LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
May 6, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Harold
Bennett, Franklin Magnusson, Leslie Mowatt and others requesting the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring the funding of the
Northern Fishermen's Freight Assistance Program to the level it was at in 1990‑91.
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Marion Ramsay, Gerald Sinclair, Juliet Burke and others requesting the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the
Student Social Allowances Program.
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Wallace Mowat, Tom Mowat, Ernest Mowat and others requesting the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring funding of the Northern
Fishermen's Freight Assistance Program to the level it was at in 1990‑91.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Sylvia Kostiw, Michelle Kostiw, Charlene Baraniuk and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Dave Gregotski, Sharon Kumps, Paul Kumps and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Melvyn Taylor, Ross Carwahaw, Tracy Strahl and others requesting the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ted Smitke, Grace Smitke, Telmo Reis
and others requesting the government of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS fisheries are a vital resource
industry in rural and northern
WHEREAS there are over 800 commercial
fishermen netting some 12 million pounds of fish each year on
WHEREAS the high costs of supplies and
shipping fish to market are putting ever more pressures on the commercial
fishing industry in this province; and
WHEREAS the provincial government reduced
the Northern Fishermen's Freight Subsidy Assistance Program for commercial
fishing by over $90,000 in 1991; and
WHEREAS this subsidy is vital to the
survival of the commercial fishing industry; and
WHEREAS restoring the Freight Subsidy to
the level of previous years would make fishing in northern
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned residents of
the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 30‑The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that
Bill 30, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant
une deficience mentale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of the bill, recommends it to the House.
I would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the Warren Collegiate, sixty Grade 11 students under the
direction of Mr. Jake Wiebe and Mr. John Smith.
This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
NoFault
Auto Insurance
Appeal
Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Today's announcement by the government
dealing with no‑fault, coming five years after the Kopstein report and
over three years after the Tillinghast report on the savings potential for
motorists, we believe is somewhat overdue.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the costs
that have been outlined in the material provided by the government are fairly
consistent with industry cost projections to the year 2000.
Our concerns now are going to be dealing
with the fairness of the system that the government will be implementing on
behalf of all motorists in
Can the Premier today outline, given that
the fairness and integrity of the system is crucial and the appeal process is a
very important component part, if not the keystone part of this program, what
kind of independent appeal process is contemplated in government policy for
this new plan?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. It is an integral part to the credibility of
any plan such as this, and we will be very conscious of that in putting
together recommendations that will be introduced and legislation that will
outline that matter.
First of all, you will need to make sure
that the people are appointed for a credible length of time so that they can
have some assurance of the responsibility and the knowledge that they will be
able to build up, that they will be people of quality and people who will be
able to hear any of the complaints that come forward and deal with them in a
completely independent and dispassionate manner, to make sure that it is fair
to those who would appeal.
I would only remind the member that the
appeal upon which we are‑‑I presume he is asking, and the one to
which I am responding‑‑is the final appeal, that there will be a
series of steps prior to anyone desiring to go to this final appeal, where they
will have an opportunity to appeal within the system as to concerns they might
have about how the plan is treating them.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the material that is being sent
to all the motorists‑‑I assume in Manitoba‑‑explaining
the program, the government and the corporation, claims that they are going to
be an independent appeal process. They
do not say who will establish the appeal process.
In
I would like to ask the government: Who will be this independent body? Who will appoint them and how will they be
independent and be perceived to be independent, because that is very crucial to
this program?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assume that the member
is supportive of the program in general, and he has some specific questions
about how an appeal mechanism would operate [interjection] Well, are you saying
that he is not supportive of the introduction‑‑did you caucus it?
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member
in the introduction of the legislation, we will make it very clear on what
grounds a panel will be established. I
want to tell you that the principles and the policy which I want to see
incorporated in that process will be as I outlined, that we guarantee the
independence of the appointees and that they are able to operate on a given
period of time without fear of any reprisals, so they will be fully
independent.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question. He has the Kopstein report
that made three or four recommendations on an appeal process. He recommended an independent arbitration
board; he argued for the appeal of that process to the courts.
The minister has those recommendations,
but it is very important that the minister tell us today: Who will appoint the appeal body? Will it be placed in law as an independent
body like the Electoral Boundaries Commission; will it be a body appointed by
Order‑in‑Council; will it be a body appointed by this Legislature
like the Ombudsman; or will it be somebody internal to the corporation?
I think those are fundamental questions
that I would have thought would have been addressed in the government's
announcement today, or in the House today in the questions we are raising.
Mr. Cummings: The member is trying to have me introduce the
legislation piece by piece today. The
fact‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, he knows full well, if he has
made comparisons with the
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition, with
a new question.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I did not think we would have to
pursue this for a new question.
Mr. Speaker, it is very vague in the
document that is presented to us today.
We are already getting phone calls, as legislators, on the newscast,
about who will deal with these matters, who will decide. Obviously, not on the detail of the Kopstein
report, but people want to know and we would like to know, what is the
government policy? Will this body be
established‑‑
An Honourable Member: Independent.
Mr. Doer: The word "independent." Some bodies are independent, Mr. Speaker, and
some are more independent than others, so perhaps we can ask the question
specifically.
Will the independence of the appeal body‑‑[interjection]
If the Premier (Mr. Filmon) wants to answer one of the questions, he could
stand up and answer the questions. If he
does not have a policy on this, he will remain silent like he has.
Will the independent appeal body on this
very important change, a change in concept which we support‑‑[interjection]
We will adjudicate the fairness when we see the implementation of the
fairness. Will this independent appeal
body‑‑
An Honourable Member: How can you support the bill if you have not
seen it,
Mr. Doer: I said the concept, my friend. I know that is foreign to Liberals, to have
any concepts, because they change them every hour on the hour.
Is it the policy of the government that
the independent appeal process, which is articulated on page 7 of the document
that they are releasing to motorists today‑‑will that independent
appeal process be appointed by legislation similar to the Electoral Boundaries
Commission of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, as with many other aspects of
this plan, we have said that this will be a made‑in‑Manitoba plan
for the best interests of Manitobans.
There are a number of models, including the ones that the member is
suggesting, that we are considering.
In the introduction of the legislation, I
guarantee you that if he is willing to take an objective look at what we have
in the legislation, then he will be satisfied with the independence that we
will present.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, you will excuse us if we say the
answers of the minister are starting to contradict one another. Two answers ago, the minister mentioned that
they looked at the
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Did the minister have the
government approve a major shift in policy on bodily injuries without
determining the independent system of appeal that would be utilized by the
citizens of this province? Can the Premier please tell us what type of
independent appeal process will be in place?
Will it be appointed by the corporation?
Will it be appointed by the Legislature?
Will it be appointed by Order‑in‑Council, or will it be
institutionally appointed in legislation like the Electoral Boundaries
Commission?
It is a very, very crucial part to the
fairness of any bodily injury change in plan in
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I enunciated the parameters for
independence that I think should satisfy the concerns of that member. Unless he wants to wait in the bushes and be
dissatisfied with whatever we bring forward in legislation‑‑I think
that is what he is trying to do.
He supports the plan but he has to find
something to worry about so he is going to lay in the bushes, and no matter
what this government brings forward, he is going to be critical. It will be an independent commission that
will respond to these concerns. I invite
him to wait until the introduction of the bill.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Kopstein report five years
ago articulated the cost projections and articulated an independent appeal
process that would be appealable to court.
Is the government accepting the Kopstein recommendation? Is it rejecting the Kopstein
recommendation? What is the policy the
government must have?
I suggest to the government, you cannot
make a quantum change in the whole way in which the tort system is utilized for
bodily injuries without having a truly articulated and known system of appeal.
Would the government please tell us, in
all those hundreds of briefings that have taken place in the five years they
have worked on this plan, what will be truly independent for the appeal
process? The Legislature and the people
of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the people of
Mr. Speaker, we announced today that we
are moving to a plan that will restrict tort.
We presented examples of the type of coverage that would be available so
that people can debate the benefits pro and con. We will introduce all the details, including
the concerns that the member is raising when we bring the legislation to the
floor of this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I believe he will be
satisfied at that time.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Benefits
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I must confess that I am not so quick to
support this plan. I am a little disappointed,
frankly, by the NDP who seem to be so ready to give up on something they built
that did provide benefits for all
Now, I would like the minister to cast
back two short years when he was questioned about the no‑fault proposals
that were contained in Kopstein, and he said‑‑"he" being
the member of the NDP who was raising the question about no‑fault‑‑that
he does not, however, talk about the fact that a great portion of that money‑‑that
is, the savings that accrued to the insurance company under no‑fault‑‑would
come from the pockets of those who have a right to be reimbursed.
That is the issue here, Mr. Speaker. The fact is insurance companies in
jurisdictions that have a form of no‑fault accrue large profits, and the
source of those profits would seem to come from the benefits that are available
to people who are injured. [interjection]
Now, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from his
seat makes the comment about lawyers.
Lawyers are less than a third of the costs, and if he wants to control
lawyers' costs, there are ways to do‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne, with your
question, please.
Mr. Alcock: My question to the minister is: What has changed in his understanding of the
way the system works, and how is he going to ensure that people are not
protected?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): I hope I misunderstood the question. I believe he said, how would I assure that
people were not protected. The fact is I
intend to assure that people are protected.
Mr. Speaker, the benefits that are
outlined this morning, if adopted by this Legislature‑‑and I invite
the debate and the discussion that we are now entering into. The benefit levels we proposed in the
discussion this morning are very generous, and, in fact, those who are injured
with loss of income, they will be reimbursed.
The income replacement as we outlined would cover 90 percent of the
population of this province. All other
benefits are virtually uncapped.
I think the member may well have a little
fun at my expense about the fact that I have always cast about for other ways
of containing costs of automobile insurance in this province, and I have said
on many occasions, which I fully acknowledge, that I believed for a
considerable length of time that there were other ways by which this government
or any other government could cap costs, but we believe that is not the case.
* (1350)
Private
Sector Involvement
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, another feature of this, and the
minister mentions it in the pamphlet they have prepared for this release, is
the increased involvement or the reintroduction of private‑sector
insurance companies to provide insurance for those people who feel they require
some top‑up.
I would like to ask the minister: What are his projections about the extent of
private‑sector insurance involvement in this province as a result of this
change?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, the
containment of cost is one of the very primary concerns we have in terms of
maintaining future quality insurance in this province and making sure that
people have adequate coverage.
Mr. Speaker, the plan we put forward this
morning, the outline, indicates that 90 percent of the people in this province
will be covered by a $55,000 maximum.
That will cover 90 percent of the wage earners in this province, and it
is correct to say that those who wish to have insurance beyond that would
likely have to go to the private sector to obtain additional extension.
I would remind the member that all of the
benefits that flow within the plan are without cap, lifetime without cap. If he is asking me how large an extent of an
involvement do I see, I would look to the
Mr. Alcock: Well, Mr. Speaker, that view is not shared by
the Canadian Automobile Association in their opposition to this plan.
Revenue
Transfers
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Let us speak about
Will this minister commit that this
government will not undertake such a transfer?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would be only too pleased to
put that argument to bed completely, because there is a clause in the MPIC Act
which I intend to make sure applies to all aspects of the corporation and that
clearly indicates that governments, present or future, cannot strip profits for
other use.
NoFault
Auto Insurance
Implementation
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I would like to address a question to the
Minister responsible for MPIC.
We have asked this minister for almost
five years when he was going to implement the Kopstein report's main
recommendation of a no‑fault plan.
On April 28, 1992, in the legislative committee, and it is reported on
page 42, the minister stated, and I am quoting:
"You will not be seeing initiatives on my part to move to a no‑fault
insurance."
My question therefore to the minister is‑‑[interjection]
In fact, there is another one, too; there are two‑‑why did the
minister not act sooner to implement the no‑fault system and avoid the
dramatic premium increases such as the 9.5 percent to 13.5 percent increase
that was experienced this year?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): I readily acknowledge, as I said before today,
that I was not the first to advocate this is the way one should deal with
rising costs to the corporation and that I believe that other methods of
control would do the job. But, Mr.
Speaker, we have now seen how dramatically the increase of bodily injury is
impacting on the cost of insurance in this province, and the majority of those
costs are going for noneconomic loss.
That is very important for all of us to
examine. A majority of those dollars are
going for noneconomic loss, and that is where we believe there is a good reason
to be able to make sure that those who are dramatically injured or seriously
injured are fully, completely taken care of, but some of these other losses
have been less than responsible.
* (1355)
Mr. Leonard Evans: I am glad the minister has finally seen the
light, Mr. Speaker.
Benefits
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Is the minister truly satisfied that the
announced benefit schedule that was released today is fair? How does it compare with other jurisdictions
that have a no‑fault system?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, the information has been
gathered from about 17 different jurisdictions across the
I would indicate that the figures that are
included in the proposals that are brought forward have been examined in the
light of
We know, without any doubt, that if we do
not take these types of dramatic actions, we will see a doubling of the rates
by the year 2000.
Fairness
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): My final question: How will the minister ensure that certain
groups in
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, all of those groups that the
member has pointed to‑‑first of all, we need to remember that in
the plan the economic losses are replaced.
There are portions of the plan that are meant to be very flexible in
terms of making sure that special situations are addressed.
For example, I believe the benefits that
are outlined in the case of a homemaker, for example, are more generous than
any plan that we know of and more generous than what would be acquired under a
private plan, if there was a competitive plan.
Those are the types of approaches that we
have taken in making this recommendation to assure that specific groups are in
fact treated better.
Subsidized
Housing‑Students
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Housing. When the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) eliminated the bursary program for the students this week, she
left almost 5,000 students ineligible for grants.
According to the Manitoba Housing
Authority, students who do not receive bursaries are not eligible for the
special student rental fees. They
further indicated that they had no idea what the impact of the minister's elimination
of the bursary program would mean to students' rental rates.
Can the Minister of Housing tell this
House what impact the bursary cuts will have on students living in Manitoba
Housing Authority units?
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr.
Speaker, I will take that question as notice and report back to the House.
Subsidized
Housing‑Students
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Education
explain to this House why she did not consult with her colleague the Minister
of Housing, so that he could ensure that staff at the Manitoba Housing
Authority were aware of the impact of her regressive changes to the bursary
program?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Let me
just make it clear again to the honourable member that students, yes, will not
be receiving bursaries, but they will still in fact be eligible for a
guaranteed loan. The money, Mr. Speaker,
is still available to students wishing to study at the post‑secondary
level. In addition, we have retained for
the most needy students, a bursary, the third level.
* (1400)
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, can she confirm that some of the
poor students may no longer be eligible for subsidized housing under the new
program? Would she tell this House how
many students will be affected by the change?
If she does not know the answer, could she ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon)? He should know. He is their‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend
again how the system works. The system
is based on need; it is based on number of weeks of study and the amount of
money required, what the tuition is.
Students receiving student financial aid, first, starting at the Canada
Student Loan level, is based on need.
