Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, will you call Bill 5, please.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 5--The Food Donations Act
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 5, The Food Donations Act; Loi sur les dons d'aliments, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and introduce for second reading Bill 5 to this House and recommend expeditious passage of this by all parties here in the Legislature this afternoon.
The mission of the Department of Family Services is to strengthen and support Manitoba families. We are there to ensure families have assistance and tools needed to be independent and to enjoy the quality of life we expect in our province. My department does a tremendous amount to achieve these goals, but at the same time we recognize and we realize that we cannot do it all alone. We must work with Manitobans, with the private sector, community organizations and individuals, and together we can form a network of support services that will be available to Manitobans in need. Mr. Speaker, as part of this commitment to partnerships, I believe that government must work to facilitate community participation wherever possible.
The Food Donations Act is an example of how our government is facilitating community participation.
Manitoba has had a long tradition of helping our neighbours when they are needy. Our province's first settlers met with many challenges and they succeeded because they pulled together as a community. This community spirit is still strong today in our province. Manitobans are still quick to extend a helping hand to someone who needs assistance. Food donations are just one example of how our communities pull together to help others.
Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this new legislation is to encourage increased donations of surplus food by removing barriers caused by concern over liability. We have been told by corporate legal representatives that they feel there is a need for greater legal protection against liability for corporations that donate surplus food. In essence, this act makes it clear that a person, unincorporated organization or corporation who makes a food donation cannot be held liable if that food causes illness or other injury unless the food was contaminated or otherwise unfit for consumption and there was intent to cause harm by the donor.
Mr. Speaker, this includes individuals, corporations, community clubs, restaurants or other organizations that distribute food on a nonprofit basis. We believe that this protection will encourage corporations, unincorporated organizations and individuals to share surplus foods.
The Food Donations Act has been drafted in response to a need brought to my attention by Winnipeg Harvest. During this past summer, we consulted with the staff at Winnipeg Harvest to discuss their concerns and hear their suggestions on how we could address this barrier to donations. This act has been designed to address those concerns. Furthermore, corporations have indicated that this added protection is a significant factor in the willingness to make charitable donations of surplus food.
Manitoba joins four other provinces in introducing legislation of this nature. It is an important step towards facilitating community partnerships, and it compliments other initiatives taking place in the Department of Family Services today.
Over the past year we have introduced a number of new programs that respond to identified needs in areas in our communities. One area that is gaining attention in virtually every province in Canada is the need to reform our social safety net and encourage jobs and training for people who are on social assistance.
As the Minister of Family Services, I find myself in a position where I can play a role in this process, but I also want to stress that government cannot do it alone, nor should we nor does anyone want us to. We must work together with the private sector, community organizations and individuals to provide family support networks and create opportunities for work.
* (1530)
I am pleased that we have already begun this process of renewal for our province's social support network. I have had the pleasure of making a number of announcements as part of our government's Making Welfare Work initiative.
We are targeting welfare programs because there is a growing recognition that our traditional safety net programs may be hurting the people they are most designed to help. If they are holding people back by fostering dependency rather than encouraging retraining, employment and greater independence, then we must change them, and that is what we are doing with the help of Manitobans.
In May of this year I launched the Making Welfare Work program, and we have already introduced three job creation projects as part of that initiative. In June we announced the expansion of two community service programs that help approximately 420 welfare recipients get back into the workforce while improving Winnipeg's infrastructure. We have also started a pilot project to create employment opportunities in rural Manitoba. This project will help approximately 450 Manitobans re-enter the workforce. These two projects give Manitobans who are on social assistance the chance to gain job experience and long-term employment.
With employment comes greater financial independence, higher self-esteem and renewed confidence. These families are then less dependent on special support services and food donations. All of these factors contribute to improved quality of life for both parents and for children.
Mr. Speaker, when we raise the issue of child poverty we see a direct correlation between single mothers on welfare and children living below the poverty line. Manitoba has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Canada. In July of this year there were approximately 12,800 single-parent families receiving social assistance in our province, and those numbers do continue to rise.
My department recently completed a review to identify key concerns regarding teen pregnancies. We discovered that 65 percent of single teenage parents have not completed high school, and more than half are on welfare. Under the current policy, single parents on social assistance are not expected to seek work until their youngest child turns 18.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to many Manitobans, many young women who are in the workforce and become pregnant and are expecting their first or second child. They indicate to me that, yes, they are pleased that we have maternity benefits for six months so that they have the ability to stay at home and bond and nurture their babies, but they are required to go back to work after six months and find alternate forms of support and child care to ensure that their children are being well looked after. There seems to be some resentment on the part of these women who do have to go back into the workforce when they see a policy that is a detriment to creating healthier attitudes towards work when they see other women who are able to be supported on social allowances until their youngest child turns 18.
That says to me that there is something wrong with our system that encourages that kind of dependency. We have to find other answers, and we have to find other solutions, for those that need to choose welfare as a career option, other than having the opportunity to build their self-esteem and to know that they can contribute in a very positive manner to our Manitoba community. A life on welfare does not create the opportunity for that mother or her children to break the poverty cycle.
There is not a province across the country, including those that are governed by parties that members opposite represent, both the Liberal and the New Democratic provinces across the country, Mr. Speaker, none of them have in place a welfare program or a program of last resort that will enable the poverty cycle to be broken. Those are the people that do require the assistance and the need for food banks in order to help them support and nurture and look after their families.
We know that many single parents do experience long-term welfare dependency. We know that there are generation after generation that need the assistance of welfare in order to sustain and live lives that I do not think are terribly adequate. As I said, there is an equally strong likelihood that their children will join the statistics of child poverty, and those statistics do not paint a terribly wonderful or promising future for Manitoba or for indeed many Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we often talk about young people being our future leaders. Well, it is clear to me and I think it is clear to all of us that many young people will need our help today to prepare them for the challenges for tomorrow.
