just the way I used to look
at my father when he used to tell me how tough things were in the '30s, but‑‑[interjection]
No, no, this is the truth. As a matter
of fact, we had the discussion on the weekend in my own family.
The reality is the technology, and it has
changed and the impact it has had on our industry. Of course, when people say, and I listen to
the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) who day after day after day
brings some selective statistics forward and will say, well, manufacturing is
failing. The member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid) will say, look at the job loss in the transportation industry.
I will say‑‑[interjection] Well,
I cannot argue with some of those numbers and I do not try to. I do not try to. I take some peace from the fact that same
type of trend is happening almost everywhere in the western world‑‑everywhere
in the western world. I cannot think of
one area where it is not, where it is not happening.
Nevertheless, I look at these economic
growth numbers and I say, well, why is it?
Why is it that the nation is supposedly going to do better in the next
year? I realize in the previous years it
used to be NDP‑type governments, and some of them not even NDP
governments, but I say NDP‑type governments, that would buy the economic
growth numbers.
They would go out and buy them by
borrowing money, lots of money, but that is fine. We do not have the opportunity to buy those
numbers, yet when you study the last 20 years in agriculture, this industry has
made a tremendous contribution to economic growth over the last 20 years.
Why?
Well, of course, we know why. We
are growing, instead of 25 bushels‑an‑acre wheat, some of us are
growing 45 bushels‑an‑acre wheat, and of course tremendous volumes
of export, tremendous impact on the railway industry. I look at the member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid). Tremendous impact on the agri industry,
fertilizers, anywhere you want to look, trucking industry, all the way around.
Yet our industry today is employing fewer
people. The net profitability around the
farms is less today than it was ever in the years of the '70s, and the rural
population just continues requiring larger farms. We bring forward greater amounts of
technology and we are going nowhere quickly.
Quite frankly, we are going nowhere quickly.
Yet I listen to the member for
An Honourable Member: Let farmers have a say.
Mr. Manness: Let farmers have a say. Well, we understand how the game of ag
politics is played. Let governments have
a say. Let those that grow five acres of barley, let them have a vote.
An Honourable Member: Oh, now, now.
This is not what it is.
Mr. Manness: Of course, what the member is not saying
is: The reason that we want to have a
plebiscite is because we are going to go back.
When was the last plebiscite we had, on rapeseed canola or granola as
the former member for
I miss that former member for
An Honourable
Member: You mean Tories.
Mr. Manness: Well, I do not know. I dare say, a lot more canola in the past has
been grown in the area of
An Honourable
Member: Democracy is scary.
Mr. Manness: No, democracy is not scary. But on what basis would you have a
plebiscite? I mean, I can remember when
Andy Anstett said, no referendum because we are elected to make decisions.
Where is Andy now? I think some of the members opposite were
asking.
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Manness:
So I know why it is the member for
* (2120)
Any change from the status quo has to be
considered very, very carefully, and I know nobody is more aware of that on our
side than the Minister of Agriculture.
So when the claims come, whether they come out of southern Alberta or
they come out of the southern portions of our provinces, that we would be much
better off to engage in a freer type of trade of barley, that first of all has
to be listened to, but secondly it also has to be put into the proper context,
and thirdly, it has to be understood as to the impact it might have on the
Wheat Board.
I can tell you, the members in our
government understand that fully, because I for one, as I have said publicly,
you have got to be very careful when you are moving into and you are trying to
quickly move product into the next jurisdiction, in this case being the United
States, and what reaction there might be if indeed the government does not have
clearance or, secondly, the Wheat Board, your major trading agency in
exportable grains is not a full and willing partner. Of course, I am impressed to this point that
the Wheat Board has slowly but significantly increased exports of durum wheat
and to a larger degree of barley, and I dare say I look at what the Pools are
doing with respect to special contracts with malting barley. Nobody can deny‑‑[interjection]
That is right, but I am talking now
specifically of malt barley where the Pools are tied in with Anheuser‑Busch. You see the niche markets that are there and
how it is that the Wheat Board, the Pools and UGG and others are taking
advantage of them, but they are doing so, in my view, on a thought process that
will lead to steady but sustainable growth, and that is important.
So when I hear the member, and indeed her
Leader, rail on a day‑to‑day basis like they did two or three weeks
ago against this government and this minister, I say to her, she is off base
badly because she is not representing the total economic views of the province
of Manitoba, because there is no substance behind her rhetoric‑‑absolutely
none. I am as aware‑‑I have
spoken to the directors of Manitoba Pool.
They have made me aware of the concern, and so they should. I know they have spoken to the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), and they are aware, as is their right to do. But I say to the member, she cannot close her
mind on any of these issues because to do so is to force us to be locked into
prices, 1992 at $1.50, for the rest of the decade, and indeed just leading then
to quicker rural depopulation.
So, Madam Chairperson, then where do we go
from here? I have been listening
carefully to the change in the method of payment, again, a crucial issue to
this province. I say to her, as I have
said to the farm community, an issue as crucial if not more crucial to the
province than even to the farm community, because this is not a farm community
issue, this is a
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Manness: Yes I can, because the well‑being of
this province was based on agriculture, and the institutions that are in place
in this city are as a result of agriculture.
The transportation systems that are in place are as a result. So this is more than just an ag issue. This is indeed a full provincial economy
issue, and the Minister of Agriculture is aware of that more than anybody in
this House.
So, Madam Chairperson, I say to the member
for
Madam Chairperson, we are well aware that
there are some agendas in place, that some provinces want to move more quickly
than others. There is another province,
and I believe our sister province to the west, Saskatchewan, I do not know how
they have come over the course of the last few weeks but, certainly, when
basically you have not had the success of diversification, as the province of
Manitoba has, and you realize that your historical well‑being has been a
result primarily from the production of wheat and that there is going to be a
change coming along potentially, you can understand why that province has to
also look at it very seriously in its own best interests.
But so does Manitoba because, as troubled
as I am, and I have shared this with my colleague and close friend the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), I do not always trust what the motives are behind
the Alberta decision to want to change sometimes. I know that the
But I cannot turn my back and neither can
members opposite from the fact that today the cash buyers of our grain are
west. The cash buyers, I mean, can you imagine?
And this is why I do not get‑‑and the members accuse me of
getting tied up in ideology. I do not
get tremendously tied up in ideology as I look around the world.
I look today, and today who is putting
cash on the barrelhead to buy my wheat?
Who is doing it? Well, of course,
So I am not tied up in this ideology. There is a different type of communism that
exists in that country, but the reality is, they will put dollars on the
barrel. Yet, the members opposite do not
recognize the change in flow of grain, and I say, this government realizes, and
it is something that we have to deal with.
So what do we do when, indeed, we have
buyers south of us and a much lower cost of transportation which may then take
the transportation flows different directions?
Do we ignore them, or do we hold ourselves captive to the western drift
through the mountains? [interjection]
The barge system, is that what you are saying? That's fine.
The member says, lose jobs, but can he put the billions on the
barrelhead that communist
An Honourable Member: You do not care about the communities?
Mr. Manness: Well, I am saying, do you not care about $6
billion?
An Honourable
Member: I care about my
community.
Mr. Manness: You see, I wish it was a perfect world and we
could have it both ways. The member
says, do you not care about my community?
Who dropped the fuel tax three cents a litre? You know who I was thinking about?‑‑his
community.
An Honourable Member: Name one job you saved.
Mr. Manness: You tell me how many jobs Eugene Kostyra was
going to create in the defeated budget of 1988 when the fuel tax was going to
go from 13.5 to 15.5 cents a litre. You
tell me how many jobs are going to be saved in that measure. You know what, I would say to the member of
Transcona (Mr. Reid), the same answer, not one.
So, Madam Chairperson, we are talking
about the method of payment, because it is a crucial issue. I say to my NDP colleagues that it is such an
important issue that we will do what is right for this province. Not to do so is to fail not only the people
who vote for us, but indeed all Manitobans.
*
(2130)
I take some greater feeling of
satisfaction that at least now there is an understanding that there is a change
coming. That does not mean that we
should not fight for the best possible terms around that change. It does not mean that we should not, for once
and for all, get this pooling arrangement with the Canadian Wheat Board, try to
have it factored out. We have more
realistic costs associated with transporting grain west as compared to east.
I say to the member, if she is going to
just take the NFU line on this, and dig in‑‑[interjection] No, I
can support the NFU on a few measures, but not in sticking their head in the
sand and not wishing to deal with this issue.
I can remember when Jean‑Luc Pepin
reported, and at that time $650 million was the value of the Crow benefit. I can remember, I asked people that I knew
very well who were helping him, I said, well, is inflation not going to
diminish that right to zero? We have
these inflation rates at 10 percent a year.
Is that not that going to dilute right away in time? They said that was the best we could do. We could not get an indexing factor in
there. It was the best we could do.
I did not accuse the people that I knew
who were Liberals at the time, who were helping Jean‑Luc come with that.
An Honourable Member: Liberals?
Mr. Manness: Lots of them.
By the way, they were D. L. Campbell Liberals, and that is a little
different.
An Honourable Member: What is a Liberal, Clayton?
Mr. Manness: Well, I do not know what a Liberal is, but I
know what an NDP is, stands for nothing and will fall for everything.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make,
Madam Chair, is that we can see that with rapid inflation that the Crow benefit
was going to erode very quickly, potentially within my‑‑well, a
while before the end of my lifetime, but still within my farming lifetime very
quickly.
So the members opposite, who always were
strong supporters of inflation, by way of their monetary policies that they
support, I say to them, some action has to be taken because I see what is
happening today. Nobody has to look any
further than, of course, the co‑operatives, look at the rationalization
that is happening with respect to grain handling points, and indeed the co‑operative
movement within the distribution of agriculture goods, you just have to look at
the consolidation that is taking place within the farm machinery area and you
see that there is great change ahead.