When that does not quite fill the need, then they move into assistance
through the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance. Where there is continued need for the most
needy students, we have built in a bursary system.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Minor
Claims Cap
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the government today made a major announcement with respect to
coverage that will be available to Manitobans under the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation. In their pamphlet
which they are going to distribute, they indicated that almost 80 percent,
indeed 80 percent, of the claims before MPIC were, in their words, minor claims. They said minor claims are the main
problem. They said, of 20,000 injury
claims, 16,000 were of whiplash. Of
those minor claims, almost all of them are settled for less than $15,000, many
for much less than that.
Can the minister responsible tell the
House why it is they chose a no‑fault insurance program that would affect
every claim and did not cap it at a $15,000 level, which would have taken care
of almost all of these minor claims?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
Act): Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good and
legitimate point. It also is a point
that deserves careful response because very often under these types of programs
which we have looked at in other jurisdictions, what happens is, where there is
a monetary threshold beyond which the person may decide to sue, this very often
drives a situation that encourages the claimant to drive towards that threshold
so that they may then get into the tort system.
Mr. Speaker, when we looked at the
financial projections we have that see us, by the year 2000, being in a
virtually unaffordable situation for insurance in this province, we felt we
wanted a plan that was totally predictable and that we could, according to the
known statistics, be able to show containment of the costs, and at the same
time, protect everyone who was legitimately injured and needed help, either
through health care, rehabilitation or income replacement‑‑that
they are fully and adequately covered.
That is the reason we went this direction.
Public
Utilities Board
Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we are very prepared to support the government in initiatives that
protect Manitobans and protect them equally, but we do not believe that this
particular initiative, as it is so laid out, protects people equally. That has to be the serious question that is
put before legislators in this province.
I have to tell you, on the basis of the
information here, not only would I take out private insurance but I would take
out private insurance for my two daughters, who certainly do not make incomes
of $50,000 a year, to protect them against future earnings which are not
protected in this particular program that has been announced by the government.
Will the minister tell the House today why
he is unwilling to take this whole proposal to the Public Utilities Board to
allow them to make an evaluation and judgment that this party will abide
by? Why are they unwilling to do that in
order to ensure that there is absolute fairness in this initiative?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Public
Utilities Board will review the rate‑setting process, as is required by
the result of this change in the proposal of MPIC.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it seems
to me that the member's question is based on the assumption that she believes
the present system is fair. There is an
inherent unfairness to certain aspects of the existing system. It can occur that it is a bit of a gamble as
to who hits you and what the coverage may be, even if you do go to court. It may very well be that you could be
dramatically injured, you could be of high income, but the person whom you intend
to sue does not have the insurance or the wherewithal to cover your suit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this plan covers
the needs‑‑the health, the medical needs, the rehabilitation needs,
salary replacement. I think this is very
fair.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is a
gamble. Let us take a look at the
gamble. If I on this scheme drive out of
the Legislature today and I get hit by a drunken driver and we both become
paraplegics, we both end up with the same amount of money, even though one
person was completely at fault. One
person was driving under the influence and in violation of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I want to have someone
provide me with an independent analysis as to whether this program is
fair. The Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) from his seat yells out, that is why we are all here. Well, we are also all here to protect those
who cannot protect themselves. The
importance of establishing a fair policy is to make sure that we are not doing
this for political motivation.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell this
House today that he is prepared to go to the Public Utilities Board, allow an
independent evaluation of this program and to report back to the citizens of
the
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I hope she does not want to turn
policymaking of this Legislature over to Public Utilities.
The member assumes‑‑and this
is a very important point‑‑that there will not be any provisions to
deal with impaired driving. That is an assumption that she made without any
basis, Mr. Speaker. This government,
this Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) has taken great pains to make sure that
impaired operation of a motor vehicle is not condoned in this province. I can tell you that when we introduce the
legislation, there will be nothing in that legislation that will undermine the
work that is going on in terms of protection of the public from impaired
drivers.
Mr. Speaker, when she talks about what
would happen if the two people are both seriously and dramatically injured,
first of all, they will receive all of their costs complete with an income
replacement, and their costs will be without cap. Today, if you were at fault, you would only
receive a maximum of $19,000 under our existing program, and you would fall on
the welfare and the social assistance and the public health programs of this
province.
Mr. Speaker, this plan does address the
aspects of that, and I believe that puts the other aspect of fairness into it
which the member may not have contemplated.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Funding
Elimination Justification
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when the government cut 1,200
people from student social allowance, they potentially eliminated 40 classrooms
of students in
I would like to ask the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey): Could she explain to us again the rationale, the
reason, for this policy?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, this program was one that was unique to the
I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) has frequently said that governments have to make tough decisions. This was a decision we made. It was a program that does not exist
elsewhere in
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, last time I asked that question
it was the difficult choices answer.
Today it was the race for the bottom answer.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Student
Employment Prospects
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Could I ask the Minister of Education to tell
us about the fate of these students.
What are their realistic prospects of finding the part‑time jobs
that now are in fact their only hope for any change in their lives?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, again, students‑‑and I believe the member may be referring
to summer job prospects. I am not sure
if she is also referring to prospects through the year, but we do have in place
programs that this government is supporting to assist students to help find
their summer employment. It will be
assistance to help students find summer employment that may be related to
future careers, or also employment within government. If the member has an additional question,
then I will hear from her.
* (1410)
Decentralization
Office
Space Availability‑Arborg
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):
Mr. Speaker, this government announced in 1989
what they called a decentralization program, that they would provide economic
benefits to rural and northern areas.
What we have had are jobs leaving communities, such as Arborg and
Ashern, with government offices sitting in Arborg empty, waiting for these
decentralized jobs.
I want to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Why is the government building
in Arborg sitting one‑third empty while money is being spent by this
government on leasing and renovating office space in Gimli for these government
jobs?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the
honourable member I appreciate is referring to essentially staff in the
Department of Natural Resources. Gimli
was recently selected as the headquarters for the region, with the Director,
Mr. Worth Hayden, residing in that facility.
Certainly the member, who has on many occasions drawn to the fact that
my department has undergone some downsizing‑‑that is the simple
reason. Some of those offices that were
previously filled are now no longer needed.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the
Natural Resources; I am referring to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst)
employees that are being‑‑
An Honourable Member: Then ask the Minister of Housing, okay?
Mr. Clif Evans: I asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The Premier should be aware of what is going
on. I will ask the Minister of Housing.
Mr. Speaker, this government and this
Premier‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, on a point of
order.
Point of
Order
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that
if the members opposite want to incur and engage daily in political
gamesmanship, this is not the way to go.
If they have a question of a minister of a department, they know what
department it refers to. Do not refer it
to the Premier. Do not refer to the
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). Refer it to
the person you want the information from.
This is straight political gamesmanship.
It is an abuse of this House and the members opposite are getting what
they deserve.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am
quite frankly amazed. Our rules are very
clear in this House. Members can ask questions to whomever they wish. It is up to the government to decide. If the Premier does not want to answer
questions, I am sorry, but he is going to have to find that increasingly
Manitobans are asking him to be responsible for the action of his
government. He cannot hide from
that. It is about time he answered some
of those questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable
First Minister, I would like to quote from Beauchesne's 418: "Hon. members may not realize it but
questions are actually put to the Government.
The Government decides who will answer."
Decentralization
Office
Space Availability‑Arborg
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): The question then is directed to the Minister
of Housing, Mr. Speaker.
On what rationale did this Minister of
Housing decide that his department should locate in Gimli, when there is office
space, provincial government space, available in Arborg‑‑a more
central location for his department?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): The fact remains that Gimli is the most
central location for this region for the
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Additional
Costs
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I do have a concern with respect to the no‑fault
insurance, and it is to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). I would like to ask the Minister of Health,
because in the
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member knows
that MPIC pays the cost of at‑fault drivers' health care today. There is no reason for us to drive additional
health care costs into the health care system.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, my belief is that
this will reduce the reliance on the public health system. Obviously, as today, public health is the
first‑‑if you are in an accident and taken by ambulance, you
automatically have access to the health system.
But all rehabilitation, all additional health care costs that you would
have to go to your pocket for are completely covered without cap. The impact of that is that the recipient of
coverage will in fact be much better covered in many respects.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the implication of the member is
really without foundation, because when he considers that all of the costs
would fall to the public health care system and the social services system
today will be picked up without cap by the automobile injury recovery plan that
we have here today. When he considers
that all of those expenses will be carried, then he has to acknowledge that
this may in fact reduce the costs to those services.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister responsible then assure this
House that there is not going to be any additional costs to the Department of
Health, to the department of social services, as a direct result? Can he give us that assurance?
Mr. Cummings: As opposed to what happened when the Liberal
administration in
Mr. Speaker, I challenge him to prove
otherwise.
Antiracism
Strategy
Government
Mediation
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
As the minister will know, that incident
is causing a great deal of anxiety among the community and is of concern to
us. It is the kind of issue that can
best be resolved, I am sure we would all agree, by all those involved sitting
down and talking it out and finding a resolution.
I am not asking for any specific action
from the minister other than her help in facilitating such a meeting. Since the union has agreed to participate and
the Filipino community wants such a meeting but we have not heard from
Westfair, would she contact Westfair Foods and make the suggestion that such a
meeting be initiated or that the company itself participate in such a meeting?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, the whole focus of this
government, with the introduction of our multiculturalism policy and our
Multiculturalism Act, was in fact to focus on the benefit of all new, recent
and previous immigrants to the province of
Not only does that talk about new
immigration and what previous ways immigration have contributed to our economy
and to our community, but it does focus, too, on those well‑established
businesses and their ability to try to accept and understand all Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, the incident that did take
place has certainly, in my conversations with members of the Filipino community
and other communities, caused a major uproar.
I think they are taking the right approach in trying to determine and
get to the bottom of the situation and the facts. I commend the community on the responsibility
and the actions that they are taking.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
Nonpolitical Statements
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Vital have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Render: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this
opportunity to mention that May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. I think all the MLAs have received an
invitation from the Coalition of
I would like to remind all my colleagues
about the MLA's Ride for Safety, which is happening tonight at six o'clock at
the legislative steps.
* * *
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, last night was the 17th Annual
YM/YWCA Women of Distinction Awards.
These awards have come to symbolize not simply the giving of individual
awards to deserving women, but also the recognition of the contribution of
There were 33 women honoured last night,
women from the arts, women from business, women from the voluntary sector,
immigrant women, aboriginal women, individuals who were representative of the
important roles that women play in virtually every aspect of our business, professional
and voluntary sectors.
As the awards were announced last night,
there was not a sense of winners and losers, nor a sense that someone else
should have won. There was a sense of
pride in the room, a sense that these women have been our leaders, our role
models and our builders. Virtually every
winner acknowledged the help that she had received in her chosen field, how
important the people were who had supported her and the importance of the women
who had gone on before.
It was a special evening, and I would like
to pay tribute to all of those who were nominated. The five winners of the awards were: Winnifred Sim was recognized for her many
contributions in the field of music and the cultural life of
Mary Wilson was distinguished because of
her work in the health care field, her work within government and her work with
the
Sandi Funk is one of the aboriginal women
who has taken a very real leadership role in the past several years. Her work with original women's network, Ma
Mawi Wi Chi Itata and with the media in making the issues of aboriginal women better
known, was acknowledged last night.
Dr. Stella Hryniuk, through her academic
and community work, has shattered the myths and stereotypes surrounding the
Ukrainian immigrants in
Mona Brown has become a nationally known
figure as a spokesperson in the issues surrounding women and the law. She is one of
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
One thing I was also very interested in,
Mr. Speaker, is the age range of the women who were not only nominated, but
were selected last night. Generations
were represented last night, women who had provided service to this province
and this country for, in some cases, 60 years, as well as women who are
beginning their contributions to the
On behalf of our caucus, I would like to
congratulate the winners and the nominees and to say that
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus, I would
like to join with my colleagues and other members of the Legislature in
recognizing the YW Women of Distinction Awards.
Certainly, the dinner and ceremonies that were held last evening were
very indicative of the fact that women's roles have certainly changed in our
society and certainly, particularly, in
As one read through the very brief resumes
that were presented of the 33 women who were nominated, it was very, very
obvious of the outstanding contributions that these women have made in
I thought it was very interesting that the
organizers of the event last night chose to invite young women from the various
high schools throughout
Again, I would certainly like to
congratulate not only the five individuals who were given awards for
outstanding contributions but, as well, the other women who were nominated and
particularly the women who, in fact, were not on the list, but who are out
there working in the communities who certainly contribute to our society,
perhaps the unsung heros, whether they are working in the community today or
whether they are women who are no longer with us, but over the past decades and
over the course of the 20th Century have certainly contributed to the fabric
and life of
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question to the House, I
would like to advise the House at this time that the House had agreed, on a
prior occasion, to allow the chief critics to move down to the benches of the
Leaders of the opposition parties.
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: No, leave is not granted. The House had already decided that. I am just putting this forward for the
information of the honourable member for
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Family Services; and the honourable member for
* (1430)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
FAMILY
SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply
please come to order. This afternoon
this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume
consideration of the Estimates of Family Services.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 5.(e)(1) on page 59 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask a
number of questions sort of following up on the initial question raised by my
colleague from
I think it is clear to everyone who has
listened to the minister's responses that, to date, we have not heard a
legitimate reason for the government's decision and the minister's decision to
cut all provincial funding from the Flin Flon Crisis Centre. There has been no logical explanation, no
rationale provided that stands the light of any kind of scrutiny, and that
leads one, of course, to start to surmise about what other possible rationale
there could be, whether it is one of vindictiveness on the part of someone in
the department or the minister, whether it is simply a matter of political
expediency, the minister and his colleagues perhaps around the cabinet table
deciding that‑‑who cares? It
certainly, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, defies logic.
When I look at what the objectives of the
Family Dispute Services branch are, one of the areas under Activity
Identification talks about:
"Provides grants and monitors and evaluates agencies' financial
operations and service delivery to ensure accountability." The Flin Flon Crisis Centre executive
director and chairperson have asked repeatedly for an explanation of the
government's decision. There has never
been, to my knowledge, any objective response which would indicate that in some
sense there were service delivery problems in Flin Flon.
The minister is well aware that, on March
4, 1992, the director of Family Dispute Services wrote to the chairperson of
the Flin Flon Crisis Centre and suggested that the government was going to be
undertaking an evaluation and assessment of the services of the Flin Flon
Crisis Centre. The minister is equally
well aware that that evaluation never occurred, at least not to the knowledge
of the board or the staff of the Flin Flon Crisis Centre.
I am asking the minister today whether he
can provide us with any evidence to support the contention that somehow a
review of this situation, the Flin Flon Crisis Centre, has been conducted by
staff, by the minister's staff or the staff in the department of Family Dispute
Services.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I am
pleased to respond to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). I can assure the member that the government
does not make decisions on the basis of some of the criteria that the member
put forward.