We have looked creatively at ways to deal with the issues around single parents and the dependency and the system that we have put in place as politicians that has created that dependency. As I said earlier, welfare has become a career option and sometimes the only career option for many of our young people in Manitoba and right across Canada. I believe that is unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable, in my mind.
That is one of the reasons that we have worked very aggressively--[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I hear the member for Wellington indicating that we are blaming the victims. I am not blaming the victims. I am blaming a system that has been put in place by successive governments. It was a system that was in place under the NDP administration in this province that has created that dependency and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable, in my mind, and it is unacceptable for anyone to think that we should create a dependency where people depend on social allowances and welfare as their only option and their only opportunity.
I say shame to the member for Wellington for even thinking that it is the victims we are blaming. It is the system that was put in place by her government and governments before her and was perpetuated by her party, and it is time for that to change. That is why we are looking at new and innovative ways of delivering service to single parents in Manitoba.
I have to say that I want to give the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy and the federal Liberal government some credit in helping to develop an initiative that will be made in Manitoba that I would venture to guess will be a program that will be able to be applied to the rest of Manitoba and to all Canadians as a result of an innovative new approach to asking business, the volunteer community, the service providers that are presently out there and single parents to join together in the new Taking Charge initiative to try to build independent, individual plans around single mothers, trying to address their needs, helping them to set goals, not setting goals for young women, but--[interjection] Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to believe or to understand how the member for Wellington could believe that there will be a work opportunity for every young single parent when 65 of those who are on social allowances today do not even have a high school education. What kinds of jobs does she believe are out there for them at this point in time?
* (1540)
Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to develop the training programs, understanding that high school education is absolutely important for these young women if they are going to be able to get into any kind of meaningful work opportunity or training opportunity. That only makes common sense.
There is an opportunity here for us, as different levels of government, to work together, to join forces to combine our resources to ensure that we build individual plans, plans that will help young women to complete their Grade 12 education, plans that will provide on-the-job training, plans that will provide other forms of training based on job opportunities that might be available out in the job market and to encourage some women whom we know do very well as small business operators or entrepreneurs, to look at that as an option for employment opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the Taking Charge initiative in the storefront operation will be able to accomplish some of those things. It is a pilot project. It will be looking at some screening criteria, and it will be looking at making a contract with individual young women, realizing and recognizing that there is a commitment that has to be made on both sides.
We know there are many young women out there who do want to work. We do know that the systems and the barriers that are in place for them today are those barriers that have been put in place by government. What we are trying to do is to get the whole community working together around trying to find positive solutions.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
I believe it is a leading-edge program. I think both we and the federal government will find in the days to come and the years to come that it will be a program that will be extremely successful. Women in Manitoba in the past have had barriers placed in front of them, and we have had programs in place as governments that try to fit them all into the same mould. This program will look at a more sensitive approach, helping to build goals and careers and options and opportunities for our young women. I am extremely excited about the prospect of that happening right here in our province of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we all have had dialogue and discussion, although maybe not quite as much as I would have anticipated based on the opposition's, especially the Liberal opposition's throne speech that was presented and the focus and the emphasis that they placed on child poverty. I guess both opposition parties did. I would have anticipated or expected that in the first days of this legislative session there would have been several questions on the issues of child poverty. I know it was the Leader of the Liberal Party that indicated--at least I recall one of the reasons they indicated that they were not going to be voting for our throne speech was because it did not deal with the issue of child poverty. I believe that is the only place he made mention of child poverty. I do not recall him--with it being one of the highlights on his agenda in this session. I do not recall him standing up once and asking a question or being concerned at all about child poverty or what Manitoba's response might be.
I think we speak very clearly. When you look at the paper that was tabled today in the Legislature on Manitoba's perspective on the federal government's proposals on social security renewal, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we speak very clearly on what our position is. I do not think we have to hold our head in shame when we look at the kinds of initiatives that have been put in place by this government to try to reduce child poverty. We have made it a priority of this government.
If we look back to before we came into office and the track record of the former NDP administration, you will see that we were right at the top of the child poverty level back in those days. I do not think that is anything that any government takes any pride in. I know that the NDP administration of the day did not take pride in having the highest levels of child poverty, and we, in Manitoba today as a government, do not take any pride in having any amount of child poverty in our province. We would like to see that eliminated or eradicated.
I would like to just talk very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, about some of the initiatives that have been introduced by our government since we took office in order to try to address the issue of child poverty.
We are one of the only two provinces who offer income supplements to low-income families through our Child Related Income Support Program, more commonly known as CRISP. We have subsidized housing available for many low-income families. As well as that, families with children who spend a large part of their income on rent can receive benefits from our Shelter Allowances for Family Renters program, our SAFFR program.
We have taken some very important steps in using our income tax structure to keep more dollars in the pockets of low-income families right here in Manitoba. The Manitoba tax reduction under personal income tax was substantially increased in 1989 under this government from $50 to $250 per child. This measure increased incomes for less affluent families at a cost to Manitoba taxpayers of about $28 million. I think we have made a commitment to low-income families through those initiatives.
An Honourable Member: Where were the Liberals on that issue?
Mrs. Mitchelson: My colleague asks a good question. Where were the Liberals when they voted on the budget that would leave more money in the pockets of low-income Manitobans?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I am telling you again, we voted against it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The member for Inkster says that he voted against it, and he sounds very proud of that lack of support for low-income families, Madam Deputy Speaker. He should be ashamed of himself.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was against the budget, not some of the actions this government is doing--
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Deputy Speaker, by the member for Inkster standing up on that point of order and clarifying that he voted against the budget, he voted against low-income families. I think we need to set the record clear on that.
I indicated earlier and I will say it again, that he should be ashamed of himself. It is fine for his Leader to stand up in this House and move an amendment indicating that we are not doing enough to address child poverty, when they as an opposition party, when a budget was introduced to increase support and leave more money in the pockets of low-income Manitobans, he voted against it and his Leader voted against it.