Where are we going to be left? Those of us, of course, who are today two‑thirds
and maybe a little less subsidized by way of transportation or the existing
legislation that is in place, where are we going to be left?
I say to the members opposite, whether you
want to look at it purely from your own self‑interest that farming a few
acres of land, or a lot of acres of land but still in the context of
agriculture a small holding, or whether you want to look at it as a policy
maker, the most crucial issue of our times from an agricultural and a
provincial point of view and one that has to be dealt with, but has to be dealt
with an openness of mind that will allow us to make the right decision. Not the one that necessarily or at all the
federal government or Charlie Mayer wants us to make, not the one that the
province of Alberta would expect that maybe we would flow in behind them, and
certainly not the one that maybe the province of Saskatchewan with the special
issues surrounding their agricultural situation to follow, but indeed the
province of Manitoba. It is crucial.
I would say to the member, that is the way
this government has looked at it and that is why I find it at times kind of
ironic that the members are calling upon the government to take the lead. Show us where you stand. But that is what they want. They want us to
show us where they stand, because we know wherever we stand, they will want to
be on the opposite side. That is a given.
An Honourable Member: Well, you do not have any position, you are
being like the Liberals.
Mr. Manness: No, not at all. Change which is inevitable, but not
necessarily the change that is going to destroy a system that has brought such
tremendous benefits to our people. I
think that is a pragmatic view and I would hope the members opposite,
particularly the NDP, would share it because it is crucial.
Today, as I talk to farm leaders, I think
there is a growing awareness and understanding, and I do not say it in a
negative sense. I will even take it back
and say, a growing desire to open up to the consideration of the elements
around the change that is going to come in one fashion or another. Once we access all the elements around
whatever is coming, let us make sure that we make the best decision,
collectively, because the whole generation of agriculture is going to be very
dependent upon it.
Madam Chairman, I will now end, I see my
light is flashing, but before I do, I just want to pay tribute to the Minister
of Agriculture, who I think has led this province so well in such an important
sector within our economy.
Thank you.
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): It certainly gives me
great pleasure to be able to rise and put a few comments on the record on
things that we have heard in debate and questions asked by the opposition
members, both the NDP opposition as well as the Liberal opposition, in regard
to agricultural issues. It is
interesting to note some of the areas that they targeted as being the main
points in the questioning of our Minister of Agriculture.
Let me first of all say, Madam
Chairperson, that I concur with what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said
a few minutes ago, that I do not think that there is a Minister of Agriculture
in this country that could stand to the ability of our Minister of Agriculture.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
I believe that our Minister of Agriculture
has not only played a key role in developing farm policy in agriculture over
the last four or five years, he has in fact been the leader and played a great
role. History will show that the farm
community is better off because of his input in determining ag support methods
during this difficult time for agriculture in determining how their future will
be maintained.
When one looks at today's needs and when
one listens to the NDP opposition and also the Liberals and the questions that
they have put on many of the issues, one has to wonder where they get their
information. One has to recognize where
this whole thing started, how world trade has evolved over the last 40, 50 years
and how trade was established some 40, 50 years ago, and how we deal with trade
today. One must recognize that there
have been tremendous strides made in bringing the world closer together. In
fact, they can talk to each other today virtually at liberty. They can
communicate with each other in the written form virtually at liberty, and they
can do so instantaneously. Prices can be
quoted from desk to desk no matter where you are in the world instantaneously.
When you recognize that 40 or 50 years ago
those kinds of things could simply not happen and the need to establish
institutions such as the Wheat Board, such as the Board of Trade, such as
commodity exchanges, such as transportation agencies and many of the social‑type
net institutions that were established some 40 or 50 years ago to protect in
large part the individual producer from the large corporations and how they set
or were able to set prices to the individual out in the field‑‑that
is why, of course, the prairie Pools were established.
*
(2140)
That is why the Pool elevators were built,
because the farmers determined that they needed a say themselves in the
marketing of their grains and the establishing of the prices. That is why the
Canadian Wheat Board was established some 40 or 50 years ago, to ensure that
the individual farmers on the prairie in an era where there was virtually no
communications, where there was no ability on a daily basis to determine what
the prices were, where there was no ability to, on a daily basis, determine
what the prices were, where there was no ability for an individual to search
out and target markets virtually at the drop of a hat either by fax
communication, telephone or any other means of communication that we use during
any time of day today.
But during that period of time, we needed
to establish institutions such as the Canadian Wheat Board, such as the grains
commissions, such as the transportation agencies to ensure that we were not
only treated fairly but were able to guarantee that the prices that we were
going to get were pooled, averaged and the general market trend of the price
would be paid out to the individual producer.
That has all changed, Mr. Acting
Chairperson. I can today phone my friend
across the line in the
Yet there is a tremendous amount of
hesitancy on the other side, and they are, I believe, in a large part directed
by a handful of people who are intent on maintaining control of the
masses. That, of course, has always been
the socialist philosophy. Do not allow
the freedoms of the people; do not allow the decision making of the individual;
maintain it for the control of the few to manipulate and control the
masses. Those are true socialistic
philosophies, always have been.
Therefore, I suppose I can somewhat
understand why they are so paranoid about an individual being able to search
out a market to the best of their ability and satisfy themselves that that is
where they want to market their commodities.
Now, was there a need at one point in time
to prevent or ensure that the prices that were established without the ability
to communicate at some point in time were maintained? Yes, there was. Quite clearly there was. However, in today's day and age, I question
whether individuals should not be allowed to market for themselves.
Now what should we be discussing? What should we really be discussing in a
forum such as this, those of us that have the ability to make some decisions
and have a great impact on some of the decision‑making processes that are
set in place today and some of the price‑determining factors that we face
today internationally?
I refer to the EEP program that the
Our government agency, the Canadian Wheat
Board, of course faces that kind of opposition or competition, unreal,
government set, by policy. Some giant
countries have established and maintained and set my price for me. Be it a real competitive price? No. It
has nothing to do with the supply and demand situation in the world, absolutely
nothing. Yet I, as a farmer, face those
economic distortions that are put in place by people like yourself, sitting
there saying, we should not allow the individual the freedom.
Here we are arguing whether individuals
should be allowed the freedom of the marketplace or whether we should in fact
take advantage, Mr. Acting Chairperson, of a market situation that has, in
large part, been determined by the American government. Our farmers are only
looking at the tail end of the marketplace and saying, we can come in back of
them, under them and compete in a very real way in their own marketplace behind
their export policy. That is exactly
what our farmers are looking at. That is
the advantage they want. That is what
they are asking for, many of them.
Instead of having to haul a bushel of
barley to the elevator, instead of paying the freight that they will never use,
instead of paying elevation charges to elevator companies that should be
nonexistant, the elevation charges that they will never use, instead of paying
all that, they should be allowed the freedom of making the choice as to where
their commodities, where their grain should go.
That is all they are asking for.
That is all those individuals are asking for. They are saying, let me go; untie my hands
from the eternal socialistic powers; I want the freedom to market myself; and I
want the freedom to move, to get the best price in the marketplace.
Here we are, with our socialist hordes on
the other side wanting to maintain and control and manipulate and keep me in
poverty forever. Mr. Acting Chairperson,
I say to you in all honesty, all my people want is to be let go. All my people want is the freedom to market
their commodities for the best price they can get. They want to be allowed to use the system
that the Americans have set up for their export program, to be allowed to take
advantage of the markets that are being created in the
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Let us have the freedom of choice. Let us have the plebiscite. You are afraid to give them choices in
*
(2150)
Mr. Penner: Yet the Leader of the Opposition stands there
and waves his hands and wants to maintain the control of the marketplace in a
few hands, like all good socialists have wanted to.
Now, we can talk about the
marketplace. We can talk about the
transportation system. I guess the
transportation system was very similarly set up, Mr. Acting Chairperson, to encourage
not so much the movement of grain out of western Canada. It was set up in large part to open up the
West, to allow the exploitation of the raw renewable resources that western
In other words, we would develop the food
basket. That is why our transportation
policy was set the way it was set. This
was done some 40 or 50, 60 years ago.
Should we maintain the same process, the same policy without reviewing,
without questioning the needs? Remember
this was before the tandem truck. This
was before the semitrailer. This was
during the horse‑and‑buggy days.
I hear the honourable member for
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
We are today in an era where
transportation is done by diesel truck, is done by jetliner and it is time that
we looked at renewing and setting new policies and new direction. We should look at the ability, we should look
at the economics, at the possibility of setting an economic base that we did
not have before.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) wants to start talking about Sunday shopping. That is, of course, typical of him. That is typical of the honourable Leader of
the Opposition because he does not know the difference between a bushel of
wheat and Sunday shopping. I would
suggest that if he would really study agriculture he would know what the
difference between a horse and a bushel of wheat is. He would also realize what the makeup of a
horse is.
We have talked about commodities and the
marketing of commodities, whether they be horses or whether they be cattle, and
we set up for many of the commodities during the course of history because the
need of the day was there, the single‑selling desk‑authority of the
Canadian Wheat Board. I know that there
have been many people who have been proponents of single‑selling‑desk
marketing for all the commodities, yet it is interesting to note that during
the mid‑'70s there were those who said we should put canola, then called
rapeseed, under the Canadian Wheat Board.
There were many that said that.
Of course, we did exactly what the honourable member is saying now, what
the opposition is espousing, we held a plebiscite. We voted.
We chose whether the Canadian canola producers or the rapeseed producers
wanted to market under the board or not, and we said no.