The member also knows that the government
of
The member is aware that in the
I indicated in my answer last day the
tremendous response this government has had to this whole area of Family
Dispute Services, and I have explained our decision in the past in a private
meeting with the board and with the member present. I have also responded to this in the House.
The member, of course, is always good with
his use of terminology, and I have explained to him before that there was not a
formal review of the shelter undertaken.
I used the review in terms of internal discussions that we have made
within the department to review the family dispute services that are offered in
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, unfortunately, the
minister delivers the same recorded announcement that he has given since the
day this decision was made. I guess that
people in Flin Flon and the people who have supported and who built the crisis
centre were looking for something a little more objective.
The rationale the minister has offered is
that the government had tough decisions to make, tough choices, has tough
choices. Of course, the government does have tough choices to make. This particular choice is not the result of a
tough choice; it is a stupid choice.
The fact of the matter is the government
had the option even within Family Dispute Services of reducing all areas within
the department by 1 or 2 or 3 percent, and maintaining the services in Flin
Flon. The logic of closing the Flin Flon
Crisis Centre as the only crisis centre that had 100 percent of its funding
withdrawn is simply not acceptable.
Flin Flon is a community in crisis. There is approximately 20 percent
unemployment in Flin Flon and the surrounding region. There is the prospect of
as many as one‑quarter, 20 percent, 25 percent of the workforce of
HBM&S losing their jobs in the next 18 months. There is tremendous uncertainty, and there
had been an increase in bed nights at the crisis centre.
There are, if you want to use the argument
of regionalization, other centres which could have been regionalized on a much
more rational basis that are closer to other services, closer to other crisis
centres. So it does not make sense.
I realize that the minister does not have
to be responsible. The minister does not have to give us a reasonable
explanation or a legitimate one. He does
not have to be honest about the motivation for the government's decision to do
it, but I want the record to reflect that.
Anyone who had read the minister's
responses since this decision came down would have to agree that the minister
has been evading any realistic response to the question of why the Flin Flon
Crisis Centre.
The argument that the government has tough
choices to make simply does not hold any water, not within the context of the
spending in his own department, and certainly not within the context of
spending on a government‑wide basis.
It simply does not hold water.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was hoping that
the minister would have some additional explanation, perhaps some additional
information at his disposal that he could share about this decision. Obviously, he does not, or he is not willing
to share it with us, which can only lead one to believe that the motives that I
spoke about earlier are, in all probability, the motives that precipitated this
closure.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a couple of
other specific questions that I would like the minister to answer. Right now the Flin Flon Crisis Centre board
is reviewing its options, including its obligations in terms of existing
financial resources that it has at its disposal and the possibility of
continuing to operate, and I would like the minister to answer the question
with respect to those reserves. Does the
Flin Flon Crisis Centre maintain control and authority over the reserves at its
disposal as a private, nonprofit incorporated entity?
* (1440)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that the
member does not accept the fact that government has to make these decisions and
would like me to give different answers every time he asks the question, but we
have consistently indicated that this was a difficult decision.
We looked at the fact that the Northern Women's
Resource Centre, which has its headquarters in Flin Flon and a satellite office
in The Pas, is providing services there.
It provides counselling, outreach, and information referral services,
including services to women who have been abused. The shelter in The Pas operates a 150‑mile
radius, toll‑free crisis line which is accessible to women from Flin
Flon, and we do have a toll‑free provincial line. We also have indicated that the RCMP will
assist women who need an escort to access services in the region, and that
transportation costs are, in fact, covered.
The answer to the latter question is that
we have indicated to the board that we would like to work with them at the
present time. My understanding is that
an audit is still in process, and a meeting that was scheduled has been
rescheduled because that audit has not been completed as yet. We think that, if there is some funding that
is left at this particular time, there are some options that we are prepared to
discuss with the board.
On the question of the surplus funds, our
legal advice is that the funds remain within the purview of the community and
the board.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a subsequent question
in the same vein. The Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre, unlike many other shelters, owns its own
facility. Is it within the purview of
the board to sell that facility, to lease back that facility and to continue to
operate with any surplus funds that they may gain from the sale?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Community groups throughout this province
offer a variety of services that are not under the auspices of government. I think in many areas we have seen that
community groups have a role to play, and if there are community groups within
that particular community that want to pursue that, they are free to do so.
Mr. Storie: I want to thank the minister for those
answers. Just a comment, I guess, the minister suggests that somehow I will not
accept the fact that governments have difficult choices to make. Of course, that is not the case at all. In fact, when I did make‑‑the
Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre group that met with the minister made a
suggestion, the minister seemed very reluctant to accept an alternative.
The minister had many, many choices that
he could have made that would have maintained the service at Flin Flon over
these difficult times, and he chose not to do that. In a budget of hundreds of millions of
dollars, it is difficult to believe that the minister is not intelligent enough
to find a way to maintain the services in Flin Flon if it would have been the
minister's desire to do that.
The argument that somehow the Northern
Women's Resource Centre, which provides no family or crisis counselling
whatsoever, could provide some sort of an assistance in this matter is simply
not acceptable. The fact is that the
Flin Flon‑‑Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I met approximately three weeks
ago with the director of the Northern Women's Resource Services group and her
staff, and they indicate they are in no way an alternative to a crisis centre.
The minister should not attempt to
construe that as an alternative to the services that were being provided. It would be an extreme misrepresentation of
the facts if the minister suggested that.
The fact of the matter is that there are crisis
centres in
This government has also provided grant
money to gun clubs. This government has provided grants to gun clubs, I think
approximately $45,000 this year to a number of gun clubs. In terms of priorities, it seems to me that a
crisis centre has to maintain something of a higher priority on the
government's list of priorities. This
government has made all kinds of choices, and the idea that somehow we are
going to leave families and women vulnerable in Flin Flon and Creighton and
Cranberry Portage and Sherridon and Pukatawagan simply, I think, reflects
contempt for that community and the people in that area, rather than a question
of the government having to make difficult decisions.
It is obvious by the minister's demeanour
here and his demeanour in the meetings that we had that he has no intention of
correcting his ill‑advised and ill‑timed and ill‑considered
decision. That is, indeed,
unfortunate. I only hope that there is
not a tragedy that is a direct result of the fact that that service is not
longer available.
The minister may know that there was an incident in Flin Flon last
night. That is tragic. I simply hope for the minister's sake that
someone was not looking for help at the crisis centre at the time. I am not suggesting that was the case. I am simply saying I hope that is not the
case. I know the minister is not
familiar with Flin Flon or the region and perhaps is not sensitive to the
crisis that people feel, the uncertainty people feel, but I can tell him that
this service could not have been removed at a more inopportune time. I certainly hope that events do not, I guess,
create a situation where the minister will ultimately regret his decision, as
many people already do in the Flin Flon area and as I do.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister and
his department in their Estimate process, I think, quite deliberately removed
funding and support to those groups in our society that need it most and, in
many cases, have the least power to oppose and to have their voices heard. I am thinking here as well of the friendship
centres in Flin Flon and in
Communities like
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with that in mind,
I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that this
committee condemns the government for its decision to arbitrarily close the
Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre and urges the government to reconsider this
ill‑timed, ill‑considered and damaging decision.
* (1450)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am going to take this matter under
advisement for just a little bit. I want
to do some research, and I will get back to the committee on it.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Flin
Flon and his colleagues recognize and have said frequently that governments do,
in fact, have tough decisions to make, and that the member is indicating that
if we made decisions in other departments, we would have more funding in the
Department of Family Services.
The fact of the matter is, Family Services
has accessed additional funding each and every year, far beyond what other
departments have been receiving. I have
asked the member and his colleagues to bring back some recommendations and
ideas whereby this department can find additional resources within it, to take
care of other priorities. The only
suggestion that has come back so far is to get rid of 11 civil servants and
replace them with volunteers, and that is not the type of decision that we
would like to make.
Point of
Order
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of Family
Services is misquoting me. I did not say
that we should get rid of 11 civil servants; I was talking about volunteers in
the community assisting the staff.
Mr. Gilleshammer: On the same point of order, he brought it
forward as a budget reduction within this department, and now he says‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable members do not have a point of
order. The honourable minister continue
his reply.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, thank you. The challenge continues then, that I would
ask members to bring forward some responsible options that are within the realm
of possibility.
We have seen dramatic increases in the
expenses in this department and, as the member knows, those revenues have not
kept pace with them. Every government in
this land is making decisions to deal with the deficit and the debt, and I can
appreciate that members in opposition do have some disagreement with decisions
that are being made. But you must
recognize that governments must make tough decisions, as they are in other
jurisdictions.
I would point out to the member that at no
time did I say that the Northern Women's Resource Service was a replacement for
the shelter. I said that was simply one
of the services and a continuum of services offered within the region. So, again, I recognize that the member does
not accept the fact that governments have to make these decisions. I will certainly have an opportunity to
peruse his comments, and we have made a commitment to work with the existing
board to examine some possibilities.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I have a
number of questions in the same area. I,
too, have great difficulty in understanding why the minister would cut a crisis
centre.
An Honourable Member: Excuse me, is the motion in order? Are we debating‑‑
Mrs. Carstairs: He is taking it under advisement.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
The reality is that, as the minister
indicated, this government has indeed put a great deal more money into the
whole issue of Family Dispute Services.
The government has put that money into Family Dispute Services because
more and more women now have the courage to come forward and to go into
shelters, to take their spouses or their partners to court, to protect their children
as they never had before. I think the
minister will recognize that is the reason why this department and this
particular section of this department has grown so rapidly.
What the government has chosen to do here,
however, was to say that one particular section of the province that had been
served by a shelter in the past, would no longer be served by a shelter. I would ask the minister if he can tell me
exactly how long it takes to go from the community of Flin Flon to the
community of The Pas.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am given to understand that it takes
about an hour to an hour and a half.
Mrs. Carstairs: I would suggest that if you are going less
than an hour and a half, you are in violation of speed limits.
I wonder why the minister would think that
he thinks that a woman who has just been beaten by her partner, who has
children who are hysterical, can put those children in an automobile and drive
to The Pas. Does he not think that many
women in this community will now choose not to avail themselves of the support
they previously had, because of additional trauma that has been placed on them
because of the inability of them to get quickly to a shelter?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would point
out that not every community in our province has a shelter facility. What I have said, in reference to this
decision, that we are looking at the regional service that is provided in that
area. In fact, we do have a shelter
operating at The Pas. We have other
services that are available within the region.
I recognize that the member has indicated
that government has put tremendous additional resources into this area of our
budget, as I indicated the last day, a 262 percent increase over the last five
budgets, a tremendous commitment to the fact that services were woefully
inadequate here in 1988.
I know that the late colleague of mine,
Gerrie Hammond, brought forward many, many new ideas that have been accepted by
government, either within this department, within the Justice department to
make a dramatic difference in the services that are offered.
We looked at the services provided within
that particular region of the province and felt that we had an array of
services, a continuum of services that serviced that area. I know the member can bring forward specific
scenarios. I do not, in any way, deny
the tremendous trauma that must exist when one is in the middle of a family
dispute. Having said that, we did,
within the department, examine those services and made that decision accordingly.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me what consideration
was given if the decision was made by the department‑‑a decision
with which I am in total disagreement, to close a shelter‑‑if any
consideration was given to closing an alternative shelter?
For example, the minister talks about the
regionalization of services. Well,
someone who lives in Selkirk can, quite frankly, get to
Was that taken into consideration in the
decision making here? If they were
really genuinely looking at regionalization of services, did they consider, for
example, the geographic area and drive circles around it and say, okay, these
are distances from one to the other and therefore this one gets targeted
because this one has a share of services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can say to the
member, that in working from last August through the fall and into the winter
months on decision making surrounding budget, every aspect of our department
was considered in terms of looking at reductions that we could make. Within this specific area, staff were
involved in bringing forth recommendations as far as the number of services
offered on a regional basis, and, as a result of those deliberations, a
decision was made. We not only look at
distance, we also look at volume and collateral services that are offered. In the city of
* (1500)
Mrs. Carstairs: In the payments to External Agencies listed
for 1993‑94, can the minister tell me why there is such a differential
between what they were paid in '92‑93 and what they will be paid in '93‑94?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Are you referring to a specific‑‑
Mrs. Carstairs: I am talking about all the shelters. If you look for the grants for '92‑93,
which were distributed last year, the Ikwe, for example, shows $107,300. It now shows $319,600. I had assumed originally that that had to do
with the change of funding, but at the bottom there is a note that says it
reflects grants only and does not reflect the per diems. So can the minister tell me why there is such
a discrepancy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There was a 2 percent adjustment on the
grants listing, but the shelters also ccess per diem funding. We are flowing funds to them in two different
ways‑‑unless I am not sure what the question is that the member is
asking.
Mrs. Carstairs: Last year when I received the document,
Department of Family Services Payments to External Agencies, it lists the
shelters. I am quite prepared to show
this to staff if they want. Flin Flon
was listed at $90,200, Ikwe at $107,300,
Mr. Gilleshammer: That reflects the new funding model that was
introduced which reflected the fact that grants were changed upward and per
diems were lowered.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it might have been
easier if, in fact, there had been a note on the form which said that had
happened. So, in reality, what is the
differentiation that is now being received from the shelter vis a vis last year
to this year, because it was impossible for me to do that comparison?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will just get some further information on
that, but what was happening with the old funding model is that some of the
shelters were rapidly accumulating surpluses while other shelters were feeling
that they did not have enough funding.
So there has been an adjustment in the funding model so that there is a
more even distribution of the funds based on the volume that they have.
There were changes that we will have to
calculate the percentages for, but there was a shift from money for Housing
into Family Services so that those grants went up. We also added some funding for children's
programming in last year's budget. So there is a difference in the way we
budgeted and flowed funds to the shelters.
Mrs. Carstairs: In simple terms then, are the shelters
receiving more money in 1992‑93 than they received‑‑excuse
me, in '93‑94 than they received in '92‑93, or less, and by what
approximate percentage?
Mr. Gilleshammer: They are receiving more money, and there has
been a transfer of some funds from Housing to reflect that.
Mrs. Carstairs: If they are receiving more funds, was any
thought given to perhaps giving them the same amount of funding and using the
remainder, if you will, to be used to maintain the operation in Flin Flon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The reason we made the shift was because
there was seemingly an uneven distribution of the funding available whereby, as
I have indicated, certain shelters were accumulating surpluses; others were
running deficits. So we have reshaped
the manner in which those funds flow.
The idea was to stabilize all of those
shelters. So some of them were in fact
going to get less money, and some were going to get more. Then the other factor that comes in, there is
the volume, that the ones that have a higher volume, of course, are accessing
more per diems.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am just going to bring the ruling forward
on the motion.
It has been moved by the honourable member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), seconded by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), that the committee condemns the government for its decision to
arbitrarily close the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre and urges the
government to reconsider the ill‑timed, ill‑considered and damaging
decision.