I say again, shame on the Liberal Party in Manitoba for their lack of concern for low-income families.
Madam Deputy Speaker, taxes paid by low-income Manitoba families are among the lowest in Canada. For a married couple with two children, and I think it is very important for the opposition to hear this, no Manitoba tax is paid until the family's income reaches $18,960. Canada, that is, the federal government, and most other provinces require substantial tax payments at this income level.
Our taxation levels are among the fairest in Canada, and just to indicate that other provinces are recognizing and realizing, in the 1994 Saskatchewan budget there was a tax table that spelled out what all provinces were doing in the area of taxation. That NDP Saskatchewan budget indicated that for a family with a total income of $25,000, Manitoba is listed as having the lowest combined personal taxes and basic charges in Canada.
* (1550)
Madam Deputy Speaker, actions speak louder than words and by the actions that we have taken to reduce the burden on low-income families, we have the fairest tax system right across the country right here in Manitoba, and that is what we have done to try to address the issue of child poverty. I do not think our record on child care can be criticized by members of the opposition when we have the second highest per capita child care spending in Canada. Since our government took office, that was back in 1988, support and funding for child care has increased by 73 percent. The number of subsidized spaces in the province has increased by 84 percent. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the province of Manitoba when we have the second highest per capita spending on child care across the country and we have the second highest salaries for child care workers in our province of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had some dialogue and discussion with the Child Care Association and child care directors over the last short period of time, looking at what our response might be to the additional federal dollars for child care that have been promised in the red book.
We are in discussions with the federal government on it at the present time. I question and have asked for clarification from the federal government whether in fact the money they are promising is actually new money or it is money that is just redirected from somewhere else. When the federal government and the Minister of Human Resources is out talking to the community and indicate there could be up to 70 million new dollars in Manitoba for child care initiatives, I question whether it is money that is just taken from one hand and placed in another.
When the federal government talks in its reform process about capping the amount of money we get, cost-shared money, are they going to take dollars away from us under capped cost sharing presently that provide for support for child care and give it back to us in another manner? I do not have clarification on that issue from the federal minister, and I am not sure whether in fact any new initiative for Manitoba will provide more support for child care or for families with children in Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I already talked about the Taking Charge initiative that we have jointly put in place with the federal government that should, over the next five years, help 4,000 single mothers on social assistance obtain employment. We have also announced and established the Children and Youth Secretariat to better provide co-ordinated services between the Departments of Family Services, Health, Justice and Education. I believe that approach is long overdue. There needs to be the ability for us to respond to needs in the community based on a co-ordinated approach without departments within government making decisions that only deal with a part of a person or a part of a family. This new initiative will co-ordinate that service and assure us that we utilize our dollars in the best manner possible to provide services to children and to families right throughout our province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we talk about children, I also am very pleased that we were able to announce a co-ordinated strategy on adoption of older children in the Child and Family Services system. In talking with those who work in the Child and Family Services system, one of the downsides to decentralization under the former NDP administration was that most of those working in the agencies in the city of Winnipeg and I guess indeed possibly right throughout the province of Manitoba became generalists rather than specialists, and there had been a decreased focus on adoption and
permanency planning within the agencies.
When we talk about the issue of child poverty and children having to use food banks, I think there is not one easy answer to the issue of child poverty and the need for food donations and food banks, but it does cross the whole broad spectrum of support services for families and for children right throughout this province.
So in trying to find permanent, stable homes for children who need those homes, we are looking at a co-ordinated approach that will bring the community, the agency and the department of government together around ensuring that children have the earliest opportunity to have a stable family relationship in a permanent home. So that is one of the benefits that we see from the adoption initiative that has been announced.
The Family Support Innovations Fund was announced in last year's budget and many projects have been approved. There are still others that are under consideration at the present time, will support families in their own homes, children in their own homes, so that we can try to ensure a better life and a better family relationship for those children without having them have to be taken out of their homes and put into care to receive services.
One of the areas too, and one of the groups in society that does sometimes have the problem of living a life of poverty are those who are abused and mistreated. Women that are abused and have to for whatever reason leave that abusive situation tend to need support services that we have provided through our shelter system and most recently announced longer-term housing and support services to abused women and their children through second-stage housing.
I am hearing a lot of positive comments back from the community around the new announcements that have just been made and the refocusing of our dollars into that kind of support so that women can get on with their lives and feel safe and secure and have the supports needed to make that happen and not have to live a life of poverty through social assistance and the use of food banks for sustainment or sustenance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we as a province have taken a balanced approach on the issue of child poverty. We recognize the wide, broad range of social support services that need to be in place, and we will continue to try to work with Manitobans to ensure that in the best possible way we look to decreasing the dependence on government programs.
As the Leader of the Liberal opposition today said in his comments on my statement, programs that are 30 years old that are not today doing what they were intended to do 30 years ago are not meeting the needs of the '90s, programs that do need to be changed, programs that do need to be reformed and need to be renewed. We need to try new and better ways of finding positive proactive approaches to decreasing the reliance on government and increasing people's ability to become independent and self-reliant.
We have indicated--and I will say again one of the most important comments I think that we have made in the paper that talks about our perspective on social security renewal--that the best social policy for Manitobans and for Canadians indeed is a job. If people have the opportunity to work, to contribute and to build their self-esteem and to feel good about themselves and to break the cycle of poverty, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that we go a long way in trying to resolve some of the issues around poverty and the need for the use of food banks.
* (1600)
One of the underlying themes in the paper that was tabled today in the House is the issue of our aboriginal people. Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, how much time do I have left?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister has five minutes remaining.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do want to indicate that the concern that we have with the papers that have been tabled for discussion by the federal government are concerns around the aboriginal population and the lack of federal commitment to our aboriginal peoples that they have under the Constitution and under the treaties that were signed with aboriginal people many, many years ago. I would hope that we would get support from the New Democratic Party in our discussion with the federal government around the accepting of that responsibility. It is not trying to blame or lay blame or not accept responsibility as a province for all Manitobans, because we do have a responsibility for all Manitobans, but there is a special responsibility for the Canadian government to aboriginal peoples.