There were those who said at the time,
that think similar to what the socialists now think, that thought that canola
would go the way of the do‑do bird, that it would simply disappear. Yet canola‑‑rapeseed‑‑has
been one of the fastest, biggest expanding markets in all the world. It is a commodity that is treasured by the
Japanese, by the Europeans, and now over the last five years, since the
Americans recognized that canola was actually an edible oil, not just an
industrial oil, we are expanding a market that is virtually limitless.
I believe that canola in the
Let us look at the lowly lentil. We have the ability, Madam Chairperson, to
expand and diversify the economy of this province to virtually a limitless
potential. [interjection] If the honourable Leader of the Opposition would ride
his canoe the way he rides his ship in this House, I doubt whether he could
keep the canoe afloat. I wonder
sometimes whether he can actually keep his ship afloat in this House. I think there are some rough waters there at
times. I think there are some rapids
that he is going to have to cross. I
wish him luck, by the way, in navigating his rough waters over the next while.
I want to continue. If we would establish today a single desk
marketing agency for lentils, for instance, and lentils is a very new market in
this province. There are a number of
other products that are just coming onto the market which I think will have
tremendous opportunity for expansion in western
I believe there are tremendous market
opportunities that have been missed because large agencies, large central desk
agencies, simply have not got the time and the energy to devote themselves to
the little niche markets that are out there that can be expanded into the
larger market. Yet we sit here in our
cynical way and become protective of the things that we have done simply
because we are afraid to look at new and innovative ways of doing things.
*
(2200)
I suggest to you, Madam Chairperson, that
the members opposite, in dealing with the small group of people‑‑by
the way, I talked to one of the leaders of one of the larger farm organizations
in this province and asked him why they had taken the position on barley
marketing the way they had because I had just finished reading the Carter
report, and I did not read into the Carter report what they had first of all in
their initial statements said. I
wondered where they had got their information from.
You know what the response of the leader
of the organization was? We had not seen
the Carter report before we commented on it.
I think that is sad. I said this
to the leader of that organization: I
think it is sad when an organization such as yours makes comment in not
supporting, or either supporting or not supporting, an issue without having
taken a look at what the report said and not knowing what was in the report
before condemning it. I think it is sad,
whether it is politicians or farm leaders, who take those kinds of
positions. I would suspect that they
might change their mind if they had their druthers.
However, politically they are as we
are. Once they have taken a position, it
is very difficult for them to change their position. Therefore, they are where they are. Therefore, their position is going to be
maintained, I believe, but it is, in my view, a sad comment.
My question to farm organizations in
general is very simple. Who do you represent?
Do you represent the interests of the individual producer that is your
member, or do you represent the interest of the institutions that the members
either own, operate, or operate on their behalf? Who do you represent? Who should you be the spokesperson for?
I say to you that the farm organizations
that abandon the individual needs of their own producers will go the same way
as some of the other farm organizations have gone in this country because they
become politicized, and they become institutionalized. Once they become that, they become also
ineffective.
I would suggest to the members opposite
that there is a farm organization that still pretends to be alive in this
province that became very politicized over the years. It is not effective at all anymore, not
effective at all. Nobody listens to them
anymore. Nobody wants to listen to them. Yet we should listen. We should listen very
clearly because many of the farm community are sending a loud and clear message
and they want to have the right to make the determination to stay alive, simply
to remain viable. Remaining viable today
means two things. It means that they
have to know how the economic situation needs to be managed on their own farm,
and they need to know how and where to market to the best price. That is the only thing that will keep them
there.
Now, much of what we have discussed so far
today has been many times established by government policy. The American Export Enhancement Program is
not a farmer‑run or farmer‑developed and is not even a farmer‑supported
program. Many of my American friends
that I talk to would like to see the Export Enhancement Program go. However, can they? In spite of what the Europeans are doing, can
they? The American politician says
no. They say, no, we cannot. It is after all the cheapest way to maintain
food commodity prices on the shelf at a very reasonable level. It has nothing to do with moving great globs
of commodities into export positions. It
has everything to do with government policy and food pricing policy within a
given country.
The Europeans do it, and the Europeans
made a very conscious decision not to let their population go hungry
again. It was a very basic
decision. We should not fault them for
that. Yet, it hurts you and I. It hurts every other country in the world,
and until we bring some sanity into the marketplace and get politics out of the
marketplace, we are going to be faced with the situation we are faced with
today. I think there must be at some
point in time leadership shown, and I think the time is now to show that
leadership, and I think we must move forward, although cautiously, but we must
move forward. That means simply to allow
individuals the right to make decisions on their own, and we must allow the
agricultural community to determine their own destiny. We can no longer, by
government policy, sit there and control everything. You cannot do it.
Madam Chairperson, we have in many ways,
whether it is through supply and demand, through supply and management or
through the Wheat Board or through the transportation policy, manipulated and
controlled agriculture. I say to you
that the period of time has expired, that farmers will start making their own
decisions. Whether the government allows
them to or not they will, and that does not mean what the opposition member
said‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Chairperson, on a
point of order. It is standard practice
in the House to recognize the parties in rotation. When the Chair recognized two Conservative
members in a row, I did not rise on a point of order that time, but this is the
third Conservative member in a row. There are members on our side that want to
speak to this which is our own resolution.
I think it is only common courtesy in this House, as well as standard
practice, to allow a rotation between the various different parties in
speaking. I would ask that I be
recognized.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): On the same point of
order, Madam Chairperson. We are in a
section of the Committee of Supply and the long‑standing tradition, as I
understand it, is whoever attains the eye of the Chair, and indeed I understand
a number of us have over the course of the last hour indicated our willingness
and desire to speak. I do not know if
you have a list, but if you do, I would think that many of our members are on
it, as is the tradition within, not the House, but within a section of the
Committee of Supply.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. On the point of order, we indeed are in the
Committee of Supply and speakers generally are recognized as they are seen by
the Chair of the committee. I indeed had
recognized the honourable member for
*
(2210)
Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I challenge your ruling.
Madam Chairperson: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
The question before the House is, shall
the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
All those in favour of sustaining the
ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: I request a recorded vote, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: The rule is very explicit. The hour being 10:11 p.m., pursuant to Rule
65(9)(b), I must defer the vote on this motion until the next sitting of the
Committee of Supply in the Chamber when, pursuant to Rule 65(10), it will be
considered as the first item of business.
* * *
Mr. Pallister: I thank the members opposite for their input
on this issue. Especially, I would like
to thank the member for
In my recent experience in this House I
have had occasion to ask for the help of a number of other members on this side
and the other side of the House on rare occasions. I have gone to the Minister of Agriculture on
several occasions for input and he has been most supportive of my efforts, a
very helpful individual and one who I believe has the sincere best interests of
all Manitobans at heart, certainly the farmer in this province.
A recent study that I read regarding rural
population trends said that there is one single factor that is of the greatest
significance in terms of the likelihood of rural young people staying in their
own communities. That single attitude
over and above all others, that single characteristic over and above all
others, was the attitude of the parents.
So I would like to today make some reference to my own background in
terms of my agricultural background, being a farm boy as it were.
[interjection] Thank you.
I believe that I am possessing of some
traits that are good and perhaps some that are bad, as do most of us, but the
good ones I think I can attribute to my farm background and in particular the
attitude of my parents, grandparents and so on. So I would like to give you
just a little bit of historical background if I may on the Pallister family
farm.
First of all, we are particularly proud of
it in our family. I think it is worth mentioning because of the fact‑‑as
the member for
In my own family situation, my great
grandfather and grandmother came to the
They were facing a great number of
challenges as farmers in what had hitherto been a relatively uninhabited
land. I think that ability to rise to
challenges is a very crucial aspect of farm life today and has been for
generations, the willingness to accept the challenges that being in a family
business poses is integral to the success of, not just farmers, but other
business people as well.
We are looking forward to a celebration in
our family in a few years here in the sense of a century farm celebration. That is something that farmers in
The importance of treating other people as
you yourself like to be treated is a lesson that I have learned, and I think it
is one that has a great deal of validity in this House, although sometimes I
wonder if we follow it. Certainly,
treating others as you would like to be treated is a difficult thing in the
environment that we are in here, but, nevertheless, it is one that I believe
would benefit the goings on in this House tremendously, if we tried to live by
that. I think the member for
Another valuable lesson that I learned was
something my grandmother always used to tell me when I got negative or slipped
into petty criticisms, as I hear sometimes opposite. I always remember her saying to me, Brian,
you know, it does not make your own candle burn any brighter when you blow
somebody else's out. I think that is a good lesson, just common sense.
Another lesson I learned on the farm, and
it has been reinforced throughout my life, is a lesson of honesty and the
importance of being honest and straightforward with other people. I want to relate a story to you of my
grandfather. My grandfather was a very
honest man. You will like this, the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) will like this because
he likes stories about human beings‑‑[interjection] Well, maybe
not.
Anyway, I was just relating to the House
that my grandfather was a very honest man.
In fact, one day he was out putting up sheaves, forking the sheaves up
onto a wagon. He was very good at
it. In fact, the man he was working with
said to him, he said, you know, Harry, you are a tremendous sheaf thrower. You are very, very strong. At this time the load was built up very, very
high, as is often the case with loads built up on the opposite side of the
House, I think.
In any case, it was built up very high,
and the fellow, the friend of my grandfather, said to him, Harry, I will bet
you that you could throw a sheaf right over that load, completely over onto the
other side. Well, my grandfather, being
a humble man as well, said, well, I do not think I could. Well, the fellow persisted. He said, no, Harry, you are a big strong
sheaf thrower. I will bet you could
throw a sheaf right over top of that load.