Having reviewed the motion moved by the
honourable member for Flin Flon and seconded by the honourable member for
Burrows, I note that the government is being asked to reconsider; that is, to
consider again or to re‑examine its decision. Therefore, I am ruling that this would not
involve expenditure, and I am ruling that the motion is in order.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, before other members of the committee who may wish to address the
motion and ultimately vote on it, now that you have ruled it in order‑‑I
would like to indicate that the government side finds the ruling, the
acceptance of the motion, troublesome.
Motions of condemnation by a committee are
in order any time. I have no difficulty
with that, but to reconsider, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have laid before the
people of this province a budget and Estimates, Estimates which very definitely
make up the total expenditure in program area of $4.9 billion. Reconsideration
of one element of that can lead, theoretically, to the reconsideration of every
item. [interjection]
Yes, it can. Obviously, you could have a motion‑‑if
this motion is acceptable, opposition can call for the same motion on every line
of the Estimates, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. [interjection] Well, I am speaking to
the motion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would just like to ask the member if he is
challenging the ruling of the Chair or if he is speaking to the motion. If he could clarify that for me, then carry
on.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is not for
government to challenge it. I am,
though, speaking to the motion, but I must say, in speaking to the motion, that
I also want to address the fact that never in my history of being here has ever
a motion been allowed to build back into the Estimates and a debate on that
motion.
* (1510)
Point of
Order
Mr. Storie: On a point of order. I respect that the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) is attempting to defend, in one way or another, a decision which is
indefensible. The fact of the matter is,
I think, that the decision is an important one, and it recognizes that this
minister had choices. This minister
still does have choices, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. What we want this minister‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon does not
have a point of order.
Mr. Storie: I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon is challenging
my ruling on what?
Mr. Storie: Point of order. It was not a point of order, you said. It was a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the Chair's ruling,
that it was not a point of order, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I request a formal
vote.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I need two members to request a formal vote.
Mr. Martindale: I request a formal vote.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie), seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that a
formal vote be taken.
Mr. Manness: So we are voting on a point of order?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We are voting on a point of order.
A formal vote has been requested on the
ruling of my point of order. I will be
reporting to the House.
* * *
The committee took
recess at 3:12 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
3:44 p.m.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The motion of the honourable member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) is before the committee at this time. The honourable Minister of Finance was
debating it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think it is a motion
that, under other circumstances, I would challenge. I will not today. I certainly would another time.
The motion calls upon the government to
reinstitute funding after the condemnation.
Of course, members in opposition always have the right to condemn. Beyond that, I would say I would love to
support motions like that. I would love
to have all the money that those of us on Treasury Board, therefore, would not
have to go through the agonizing decisions that we did. We had to go through agonizing
decisions. This one was not taken
lightly. It was a most difficult
decision. There was rationale behind it.
The minister has provided that rationale.
It was a most difficult decision to make.
The motion of the member asks the
government to reconsider. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the difficulty with that, if
the government reconsiders then it has to find the money from somewhere else
and members on the opposition would say, well, that is part of prioritizing,
that is part of governing, just go somewhere else to find it. If we go to somewhere else to find it, then
when that line comes up, whomever is the opposition critic of the day can bring
forward the same motion and say find it somewhere else. Ultimately, whoever's department is last,
would be the last department that then would be the collector of all the
decisions of government reconsidering.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with those very
few remarks, I do not want to in any way take away from the seriousness of the
situation. I have listened not as
carefully as I should, but certainly have listened to the representations made
by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) and also the member for
Flin Flon. We hear the agony behind, at
least I hear the agony behind the calls and I know the minister does also. The reality is that difficult, very tough
decisions have to be made from time to time and have to, not only in this
province but throughout the land.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the point
of order, the Minister of Finance suggested that he, under other circumstances,
would have challenged the ruling. His
remarks clearly were a challenge to the ruling, and I think the ruling is a
correct one because it does not ask the government to spend additional
dollars. It simply asks the government
to reconsider as I have asked the minister on previous occasions to reconsider
this decision. The Flin Flon/Creighton
Crisis Centre staff and chairperson of the board met with the minister and gave
him, in fact, alternatives which would have seen the continued operation of the
shelter.
It has been pointed out that additional
monies were provided to other crisis centres this year. Certainly in terms of precedent, many other
groups had their grant amounts cut on a universal basis in a way that affected
all agencies on an equal footing. If the
minister had chosen that avenue, the people in Flin Flon would have maintained
their service. I get more intrigued by
this all the time.
It is now apparent that the decision was
not made at a staff level. If you listen
to the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) remarks, the decision was made
around the cabinet table, and that concerns me even more.
Mr. Manness: No, that is not true.
* (1550)
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of
Finance will read his remarks. He said,
we made tough decisions. I take that to
include the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues around the table.
The Minister of Finance also said in his
remarks that the minister had provided a rationale. I invite you to read the minister's remarks
on this issue. From the time it was
first read, you will find there has been no rationale. There is no rationale that would explain the
singling out of the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre as the only crisis centre
in the province that had its funding cut 100 percent. There is no rationale. There has been no rationale provided in terms
of the service, no rationale provided in terms of need, no rationale in terms
of the expected need of the crisis centre in the community of Flin Flon.
The Minister of Finance should know that
the community of Flin Flon and the surrounding areas are suffering at this
moment. They live with uncertainty on a
daily basis. The need for the crisis
centre continues to increase and has been increasing over the last year. Those facts are known.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
believe the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) when they suggest that somehow they are concerned and they hear
the pleas for help and assistance from the community. But when you consider that this is the only
crisis centre that is affected, when you consider the scope of the Department
of Family Services' budget, the scope of the governmental budget, it is
difficult to understand why this cut had to occur.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, obviously I know
the government has received literally hundreds of letters from people across
the region, from other parts of the province, but certainly from people in Flin
Flon and the area, about the cuts and their impact. I want to read one particularly poignant
letter that came from Mrs. Moira Davis, President of St. Andrews Presbyterian
Women's Group in Flin Flon. She wrote
this letter to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
She says on the second page of her
letter: The Flin Flon Crisis Centre is a
vital service to our area. We know that
people are not likely to talk to their minister or their church elder about
personal problems. There is a certain
amount of embarrassment and stigma attached to admitting that you or your
family are having problems. This is
especially true when you are discussing these matters with someone whom you see
each Sunday at church. We also know that
times needed to talk to someone do not often occur between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. These people need to talk to
someone who is trained, who is anonymous, who is available any time, day or
night. The crisis centre is needed here now more than ever before. In an isolated community such as ours, there
are no alternative services available.
In parentheses I might add that the
government continues to suggest that somehow there are other services
available. There are not other services
available. The closest comparable
services for Flin Flon for the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this person goes
on to say: How can the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this letter is
typical of letters that I have received and the government has received from
the chamber of commerce, from every service club. I have a letter from the Rotary Club of Flin
Flon, from individuals throughout the community who are involved in community
service. It is not without irony that
the Department of Family Services itself and its staff refer people to the
crisis centre.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is an
unfortunate and hopefully not a tragic one, but an unfortunate circumstance for
women, for children, for the victims of abuse and for the victims of family
violence in the communities that were serviced by the Flin Flon/Creighton
Crisis Centre. I would not have required
and our caucus would not have required a motion in committee condemning the
government had there been the semblance of an answer to the question, why the
Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one would have
thought that given the length of time that the government has to prepare its
Estimates, the months and months that it has to prepare these Estimates, that
if there were objective, rational reasons why Flin Flon was chosen over the
other crisis centres as a target for closure, why alternative ways of financing
all of the centres could not be found is difficult to understand.
The bottom line is that people in Flin
Flon grow more cynical by the hour about the government's intentions, certainly
when it comes to the crisis centre, but not only the decision with respect to
the crisis centre, but also the friendship centres and other cutbacks that tend
to hit in an unfair way the people who live in our region and who are most
distant from alternative services or other services the government has to
offer.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this motion to
condemn the government and ask them to reconsider their decision is a serious
one. We still believe, I certainly
believe, that the government has alternatives, that if they wished to find
alternatives to maintain the services in Flin Flon that could happen.
* (1600)
Having said that, if the government, the staff
and the Family Dispute Services branch of the department were genuinely
interested in providing service to families and victims of violence, to women
who are being abused, instead of insisting that the crisis centre close down
when it has some financial reserve and some capacity to continue to raise funds
through the charging of per diems‑‑and the minister identified
earlier the fact that the core grant had been increased to shelters and that
the per diems had been decreased‑‑the fact of the matter is in Flin
Flon's circumstance they received some significant support from the
Saskatchewan government which pays per diems approximately twice as high as is
provided by the government of Manitoba.
My question is, why is the department not
interested in working with the board to maintain services there? Why are they not working, encouraging the
shelter to remain open? Why did they
threaten, in effect, the shelter and attempt, certainly in their eyes, to
intimidate them into closing their doors when they had some resources they
believed at their disposal? Will the
government now change its position and allow the staff in Family Dispute
Services to encourage the centre to stay open?
This is a more specific question to the
minister. Will the government continue
to pay per diems should the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre reopen? If women in crisis, families in crisis, show
up at the crisis centre door, will per diems still be paid by the Department of
Family Services?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I refused to
participate in the previous vote because I thought it was silly, and one of the
privileges of deciding you are going to leave this business is to not put up
with silliness.
But I will vote on this one, and I will
vote, quite frankly, with the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), because I think that it is beyond understanding
why a government would choose to close down a crisis centre.
I recognize that tough decisions had to be
made, but there are monies that can be found in a variety of other areas, not
necessarily in this department but in other departments. I indicated some of those areas in my reply
to the budget. I simply cannot
understand why a government would choose to close down a crisis centre which
offers support and hope to women who have been battered by their spouses in a
society that still tolerates such behaviour.
We have a Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
who talks about zero tolerance. We have
a Minister of Justice who proclaims loud and clear that this is what he wants
in this province. This policy of closing
down a shelter, in my opinion, is the direct opposite of what that policy is
all about, so I have to support this motion to urge the government to find
dollars wherever they can find those dollars to keep this centre open.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the annual report
of the Minister of Family Services for 1991‑92, there is a description of
the objectives of the Family Dispute Services branch. They are:
"to ensure that protection services are available to support
families who are caught in the cycle of violence; to offer support services to
women; and to plan and develop a continuum of services across the province
which would better address the needs of battered women, their children, and
those who batter".
For better or worse, we have a very large
province. That means that some services
are expensive to deliver because of a low density of population outside the
city of
One of those programs is the Wife Abuse
Program. It says: "The purpose of
the Wife Abuse Program is to support the development and maintenance of
services to aid women who are victims of violence, through the provision of
funding and consultation to community‑based agencies which offer crisis
and support services. The branch also
develops and monitors program policies, and is engaged in the development of
service standards for shelters."
I would point out in this paragraph the
expression "community‑based agencies." It seems to me that a shelter in Flin Flon
and Creighton is a community‑based agency because it is in their
community and it is the largest community in that area, serving a number of
smaller communities.
The next closest community of any size
that has a shelter is 140 kilometres away, The Pas,
Continuing over the page, it says: "The funding to community‑based
wife abuse services is provided by grants . . . ."
It repeats the statement that it is to be
a community‑based service. So I
think if the minister is to be consistent, maybe he would change it and say a
regionally based service, at least for northern
I also have a very interesting clipping
from the Opasquia Times, for Wednesday, April 14, 1993, in which there is a
description of a vigil that they had in support of the crisis shelter in Flin
Flon. The vigil was put together by the
Aurora House in The Pas and was a vigil mainly to express their concern for the
closing of the Flin Flon shelter, and also to say how it would affect their shelter
in The Pas since they would be the ones who would receive the women who
formerly were provided shelter in Flin Flon.
The mayor addressed the gathering and
asked the government to reconsider their decision to cut funding to the crisis
centre, the same expression that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) used in
his motion that we are now debating, that the decision be reconsidered.
Lawyer Lore Mirwaldt, who addressed the
crowd, expressed anger about the government's decision to cut funding to the centres
and said: It is a very black day for all
victims of violence. She continued by
saying: It is tragic that just last
month, we marched in a vigil against violence, and the Justice minister (Mr.
McCrae) promised to take all steps necessary to protect victims of
violence. We certainly hope that there
is no lessening of protection to women who are victims of violence because of
this decision. If some woman is a victim
in Flin Flon and is not able to find transportation or get to The Pas, then we
may have more victims and that would be tragic indeed, especially given all the
public pronouncements and the participation and vigils that the Minister of
Justice and other cabinet ministers and backbenchers of this government and
opposition members have taken part in.
She went on to add that the safety of
women and children should not be a matter of fiscal policy but rather a moral
obligation.
I would hope that this minister and his
colleagues would see it as a moral obligation and not just as an area in which
to save money.
She concluded: It is my hope that next year, we are not
standing here for our shelter.
So obviously, there is concern by board
members, staff and supporters of shelters in other communities that they are
not going to be next if there are more cutbacks next year.
The article continues by saying that the
Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre closed April 1, despite a request by the
shelter for approval to remain open for another three months, using money from
surplus funding which was carried over from last year's budget. Now, I do not know if that is accurate or
not, but apparently there was a request that they continue for another three
months.
So in conclusion, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I certainly support the motion that I seconded for my colleague the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and I, too, would reiterate that this minister and this
government should reconsider their decision.
We are not saying that they have to spend
more money because that would be out of order, but the minister could
reconsider and make his own decision about whether to spend the money or not.
So I speak in favour of the motion.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we move to
vote on the motion, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has assured us, and the
minister has attempted to assure us, that there was a rationale for the
decision to isolate the Flin Flon Crisis Centre and close it. I want some answers before committee decides
to vote on this about what was the basis for that decision, other than we had
tough choices to make. That goes without
saying. I had asked earlier whether in
fact this was a cabinet decision as opposed to an Estimates decision. I would like the minister to answer the
question: Did this issue, the closure of
the Flin Flon Crisis Centre in isolation, go before cabinet?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member may not be aware, but
this is the time of debate, not the time for questioning. So let us carry on with the normal business
of the committee and vote on this, and then we can get to your questions after
the motion has been defeated or carried.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister, of
course, can comment in any way that he wishes.
If he chooses to answer the questions in a straightforward and truthful
manner, I think it would certainly help members of this committee who may want
to vote on this issue. The issue, I
think, needs to be dealt with in an objective way. Are there objective reasons why this decision
was made other than the whimsy of the minister?
Who made the decisions? Can the
minister edify us with some comments, some contribution to this debate? I mean, we are debating a serious motion‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member
that, when we do get back to the Department of Family Services on line 5.(e)(1)
Salaries, he will be able to ask the minister exactly those questions, but at
this time we are debating the motion that the honourable member for Flin Flon
brought forward. I would ask the
committee if they are ready for the question.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The Nays have it. The motion is defeated.