When the former Conservative federal government made the decision unilaterally to offload that responsibility onto Manitoba taxpayers, my colleague the Minister of Family Services of the time stood up in this House and made a statement and asked all parties in this House to support us in our fight to get the federal Conservative government of the day to live up to its responsibility. He made a strong statement in the House, and if I could just recall and bring to your attention the comments that were made by both opposition parties at the time.
I think it was the member for Wellington at the time, who was the critic for Family Services, stood in her place in this House and indicated--and I will quote her comments from March 20 of 1991, " . . . that what the federal government is attempting to do is morally wrong and, as well, is illegal. We believe that the aboriginal rights to social services have been included in treaties that have been negotiated over the centuries with the aboriginal peoples, and it is a federal obligation under the Indian Act. This behaviour on the part of the federal government is not to be condoned in any way, shape or form." And she goes on, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That was the position of the New Democratic Party back in 1991, and I guess I would ask for their support and their commitment today to confirm that position and ensure that Manitoba taxpayers are only a part of the solution, but there is a responsibility for Canadian taxpayers to aboriginal peoples.
I recall also the Liberal critic, Reg Alcock, who is now in a position of power and authority at the federal level. I will quote what Mr. Alcock said on that day. He said, "I think it is a disgraceful action on the part of the federal government. I can tell the minister that I personally--I know my caucus will support him absolutely in his attempts to force our federal government to live up to their responsibilities. They have destroyed or are in the process of destroying the health care system in this country. They have badly hurt post-secondary education, and now they are attacking the native people. I think Mr. Mulroney and his gang of crooks that he heads should be brought to heel."
That was the quote from Reg Alcock, the then-Family Services critic. I believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party today was sitting in his seat and nodding in approval of these comments, and now that Mr. Alcock is in a position of power and authority at the federal level I would hope that he would stand up for Manitobans and ensure that he rectifies this situation on behalf of Manitoba taxpayers and Manitoba aboriginal people in the days and months ahead.
I will be writing to Mr. Alcock indicating to him that I want his commitment. I also want the commitment from the Liberal Party in this Legislature. I want their commitment to stand up on the convictions that they had back in 1991 and ask them today whether they will recommit themselves to this issue or whether they have done a complete flip-flop and whether their word is worth anything in this Legislature. Or do they change their minds once they have the power and the ability to govern? Do they change their minds and say: That was then, oh, we do not take any responsibility. We were only in opposition, and we can have it both ways. Or, will they stand up to their convictions? Will they stand up for aboriginal people in Manitoba? Will they stand up for Manitoba taxpayers and accept the responsibility that they indicated the federal government had back in 1991, Madam Deputy Speaker, pay the bills, ensure that aboriginal people in Manitoba have fair treatment and fair opportunity under the federal Liberal government that they did not receive in the past?
I believe that the position of both opposition parties was spelled out very clearly in 1991. I will be asking them to recommit themselves to the aboriginal people in Manitoba, to Manitoba taxpayers to ensure that there is fair and equal consideration of Manitoba's unique perspective as we move through social security reform, and ensure that our aboriginal people do not have to be users of our food banks, that this legislation was brought in place to encourage donations. I am hoping that by the commitment and the actions of both opposition parties that we will see less and less use, but we want to be able to protect those Manitobans that are caring and willing to give and provide assistance to fellow Manitobans.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to speak too long. My voice will not allow me to do that.
I was prepared to get up today and talk about The Food Donations Act. I was surprised to see the Minister of Family Services get up today and spend maybe five and a half minutes of her 40-minute filibuster of her own piece of legislation talking about The Food Donations Act and the rest of the time trying like crazy to pat her government and herself on the back for their extraordinary behaviour to the people of Manitoba.
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very important bill, a very important issue for the people of Manitoba. The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), in introducing this legislation, has to set the background, the reasons why this legislation is necessary.
The fact that the member across the way is imputing motives is also out of order, and I suggest that you call her to order for that issue.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First of all, it is not unparliamentary to suggest that someone is filibustering; second of all, the member did not accuse the minister of filibustering the topic of the bill. I think she was filibustering something else. Some of us on this side wondered if we were listening to debate on this same motion; and third of all, despite my two contributions to this alleged point of order, I probably feel there is no point of order, and we should allow the member for Wellington to continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader did not have a point of order. The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly about some of the comments that were put on the record by the Minister of Family Services that in her very explanation about The Food Donations Act.
* (1610)
The minister talked about young women in particular choosing welfare, and I believe the words were fairly close to exact: choosing welfare as a career option. She said this several times. She also said that the system creates dependency.
I would like to suggest that women and families and individuals do not ever choose welfare as a career option. For the Minister of Family Services of all people in this Legislature to stand in her place and suggest--name, not suggest--state on at least two separate occasions that young women on social assistance choose welfare as a career option is absolutely reprehensible.
Point of Order
Mrs. Mitchelson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Very often the systems that are put in place do not allow for any other choice for young women. It was a system that was in place under that administration that did not allow for any other choice or alternative for young women but welfare.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services does not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, the other comment that the minister said was that this system creates dependency. The government prior to her government coming in, the government of the New Democratic Party, tried to narrow and tried to take away some of those barriers. Programs such as New Careers--[interjection]
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.