Oh, I am sure I could not, Grandpa
said. Harry, he said to my grandfather,
I will bet you a nickel‑‑and at this time of course a nickel was
big money, you know, prior to the NDP being in power. It was a nickel, it was worth something. He said to my grandfather, I will bet you a
nickel that you can throw that sheaf over that load. Well, my grandfather reared back and he did‑‑lost
a nickel. He paid it, too‑‑honest
man. You have to think about that. That is deep.
*
(2220)
So what else does farm life teach us? I think it teaches us about
entrepreneurism. We talk a lot about
that these days in
My mother is fond of telling us that she
taught us to be entrepreneurs, my brother and sister and I, because she taught
us‑‑well, she had us milk cows.
We had to milk those cows and then carry the milk in from the barn, have
it separated and so on, and then take our little pail of cream to the creamery
and get a buck‑12 for it, or whatever it was. Of course, she then took the money and put it
towards our education. We never did see
it till later. But she taught us, being
an entrepreneur, she taught us the value of saving for later, too‑‑foresight. I think that was a good lesson as well. Farming teaches us some of those lessons.
I think another thing I learned on the
farm was the value of a good education. We
had a country school in our area. It was
a two‑room school. I guess one of
the most valuable lessons I learned was if I misbehaved at school I was going
to get disciplined at home.
I remember one day in Grade 7. I will never forget it, actually, because I
was a good young man most of the time, but in Grade 7, I conducted myself badly
one day in school. Unfortunately for me, I got the strap. When I got home, I got it again. The lesson you learn there is that discipline
does not begin in the school. You may
get discipline in the school, but it is most important to get disciplined at
home I think. I did, and it drove me
certainly to tears getting that kind of discipline.
An Honourable Member: It drove you to politics.
Mr. Pallister: It drove me to politics, no. I do not think we can give it all that much
credit.
When you are living on a farm, you learn
about nature. The member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli), I am sorry she is not here, because I know she is fond of
talking about sustainable development‑‑[interjection] Oh, I am
sorry. I do apologize. She may well be here. The member for Radisson is fond of talking
about sustainable development and such.
I think the chance to learn about that starts very early when you are a
young person on a farm, because you become one with nature right away. You become acquainted with birth.
When I was probably only about 10 years
old, I remember my dad calling me out to the barn to help a calf be born. Pulling a calf is something that a farm boy
will never forget. I would be interested
to know how many of the members opposite, or on this side, for that matter,
have ever pulled a calf. It is quite an
interesting‑‑
An Honourable Member: Yes, yes, I sure have.
Mr. Pallister: Yes, or milked a cow even. When it is 98 outside in the summer and you
are milking a cow and the cow flips its tail and hits you right in the face,
these are things you will never forget when you grow up on a farm.
The other thing you learn on the farm
about nature I guess is the changing of nature and of the seasons. Certainly you are part of that. I think very much your life is shaped around
those changing seasons.
An Honourable Member: . . . the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) is in favour of that.
Mr. Pallister: Certainly, he is in favour of the changing of
the seasons. That is good. It is important to try to change what you can
and accept what you cannot. I guess we
learn that on the farm as well.
You learn about death on the farm,
too. We had a cattle operation, and certainly
we lost our share of calves and cows over the years. You learn that nothing is forever. You lose your pets, and you lose your
livestock occasionally. Of course, you
see the crops that you plant in the spring grow, be born basically, and then of
course be harvested and die in the fall. You learn to accept and appreciate
those types of things as being the natural course of life.
I think another thing that is very
valuable about farm life is that you begin to understand teamwork. Teamwork is a very important thing. In the old days‑‑[interjection]
The member for Morris (Mr. Manness) was alluding to the old days and horses and
so on.
I was asking my grandmother a few months
ago, I said: Grandma, what did you need to have a good team of horses; what was
it that comprised a good team of horses?
She said: Well, Brian,
essentially you needed to have two things; you needed to have strong horses
that would pull in the same direction. I
said: Well, that makes sense, of course,
they have to pull in the same direction or they are not going to be a very good
team.
What is the second thing? She says, you have got to have good
leadership because one horse has to lead.
I said: Well, how do you tell, grandma,
who the leader is? She said: Brian, the leader's tugs are always
tight. They never, ever shirk the load.
I think that is a good lesson here. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay). I see the work, conscientious
effort that he puts in. He is a person
who puts in long hours, dedicated to his task, sincere in the pursuit of the
goals he has for the betterment of
Another thing that I learned as a boy,
actually, was a very important lesson.
One day‑‑I would be about 11 years old I suppose‑‑my
dad and a crew of men were out tearing down an old log barn out in the
yard. I went out to watch these fellows
work in the summer sun. It was a tough
task and a very sweaty job. I was
watching them for awhile. My dad took a
minute and came over and stood by me. We
watched these fellows tearing down this log barn.
I looked up at dad and I said, dad, that
must be an awfully, awfully demanding, difficult task to tear down a barn like
that. And he said something I will never forget. He said, son, it is easy. We can tear down in just a week what it took
your great‑grandfather almost half a year to build up. You see, son, the building is what is
hard. Building is a very difficult
thing. Tearing down is very easy.
But petty criticism is something that I
have learned over my years of experience on the farm and in business and
professional organizations, it is something that is very, very common and it
certainly takes no skill. I hear a lot
of it opposite. I hear a lot of
pointless criticism, pooh‑poohing and nay‑saying, as you will, but
not leading to anything, and I find that very disappointing, and certainly it
is one of my greatest disappointments since coming to the House. The lack of well thought out and rational
debate from members opposite is something that seems to‑‑well, it
brings me a certain amount of frustration, I must admit.
You know, I have been very fortunate in my
life. I have been able to travel
extensively. I have been to 21 different
countries in my life. I have toured each
one of them fairly extensively, and I have yet to see the statue of a critic. And do you know why? Because it takes no skill, none whatsoever.
What is difficult is to build, and
building is something farmers understand because they do it on a daily
basis. They know that petty criticisms
and negative thinking will not make a good crop. It will not produce a good herd of
livestock. It will not make you a
dollar. All it will do is make you
frustrated and disappointed. Farmers
are, by their very nature, builders, and generally speaking I would say they
are optimistic people as well.
I would like to comment for a minute if I
could on my brother, Jim. Jim is a
person I have great admiration for. Jim
is a farmer, and he is a person whom I have great respect for. He is a person
who basically‑‑
An Honourable Member: How much land does he farm?
Mr. Pallister: Well, I will get to that. He is a person who applies himself very well
in whatever he pursues, and certainly with farming there is no exception. I think he sets a good example certainly for
me and for other people in the business.
I am very proud of what he has done.
He is a fellow who is very fortunate
because he had the support of my father to get himself going. My brother borrowed money on the home place
to get himself going and expand. He is a
person, my brother, like many farmers these days, who understands risk. He understands that without risk there is not
likely going to be profit, that without being innovative, there is not likely
going to be success. Certainly he takes
the risks that entrepreneurs tend to have to take to be successful. He has gone into the special crop area. He has expanded and he has expanded very
successfully. I certainly want to
mention him because I am very, very proud of him.
An Honourable Member: What is he growing?
Mr. Pallister: Well, he has gone into some special varieties
of semidwarf. He has gone into lentils,
and certainly he is one of the most proficient growers of lentils in this
province and an example of a person who has benefited himself certainly but has
also benefited his neighbours, very free with his counsel, advice. He has acted as a consultant and supporter to
his friends in the area. This tends to
be the way things happen in farming, I think.
There is a multiplier effect that happens. Certainly when I refer to semidwarf,
I am in no way referring to the member for
*
(2230)
I must relate to you a little story about
my brother that I think you will find amusing, and it is the truth. Jim was a few years ago wanting to expand, and
he wanted to hire some people. He put an ad in the paper and he got some
applicants. He was interviewing them,
and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will find this interesting because it is
a true story. He had a couple of fellows
come to the farm and he pulled in one of them at a time to interview them. The first fellow came in and he said to him‑‑Bill
was the fellow's name‑‑he said Bill, what exactly are you looking
for in this job. Bill says I am looking
for five weeks so I can go on UI. Jim says,
my goodness, he is out the door.
The next fellow came in and he says, so
what are you looking for Tom with this job working on my farm? Tom says, well, I understand you kicked the
last fellow out for saying that he was looking for five weeks for UI, but I
must be honest with you and tell you that is kind of what I am looking for
too. Jim says, Tom, I appreciate your
being so forthright but listen, I will tell you what. What are you looking for for
compensation? Tom has been through this
before and he looked at Jim and he says, well, Jim, what do you offer? Jim says, Tom why do you not work with us for
a couple of days and we will pay you what you are worth. I cannot possibly live on that, Tom says.
You know, this is the problem with a lot
of people. They want to get paid a
tremendous income but they do not want to work for it. I think that is disappointing and certainly I
do not think you can hide when you are a farmer. I think you are going to get paid based on
ability and initiative, certainly being innovative, all of these things have
their rewards, and there you have it.
I think another thing that is very
important to relate is the fact that in my business career I spent a dozen
years or so working with family farms and principally helping them with their
estate planning and so on. My mission,
if you will, was to help keep the farm in the family. Generally speaking that is a very, very
important thing for family farms. They
want to see that farm stay in the hands of their offspring and see their
children continue to operate in a successful manner the farm that they had
handed to them in many cases.
I think it is of interest to relate what
happens in certain situations when farm estates are not planned properly, just
because of the fact that it does indeed jeopardize the desired goal of family
farms. I know of one situation in
I tell you this story just because it
shows you what happens with poor planning.
I think it is ultimately up to the farmer to plan well, no one else, not
the government, not anyone else. The
consequences of poor planning are borne by the family farmer and the family
farm who plans well or does not plan well, that is as it should be.