We will now move on to 5.(e) Family
Dispute Services (1) Salaries $267,700.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we were promised
answers after the vote. The vote has
been taken. Can we have the answers?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated a number of times that
governments across this land are making difficult decisions. The member for Flin Flon acknowledges that
other governments are faced with the same kind of difficult decisions in the
1990s, and people like Premier Romanow and Premier Bob Rae are saying the same
thing‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Premier of
Saskatchewan did not close the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre. This minister did. We are asking for an explanation from this
minister.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) wants to interrupt me when I am giving an
answer to him that he has been demanding.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
I recognize that the reasons that I have
given him that he does not find acceptable, but I can tell you that part of the
very difficult decisions in government was decisions made within the Department
of Family Services. I have indicated to
the member that we looked at the services, the continuum of services provided on
a regional basis in the Norman region, and, comparable to other regions, the
Norman region has the service of a shelter, the women's resource centre, a toll‑free
crisis line. As Premier Romanow indicated in one of his speeches, it is a very,
very difficult thing to take away services that were put in place during the
'70s and '80s, but this is a reality that all governments are facing.
* (1610)
I know that in meeting with the board from
the shelter in Flin Flon that there was disappointment and hurt, but I think
they also understand the difficult position that this government is in in
making decisions around budget. I have
indicated to the member that we have reviewed the services that are provided
through Family Services and made some very difficult decisions. If the member
does not want to accept the decision, that is fine. He has had an opportunity to vote on the
budget and speak on the budget.
The fact is that governments of all
political stripes across this country are making these difficult decisions, and
I do not take any particular glee in doing this. This was just a terribly difficult decision
to make within government to look at any of the programs offered by Family
Services, but the reality is that we have programming and demands on this department
in many different areas.
I have challenged his colleague the
critic, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), to come up with other
alternatives. He has come up with none
and all we have heard for the last few days we have been in Estimates, the 20
or so hours that we have been here, is to spend more and more and more in all
areas within this department, and we simply do not have the capacity to do
that.
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have
given the minister other alternatives.
By we I mean the chairperson of the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre
and the executive gave the minister alternatives when we met in his
office. It would have been a simple
across‑the‑board reduction to all crisis centres to allow this one
to continue to operate.
The minister did not answer the more
direct question, and it speaks to the question of whether this was a
politically motivated attack on Flin Flon.
The question was: Did this issue
go before cabinet?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I have rejected the premise that the
member has put forward before that this was a politically motivated
decision. It certainly is not. We govern for all of
A lot of the decisions that we have made
impact different areas of the province.
In this budget, there has been a sense of fairness that the people have
recognized across this province where there is less money for education, less
money in the Department of Health and, certainly, some of the services provided
in the Department of Family Services are receiving less money‑‑very
difficult decisions.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
did not answer the question. The
question was: Was this decision
discussed at cabinet?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is aware that decisions are made
in a process and the final budget is concurred with in caucus and cabinet. The Finance minister has told you that the
answer to that was no, that he presents an entire budget and that is the
decision that government makes.
Mr. Storie: Given the fact that the minister can offer no
reasonable explanation, that any lay person, any person not connected with this
issue would accept as being rational and based on any kind of sensible decision‑making
process, one can only conclude that this was a political decision, a decision
made to attack people who the minister and his colleagues may feel cannot
defend themselves because of their isolation, because of their relative lack of
population, because of the small numbers of people who may be affected.
I wish that the minister could convince me
otherwise, but the answers that have been given to date simply do not justify
any other conclusion being made.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I accept the member's position that he is not
going to readily accept the government's decision, and I also accept that that
is part of governing, that the government must make very difficult decisions on
expenditures and revenues, and the role of the opposition is to criticize.
I have indicated to the member that I
reject his premise that these were politically motivated. These are very difficult decisions, and
decisions we have made within government impact many, many areas of the
province, all areas of the province, many Manitobans. The tough decisions that are made within this
department, within this government, are not dissimilar to decisions being made
right across the country.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
We have talked before about the option of
raising taxes, which a number of jurisdictions have done. Manitobans are overtaxed now, and the
neighbouring provinces have hiked the sales tax. They are raising income tax. They are raising every tax they can find.
We are proud of the fact that we have
maintained the same level of taxation now for six budgets. So the decisions on revenue are sound and
well‑accepted by the people of
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister keeps
saying he has explained the government's decision. Can the minister explain why the government
was prepared to request in many other cases, all school divisions for example,
to take a small reduction overall and to continue to operate, why that would
not have been an acceptable compromise in respect to the crisis centres in the
province? Why was one crisis centre
singled out?
If the rationale that we can all share the
pain is acceptable when you deal with school divisions and you deal with
hospitals and you deal with other agencies of government, why was it not
acceptable when you deal with crisis centres?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I indicated earlier that in the crisis
centres in the province, we have recently gone to a new funding formula to
sustain those centres. The member is indicating,
and he indicated in a meeting we had in my office a number of weeks ago, that
other crisis centres were prepared to give up a portion of their budget to Flin
Flon. I know that he probably canvassed
those centres.
The fact of the matter is, to maintain
their viability, we have had to restructure the funding and now feel
comfortable that we have a funding formula that benefits all of those centres,
whether they are the small, medium, large or extra large. We have spent a lot of time on that funding
formula to be sure that the appropriate funding is in place.
The fact of the matter is, in the Norman
Region we looked at the continuum of services that were available in that
region and felt that there was one shelter that could serve the region and, as
a consequence, have made this decision.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister keeps
saying that they evaluated the services that were available. Could the minister then enumerate which
services he refers to?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I can.
The Department of Family Services funds the Northern Women's Resource
Centre which has its headquarters in Flin Flon and a satellite office in The
Pas. This agency provides counselling, outreach and information referral
services, including services to women who have been abused. The shelter at The Pas operates a 150‑mile
radius toll‑free crisis line which is accessible to women from Flin
Flon. We also have a provincial toll‑free
line which is available to residents of the Norman region.
We have indicated that, if a client wishes
to use the services of a shelter, there is daily bus transportation from Flin
Flon to The Pas, Thompson or
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister's
explanations get more bizarre as we get into this. The minister is now saying that the crisis
line that they established, after they closed the crisis centre, is
justification for closing the crisis centre. He also suggests that somehow the
bus service contributed to the making of the decision. The bus service along No. 1 Highway, I would
say, far exceeds the level of service that we could hope to achieve in Flin
Flon.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
The minister talks about the victims'
assistance fund. The minister is now
suggesting that what we need are darn victims, that is what we need, then the
government will respond. The crisis
centre was to prevent the victimization of children, women and families. That is what it was for. This fund was never, never conceived as
contributing to the evolution of crisis centres for women and children. This is just after‑the‑fact
rationalization and very poor rationalization at that.
The question was‑‑if the
minister really wanted to regionalize service, wanted to look at what
alternative services would be available to women‑‑can the minister
show me any evidence that Flin Flon is better served in terms of alternatives
than the community of The Pas, the community of Thompson, the community of
Brandon, the community of Portage, the community of Selkirk, the community of
Winnipeg? Is the minister suggesting
there are not other services, like services, available in
* (1620)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member asks what services are available,
and then when I give him that answer he says that is not what he wants. I am telling you that on a regional basis the
Norman region has services comparable to other regions of the province, that
they have a shelter, that they have the access of a crisis line and that they
have the Women's Resource Centre there, all within that particular region. The member is indicating the transportation
is not an issue. Certainly
transportation is an issue, and we have pointed out that there are ways to
access the transportation in that area.
The member is saying that a crisis line is
not important. Certainly a crisis line is important. It is important that we have a line where
people can access service. The member
wanted to know what the services were; we have indicated to him what those
services were, and then he rejects that, that the services of that region are
comparable to other regions. Certainly,
I am aware that there are individual differences within regions of the province
and within communities.
The Westman Region is serviced by one
shelter out of
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
certainly do not accept some of the minister's suggestions in terms of
alternative services that are available.
I think it is very flimsy.
My question was a more direct one, and
that is, yes, there may be, in the minister's mind at least, alternative
services available. The minister may
find it acceptable that women now should jump on a bus, and if they happen to
have a crisis at eleven o'clock at night and there is no bus out of Flin Flon
till eight in the morning, the minister may say, well, you simply pack your
bags and you bring your children, you sit them at the bus depot, and just wait there
for those nine hours‑‑just wait at the bus depot for those nine
hours. I do not think that is very
realistic. What I am pointing out to the
minister is that in terms of level of service, a decision to reduce services or
close services in other areas would have made a lot more practical sense.
The other question I wanted the minister
to address was: Was there an objective
review of what other services were available for other centres that also could
have been, or may have been as alternatives, closed? What services are available to those people
in the immediate area of
The same is true obviously of the
communities of Selkirk and
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated before the tremendous
commitment this government has made to the whole area of Family Dispute
Services since we came into government in 1988.
There has been a 262 percent increase in the funding for the services
that are provided through this department.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) can
call these services "flimsy" and he can call them
"dubious," but they are a far cry from the services that existed when
he was a member of cabinet in the Pawley government. We have increased the resources; we have
increased the number of shelters; we have made a tremendous commitment to this
area of our budget and this department.
The member talks about sitting at the bus station waiting for the next
bus to arrive‑‑those are his words, that is his interpretation.
I have indicated to him that through the
Victims' Assistance program, the RCMP have indicated that anyone who on an
emergency basis needs to access that shelter will be able to access
transportation. So the member should not
confuse the committee with people sitting at the bus depot. That is not the case. There is assistance
available.
The member has asked if we have reviewed
this whole area, and whether it was objective.
Yes, as part of the budgetary process, we have reviewed all of the
things that we do within the Department of Family Services. The member knows that through the experience
that he would have had sitting in cabinet that every year the departments
annually examine their expenditures and government examines the income that
they access and have to make difficult decisions.
The member was a member of cabinet when
the resources of government were increasing year over year by double‑digit
amounts, yet still had tremendous deficits and have left us with a problem this
government has to deal with.
I say to the member that government across
this land in the 1990s are making difficult decisions. I recall a press conference that the member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)
had with the media to condemn the economic plan that the government had. When he was asked what alternatives do you
have, the only alternative that he had was to let the deficit go, and indicated
in the press that day that the deficit did not matter, spend money. The important thing was to have job creation
at the expense of taxpayers. We went
through that in the 1980s when the member was a member of the cabinet where the
public works program was put in place and his current leader roundly condemned
the government of the day for the flimsy and dubious initiatives taken by that
government.
So the member has no answers either other than
to let the deficit go. Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, we are not going to do that.
I have indicated that we have looked at the services that are provided
by Family Dispute Services on a regional basis, and the Norman region compares
favourably with other areas of the province.
I realize that he has not accepted this
decision and he will not accept this decision, but that is the luxury of being
in opposition where you can simply criticize government and ask them to make
increased expenditures in each and every area of the department, as he and his
colleagues have done over the last 20 hours that we have been here. That is not achievable. That is not achievable in the 1990s. The governments have to take a critical look
at the way they expend their money with the realization that revenues will not
increase the way they did in the 1970s and 1980s.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
indicates that he has not asked us to increase expenditures. I think if you will look at his comments over
the last 20 hours that every decision we have made to reduce expenditures, he
has rejected and has indicated that they should be reinstated and that we
should flow more money in almost every area of the department, whether it is
social allowances or whether it is daycare.
The member has indicated that he would see
higher expenditures in all of those areas and, at the same time, his colleagues
in Question Period, his colleagues in other department Estimates are indicating
that they want more expenditures right across the board. It is not on, and as a result of these
budgetary decisions, budgetary decisions that have been well accepted by the
people of Manitoba as having been arrived at in a fair and equitable way‑‑they
recognize that governments have to make these difficult decisions and accept
that this government has done it in a way that is palatable and acceptable to
the general populous of this province.
* (1630)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I recognize that the
minister would like to move us off into another area rather than a decision
this government had made, and a decision that‑‑I guess that is the
motion we are debating‑‑many people, certainly the people in Flin
Flon, consider to be a wrong decision, a wrong‑headed decision.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would not want
the minister to believe that there are people in rural
The letters and the support that I have
talked about did not just come from individuals and groups. I have a letter here that came from the mayor
of Flin Flon. I want to read part of it
into the record, that part that relates to the crisis centre.
"In the case of the Flin Flon Crisis
Centre they will have to close on April 1, 1993, and discontinue
operations. At a time when Flin Flon is
in transition and the attendant stress that comes with that process, the loss
of this important resource would be devastating to a section of our community
who are least able to fend for themselves, i.e., women and children. The logistics of servicing these people in
crisis through The Pas is not only impractical and impossible but
inhuman."
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a similar
letter from the mayor of Creighton. It
is not simply a question of the member for Flin Flon or those people with a
vested interest, i.e., women in Flin Flon and the board and the staff at the crisis
centre who see this as an inexcusable decision.
The minister keeps saying that somehow we do not recognize that
governments have to make difficult choices.
We have given the minister alternatives within his own department.
As I mentioned on a couple of occasions,
the minister's department is large. The
amount of money that could have been used to support the ongoing services of
the crisis centre is relatively small.
If the minister places a priority on protecting the victims of family
violence, as he and his Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the government
continue to say, then why is this not a priority? That has to be the question that is asked.
The minister wanted to talk about the
debt. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I find it
rather ironic that the Minister of Family Services, anyone in this government
in the front bench has the gall to talk about debt when they amassed the
highest deficit in the history of the Province of Manitoba, the highest deficit
ever. The gall of a government who took a
surplus budget and ran it, in five years, into an $862 million deficit is quite
astounding.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member should
know‑‑and he can consult with the business community‑‑that
people now refer to the previous administration as "the good old
days," when people had jobs, when businesses were making money, when
people were staying in the province, when young people had a chance. So I do not need any lectures from the
Minister of Family Services when it comes to economics either.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the fact of the
matter is that the Minister of Family Services' department is just that, it is
a service department. The minister is
responsible as much as anyone else for prioritizing those services. What we have tried to point out here is, if
the minister's rhetoric about protecting women and families and children is
genuine, this is a bad decision. That is
why the motion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wish, despite
the fact that the motion was defeated, that this minister will take some time
to reflect on the many letters he has received from people outside the
political process who have called on the government to reconsider this
decision, to lend its support to the Flin Flon Crisis Centre, both financially
and in terms of staff time, so that we can get back on track, because without
the crisis centre the process we are facing right now is going to be more
difficult than it needed to be certainly and than it should have been.
The minister, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
unless he changes the language and the explanations he has been giving us for
his decision, unless we get something a little more closely resembling what
factors actually went into this, it is going to be difficult to accept that
this was a reasonable decision.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Here we see the contradiction of the
NDP. The member for Flin Flon says that
it is a big budget and that we can find that funding somewhere else in the
budget. Yet his colleagues, many who
have trouped through here in the last 20 hours, are saying, you have to spend
more on Income Security, that our rates are not high enough, that we have to
spend more money there. We already spend
close to $400 million there.
Now the member for Burrows says, oh, we
are not saying, you have to spend more money, we are just asking questions
about it. Well, I think if he rereads his comments and rereads his questions in
Question Period, he will see that he clearly is calling on the government to
spend more money, but it is an interesting comment he makes, that now he is saying,
no, no, we do not want you to spend more money.