The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) made a great strong point a few moments ago that speaking to this bill had to be speaking to this bill. So far she has not done it and I wonder if you can call her to speak on the topic.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I would remind all members and ministers that indeed second reading is supposed to be relevant to the bill.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, in my opening comments I stated--and if the minister had been listening she might have heard--that I was going to speak very briefly about some of the comments the Minister of Family Services made. If I am allowed to, I will speak very briefly to those. If I am allowed to, then I will--
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member is still not addressing the points of the bill, and I would ask that you call her to order. She herself has made a point of saying you have to be relevant and she still is not being relevant even after being instructed to be so.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that the minister even had a point of order or even mentioned that she had a point of order in your acknowledging her to have the ability to speak. So I think on a point of order, the minister had no right whatsoever to speak on this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Once again, I did caution all honourable members to be relevant to the bill. However, I allowed the minister a considerable degree of latitude, and I think in the interests of fairness in the House that on this bill only one member of each party will be allowed some latitude.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: I would hope that, given that the minister had approximately 35 minutes of irrelevancies, that between myself and other of my caucus colleagues we can have 35 minutes.
However, Madam Deputy Speaker, that aside, this is an incredibly important issue and I do not want to trivialize it in any way. I would like to say, before I talk specifically to The Food Donations Act, that the minister's comments about the system creating dependency does not take into account the fact that the previous government put in place programs that were designed to reduce and tear down those barriers the minister was talking about, programs such as New Careers, the ACCESS programs, the Student Social Allowances Program and the Single Parent Job Access Program, to name only a few.
All of those programs have been either eliminated or totally decimated by this government. For the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) to say that the system creates dependency in the same breath that she says that young women choose welfare as a career option is nothing short of scandalous.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on The Food Donations Act, I am delighted to see the Minister of Family Services and her government took a serious look at the alternative Speech from the Throne which was put forward by the official opposition several weeks ago. In that alternative Speech from the Throne we said that we would put in place a food donations act, and we did in the Legislature.
Our private member's bill is very similar to the legislation that we are dealing with today in Bill 5. When I stand and talk about The Food Donations Act I am sort of torn, because on the one hand we did put in a piece of legislation that is very similar to the piece of legislation we are debating today, so we recognize that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
On the other hand, and this is something that I do not think came through loud and clear in the minister's comments, this act, whether it is our act or the act we are debating today, is by definition an acknowledgement of failure. It means that we in Winnipeg and in Manitoba and in Canada and in all North America and probably throughout the world today are institutionalizing poverty.
The whole concept of food banks was virtually unknown 10 years ago. Today we have huge numbers of food banks throughout our country and in our province. I think that given the fact that this is a problem, we do need to address it in the short term, but I want every member of this House to know that our position while we support in principle Bill 5, The Food Donations Act, our position is very clear, we want to work to eradicate poverty. We want to work to eliminate the need for food banks entirely, and that this government has done nothing in that regard and, as a matter of fact, has gone in the other direction.
* (1620)
To put in context the need for this piece of legislation, I would like to talk about some of the statistics that should frame our discussion, particularly in light of the fact that the minister talked about single women and single parents and she talked about the aboriginal community. She did not, Madam Deputy Speaker, talk about many of the other people who are forced to use food banks in our society today, two groups of which I will mention.
Our minimum wage of $5 an hour, which is among the lowest in the country and has not been changed since 1990 or 1991, has forced 11,000 Winnipeg working families to use the Winnipeg Harvest food bank. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, having a job in this society under this mean-spirited government does not mean you are off poverty. Eleven thousand families. How many children are in those families? There are 62,000 children in poverty in the city of Winnipeg alone, many of whom are in families of the working poor.
Another group that the minister neglected to mention when she was talking about the users of food banks, when she was blaming the victims, are university students. We now have another class being offered or another whole area being offered at our Canadian universities. There are food banks at 13 campuses across Canada. Four of them are in Manitoba: the University of Manitoba, the University of Winnipeg, Brandon University and Red River Community College. That includes the vast majority of students who are in some form of post-secondary education--are attending university and community colleges where there is a food bank. The whole concept again, food banks are essential because of a lack of help to students on the part of this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister said that one of the reasons and one of the ways to eliminate poverty and eliminate the need to have food banks was to have a job. That is very interesting, and it would be amusing if it were not so sad, coming from a government that has done nothing to help create jobs in this province in the six and a half years they have been in government. As a matter of fact they have eliminated jobs. There are fewer people working in the province today than there were when this government got its majority in 1990, and as I stated earlier, in the city of Winnipeg alone there are 11,000 of those working families who are living below the poverty line, who are making use of food banks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister talked about child poverty. Again, unbelievable coming from this government where in the last four years they are second or first or third in the country in child poverty. We are third now, this year or in 1992 only because of Alberta, another Conservative government--do not let me get started on the province of Alberta--and Newfoundland, which has huge structural problems in its province. We are right up there with them, a province that should not have the incidence of child poverty, that should not have the incidence of poor students, that should not have the incidence of poor working families that currently happen in this province. We are a rich province, as the Premier said yesterday. This should be the best place in the world to live and the only reason it is not is because of the action and inaction of this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to spend any more time on this because others wish to speak on this bill. I would like to close by saying, as I stated earlier--oh, there is one other group before I quit that I would like to briefly talk about. The minister spoke about this too, when she talked and she quoted members of the opposition in our concerns about the way the federal government, last government and the current government, are dealing with the aboriginal people.
This government trots out the aboriginal issue whenever it serves them. Do they deal with the issue of the northern trails, as the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has very accurately stated? Do they deal with the fact that northern highways have been reduced from 15 to 20 percent of the expenditure on highways to less than 4 percent? No, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is only when they can use the aboriginal community to make political points that they raise these issues. They have done an abysmal job dealing with the issues of the aboriginal community, whether it is in the North, in the Parklands, in eastern Manitoba, in southern Manitoba or here in the city of Winnipeg.
For the minister to stand and raise that issue again as an opportunity to try and make points is politics of the worst sort. I will close my remarks and look forward to other people's comments on this bill.
Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 5, The Food Donations Act, and make note that the spirit and the intention behind this bill was the subject of the resolution put forward by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) in the last session of the Legislature, so we commend the government for acting on his suggestion and to putting forward this bill.
We would also like to go on record that we urge the government to proceed to third reading and that we will in committee look forward to seeking public input and to encouraging support.