Another example is a situation that
happened in Rathwell, where a widower, he was 68 years old, passed away and
when he died, my friend, his son, lost a partner, a mentor, trainer, coach, his
best friend, and two‑thirds of a farm.
What happened there was that dad had a will that said everything goes
three ways‑‑to my son and my daughter and my son that farms. So what he had to do then was he had to buy
out his brother and his sister who had not been on that farm for years and had
no real pecuniary interest in it.
I tell you that story again to illustrate
the fact that planning is up to the farmer and up to the family, not up to
anyone else, and that the lack of planning again can have disastrous
consequences.
The other example I give you is a
holographic will that I read one time. I
met with a couple and they gave me their documents and their information.
[interjection] A holographic will, a handwritten will. I was doing some work in the office that
night. I pulled out this holographic
will and I was reading it. It said
something along the lines of this. It
said, the land to Bill, and the china to Joan, and cattle herd and the
equipment to Tom, and the collection of spoons to Ruth. You know, what you have there is kind of an
imbalanced situation, I think.
So I was looking at this. I was very touched by this imbalance in this
family's estate plan, if you would call it that. I turned it over and here on the back of it
was written a little inscription in mom's handwriting, and it said, not to be
opened until you are all together, and no fussing or fighting, we did our
best. We love you all. God bless you all, Mom.
Well, you know, it was kind of pathetic
really because how can you not fight? I
mean you are really hoping for kind of divine intervention to intercede with
this family in the total unfairness of what had happened there. In this case, there was over $800,000 in
assets going to two boys, and the dishes going to the girls. I mean there is nothing fair or right about
that.
What family farms strive to do in their
estate planning is to have balance among the children. Fairness is thereby created and that is the
goal.
I think the big thing I have come to
realize over the years of having the privilege of working with farmers in
I know in talking with my dad a few years
ago‑‑I developed a rather detailed presentation to explain farm
estate planning in a graphic manner, leaving the farm to the kids and keeping
the bank out of it and lots of wires and mirrors, you know, Revenue
I spent about 25 minutes showing this to
my dad and after I was done I said, any comments, dad? You know, I was quite proud of this
thing. He says, well, son, two
things. First of all, you remember that
stack of bails we had in the yard there when you were a boy. I said, sure, yes. He said, we did not give all them bails to
the cows the same day. In other words,
he is saying, keep it simple, keep it concise.
I said, what is the second point,
dad? He took my pen and he did something
I will never forget. He took my pen and
on this chart with all these lines and mirrors and bubbles and stuff, he just
took it and he drew a big heart. I said,
what the heck is that, dad? He said,
son, most farmers do not care about anything except that the kids get along
after they are gone. That is all they
care about. That is exactly right. It was so simple in its elemental truth.
What we have here is, I think, an obvious
point that the family farm is an entity of business, yes, and of profit, yes,
but it is an entity of caring and love and family support as well, and I do not
think the government needs to get too involved with that, because I think that
is something that is between human beings more than any official entity.
The very real fact, though, is that there
must be a profit in order for there to continue to be a family farm, but the
existence of profit is something that I do not think we can create
artificially. I think it is something
that is created by the individuals involved in the operation.
We have gone from an era‑‑we
have changed greatly in our society, and certainly agriculture is no exception
to that. We have gone from a high labour‑oriented
type of business to one which is certainly much more intellectually
challenging. My brother, in fact, was
accosted by a friend of his a few years ago and he said, Jim, I saw your truck
outside the trailer at 11 this morning. Now
what the heck were you doing in there?
This is shameful for a farm boy to be inside at 11 in the morning; this
is in the springtime. And my brother
said‑‑he related this to me‑‑he told his friend, why
the heck should I be out in the field doing $5‑an‑hour work, when I
could be on the phone doing $40‑an‑hour work?
See, this is how farming has changed, I
think, over the years. The recognition,
with the technology and the advances we have made in agriculture, there is the
opportunity for far greater profit than was once the case. I think that certainly more and more
entrepreneurs are recognizing that.
I would like to conclude, Madam
Chairperson, by saying that certainly in
An Honourable Member: 4‑H?
Mr. Pallister: I was going to talk about 4‑H, and I
wish I had more time because I could tell you a few stories about 4‑H
that I think you would find mildly interesting.
Certainly our chamber of commerce has set up an agriculture
committee. I take a little bit of credit
for initiating that, and I think that is a good opportunity, too, for farmers
to get their issues out front, to get them brought forward onto a provincial
stage, if you will, and take advantage of the lobbying power that there is
there. Farmers have not been historically as strong in voicing their views as
perhaps some other groups, and perhaps the chamber of commerce is one avenue
that they can use to do that.
* (2240)
I think an issue that all of us who care
about rural Manitoba share, and one that is shared by most of the farmers I
have talked to, is the desire to keep the farm not only in the family, but to
keep their kids in the country. I think
I will just close by saying that rural repopulation is something I think we
need to pursue. Perhaps it is something
that is going to happen naturally as more and more people in our busy, harried
society recognize the quality of life that there is in the country, the peace,
the tranquility, the opportunity for greater family closeness and for better
relationships to be built up between family members.
Certainly, in closing, Madam Chairperson,
I would just like to say that living on the farm and growing up on a farm,
having the chance to meet and work with so many farm people in my life, has
given me an attitude. It has shaped me,
and my attitude is one of admiration for those who live in the country and make
their living there, an attitude of appreciation for the strengths that are
inherent in living in rural
Thanks for the opportunity, Madam
Chairperson. My pleasure.
Mr. Bob Rose (
Normally, I would say it was a pleasure, except
I am a bit disappointed at this opportunity that has afforded itself this
evening, because we are speaking to a motion that is proposed by the honourable
member for
I guess because the honourable member and
I were rookies in the House at the same time and both from rural areas, we have
perhaps developed a little rapport over the two or three years, and I would
hope a little mutual respect. I
certainly respect the member for
She does not take the opportunity very
often to try to turn it into a political sideshow, and I appreciate those kinds
of things. I think the member for
I say all those things just to set the
groundwork for the point that I am a little disappointed that I have to stand
this evening and speak to this motion, because I really did not believe that
the honourable member for
Really in her heart of hearts, I think she
probably believes, as I do and as I am sure my colleagues on this side of the
House believe, that our Minister of Agriculture is underpaid and, in fact, I
think we could say that about all ministers of the Crown, but this evening the
topic is the salary of the Minister of Agriculture and so I am going to talk
about our minister.
As a previous speaker pointed out, we have
been very fortunate in
He brings not only to the debate in this
House and to the leadership of the Agriculture department in
An Honourable Member: You are right.
Mr. Rose: I am right, as the honourable member points
out. I think when we recognize these
things we will understand that this motion, this ill‑timed and ill‑advised
motion by the honourable member, certainly needs to be defeated.
If anything, the Agriculture minister
deserves a raise for the kind of contribution that he has made to our province,
and to agriculture and to our country.
I think it is interesting to note that
this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has served for five years in that
capacity without any increase whatsoever in his compensation as a cabinet
minister. I suspect that there are very,
very few people in
So I believe, Madam Chairperson, that this
resolution is ill timed and ill advised but, unfortunately, has been brought to
the floor, so it is our responsibility as representatives of our constituents
to debate the motion.
Earlier on, I believe it was the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), in his excellent contribution to the debate, was
talking about how things used to be on his farm in Morris when he was a little
younger, and he was just first using fertilizer and it all came in 80‑pound
bags. It made me think back, and I have
to admit that I am just about 20 pounds older, I guess, than the Minister of
Finance because when we first started handling fertilizer it was 100‑pound
bags.
I got thinking back to some of those
things that have happened and how things have progressed and how things have
changed. We hear change referred to very
often in this House and the lack of the ability of the members across the way
to recognize change. I was interested
earlier by the presentation by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) when he was
suggesting that the member for
That struck a cord with me because earlier
on today we were debating a motion on the Ayerst expansion in Brandon and how
we were able through the modern technology and through the forward thinking of
this government to expand an industry that uses a by‑product or a waste
product of a horse and turns that into a valuable economic commodity.
Oddly enough, this resolution that was
recognizing that great contribution and forward thinking that is taking place
in the industry. In
I could not help but think when that
member for Emerson was talking about the horse‑and‑buggy days that
perhaps the member for
* (2250)
Madam Chairperson, I spoke earlier of
being reminded of how things used to be and thinking back to my early days when
we were, again, grain farming and we were looking for a secondary industry of
some kind. At that time there was the
Canadian Wheat Board which had been in existence for a number of years and has
gradually, in my mind, done an increasingly better job of marketing our
product. But at that time the markets
for wheat were very, very poor across the country, across the world, and the
farmers were able to produce literally thousands of bushels more than the Wheat
Board could market. It was quite routine
for a year's quota to be three or four or five bushels an acre when in fact we
were producing 25 or 30 bushels to the acre.
So in those days, as I suggest we should
be doing now, there was some ingenuity and some hard work took place, and
across southern Manitoba developed a seed industry because we discovered that
the Americans with their support program that was in place at that time were
able to buy our seed wheat at a lower price than they were getting for their
own product hauled directly to the elevator.
So, as I said, there was an entire industry developed across southern
It gradually expanded into
As I said earlier, it was not free trade,
but it was an indication of what can happen when there is an opportunity to
trade between countries. It was a
business that developed in and across southern
Also, Madam Chairperson, it provided a
market for our product. It was a typical
value‑added operation, because we took the product that we grew in the
field, processed it, treated it, cleaned it, bagged it, tagged it, had it
inspected and shipped it across the line.