You obviously are either spending enough
or spending too much. So I am pleased
that he is on side on the rates because that is a support. Of course, he has changed his mind on a
number of issues in the past and it does not surprise me he is changing his
mind again.
Then other colleagues come in and say,
well, you should be spending more on daycare, that you cannot freeze licensing,
you cannot cap subsidies, you should just let that flow and spend millions of
dollars more.
Just the other day, the member was calling
on us to spend more on child welfare. So
it is quite a contradiction when the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) comes in
and says, yes, it is a big budget, you can find it somewhere and, at the same
time, instead of offering places where we could find savings, his colleagues,
his seatmates are coming in here and saying, spend more in all areas of the
department. Let the deficit go.
Now, the member says it is funny that we
talk about debt and deficit, that people are longing for the good old
days. Give me a break. What good old days? I mean, your Leader condemned the ways of the
Pawley government when they instituted the Jobs Fund in
The member says that it talks about a
balanced budget. There was no balanced
budget when the budget was defeated in March of 1988. There was a $300‑million‑plus
deficit in that budget. The member says,
nonsense. He knows well what that budget
said.
Where are the good old days? I think Steve Langdon was longing for the
good old days when he talked about NDP policies that have led the federal NDP
to an 8 percent rating across the country, that the reality of NDP governments
who are governing, and I think Audrey referred to them as being conservative,
with a small "c", and that she was saying that all governments have
to be more conservative. Here we have
members in
Here we have the contradiction of the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) saying, you have a big budget, you can find
that money from within your budget and, at the same time, the member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett), the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the member
for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) have all been in here urging us to
spend more on social allowances, on daycare, on child welfare. I think this NDP caucus needs to get together
and have a little meeting before they come into these Estimates, because they
are all over the map.
Federally, they are having to discipline
members who, again, are speaking out in opposition. In opposition, of course, you can have it any
way you want. The reality is in
government that governments have to make some very, very difficult decisions. I know the members have conceded that the
Romanow government in
Certainly those members in
It is interesting to me that now the member
for Burrows is saying, you do not have to spend any more in social allowances,
your rates are fine, your programming is fine, but it is an interesting
conversion that is taking place. I think
if he reads back his questions in Question Period, his comments here in
Estimates, he will find that there is a major direct contradiction in the
position he is putting forward today with what he has said the last few times
we have met.
So the member for Flin Flon is longing for
the good old days. Certainly, on the
income side, governments would like to be able to have income coming into
government in the double‑digit numbers, as the governments through the
1980s were able to access more funding for program. Instead of dealing responsibly with budget in
those days and coming in with a balanced budget and paying off the debt; no,
the philosophy and the theory that the member subscribes to is to spend
more. Of course, implicit in that is to
tax more.
* (1640)
The member was a part of a government that
raised the sales tax twice. Now we are
finding that governments across this country, because of the debt load, because
of the deficit, is hiking that sales tax in many, many jurisdictions. We are finding in western
Manitobans are taxed to the hilt now, and
by keeping taxes down we are putting more disposable income into the hands of
the consumer. Recent studies show that
some $600 million will be put into the hands of consumers because of the fact that
taxes have not been raised, and who better to spend that money than the
consumer to spend their money. So there
is a fair degree of contradiction over there, and implicit in what they are
saying in spending more money is, of course, to raise taxes.
It is a decision we have made that we will
not go to the people for more tax money.
As a result, we have to make those difficult decisions, or we are going
to be in the position that other governments are in. They are making those difficult decisions,
making those difficult cuts within their budgets and raising taxes at the same.
Because we have been responsible in
budgeting over the last number of years, we have the position of making some
decisions now and not having to raise those taxes. The sales tax, income tax, corporate taxes do
not have to go up, so I am not sure where the member is coming from.
I suggest that maybe he get together with
the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and decide whether in fact we can find
those savings within the department, and then come forward with some
suggestions that we can use.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was an
interesting, rambling kind of a response, but I think maybe the minister would
enjoy having his remarks put in context.
The deficit that the
When does the deficit that the government
incurred last year, the $762 million or $862 million, depending on whether you
believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld)‑‑when does the government take responsibility for
that? When does the government take
responsibility for its $473 million deficit this year? That is what the deficit is. That is the more accurate figure.
But that was not that point. The minister said, he had difficult decisions
to make, and they made them. Well, I am
telling the minister, if he wants to give me his chair for two hours, I will
find the money in his department to operate the Flin Flon Crisis Centre.
He had a choice, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
so he can attempt to absolve himself and the government all he wants. The fact is he had a choice, and he chose to
close down a service that the government says is a vital service. Those are the facts of the matter.
If the minister wants to say that he
cannot manage to protect vital services and the government's priority services,
then that shows a shortcoming on his part and no one else's.
In terms of the crisis centre, I was
involved when the crisis centre began in 1982.
The minister can certainly take some credit, and the government can, in
providing additional services in the area of protecting families in
crisis. I have never denied that.
What I am concerned about is the closure
of the Flin Flon Crisis Centre. The fact
of the matter is that prior to 1981, there were no crisis centres in rural
The minister can also take credit for
being the only Minister responsible for Family Services that closed a crisis
centre, and closing one in northern
I think that in fairness to the people in
Flin Flon and the crisis centre there that they did attempt to provide the
minister with a reasonable alternative and he chose not to accept it. The final decision is in the minister's hands
and on the minister's head. The minister
closed a crisis centre in
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member says he would like to sit in a
cabinet chair for two hours. That is a
frightening experience that Manitobans simply would not put up with. The thought that he was there for seven years
before he was unceremoniously turfed out of office‑‑but two hours I
think is a risk. It is a risk that
Manitobans simply will not take. [interjection]
Well‑‑I mean, we talked
earlier about the job creation that the member was so proud of with green and
white signs all over the province and people counting flowers. That is the kind of initiative and
expenditure that Manitobans rejected in 1988 and again in 1990. They still remember the days when the member
was in cabinet where millions and millions of dollars were spent in
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not want to
prolong this debate too much, revising history as the minister is doing. The
minister will remember when he mentioned MPIC, and it is interesting that we
come to this discussion at this point, when the Minister responsible for MPIC
came to committee to deal with the annual report of the MPIC board in 1988 he
acknowledged on the public record that MPIC required a major increase,
acknowledged that the opposition, then Conservatives, were wrong. So just for the minister's edification he
should know that his comments probably would not stand the test of close
scrutiny even within his own caucus.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue is the
Flin Flon Crisis Centre. That is the
issue, and unfortunately after many hours of discussion and many questions the
minister has not laid out any rationale which would have justified the closing
of that centre. The bottom line is that there are going to be people,
unfortunately, who are going to require that service who may not be able to
avail themselves of the necessary services. Obviously, only time will tell
whether someone's life will be jeopardized or sacrificed because of this
decision. This is not simply about the
minister's ego or the government's political agenda. This is an issue about care of children and
families and wives and husbands. This
decision, I believe, is wrong‑headed. Many other people, certainly in
* (1650)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member constantly
tries to revise the history of this province.
I have acknowledged that he does have some skill with the English
language, but there is not enough skill there to fool the people of Manitoba
who recognized the type of government that the member was a part of and a
recognition that is coming to people in Ontario, Saskatchewan, British
Columbia, in fact, all of Canada, that I think we will follow with interest the
developments of the member's party over the course of the coming months and
coming years. [interjection]
Well, the member for Burrows wants to have
an election. This again is the luxury of
opposition where you can say anything at any time and not have to take
responsibility for it. We have talked
about that, and now that he is here to carry the banner for his colleagues, I
am sure he is going to set the record straight on all of the contradictions
that have arisen between he and his colleague here.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says
there are savings all over the place and that we do not have to be spending so
much money in social allowances, and we could spend less in daycare and child
welfare. I do not know how the member
for Burrows could sit there quietly and not say anything. I know that he got into a bit of a fight here
with the member for
I think here is his chance to put to rest
some of the contradictions that have developed in the last little while. I know as a straight shooter that he is going
to have trouble with this, because the member for Flin Flon says there are all
sorts of savings there and, yet, the member for Burrows wants to spend, spend,
spend. So I do not want to deprive him
of a few minutes to make a few comments, because I am very vitally interested
in what he has to say.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before I ask some
questions, I would like to once again rebut some of the comments that the
minister has made and point out that, although I have asked many, many
questions, I think it is very difficult for the minister to draw conclusions as
to what policies we would have when we are in government. But I can tell you one of the fundamental
differences. The minister should not
lecture me about stick handling. This
minister is probably the best skater in the Conservative benches. He should be in the NHL or the Olympics.
[interjection] Well, it is not intended as a compliment. You just skate whenever I ask you a question
in the House.
However, I can tell you what people are
saying. When I go door to door in
Burrows constituency, they are saying that they would rather see the government
spend money on job creation than spend money on paying people to stay home and
collect social assistance. This
minister's department is the perfect example of that, because we see cuts to
job creation programs, and we see increases every year in the social assistance
caseload and increasing cost to government.
While almost every other department has had a decrease, this minister's
department has had one of the few increases of this government of any minister,
the reason being that the social assistance caseload is up and the minister has
to provide money because it is a mandated service that this government must
provide.
However, I would like to ask some
questions about a proposal from Alpha House Project Incorporated, a proposed
women's shelter in St. Vital, and I wonder if the minister could tell us, first
of all, if he is aware if the federal government has given mortgage approval
and if all of the approvals are in place from the federal government.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am interested in the member's discussion
about job creation instead of social assistance, and it sounds a lot like the
workfare proposal that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was
alluding to a year ago.
Certainly there is more interest across
the country to find creative ways to deal with unemployed social allowance
recipients. We have had an opportunity
to talk in the past about comments that President Clinton has made and Premier
Bob Rae and others. It is a real desire,
I think, on the part of social services ministers, and when I met with my
western colleagues recently, this was certainly a topic of conversation, how can
we get more of these people into the workforce and off of the social allowance
rolls. So if the member has legitimate
ideas in that area, I would be very interested to hear them and sort of share
them with some of the thinking that is going on, not only in
Now, the question on Alpha House. We are working with Alpha House, and I met
with the board who are trying to firm up and finalize their plans. We have committed staff from the department
to meet with them so that they can perhaps realize some of their objectives.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand that
they are seeking assistance from the federal government to purchase a building,
and that the federal government is waiting for a letter of support from the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there is some substance to what the
member is saying. I am not sure that we
have had direct contact with the federal government, but there does appear to
be some interest at the federal level to perhaps do some funding in this
area. Again, I indicated to the member
that I met with a group from the board recently, and we have committed some of
our staff to work with them on developing a proposal.
Mr. Martindale: I appreciate the fact that the minister has
met with their board and that the staff are working with them. What requirements do they have to meet before
they can get established as a funded shelter?
What remaining requirements are left?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The fact of the matter is that their proposal
is not for the development of a shelter.
Their proposal has to do with second‑stage housing, and there are
still some areas within their program that we are working with them to further
develop, and there is ongoing discussion with department staff and proponents
of that project that are going to take a while longer to flesh out.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for the correction. I really do know
what the difference is between a shelter and second‑stage housing. Can the minister tell us what kind of time
line his department is looking at for approval for this second‑stage
housing? I understand that they would
like to be in operation I think by September, but can the minister tell us when
the negotiations will be completed and their programs in place so that they can
open their doors?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not think I want to speculate on that.
It is more a question of refining a proposal and doing some joint thinking on
what it is that they want to accomplish.
It is going to take a little bit of time, I think, for the proposal to
mature, and I would rather not put some deadlines on it.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to go on to a more general
question, moving away from Alpha House Project.
Could the minister tell us if employees at shelters are paid for working
overnight shifts?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that our new funding model allows
for paid 24‑hour staff.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time is now 5 p.m., time for private members'
hour. 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 1.(e), page 14 of the
Estimates manual. Would the minister's
staff please enter the Chamber.
Shall item 1.(e) Personnel Services pass?
* (1430)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
When I look at this document I realize
that, although we had it earlier, there was reason for not being too excited
about the document, because it is just a very general document about what the
department is doing. It does not address
many, many areas that will have an impact on agriculture throughout the '90s.
There is no reference made to the Free Trade Agreement and what the impacts of
that will be on agriculture. There is no
reference to NAFTA and on the impacts of that agreement on agriculture, and in
our opinion those two agreements are having negative impacts on agriculture.
Again, no references to the rail line
abandonment or the Crow rate, to GATT, to any of those issues. I would think that if the minister was
looking into the '90s and the future of agriculture, those points would have
also been addressed in this document.
The other point that I have some concern
with, although we are looking into the '90s and what can be done,
diversification and many other things, there is no address made, no concern
raised to the fact that farm gate prices continue to be low. I guess when we start to talk about value‑added
jobs, I believe that our main concern should be the farm gate price and the
return to the producer, because that is where the real problem is right
now. Farmers are not getting a fair
return for what they produce, and I would like the minister's comments on
that. How is this Vision for the 1990s‑‑how
can he avoid addressing all of the issues that I raised previously? Also, how will this Vision for the 1990s
address the concern we have and farmers have of not getting a fair return at
the farm gate? How will we assure that
there is an increase to what the farmer is making?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chairperson,
it is rather discouraging that the member starts to take this old‑think,
old, negative attitude and talks about agriculture and all their concerns. Agriculture, I want to tell the member, is
all about opportunity, being aggressive about opportunity.
That is how we built the industry in this
country. There is no doubt in my mind,
there was not doubt in the minds of the 100 people who participated as
stakeholders in this Vision for the 1990s.
There was not doubt in the minds of the over 200 people that came to
Gate to Plate. Those people are not
worried about old hang‑ups, and that is what the member of
Yes, I will talk about the value at the
farm gate, which she does not want to recognize in the kinds of questions she
asks in the House. I will talk about
trade and marketing opportunities, which is what we built the industry on, and
trade means access to countries.
We have had free trade in agriculture
since she was born and long before that, free trade in agriculture,
particularly with the
We have been very successful in free trade
historically. When the Free Trade Agreement came in in 1990, the issue was to
remove the remaining 30 percent of commodities that are subject to some kind of
tariffs or restrictions in moving into that marketplace. Agriculture had hardly any commodities in
there.
She says, we are losing in free
trade. We have accelerated the rate of
the removal of the remaining tariffs on canola and canola oil. There is not a success story in North America
better than canola and our penetration of a market with a superior vegetable
oil to anything produced in the
I am really disappointed the member wants
to go back to those old hang‑ups and say, we are losing in free
trade. In agriculture with the
In western
Yes, that is why we do not have a good
price at the farm gates, because we are selling too much into a subsidized
marketplace across the salt water. But
in the
We have had free trade in agriculture as
long as I or she has been alive. To try
and deny it and bring forth these old hang‑ups of, hide from the world,
is old‑think. I am just very
disappointed that we are going to get into this kind of argument on a Vision
for the 1990s, where everybody supports it that I have talked to wherever,
other than her followers, and her thinking.