I find it very frightening, however, that this bill has prompted a far-reaching discussion on the issues of child poverty. For anyone to purport that this bill can in any way address the issue of child poverty is absolutely shocking. There was a very good document produced in 1992 by the Nutrition and Food Security Network of Manitoba, An Action Plan for Food Security for Manitobans. In no place in this document does the subject of food banks get recommended as a solution to hunger and malnourishment in Manitoba.
Instead the legislative and policy legislations recommend a number of things which I believe should be also part of a responsible government's initiative. For example, we need to talk about the question of food security and income security. The document points out that many people are precluded from getting decent food because they do not have access to adequate income or purchasing power. A specific recommendation is to establish a common method of calculating social assistance rates and to increase social assistance rates to meet the actual feeding costs for children, as well to increase the CRISP funding in order to address the issues of child poverty in Manitoba.
The other problem identified is the problem of access to nutrition information. The document recommends the establishment of a health care policy that recognizes nutritional assessment and culturally appropriate intentions, particularly for disadvantaged people. It has been recognized that many of our food preferences are linked to our cultural experiences, and in fact what is available through food banks is commonly not culturally appropriate food, so the access to information to people in terms of how to purchase food nutritionally is an essential part of this recommendation.
The other area the food strategy speaks to is the importance of social supports. It recommends that government support and expand family resource centres throughout the province, that it designate the telephone as an essential component in a social assistance budget and expand the congregate meal program for the elderly. It also talks about examining the feasibility of Meals On Wheels type programs to supply meals to homeless people. Again, no mention of food banks.
Appropriately, it talks about making available affordable food, not free food but affordable food. It recognizes that the cost of food in northern areas, northern communities far outstrips that of the cost of food in the urban areas, and by encouraging donations of food to food banks, we are doing nothing to reduce the disparity in food costs between northern and southern communities.
* (1630)
It also talks about the importance of allocating funding to establish programs for teen parents and talks about the importance of nutrition and food purchase programs in educational programs throughout the province. Again, with the back-to-the-basics approach this government is taking in education, many people fear that this kind of very important life skill information is not going to be available to young people.
We also, in November of this year, hosted a child poverty forum, and here we learned first-hand about the impact of poverty on the health and nutrition status of poor people. This is evidenced by low birth weights, by premature death rates in poor children and higher utilization of the health care system. We have abundant research evidence that connects good nutrition with positive health status, yet little is done to ensure that poor people have a guaranteed access to good food.
We also learned about the other factors which preclude the possibility of people getting adequate food. Many people are concerned that the poverty crisis is now turning into a food crisis. Income disparity in this province is polarized as never before. People face family and economic disparity in income security; they are cynical and fearful about changes in the future. Many communities and people feel disempowered.
I find it really troubling that the minister's remarks to her own bill talked about the importance of a good job as being a solution to poverty, and yet what has been done to ensure that the jobs that are available for poor Manitobans are in fact good jobs?
We have a higher rate in this province of unemployment and underemployment. The jobs that have been created according to the labour statistics are part-time, low-income, low-benefit jobs. Families do not have enough money to buy food; therefore, they are relegated to food banks.
Our maintenance enforcement system is a continuing disaster. Families cannot count on court-ordered child support being there. There are 22 people trying to administrate thousands of orders, and there is no possibility that this money is forwarded to families in a regular or consistent or timely manner.
The minister used the opportunity of this bill to talk about child care. In Manitoba, the situation is getting worse because, with the capping of subsidized child care spaces and the dropping of fees from $11,000 down to $9,600, the imposition of a $2.40-a-day fee for the use of a subsidized child care space simply takes money out of the family's budget to apply for food.
It is very interesting that much evidence exists to show that single parents and poor families find their food budgets to be the most flexible of all items in their family budgets, and when cutbacks are necessary to meet more pressing needs, it is commonly the food budget that gets the short end.
There was a study done which indicates that among low-income, single-parent families, other demands took precedence over the purchase of good food. Their key concern became satisfying the energy needs of their children. Shortages were dealt with by rationing the available food in the household and making meals out of staples such as potatoes and bread. In severe crises, first the women started going without meals themselves and then the children. Outside assistance, and here we are talking about food banks, was only sought as a final option. Similar situations result in low-income pregnant women having difficulty realizing their nutritional needs, and they feel guilty about increasing their food take for the benefit of their unborn babies while the remainder of their family remains with a limited food supply.
At our poverty forum the most eloquent speaker spoke of the decisions of having to do without food herself in order to be able to face the faces of her hungry children. We have alternatives and we must seek alternatives to food banks. It is not acceptable to pretend that a Food Donations Act is a solution to poverty, malnourishment or hunger in this province. This minister has challenged me and my caucus members because we have not asked questions on the issue of child poverty. I am very willing to admit that there was a time in the last session when I put some faith in my ability to express myself, to bring to the attention to this government to get these issues understood and acted upon. In the last session I used my energy to ensure that the government rethought their approaches and gave consideration to our suggestion as alternative approaches hoping that the approaches would change.
In this session I have no longer faith that this government is prepared to accept a change in its approach, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not the approach that must change, it is the government that must change. You know, to say that the solution to poverty and hunger in this province is employment begs the question of, what kind of employment is available? It begs the question--[interjection] The problem in Manitoba is that we have the second lowest minimum wage cost in the country. We have demonstrated evidence that 12 percent of the people who present themselves to Winnipeg Harvest food bank have been employed in the last week, and the employment income is not adequate to meet the nutrition needs of their families.
The Canadian poverty rate is 19.8, and it has gone up from 15.2 in 1981. In Manitoba we have an actual rate of 27 percent poverty for children. So why are children so poor? To say that they are poor because their parents do not have jobs is fallacious, and even if the members are correct in saying that there are four jobs for every unemployed Manitoban, take that as a statistic that for the moment we might be prepared to expect, I would ask, how can these parents seek employment in absence of an adequate child care program? Who is going to be caring for their children? Who is going to pay the $2.40 a day out of a minimum wage job which nets $9,000 or $10,000 a year? How can a parent be expected to spend $2.40 times 200 working days a year and still have money left over to feed their family?