So it was a value‑added operation, and it was really, as I said, a
marvellous example of what can happen when people with ambition and ingenuity
recognize a market and are prepared to work hard to take advantage of it even
though, of course, as I say, it was not exactly free trade in the true sense,
but it was trade between countries.
It was a recognition that given the
opportunity, people are quite prepared to try and compete, which, of course,
Madam Chairperson, is what is lacking in some of the debate in this House, is
the lack of recognition that Canadians or Manitobans specifically are not smart
enough or ambitious enough or intelligent enough or have a good enough
education or have enough capital to compete.
The entire notion of building walls around
our borders is based solely on the false notion that we do not have the ability
to compete with the rest of the world and that is not true. We do and we can and we will if we get the
opportunity.
I can remember also, as the industry
developed, the seed that we shipped out had to be inspected and certified seed.
The Canadian Seed Growers' Association
finally moved to the point, they made change‑‑if I may dare use the
word "change" when the opposition is listening to the debate‑‑they
recognized a change and they recognized progress and they recognized the fact
that it really was not necessary to have a good, high‑quality seed in a
bag. It was quite possible to have it in
the back of a truck in a bulk truckload.
So they made this recognition that this
change, this progress that we could handle certified seed in bulk rather than
have it go through all the work and all the added cost‑‑the bags
cost about, as I recall, around 22 cents apiece, which worked out to about 11
cents a bushel‑‑and made the recognition that this cost was no
longer necessary.
I suggest to you, Madam Chairperson, that
that is some of the things that we have been talking about this evening, that
is that if we do not take a look at change, if we do not challenge the way that
we handle our products that we take to market, if we do not continually and
constantly look for ways to improve and look for ways to become more efficient,
if we insist upon doing things the way we have always done them, if we insist
upon handling of the grain through the elevation system whether that is
necessary or not, if we insist upon charging transportation and doing
everything the old way whether it is necessary or not, we will eventually lose
our agricultural industry altogether.
Because as I say, when we made that change,
we had an interesting thing develop when the Canadian Seed Growers made the
change to allow us to use bulk certified seed, we were still exporting seed to
the
So I went first to the American Customs,
and I said, is there any reason why we cannot export into your country or for
you to import this same seed, the same cleaned, certified and treated seed,
into your country in the form of bulk rather than in a bunch of little
bags? They said, oh, no, sir, you cannot
do that. I said, why can you not do
that? The American Customs said, well,
actually, as far as we are concerned, you can, but it is the Canadian Customs
that will not allow that sort of thing to take place.
*
(2300)
I said, okay, and I went back to the
Canadian Customs, and I said to them, is there any reason why I cannot export
this seed in bulk rather than in a bag?
They said, oh, no, sir, you cannot do that. I said, well, why can I not do that? They said, well, we really do not have any
reason why you cannot do it but the Canadian Wheat Board will not allow you to
do that. I called the Canadian Wheat
Board, and I said, is there any reason why I cannot export bulk seed into the
So I phoned the Canadian Seed Growers'
Association, and I said, is there any reason why I cannot export this seed that
we are selling to the
The interesting part, of course, was we
went through all those government agencies and every last one of them were
convinced we could not do something, and when they got right down to the short
hairs, there was no reason for each of those government agencies in their
regulations to prevent it.
So I suggest to you, Madam Chairperson,
that we need to do more of that kind of thing.
We need to challenge the kind of notions that we have about what we can
and what we cannot do, and whether or not there are, in fact, real impediments
to allowing us to do some of these things, or whether, in fact, it is something
that we say we cannot do just simply because that is the way it has always
been. No one has ever really thought to
challenge whether we can do things in a better or a different or a more
efficient way and a more aggressive way.
I suggest, in my conversation about the
little history lesson about some of the things that happened to me years ago in
the seed business and in exporting to the States, that this was, I will admit,
very much confined to the southern part of the province simply because of the
transportation costs. The trucking costs
by the time we loaded these bags on and got to the market, the farther north
you went in the province, of course, the less able they were to compete because
they were much farther away from the market.
I was reminded of that during some of the
discussions in Estimates and some of the questions that have been asked by the
honourable member for
Well, that may very well be, but is it
better to say because it is not accessible or as accessible to us, you cannot
have it? Is it better to have all the produce that is grown all the way across
the southern part of the three prairie provinces given no access to a readily,
easily accessible market? Is it better
to have all that product go into all the other markets in competition with the
rest of the product that is grown across the rest of the provinces?
I do not think so. I think we need to examine every opportunity
we have. Every new market that we find
takes the pressure off the rest of the product that is grown across the country
and makes that product more marketable and perhaps at a higher price.
I am not for one moment suggesting that we
should, willy‑nilly, go to a continental barley market, but I think it is
extremely shortsighted and extremely blinded with blinkers, as we have been
using the horse analogy on more than one occasion this evening. We are doing it in jest and in fun, but there
is certainly an analogy in using blinkers and not being able to recognize. Unless we are prepared to examine some
options and unless we are prepared to take and look at some change, it is not a
position at all.
I heard the member for
He has been taking a stand saying: I am not ready to accept everything as it
always was and accept everything as it ever shall be. I am taking a stand to say that we must examine
every option that is available to us and we must examine the way we have been
doing things in the past and we must be prepared to examine the ways we may
change it.
That does not necessarily mean that you
have to come out and say, this is the way we are going to change it. It does mean that you do not adopt the
opposite stance by saying that because we are bound ideologically to some
particular belief, as the NDP seems to be, we refuse to examine any kind of
change at all.
Madam Chairperson, I had the pleasure just
last night of being only a couple of miles away from what I understand is the
fine farm of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). I am only sorry that I did not have time to
stop in and admire his operation.
An Honourable Member: We were picking rocks. Why did you not come over?
Mr. Rose: If I would have known you were picking rocks, I
would have certainly stopped in and admired that too, because I have developed,
over the years, a habit of being able to admire watching other people work a
great deal. I am sorry I did not know
that you were picking rocks. I did enjoy
a visit to
There was an interesting comment that I
made. My spouse and I were talking about
it, that we are fortunate in our political system to be able to have people to
represent us that actually are part of society and, in this particular
instance, as Minister of Agriculture, someone who actually does work and
participate in the family farm, a mixed family farm, as I understand. I think it is fortunate, as I said earlier,
that we have a critic in the first opposition that has the same kind of
background and the same kind of qualifications.
I have never been able exactly to define a
family farm to my satisfaction. We all
pay homage to the family farm and all agree that it is a great thing and it is
something that we certainly need to work very hard to preserve, but I have
never really had anybody define the family farm for me. I am not sure whether a family farm is a
quarter section with a few hogs and a few chickens and a few cows or whether a
family farm is a corporation with four or five family members who are
shareholders and farm two or three townships.
A family is a family is a family on a farm.
It seems that one of the problems, of
course, when we talk about family farms is that everyone creates a different
image in their own mind as to what that exactly is. I rather suspect that the image that the NDP
has would be to limit any kind of expansion beyond anything that was a bare‑bones
existence that anyone was so dastardly as to suggest they might try and make a
profit out of the operation and to expand their operation to accommodate that,
that would no longer be a family farm.
Is a family corporation a family
farm? I ask that question to the
honourable member. As I say, I have
never really had anybody define to me what a family farm is exactly, even
though we are all very much in favour of the family farm.
Madam Chairperson, could you tell me how
much time I have left?
I just wanted to close, Madam Chairperson,
as again I say I appreciate the opportunity‑‑in all sincerity, it
is an honour to take part in these kinds of debates even though we sometimes
treat them a little less than seriously, but I think most of us are conscious
of the responsibilities that we bring to this Chamber. One of the things that has interested me most
about the process is the Estimates part of the process. It rather seems, I think we would all agree,
that some of the time used in Question Period and in debating the bills in the
House does tend to become very political.
The Estimates process has impressed me
with the opportunity not only for the opposition members, but for the
government members as well, to get into actually conversation with each of the
ministers and with the process that I do not think the public really realizes
takes place. It is a process that is
probably the most valuable, in my mind, of all the processes that take place in
the business of governing a province.
*
(2310)
Again, it is disappointing to me that as
the process of the Estimates for the Agriculture department wound down and we
returned to the first item, that the member for
I believe that the agriculture industry is
as good or better than it could possibly be under the economic circumstances
that we are in today. I believe this
minister has worked extremely hard with the department that is growing more and
more complicated and more and more difficult to operate. I really believe, Madam Chairperson, that
this motion needs to be defeated and we need to not chastise or try to scold or
suggest that our Minister of Agriculture is not worth his salary.
It is just a shame that we are not able to
increase his salary, and I would certainly make that amendment, but I
understand that is not acceptable in the Estimates process to increase a
line. Otherwise it would be my amendment
that his salary would be increased.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Madam Chairperson, in
entering into this debate, I think one of the things that we too often forget
is the role of government and the long interrelationship there has been between
government and Agriculture, but there is nothing that puts it in more
perspective for me than a couple of graphs that I have recently been looking at
in conjunction with another project.
Particularly one from 1981 to 1991 that in
terms of how the graph displays the real income from the value of the
commodity, particularly the commodity of grain and oilseeds as compared to the
value that the agricultural community receives from government programs‑‑there
are a myriad of government programs, frankly‑‑it comes down to a
situation where you have about a four‑inch bar in 1981 that is now of
real income from the value of the product to about a bar that is about a
quarter of an inch high representing the amount of value that would be returned
today from the sale of agricultural production of grain and oilseeds.
It simply tells me that there are an awful
lot of changes ahead in agricultural economy.