In agriculture in total, with the
In the agriculture industry we are selling
more pork, more canola, more wheat, more durum, more oats to the
* (1440)
If we followed her line of hiding from the
world, we would wither on the vine out here.
We would take four out of every five acres of production in western
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess the minister has
his views and I have mine. I want to ask
the minister‑‑what I was asking for is where in this vision for the
future does he see the increased price for farmers?
The farmers are producing and selling, and
we talk about value‑added jobs and processing jobs, but how are we going
to get a fairer return for the producer at the farm gate? When we look at what the farmer is getting
versus what the end price is, all along through the years the farm gate price
goes up very little.
How does this minister propose to address
that concern, because that is the real problem on how we are going to keep the
family farm going? There has to be a
fairer return there, and that is what I am asking the minister. Where in this vision is it being addressed
that we will see a better farm gate price for producers?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member did not say it,
but I guess she is talking only about cereal grains, and I want to broaden her
horizons just a little bit.
The cattle industry makes up about 15
percent of the farm gate income in
Hogs make up also about 14, 15 percent of
gross farm income at the farm gate. Last
year, we produced 2 million market hogs, the highest ever. We have doubled hog production in the last 10
years. So every year we have had more
total gross income at the farm gate for hogs year in and year out. Prices have been down as low as 50 cents a
hundredweight. They are now up to around
65, 66, 67.
I have talked to hog producers and they
say the farm gate return is now in a very reasonably comfortable zone, and you
will see more and more hog barns being built.
Yes, they are larger. They are more efficient. We have the highest quality hogs anywhere in
PMU business‑‑can she tell me
a sector in rural agriculture that is doing any better than the PMU
section? Maybe it is cattle, but the
PMU, we have gone from roughly 20,000 horses to 45,000 horses on line in the
last three years. The company expansion
is going to take us to 85,000 horses on line, about a $100‑million farm
gate income, and they do not need or have ever asked for a single dollar of
government subsidy.
That is success in cattle, in hogs, in
PMU. Now let us look at the crop side.
We are producing forage and selling it in
many locations in north‑south trade with the
We are producing oilseed crops,
particularly canola. When you can still
sell canola at over $6 a bushel, an average yield is $180 an acre, well above
the average farmer's cost of production.
The flax market, it is up and it is down,
but there is tremendous opportunity in the future with genetic engineering and
producing the kind of vegetable oil from flax that the consumer wants.
Yes, we have trouble in cereal
grains. We have problems in cereal
grains. For the last four months, I have
been out talking in rural
Let us look at where the successes
are. Let us identify the successes, and
let us also realize that because of problems in a certain sector, government is
not going to be there to fill in the gap with ad hoc payments or safety‑net
programs in the future like they have in the past.
Starting back in '86, '87, '88, '89 and
1990, ad hoc payments went into particularly the cereal grain sector. In '91‑92, GRIP was in place, paid out
massive amounts of money. In fact, it
will be pretty close to $500 million of gross payment through that program in
'91 and '92 because of shortages in the marketplace in terms of the realized
price. The Canadian Wheat Board and the
trade is selling more and more of those cereal grains in the
People have to realize that. That member has to realize that. Yes, wheat has been king. Barley has been a product that we produced
and exported, but the cost of transporting those raw commodities, and really
they are low value per tonne commodities, to salt water across this country,
the grain handling and transportation system, has become a very expensive
system. The portion of the value of that
grain that goes to pay those costs has gone up and up and up. The farmer has had the cost passed back to
his farm gate. That is one of the
reasons why he says‑‑and she has to accept‑‑we are not
getting a fair return at the farm gate.
It is a very serious concern. I
have espoused it many times. People get
mad when I say it, because they do not want me to talk about the reality.
Whether you are talking elevation costs,
whether you are talking cleaning costs, whether you are talking rail costs,
whether you are talking Lakehead terminal costs or whether you are talking
about costs on the Great Lakes going east or the same cost going west‑‑I
do not have the figures with me today, but I will bring them forward and I will
give them to her later, which shows very clearly that from 1980 those costs
have basically doubled, some more than doubled, some less than doubled.
Now, I ask her, and she should know what
the price of barley and wheat has done since then. In 1980, at the farm gate, the initial price
on durum was $6 a bushel, Red wheat was about $5.70. What is it today? It is less than half of that. You tell me who is performing? It is the people from the farm gate on, who
have increased the costs and just passed them back to us in the system we
have. Farmers are forced to accept
that. That is why our prices are down.
Yes, you can say a grain trade war has
driven prices down. That is the other factor.
I will admit, we focused too long on the grain trade war, and said that
is the problem. The real problem was
really at home, where we did not control the costs from the farm gate on that
the farmer was forced to pay. Things
like demurrage costs of a ship sitting at Vancouver, and people go on strike
and the farmer has to pay the demurrage costs.
It is absolutely unacceptable that we have to absorb those costs without
having any say. She seems to defend that
process, that the farmer should accept less and less and less, and we should
not say something about it.
The reasons that we have these troubles‑‑we
have to talk about them. I have talked
about them a lot lately. I will tell you
people do not like to have the truth identified. Costs at the farm gate are down because of
the grain trade war, because of high costs from the farm gate to the
consumer. That is why we have to have
this partnership. That is why the Plate
to Gate is done. That is why this Vision
for the 1990s was done.
Let us have a partnership and an
understanding that the farmer is not the last on the totem pole. He is first, in my mind. If he did not produce these commodities,
whether they are livestock or meat commodities or cereals or oilseeds or
special crops, we would not have an agricultural industry where 75 to 80
percent of the jobs in the agricultural industry are beyond the farm gate. They are doing quite well. The farmers are coming up short.
I would like to hear her. Does she stand up for the farmer or does she
stand up for the people beyond the farm gate and say it is okay for them to
jack up their costs and the farmer has to accept lower? I say it is not acceptable, and the rest of
the sector has to be challenged to get the cost down. Otherwise, we are going to have to take those
cereal grains on the farm or off the farm and value‑add them to a higher
value before we export the final product.
* (1450)
We cannot go on producing raw wheat and
barley and exporting it and expect the farmer to live with the
marketplace. The reality is, we have to
live with the marketplace, so we may have to do some changes. Let us talk about those realities. Let us not try to hide behind old‑think. Let us get on with the 1990s and the
millennium that is coming, because we are in a new world. It is not an easy world.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess the minister did not hear my first
question. I was not talking about the
grain industry. I was talking about
farming in general. As we look towards
the '90s and onward, this government talks about value‑added jobs, and I
agree, we have to have value‑added jobs.
What I am talking about is, how do we get
a fairer return at the farm gate, more for the farmer? When you look at certain products, what the
farm gate gets versus what it ends up selling at the very end is a large
difference. The farmer is not getting a
fair return for what he produces.
Corn is not an example we have here in
He talks about the cattle industry doing
very well. Granted, they are, and I am
very happy for the cattle producers, and I hope that that can be sustained,
that we do not see a drop in price, because it is an important industry.
Again, when you look at value‑added
jobs and processing, how are we going to assure that the farmer gets the
fairest share and is not forced to take the lowest possible price. How do we address that?
That is what I look at in this Vision for
the 1990s. How do we get a fairer share
for the farmers so that we can continue to have a variety of products produced
in this province and across this country?
Mr. Findlay: Maybe we want the same objective. We want farmers to get more at the farm
gate. They have to if they are going to
survive.
What I am saying is, we cannot stay with
what we used to do 20 years ago and achieve that. That is a fact of life. We are going to have to do the things that do
generate a fair return at the farm gate, and it is cattle, it is hogs, it is
PMU, it is oilseeds, it is special crops.
You look at any of those categories that I
have just mentioned, over the last 10 years you will find that they have done
substantially better than the person producing wheat and barley. Let us recognize that. Let us not say it has to always be the way it
was and we have to be sure that they get a fair return at the farm gate.
There are ways and means to get a fair
return. You see different people doing
all kinds of different things. They are
entrepreneurial out there. They are
aggressive. They are achievers. They are people that do some processing on
the farm, like baking bread as an example, like making kielbasa, those kinds of
things.
You may say, that is not acceptable, it is
not the way it was, and it is not the way it was, but it is the way of
opportunity today and in the future. We
have to satisfy that consumer with something that she likes.
There are all kinds of niche markets. With our ethnic community we have,
particularly in
I was pleased that the other day the
member said that she did want to see the farmer get the best return at the farm
gate. That is why I have found her comments and questions in the House the last
week to 10 days rather peculiar about barley.
A round table was put together of 19
members which commissioned a study that demonstrated we are not doing as good a
job at penetrating the U.S. market as we could in volume and price. She totally disregards the basic conclusion,
that there are distortions in the marketplace that benefit somebody beyond the
farm gate, it hurts the farmer. We are
losing 17 percent of value in that market, and whether it is 17, 15, 10, 8 or
25 is really immaterial. The issue is we
are not penetrating the market to the extent possible.
So far this year, compared to last year,
our sales to the
The issue to me is that we are accessing
the market in terms of quantity and price.
I want the people that are selling for us to respond to assure us that
that is being done. If it is not, how do
we adjust and change the system to be sure we penetrate it?
I have already told her, we have a trade
agriculture deficit with the
We have to sell more to them to get
there. We have done that in so many
commodities. The buyer down there is not
forced to take our wheat, durum, barley or our pork. He is a willing buyer. We have had free trade in pork and beef,
basically, other than the countervail situation. So why can we not have free trade in all our
other agricultural commodities?
Why do we have to put a restriction on
selling barley to the
If the net return to the farm gate‑‑and
I will just throw some numbers at her‑‑if the net return is another
$20 a tonne to the farm gate, is she not interested? Plus we have moved that grain to a market in a
nontraditional transportation and grain handling sense. That means that we have taken more out of the
system that makes more room for our wheat that is going to go east and west to
export markets.
Now she is not interested in exploring
that because she has got a closed mind, the old‑think. Export means get on the rail car and go east
and west. The new‑think is, we are
going to produce feed grains here. We
should feed them here and value‑add them on the farm here, or we export
them to the closest, highest paying market that we can compete in, and that is,
most obviously, the
Why she is so anti‑American, anti
Canadians accessing trade opportunities in agriculture, I would be interested
in hearing. Just for her further information, out of the 19 members on the
barley round table task force, 11 of the 19 say‑‑and I want to read
directly so she gets it straight‑‑that they endorse the process
used to examine the potential for marketing barley in
She thinks she has to listen only to a
minority group of that 19 who want to discredit the study instead of saying,
okay, maybe it is not totally accurate, but are there not some themes or some
concepts here that need to be explored, to see that we are penetrating it to
the maximum extent possible and getting the best possible return for the farmer
at the farm gate?
I am not interested in whether the grain
company gets the best return, I am interested about the farmer first and
foremost. Yes, I would like to see
everybody make a profit in the system, but my first interest has always been
the farmer, and she seems to want to challenge me on that, and she does not
have that same interest.
Ms. Wowchuk: Even though we are not on the section dealing
with barley, I think I have to respond to this at this time. The minister indicates that he is interested
in the farmer and I appear not to be. Well,
I want to assure the minister that the farmer, but all farmers, are the ones
that I am interested in and seeing that all farmers get a fair share and that
we have a system in place that all farmers will be treated fairly no matter
where they live.
He talks about the Carter report and how
accurate it is and that the farmers have been losing a tremendous amount of
money. I hope that he will look at the other reports, because there are other
reports that are saying that the Carter report is not accurate. I am disappointed in the minister that he did
not stand with
* (1500)
There were five groups in
He has failed to take a position on this
one: Keystone Agricultural Producers,
Pools, Wheat Board, Farmers' Union all have said this report is inaccurate, all
have said that they do not want the Wheat Board to be weakened. We know that if we go to a continental
market, the Wheat Board will be weakened.
He says that we should be accessing the market.
Those people who chose to access that
market on their own right now have that ability to do so. They can haul into the
There are people up in the northern part
of the province who are not going to be able to access that American market on
their own. Why would farmers want to
give up a system that treats all farmers equally and that has worked very, very
well? Why would this minister be so
supportive of a report that is, in reality, undermining the Wheat Board and
taking powers away from the Wheat Board, a board that has served farmers well
over the years?
I think that we have to‑‑yes,
there have to be ways to penetrate the American market, but that is not the
only market, and we do not have to tie ourselves completely to that market.
There are other markets that we have to look at, and we have to look at what
the impacts will be if we switch over.
Who will be the group that gains the most
if we go to a continental market? Will
it be the
As I asked the minister in other
questions, will there be an increase in profit for farmers? That is who we have to be concerned
with. Will all farmers be able to
continue to grow barley as they have, or is this system changing to a
continental market going to hurt those farmers who are farther away? What bargaining power have you got if every
farmer is going to be out there‑‑does he see every farmer going out
there and selling for himself?
Who is going to have control? Who is going to be doing the selling? Who are we shifting over the power to by
changing to a continental market? I
think we have to look at what is the best, the fairest way, for treatment of
farmers. Who is going to benefit from
this?
I go back to what I said earlier. What we have to look at is a fair return for
farmers, and Mr. Carter himself indicated that under this system there will be
no net gain for farmers. There will not
be. He said that at the meeting when he
made his presentation. It all balances
out. Farmers are not going to be gaining
on this system. So I do not know why we
are so gung ho to reduce the Wheat Board's powers and let everybody out there
sell for themselves. I am not opposed to
selling to the
Mr. Findlay: I guess it is disappointing that the member
does not even understand the issue that is at hand. She is worried about the farmer, but then she
talks about defending the Wheat Board.
The Wheat Board is not the issue.
Defending the Wheat Board is not the issue‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: It is so.
Mr. Findlay: The member says, it is so. See, she cannot disassociate herself from a
monopoly system and an opportunity. The opportunity is to sell grain and get
the best price. I never mentioned the
Wheat Board so far today.
The Wheat Board is‑‑[interjection]
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) in his side remarks again does not
understand. The farmer from Niakwa does
not even have a Wheat Board permit book, so he does not have a clue what he is
talking about‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: You do not have to have a permit book to
understand that. I do not have one
either.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the co‑operation
of all members‑‑
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, when that member was
asking questions, I listened to her talk and now I am giving the answer. If she does not want the answer, let me know
when she is asking the question.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I was just attempting, Mr. Minister to ensure
that each member will have his or her turn, and I would appreciate it if they
indeed would speak and be recognized by the Chair so that Hansard would ensure
that the remarks are indeed recorded in Hansard.
Mr. Findlay: The report identifies there may be some shortcomings
in the marketplace in terms of quantity and in terms of price. The recent statistics that I got today show
that Canadian barley exports to the
The Wheat Board is the sales arm. So all I am asking is the Wheat Board to
respond. Why are the sales down? Why are the statistics shown in the Carter
report there? She has to agree
statistics do not lie. It shows that
there has been a growth in the world barley market by 3 percent, but our share
has dropped by about 1 percent, to use round figures. Whereas the wheat market again has grown by 3
or 4 percent globally, and our share has grown at the same rate. So it shows that the Wheat Board is keeping
up on the wheat side but slipping on the barley side.