An Honourable Member: What is Lloyd Axworthy doing about this problem of poverty?
Ms. McCormick: I am pleased to answer my friend for Burrows and talk about the $70 million that will be coming into Manitoba in support of child care. Unfortunately, I find it a tragedy that this money comes in to compensate for the deficiencies in a provincial program.
* (1640)
We cannot any longer pretend that the marginalizing of women in the labour force into low paid, low skilled jobs is going to be a solution for women. This government talked about its initiative for training for tomorrow to try and encourage women into jobs that pay a decent wage. But where are the initiatives toward pay equity? Why do we still find it acceptable that a woman doing what is considered to be women's work, should be working at a low income salary, when a person who would go into a job as a welder or a machinist or a carpenter can reasonably expect to bring down $40,000 a year? It is not acceptable that we continue to marginalize women in the workforce and then to deprive them of the supports that are necessary to be able to take employment and to be able to go out with some confidence into the labour force to ensure that their effort is in fact paid off with enough money to be able to support their children.
I am hearing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) talk about me being more left wing than the NDP, and I have no reason to apologize for defending the interests of women and children in this province. The other irony in this is that as we talk about ensuring that women can participate, we hear on and on and on about the Take Charge program, about the importance of providing single parents with an opportunity to choose another career--as the minister says--other than welfare, but this same minister has denied the Lakeview Children's Centre money to continue its operation to provide the children of Langruth. So I do not think it is consistent to suggest that we can in any way encourage the participation of these mothers in the labour force without recognizing that the issues of pay equity and child care have to be addressed first.
In addition, we need to recognize that we are not just talking about food security from a perspective of nourishment. We also need to recognize that in our society we have got some problems of isolation, of too much money being commanded to compete with the food budget, too much money going for housing, for transportation, and all of the needs that are met take precedence over the money that a family can afford to spend on food.
In the nutrition and the food security strategy I spoke of earlier, the legislative and policy initiatives call for supporting and expanding family resource centres both in Winnipeg and throughout the province as essential for breaking down the barriers of isolation and loneliness, and to ensure that people who are in the community have the opportunity for respite, to learn about food preparation and to establish themselves connecting into a network.
We have looked in our own community at the concept of a community kitchen. In fact, I had encouraged the Mayfair Resource Centre to put forward the proposal to the minister through the Family Support Innovations program. Unfortunately, this proposal was neither funded through the minister's program nor, unfortunately, through the Brighter Futures program.
We need to look at expanding congregate meal programs for the elderly. This is a way of encouraging social interaction as well as to improve the nutritional status of seniors. We need to look at the feasibility of establishing mobile food distribution to provide meals to the homeless. This would also provide a way of ensuring that there is some kind of ongoing contact and support with these people who have the lowest and least nutritious food consumption opportunities.
We need to also recognize that we cannot institutionalize food banks as a solution. When the Canadian Association of Food Bank Providers was created several years ago, I believe it was in about 1986, it was thought that food banks would be a temporary response to the recession and that it would be likely that as the problems of hunger and nutrition deficiencies in Manitoba became apparent that it would result in government taking over, and that governments would in fact address the problems of hunger and malnutrition, but in fact the opposite has happened.
As things got tough for individuals in the recession they also got tough for governments, and government spending often was cut back at the consequence of the poorest and most marginalized of our citizens. So the idea then that food banks were a transitory and temporary response is now appearing to be abandoned. Unfortunately, again, that is evidenced by the bill, that we have lost our ability to think up more creative ways, and that we are now approaching food banks and clothing exchanges and other kinds of community things, which really do isolate and demean people, as a solution when in fact it is only further evidence of social policy failure.
We need to recognize that the numbers of food banks are growing not only in Manitoba but across the country. It is estimated that there are almost 300 food banks which are eligible for membership in the Canadian Association of Food Banks.
In closing, I would encourage that in considering this that members recognize that this is not in any way a solution. This is only a tragic necessity in a country in which we, you know, thought of ourselves as a land of plenty. We encourage the reduction of the amount of food that is wasted. We encourage the other initiatives, however, by this government to reduce the numbers of families in which children and parents go hungry every day. We want to then accomplish a reduction in the waste of surplus food. That is the only laudable aspect of this bill, and that in fact we will hope that not only the need for food banks, include donations, is transitory, but that eventually we can come up with more appropriate and more creative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty in our province.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very interesting bill to speak on, Bill 5, The Food Donation Act, for many reasons.
I would like to point out, first of all, that the first party to introduce this idea in the Manitoba Legislature was the New Democratic Party, and that we announced this before the start of the session and said that we would be willing to and would introduce a bill. So we can support the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) in this bill for borrowing a good idea, although I think we should give credit to the Winnipeg Harvest food bank and maybe call it the Winnipeg Harvest food bank bill because we know that this idea was suggested to us by David Northcott, their executive director.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
It does address a problem for food banks, and I think addresses it appropriately, and solves the problem of companies not wanting to be sued for donating food that is inappropriate. Of course, if they donate food knowingly that is unsafe, then of course they are still open to being sued, but I think that the bill covers the problem and deals with it adequately.
Food banks in Canada really only began in 1981, I believe. They began in Alberta, and they began in response to government cutbacks to social programs. As a result, they spread to other provinces as other provinces also cut back in social programs. Graham Richards has written an excellent book on food banks and done an analysis and points out that there are two basic kinds of food banks in Canada. There are food banks established on the charitable model of which Calgary is an example, and the Winnipeg food bank was established on that model in 1984.