In looking at that, I have to say that this government and this Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) have struggled long and hard with where this
agricultural policy is going to have to be in
I was involved in a debate last week with
environment ministers about the future of agricultural lands and what some of
the impacts may be if the GATT agreement is ever brought to fruition, or some
of the worldwide influences that we have on agricultural production and
particularly grain seed. We have a
fairly buoyant, more than buoyant beef industry and a fairly solid and
reasonably well‑financed pork industry right now, but obviously those who
are depending solely on coarse grains and the grain and oilseed market in
general have a far different set of dynamics to deal with, dealing with far
more than just what happens in Manitoba, or just what happens in western
Canada, but dealing with results of production around the world.
Madam Chairperson, let me quote from the
Financial Times, a commentator by the name of Giles Gerson [phonetic] whose
comments express his concern about where we are headed with the agricultural
commodity and some of the challenges that agriculture has to face.
His comments were this, that this
country's crazy and bloated farm support system has gotten way out of
hand.
Tie that to comments made by Hubert
Esquerel [phonetic], the present president of Western Wheat Growers, where he
talks about the fact that the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidizes
railways so that farmers can ship their grain to export more cheaply. It is a disaster from conservation and
economic diversification point of view.
I guess those are some of the questions
that I would like to pose in relationship to the debate about the agricultural
policies that this minister and this government have been working with over the
last five years, and where
We are probably fortunate, inasmuch as
just the natural land, temperature, frost‑free days, that we have in
I look across the way at my colleague who
has spent some considerable amount of time working in the rail business, and
understands, I think, the rail business fairly well. It is very interesting that we now find that
there are situations that arise that the railways, while they have a subsidized
system for transportation of grain, they now for competitive reasons will offer
other products that can be handled in the same manner as grain at a cost of
some $10 a tonne less than what they are probably charging the grain producer
for the movement of the grain, even under a subsidized program.
That starts to tell me that there are a
lot of inequities that are built into the system today, inequities that some
are historic as a result of the subsidies that I talked about earlier. Some are habit, virtually, inasmuch as when
the western Canadian economy was buoyant, the railways were saying to us that
they could not afford to haul the grain.
The grain was not being‑‑[interjection] That is right. It is all regulated, but they claimed that it
was costing them money to move the grain.
Today when they found that some of the
other subsidies are not moving as freely, all of a sudden the regulated price
for moving our grain is much more attractive and really is representative of
what can very well be the base part of the income, if you will, for our
national rail system, particularly in western
When I talk about what drives it, I talk
about the grain quota system that we have in place. There is not any grain farmer in the rolling
lands of western Manitoba at least‑‑it is probably less true in the
valley here‑‑who has not taken the opportunity to clean off what
might be habitat, some wildlife habitat, that might well have been something
less than the top three to four types of soil, therefore, erodable, less
productive.
But our system over the last 40 years, 50
years, has moved agriculture continually down that path. As we now review what is occurring on a
worldwide basis, we see the negotiations at GATT, we see the free trade
negotiations which are a very real part of our lives today, whether it is
agriculture or otherwise. We realize
that there is a real opportunity out there to take a look at agricultural policy
and where we can have the most net benefit to our society.
*
(2320)
I do not think at any time the
agricultural community has ever wanted to be dependent on taxpayers'
dollars. But when we see the comparison
of what real dollars are as compared to the subsidized support that goes into
the grain industry, we know that, given today's economy, that is a situation
that is not likely to continue much longer, certainly not for an indefinite
period of time.
We have a responsibility in government,
all of us, both in government and opposition, to address those problems as best
we can. I put it in this context. It is my opinion that if some of the leaders
of the industry and some of the government leaders had looked at the fisheries,
particularly the east coast fisheries, if they had looked at them in the light
that ministers of Agriculture today are looking at the agricultural industry,
and trying to chart a course that will get it away from its dependency on
government and taxpayers' dollars, its dependency on the good will of the
sometimes hard‑pressed taxpayer in this country, to keep it in existence,
then I believe that we would have not found ourselves in the very sad situation
that we have in the east coast fisheries.
I have developed a rather interesting
relationship with the Minister of Environment for
As a farmer and as a member of government,
I have to say that whether it is this government, whether it is the government
of
That is not hearsay, and it does not mean
that we all go running out tomorrow and sell our farms. What it means is that there is a real stake
for everyone in this country, particularly in western
Tie that back again to agriculture and look
at the pressures that are on agriculture to continue today to compete on what
is rapidly becoming a less than viable situation if our farmers cannot become
increasingly competitive.
I think they are becoming increasingly
competitive, but they can take this opportunity to probably benefit society and
benefit an awful lot of other concerns in society that we have never adequately
addressed before. We can start to
reverse the trend where governments sit and ponder about whether or not
additional Crown land should be brought under the plow, whether or not Crown
land should be added to pasture leases, whether or not Crown land should be
moved over to agricultural Crown for management. Those decisions will become increasingly
burdensome.
At the same time, there is a real
opportunity, as I said, to reverse a trend where there are certain parts of
this province where the biodiversity can be enhanced and, in fact, begin to be
restored to some of its former capability.
Now that may sound like a very good debate
for a debating society of senior and retired bureaucrats perhaps mixed in with
a few farmers, but the fact is, that is the kind of debate that an awful lot of
our agricultural community and governments are going to have to start entering
into now.
That is why I take such great offence that
there are those in our community who do not want to talk about the real impacts
of changing the grain transportation subsidy programs, who do not want to look
at whether there are options to our diversity of our crops, whether or not the
payment of the subsidy should go to the multinational or to the national
railway organizations or whether or not it should go to those who can make the
real decisions.
We have an interesting proposition from
the opposition. I can guarantee you that
the scenario that I pointed to a few moments ago about the real opportunity for
some competitiveness to come into grain transportation will have a more
dramatic impact on what it costs, the real costs of moving our product into
export positions, than almost anything else we might do. We have come a tremendous distance in
varietal research. The productive
capacity of our soils has been exploited and will continue to grow, but
productivity alone will not turn around the problem we have.
What today is a surplus of grain is
something down close, I believe, to 90 days or less, approaching 60 days they
believe that they can manage a surplus in world grain supplies. When I started into the business, it seems to
me that anything under nine months was considered a shortage, if you did not
have more grain on hand than what would be seen to be a nine‑month supply
for world feedstocks.
That is a simple function of technology
and communication capability around the world.
Combine that with a number of other factors, agriculture is today facing
the kind of decisions that I believe are parallel to the east coast fishery, as
I said a few moments ago.
If we do not have the vision, if we do not
have the intestinal fortitude to get into the debate about where we really want
to be in the next decade with agricultural production in this province, then we
will all suffer the consequences.
It will not just be the farmers that will
suffer the consequences, Madam Chairperson, because when we look at the western
population, we know that the influence of agricultural population has dropped
dramatically. In the dropping of that
population, they may have lost their voting clout, but they have not yet lost
their economic clout. Agriculture is
still a key component of western
In changing this, a lot of people have not
been willing, and I suggest including the members of the opposition, to enter
into the debate about opening up the real options that our farmers have
available to them. If we do not move at
a time such as we are presented with today, where GRIP is tied to crop
insurance, where if we have claims on it year after year we are going to see a
sliding level of support as all of the graphs indicate over what the‑‑it
will run in a parallel to a number of the other real value of production, a
number of real producers in agriculture today.
They are all on a downward scale.
There is one other item that is most
dramatic in all this. That is that we have now reduced an awful lot of our
very, very best agricultural producers in this country to where the most
profitable operations may well be the ones that have a significant percentage
of off‑farm income with which they support their personal income.
*
(2330)
I want to quote from Berny Wiens, the
Saskatchewan Minister of Environment, formerly their Minister of
Agriculture. He takes a view that I do
not agree with. He said this in great
sincerity so I do not necessarily criticize him for it, but it is a view that I
think we have to guard against. That is
the view that there is always going to be trauma associated with agricultural
income. There is always going to be a
shortage of income for those who choose to live on the land and use that for
agricultural production, and that is never going to go away.
Well, I take the contrary view in as much
as I believe we have an opportunity to seize the moment and to deal with the
question of developing our agricultural industry in a different way than it has
developed for the last century. That
changing of direction can well be tied to the type of production, the methods
of production, the products we produce, the diversity, all those things that
this Minister of Agriculture is doing, all those things that every jurisdiction
would like to bring to its own area for the wealth it creates and for the
opportunity it creates.
At the same time, I believe that we have a
real opportunity to benefit society far more than just getting agriculture
weaned off of the day‑to‑day costs of support programs. Because as we change the way agriculture does
business, as we change the type of agriculture that will evolve over the next
decade in Manitoba and across the prairies, we will see opportunities such as
we have not seen before virtually, I would suggest, going back well beyond the
'30s when we saw land that was taken out of production because of the ravages
of the weather at that time. But more,
taking it onto the plain that if we wish to seize the opportunity in
conjunction with the federal program, and a number of the federal programs that
are in place today, we can start to do something about the real cost of
agricultural production to our society.
I realize that this gets into the whole
debate about cheap food policy that a lot of people talked about in this
country, including the Farmers' Union, including members of the opposition who
talk about full‑cost recovery, who talk about support of the industry at
a level that would provide a decent rate of return.
But you know, when you start looking at
what is happening, we have to switch, because agriculture, much as I think it
is the greatest industry in this country, and I am part of that when I am not
in here, has got itself so dependent on tax dollars or tax exemptions, all the
way from the fuel to the insurance programs, to GRIP, to transportation
programs, to the Wheat Board programs, to the export programs. We have to get away from the view that that
is how we support agricultural production if the value of the product is going
to be driven by scarcity.
There are times in the last few years, and
probably will be times ahead of us in the next few years, where an awful lot of
this product could be imported into
I look at it in this sense, that there are
going to be a significant number of farmers out there who may well face
expropriation without compensation if environmental issues start to take over
in terms of how we deal with agriculture.