There is also the advocacy model, and most of the advocacy model food banks were established by unemployed workers or unions, and the difference is that the advocacy model food banks were involved right from the beginning with trying to help the individuals who came to them for food with their other problems, with applying for unemployment insurance, with getting the benefits that they were entitled to from different social programs and intervening and advocating with government. In fact, the Edmonton food bank is an excellent example of this, and on a regular basis, they provide statistics to the government of Alberta and lobby them to make progressive changes.
* (1650)
Interestingly, in Manitoba, it was not people working with the poor that started Winnipeg Harvest food bank. In fact, churches in the inner city that were working with the poor lobbied against Winnipeg Harvest from being established in the first place because they realized that it would take pressure off governments to provide adequately for people and that food banks would very quickly become institutionalized, and I will say more about that later.
However, it has been very interesting to watch the transformation of Winnipeg Harvest food bank. I remember back in 1984, when David Northcott was part of the inter-agency group food network and we wanted to get Winnipeg Harvest to help us to lobby the government of the day or governments at all three levels, he said he was unwilling to do that, as did the Salvation Army, because they were afraid it would jeopardize their corporate donations in food. However, they have changed since then, at least the Winnipeg Harvest has, and now they take part in all the initiatives from the Social Planning Council and inter-agency group and in fact do lobby governments and take part in press conferences, as they did at the Social Planning Council recently.
There are a number of problems with food banks, particularly food banks that are set up on the charitable model. I am reminded of a wonderful quotation from Bishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa. He said, and I quote: We do not want to be picking up the crumbs at the master's table any more. We want a hand in planning the meal.
It is very significant that since he said this, the black majority in South Africa now have the opportunity to plan the meal since they have one member, one vote and have a majority government elected by black people, so now they can plan the meal and they can bring about justice solutions whereas, in the past, they felt they were the victims of injustice.
I think there are some parallels in Canada. I believe that aboriginal self-government is a good example, where aboriginal people are saying that they want a hand in planning their own future, and governments are slowly moving in that direction for First Nations.
Why do we have food banks, and why do people use food banks? Well, the first is that the vast majority of people using food banks live in poverty. I was part of an organization that took part in a survey on that very topic in 1988 in co-operation with the Winnipeg Harvest food bank and the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and a number of churches, including North End Community Ministry where I worked, and we interviewed the individuals. I was one of the ones that interviewed numerous individuals that came on a weekly basis for the food handout.
The statistics, as a result of those interviews, were compiled by the Social Planning Council. They found very interesting results. They were able to chart the results and show that as people's income increased, use of food banks declined, and there was a summary of this in an article called, Hunger in Winnipeg, in the Institute of Urban Studies periodical, issue No. 31, June 1990. They said, and I quote: The use of emergency food is confined to renter households with incomes under $21,000. Within this group predominantly single males with incomes under $7,000 used emergency food outlets. The second most vulnerable group was low-income families with children.
So this points out that the primary reason that people use food banks is low income and that once people have money, once they have an adequate income they no longer use food banks. That really should not surprise any of us because I think people give up a lot of their dignity and pride when they go to receive a free handout. I do not think it is easy for those people. I do not think they do it because they want to. I think in most circumstances people do it because they feel forced to.
Secondly, and I think this relates to the increasing use of food banks, there have been numerous cuts to benefits of people on low income, including by this Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), who participated in this debate, and also by her predecessors in the Conservative government since 1988. I do not need to list them all here because I have listed them many other times in debate, but just to give one example, the provincial government has not increased social assistance rates, by the end of December, for two years. Normally there is an annual increase. Last year they announced in November that there would not be an increase January 1, it would be in April, but when April came around there was no increase in social assistance rates. There have been many other cuts to benefits as well.
Of course, there have been increased costs, for example, the 140 percent increase to fees for children in subsidized child care.
One of the major reasons why people use food banks is that some parts of their social assistance budget is inadequate, and one of the major ones is the inadequacy of rent. In many, many cases people are paying $100 or more a month in excess rent, and they are taking it out of their only discretionary areas, their food budget, their personal needs budget or their household needs budget, and as a result they run short of food. What do they do to make up for that? They supplement it by going to a food bank.
Another important reason is emergencies. If people have an emergency come up, there is no money in their social assistance budget over and above their special needs fund of $150 a year, and the special needs funding is becoming increasingly difficult to get.
Another important reason that people use food banks is the inadequacy of the minimum wage. The minimum wage has not been raised for some time. At $5 an hour it is much, much less as a percentage of the poverty line now than it was 20 years ago, and so, of course, its purchasing power has declined. So many people that use food banks are in fact working, but we would call them the working poor.
Finally, and I think a rather significant reason that people use food banks is that the food is free and that should not surprise anyone. I remember when we discussed the issue of food handouts, I think through the ministry, one of our board members from Sturgeon Creek said: Well, if there was free food at the end of my street I would be there too. And this is someone from a higher income neighbourhood of Winnipeg who certainly did not need the food banks, but I think put her finger on an important reason why people go. If you have a choice between paying for something and something that is free, many people will take advantage of something that is free. Actually one of the reasons people use food banks is that it does give them some discretion. They can supplement their income by free food on the one hand, and on the other hand buy something that they need. But one of the problems is that it institutionalizes food banks.
An Honourable Member: Those that have a guilt complex and want to donate.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister is helping me out here and I appreciate that. He is saying that people that have a guilt complex want to donate. Certainly food banks do provide that function in our society. Regrettably what this does is it makes people in our society think that food banks are an appropriate solution to the problem of poverty when in fact they are not a very appropriate solution. For example, the kind of food that is donated. The majority of the food--and I know this from helping unload the trucks from 1984 until 1990 where I worked--the No. 1 quantity of food has to be bread, the second is doughnuts, and third, comes everything else. Much of it is seasonal. When vegetables are in season, Winnipeg Harvest food bank has vegetables. When people respond to a food drive, there are canned goods. But the kind of nutrition that people are getting is very inadequate.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Burrows will have 30 minutes remaining.