There are jurisdictions now that arbitrarily have said that on erodable
soils farmers may not allow cattle to graze down to the edge of a stream. That has to be fenced off. The fences have to keep the livestock more
than 50 feet back from the edge of the creek bed.
That is only the very beginning of the
type of constraints that could start the flow by society on agriculture if
agriculture does not seize the opportunity to start looking at the way it does
business on the land. One of the main
ways that we can influence that is through dealing with the programs that we
see encouraging the breaking of the land, the draining of habitat and putting
into play nothing more than a syndrome, if you will, that says produce and
produce and let the government do the marketing.
Now, most farmers who have thought only in
that single dimension have probably left agriculture by now. I think that we would have to recognize that
the people who are operating in the agricultural economy today have gone far
beyond that type of thinking. I suggest
to you that this minister has done more in the last three years in dealing with
the federal Minister of Agriculture and how we are now starting to think about
designing farm programs. So they do have
some of these other components in them.
The stage is now being set, and I believe
the opportunity is there for the agricultural community to take its own destiny
in its hands, because if we do not, and if we are afraid to enter into that
debate, whether it is north‑south movement of our grain, or whether it is
moving product out of the province in a value‑added fashion, if we do not
take hold of that debate today, then we will simply become, I suggest, the
equivalent of a third world country whereby we will have a vastly depopulated
area that will have an economic impact on cities like Winnipeg, Regina,
Brandon, Saskatoon, far beyond anything that most of us have anticipated. I say that in a very real sense in terms of
social cost.
The positive side of that, however, is
that there are literally hundreds of people who want to live in rural
That means that there is an awful lot of
land that is now being put under the plow, production of a variety of crops,
some of them inappropriate obviously, that would now be in high demand for
those who would have a different approach to agricultural life or to life in
rural Manitoba than what the majority of our farmers today would have,
including myself.
So I suggest that the opportunity to
examine something as fundamental as western grain transportation will have
these types of long‑term impacts and results in rural
So when we look at a map of
While you can develop all sorts of
opportunities around the use, the reuse and the expansion of value‑added
products related to what are traditional agricultural production opportunities,
there is a very real opportunity out there in rural Manitoba to do an awful lot
of things that will have a much different impact on the economy of our rural
communities, a very beneficial impact in terms of returning population, in
terms of enhancing and continuing the lifestyle that people want to have in
rural Manitoba.
At the same time I would be willing to bet
the farm that agricultural production will not drop, that the production that
we have today will be maintained on the quality soils in the quality
lands. We will not have anything but
positive spin‑offs from this type of change which is probably ahead of us
because we only need to look at a map of traditional population spread in rural
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
*
(2340)
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Chairperson, it is
a real pleasure for me to stand and speak on agriculture. I want to first of all say that I think our
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has done an excellent job in his term of
minister of a difficult department during very difficult times.
Since 1988, I think agriculture has come
through some of the most difficult times the farmers have ever faced in this
country. I think with the programs that
have been devised by our minister, with the help of our federal government, I
think are some of the best programs that we have ever had. I think GRIP, NISA, are far superior to any
other assistance programs we have had.
Agriculture in this province, by and
large, has always been an important industry and still is. In my area especially, in the Interlake area,
agriculture is one of the most important industries.
Although I think, in
If it was not for farmers producing the
goods and having to hire trucks and purchase repairs and things of that nature,
fertilizer, chemicals, whatever, the towns and villages would not survive.
So that is why it is such an important
industry that it needs to be maintained.
This government has certainly taken agriculture very seriously, and our
minister has done an excellent job for rural
I have been involved in the agriculture
business, I guess, in the farm machinery business and the agro business
probably 30 years actually now this year, from a fuel business to hardware,
fertilizer, chemicals.
In 30 years I have seen some difficult
times and many, many changes in the agricultural sector. [interjection] Full of
changes. We talked about the family
farms earlier today and I think the majority of farms today are operated by
family farms. They may be called corporations to some extent now, but still
they are family corporations and they are family farms.
Farms have certainly increased in size
though. When I first started in business
back in '63, you had a farmer on every quarter section, in some cases every 80
acres, or somebody living on the farm at least.
Today, you can drive around those same areas, and one farmer would
probably own maybe two or three sections, where at one time there might have
been 12 or 15 farmers on those two or three sections. Certainly, things have changed.
I am not so sure that bigger is better
necessarily. In order to produce more,
to try to cut costs, farmers had to expand and grow with the times. Farmers, I believe, are some of the most
innovative people you have ever seen.
They can find ways of doing things that nobody ever thought about. They can always find ways of doing things.
Some of the things that were talked about
this afternoon were barley, Crow rate and one thing and another. I was glad to see the honourable member for
If other companies want to sell directly
to purchasers in the
Just going back a little way in history,
back in the early '70s when the great railway debate was going on, I was
chairman of the rail line abandonment committee in the Interlake. At that time we were trying to protect our
rail lines. We did end up protecting two
rail lines until the year 2000.
In that, it has kept our rural elevators
open and kept our small towns viable, but in actual fact, I do not know if that
was the right decision. It seemed to be
the right decision at the time. I am not
sure if it was really, because in some cases I think it delayed progress. The railways still have not improved the way
they handle their business. They still
operate back 30‑40 years ago, as they did then. They have not come up with any new innovative
ways to build equipment and to change the way of handling their‑‑although,
hopper cars are a big improvement over the old boxcars, but certainly the
railways have not really modernized enough to improve the transportation system‑‑[interjection]
That is right. That is a good, yes. A number of years ago, when the farmers had a
big crop to move, we could not get any rail cars. The railways did not have any rail cars. Between the Canadian Wheat Board, the
I think that transportation certainly has
to improve, and the railways have to change and modernize and come up with new
and innovative ways to cut their costs and to trim their costs so that they can
compete with‑‑[interjection] Well, they have good staff, but you
will have to remember, the union movement and the railway system has been very
strong. I think that has kind of held
the railways back. They could not
operate with the controls put on them by the unions. That was one of the things. That is why they still have not transferred
to a modern‑‑
*
(2350)
An Honourable Member: So you blame all your problems on the unions.
Mr. Helwer: Pardon?
Well, I think there are better ways of doing it.
Certainly, I appreciate that workers have
to have a decent salary and they have to have the benefits and one thing and
another, but unions in most cases‑‑and the railway union is one‑‑have
held back the progress of the railways.
An Honourable Member: Do you think $30,000 to $35,000 a year is an
exorbitant salary?
Mr. Helwer: No, I do not think at all.
An Honourable Member: But that is what they make.
Mr. Helwer: I think if the railways did not have unions‑‑[interjection]
If the railways were free to do as they
pleased with staff, I am sure they would find new innovative ways with some
incentives and they would get the jobs done much quicker and much better and
the people who would be working for the railways would make more money
probably. Railways are important, but
certainly they have to modernize and improve the way they operate, and there is
certainly room for improvement in the way the railways do business.
Some of the other accomplishments that
this government has done for agriculture, for the farmers‑‑remember
before we took office farmers were paying the full school tax on their
farmland. One of the first things we did
was removed the school taxes from farmland.
[interjection] That is right, lower the cost of operation for farmers,
right.
I just want to talk about value‑added
for a little while. In
Earlier we had a great discussion about
the sugar beet industry and what it has done for
Then they built a plant here in
It is a great industry. [interjection]
That is right, there is transportation.
Yes, we just talked about that.
Kleysen's is an example. They
have been hauling the beets for the Manitoba Sugar company for over 50
years. That is quite an achievement for
a company to be involved with one industry for that length of time,
actually. So that is great, and I would
like to see the Manitoba Sugar even expand their plant, expand the number of
acres in
Last fall the member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner) and I had the pleasure of touring the sugar beet plant there. It is actually kept in very good repair. Even though it is quite old, they have
modernized. They have done a lot of
upgrading and the equipment is in excellent shape, actually. If we could get them to run a longer season,
even to refrigerate storage for beets like they have in
I just want to mention how agriculture has
improved and how sophisticated it has become.
I dare say, you would not visit a farmhouse today that does not have a
computer, that does not have a way of record keeping that they know exactly‑‑whether
it be in livestock industry or in growing grain, potatoes, sugar beets or
whatever. They can tell you exactly what
kind of a crop they have got off of that acre of land or when that calf was
born, how heavy it was, and all of these kinds of things. Hog farmers with their records today, with
the computers and everything else, they have really become much more
sophisticated in their record keeping.
At one time, farmers were noted for
keeping their bills in a shoe box and taking it to the accountant at the end of
the year, getting the accountant to figure out their income tax, whether they
made any money or they did not.
Those days are gone, I can assure you.
[interjection] That is right. Farmers
today are much more sophisticated and do an excellent job. We have some excellent managers out there,
great people who have really kept the industry going. [interjection] Well, that
is right. That is what built the
industry and today it is difficult for young farmers to get started, and either
young fellows take over from their parents or from their dad, one thing or
another.
We need more young farmers. We need young people to take over some of the
farmland from some of the elderly farmers. Unfortunately, our farmers are
getting older so they have to devise more ways to diversify and come up with
more profitable ventures so that they can keep the young guys on the land. That is the key and it has to be done by
diversifying.
I do not think we can continue to grow
wheat and more wheat. If the market is not there, if the subsidy has to be
provided to grow wheat, I think we have to find other alternative crops, sugar
beets, potatoes, diversify more into livestock.
Some of our feedlot operators have just come through one of the best
winters and one of the best years they have ever had. I dare say, I do not know how much money they
are making, but I know they are making money and even though they have had to‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. As previously agreed, the hour being 12 a.m.,
committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): The hour being after 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).