All I want is answers. All I want is performance. I never said anything about the Wheat Board
should not be the sales vehicle, not ever at all. So do not try to connect those two and
confuse them. This is not an attack on
the Wheat Board. This is asking for them
to meet their mission to sell to the best possible extent of the farmer. This report raises some questions. I have asked the Wheat Board a number of
questions related to what appears to be coming out of this report and what I
see in other statistics that other people bring forward.
She says, why would I not stand with five people,
five groups that were involved in the round table. I just gave her the answer, but she did not
listen. I said there were 19 groups or
people or individuals, whatever you want to say, involved in the round
table. Eleven of the 19‑‑and
I will read it to her again.
I will read what eleven of the 19 said,
and this is their own words. They would
endorse the process used to examine the potential for marketing Canadian barley
in North America, and we felt‑‑meaning these 11 people‑‑that
Dr. Carter did an admirable job of addressing our questions. So that is 11 out of 19.
Now if she wants to stand with the
minority, I think the majority has some valid comment there. Let us get the answers. The Wheat Board must
have those answers. I have given you statistics
that show again this year that our barley sales are down. Now there has got to be a reason.
We can get more return at the farm gate if
we can reduce the costs beyond the farm gate.
I have already said to her, if grain can be moved, the Wheat Board
directly or through its agents can very clearly sell barley direct from the
farm gate to a
If the alternative process is cheaper,
then that is what they should be advocating that we do for the farm community,
particularly in
I would like answers to those from the
people who have the jurisdiction and the responsibility, and I hope the member
opposite would also, because the net result will be improving the sales for
Three years ago, the
They pay a higher price because it is a domestic
market, it is not a subsidized market.
Costs of getting our grains into that market are lower, and the Wheat
Board has done a good job on the wheat side.
There is no question. But for
some reason there appears to be a slippage on the barley side.
If we have identified some areas where we
can improve ourselves, then the system needs to respond because the farmer
cannot live with $1.50 at the farm gate for barley. He has to have more.
As I said to her earlier, if you go back
to 1980 and you look at all the costs from the farm gate on, they have tended
to double. If she wants specific
numbers, I have got them back at my office, and I will give them to her,
whether we are talking elevation, handling, cleaning, rail costs, terminal
costs, Lakehead costs, all those costs.
They are all recorded, and at the same time we have seen the value of
wheat and barley at the farm gate drop to about half.
That is not sustainable, and I am not
blaming the Wheat Board. I am not
blaming anybody other than just asking some questions. There has been a principle that whatever the
costs are, pass them back to the farm gate.
I have been on this issue for four or five
years, and the whole issue of talking about transportation is all about that.
It is the broader question. How does a
farmer get more value out of the grain he produces? How does he get more value out of the beef he
produces, the pork he produces? To me,
that is the critical bottom line.
* (1510)
He has given up more and more of that
value beyond the farm gate. Yes, we can
say he gets the value of two slices out of a loaf of bread and use corn flakes
as an example, and on it goes. Those examples are real. Now what are the answers? I have not heard of anybody beyond the farm
gate going broke handling agricultural products, but I have seen a lot of
farmers get into severe difficulty because they have been shorted at the farm
gate.
We need some answers to that, and that is
the restructuring that needs to occur.
It is not that we throw this out or throw that out. The Wheat Board has done a good job for the
Canadian farmers in western
Now in the past, yes, they have asked
government to jump in and fill in the hole.
We have done it since 1986. It
has been increased cost of beyond the farm gate which reduced our value of
grain, and it has been grain trade war related, yes. But the facts are, as she well knows, it does
not matter what political stripe, federal or provincial, people are
understanding that there is not a never‑ending pot of money to offset
impacts of this kind of nature. I mean,
you cannot throw billions and billions of dollars in subsidy into agriculture
forever. We are going to have to live
more and more at the marketplace. If we
do not put these questions forward to the people beyond the farm gate to get
some answers, we are in trouble as a farm community.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess the minister has said‑‑he
talks about the report and he talks about quoting figures on what the Wheat
Board has and has not done, and figures can be quoted any way you want them to
read what you want. But I would like the
minister‑‑he says he has information for us. I would like him to table that
information. I would like to ask him if
he would share that.
He also said that there was a 19‑member
task force, and there were 11 members who were supportive. I wonder if the minister could tell us which
of the groups were supportive and which ones were not.
Mr. Findlay: Yes, I would.
I have already indicated to the member that when we get to Vote 6, I
will give her those numbers. I have left
them in the office. I cannot bring the
whole office in.
Ms. Wowchuk: I do not expect you to, but if you could just
share them with us.
Mr. Findlay: I will share them with you in exactly the
context that I have given them to you, in general detail.
I will go through the 19 members that were
on the barley round table and tell her which ones are in the group of 11. Mr. Lee Erickson,
She mentioned the Keystone Agricultural
Producers a while ago. I have indication
that there may have been a slight change in their statement recorded on CKLQ
Brandon on May 4, where it is recorded and given to me that Keystone
Agricultural Producers have reacted favourably to the decision to the results
of the barley calculation. So there is
pretty broad support for it, and I am prepared to call the reaction of the
committee not 11 to 19 or five out of 19 on her side. I say there are two different views
expressed, but there are some questions that need to be answered.
Let us move forward and ask for answers to
these questions that have been raised by the report. The report in itself is not totally
definitive, but it has raised some issues that are of concern to us, and it is
part of the overall picture of assessing whether we are getting at the farm
gate full value of what we are producing.
All the statistics that I have, and I will
give them to her, show that our value of the commodity has shrunk and shrunk,
while other people's portion has gone up and up and up. That is not sustainable, and government
cannot stand in and fill in the hole forever.
We have probably made a few mistakes in doing that because we have not
given people an understanding of the true reality.
If you do not have to do it in cattle or
hogs or PMU or oilseeds or special crops, then let us start talking to farmers
about shifting more of the production to those commodities that give you a
living at the farm gate.
So that is the list I have given her and
these are the news releases that have come out.
This is all public information that I have given her.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, I guess we could argue back and
forth about the value of the report and how it should be interpreted and what
the benefits are. We have heard lots of
discussion from people who wanted to make presentations in
All I was asking is that when we have such
a large representation of
I just want to get back to the program
analysis part of the Personnel Services that we were looking at earlier. We have not passed that line yet.
* * *
(Concurrent sections in the Chamber for a
formal vote)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam Chairperson, in
the section of Supply meeting in Room 255, the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) raised a point of order. As
Deputy Chairperson, I ruled the point of order out of order. The member for Flin Flon challenged the
ruling on the nonpoint of order.
A voice vote was conducted and the ruling
of the Chair was upheld. Subsequently,
two members requested that a formal vote be taken.
* (1520)
Madam Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested. Call in the members.
* * *
* (1540)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. In the section of Committee of Supply meeting
in Room 255 to consider the Estimates of the Department of Family Services, the
ruling of the Chairperson on a point of order was challenged. A voice vote was taken and subsequently the
ruling of the Chair was upheld. Members
then requested that a formal vote be taken.
Therefore, the question before the Committee of Supply is, shall the
ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows: Yeas 26, Nays 19.
Madam Chairperson: The ruling of the Chair is sustained.
AGRICULTURE
(continued)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The Committee of Supply will continue its
deliberations. This section is dealing
with the Department of Agriculture, and the section meeting in Room 255 will
continue to deal with the Estimates for the Department of Family Services.
The Committee of Supply dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Agriculture will reconvene. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Shall item 1.(e)(1)‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I would like to get back
to the question that I have twice tried to get an answer to. It seems each time I start there is an
interruption in the House.
I want to go back to the managerial
position in Personnel Services where we have a decrease in salary from $58,900
to $46,100. I wanted to ask the minister
why there was such a decrease in that position.
Is there a new person in the position or what is that? Why is there such a decrease?
Mr. Findlay: The difference is‑‑there are a
couple of features involved of why the difference exists. One was that the previous person in the
position was at the top of the salary range.
The position was then vacant for a period of time and when that happens,
the department enters the figure which would represent the bottom of the range.
Over the course of time, a new individual
has been hired in there who is at, we might say, the midpoint in the range
between the two figures. The major
reason for that is the person who was there has 24 years of experience, and the
person who is there has six years of experience. So it is a combination of vacant for a while
and filled by the person obviously lower in the salary range because of less
experience.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister tell us who is filling that
position now?
Mr. Findlay: The position is currently filled by Marilyn
Robinson. Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to
go back further then. The minister, in
the first day of Estimates, said that 51 percent of the positions of the
Department of Agriculture are filled by women. As I see this, this is a woman
replacing a man, in Salaries, and I would just like to ask the minister if he
can provide us with documentation of women who are in management positions.
He said there were about six women that
had come into upper positions in the department. Could we not get a comparison of what their
salary is versus the people that they replaced?
I can understand that there is a difference in the number of years that
other people were in the positions, but would it be possible to have some
information on what the difference is in salary? I just would like to do some comparing on
that.
* (1550)
Mr. Findlay: We will supply that, but I want to remind the
member that she may be looking for some issue, but I want to remind her The Civil
Service Act is gender neutral.
Ms. Wowchuk: No, I want to assure the minister I am not
looking for an issue. I am just trying
to do some comparisons of where women in the department are fitting into a pay
scale versus people that were there and the number of years that they have been
in that position, just purely for information sake, not trying to make an issue
of it.
I want to also ask then under this section
whether there are any aboriginal people working in the department. I ask that because we have aboriginal farmers
in the province, and I know that many of them do not come under the
jurisdiction of this department, as the minister has indicated when I talked
about the loans program, but they are farmers and they do require services. So are there any aboriginal people on staff?
Mr. Findlay: At this point in time there are three.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can we just know where those people are
employed? Are they here in the city, or are they out in the field
somewhere? Where are they?
Mr. Findlay: Two in the city and one in rural
Madam Chairperson: 1.(e) Personnel Services (1) Salaries
$265,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $43,900‑‑pass.
1.(f) Program Analysis (1) Salaries
$189,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $45,800‑‑pass.
2. Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation (a)
Administration.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess this is a very
important section of Agriculture, and we have many questions that we would like
to raise as to the changes that are coming in crop insurance.
We had the crop insurance review which
took place last year, and we were supportive of that review. It was time that it should be done. However, I am disappointed that it took so
long for that review to be made public and then resulting in the difficulties
of not having the time to price things out, not having the time to implement
those changes. The report ended up being
tabled much later than it should have been, and it caused a lot of‑‑even
the people on the committee were disappointed that the minister chose to sit on
that report for that length of time.
Under this section, we have the GRIP
program, and the minister knows that there are many concerns with that program.
The program is, in fact, not meeting the needs of farmers, although it has
resulted in some cash getting into the farmers' hands. It is not sound, and because of the sliding
average that it is based on and many of those issues, farmers are quite
concerned, and there are many issues that have to be addressed on that one.
When we look at the crop insurance review,
that is the area where there are many issues that have to be addressed. I want to ask the minister, first of all,
when the report was done, why did the minister choose to wait such a long time? Why was the report not made public so that
changes could be made and many of the recommendations could have been
implemented, rather than delaying it to such a point where there could not be
the changes made this year?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I would like to introduce
the staff that have now come into the Chamber.
I have Mr. Brian Manning, the Acting General Manager; Mr. Neil Hamilton,
the Director of Research; and Mr. Dave Donaghy, ADM of the Department of
Agriculture.
The crop insurance review is a very
extensive document. Certainly, I want to congratulate all 10 members who were
on the committee who went across
What the review has done is identify 123
recommendations, which is a lot of recommendations. Now if I would have tossed this out to the
public the next day, the member would have said, why have you not got things ready
to be implemented? You cannot win with
her.
The corporation spent some time to be sure
that they were ready to respond to the recommendations, and many of them are
complex, many of them are costly, and some of them are certainly
controversial. So we took some time to
be sure that we were in a position to act right away on those that could be
acted upon and determine those that needed to have further research and
development before they could be put in place, and also there are some that do
not relate or are nonactionable.
So the corporation and the board spent
some time to sort of get the various recommendations categorized into those
groups, so that when it was released, you could show that there was action. At
the time of release, 30 percent of the recommendations had been incorporated
into this year's program; 20 percent of the recommendations are under study for
future implementation; another 30 percent are identified for future study or
for future analysis; and another 20 percent basically do not apply or are
nonactionable.
So the corporation, in my mind, did the
responsible thing. It prepared itself for being able to respond in a very
proactive fashion of getting on with the recommendations that were doable. The
member says, well, we needed to get it out to the public so the changes could
be made.
The corporation has to make the changes,
not the public. The public had their
input as to what changes they wanted to have done, and the corporation has to
respond. The corporation also, in
looking at some of the recommendations, has to keep in mind fairness to
all. It also has to keep in mind the
cost, whether the budget of the department can afford the cost of some of
these.
As I said, there is a number in the
category requiring further research, and the member would chastise us if we
went and implemented recommendations and she found out later we did not do our
homework. We are in the process of doing
it. So you can always criticize us no
matter which way we go, but I think the study was complete, it was extensive,
it was a good contribution and good activity in terms of putting thoughts and
ideas forward. The corporation is moving
as effectively and as fast as it can.
* (1600)
The other thing to keep in mind is that
you can only move so fast in all these proposed changes in terms of analysis
because we have to run the daily program, and that is crop insurance, it is
revenue insurance, it is livestock feed security and a variety of other
programs. They have to be administered
and operated, and you cannot stop all those to get on with addressing these
proposed recommendations.
I think, in balance, the corporation and
the board did the right thing in analyzing and getting ready for changes for
'93, releasing it when it was done and doing the further research on the
recommendations that still have not been acted upon.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess I neglected to commend the committee
for the work they had done. I know that
they had put many hours in, and I want to recognize them for the work. I hope that the recommendations that they
made will be taken seriously and those that can be will be implemented.
I guess many of the questions will go hand
in hand with GRIP and with crop insurance because they tie quite closely
together, so if that is all right, I will go on those together.
When we look at crop insurance and GRIP,
one of the concerns that farmers have is that crop insurance coverage has gone
down considerably to where it was prior to GRIP. The concern is then if GRIP is going to be
gone in 1995, as the indication is that we will have to be looking at different
programs, what will happen? Since the coverage is going down under crop
insurance, is crop insurance going to become ineffective as coverages continue
to decrease?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, Individual Productivity Indexing
started in 1992, and certainly one of the recommendations in the crop insurance
review was greater individualization of coverage. Individual Productivity
Indexing determines each person's coverage for himself for each of his crops
relative to how he has performed in previous years in comparison with other
producers on the same soil zone.
You can envision, in general, 50 percent
of the producers will move very little from their previous IPI; 25 percent will
be higher; and another 25 percent will be lower, because they have produced
previous crops or yields that were below the competitive average on their soil
zone.
I think what the member is probably
referring to in terms of reduced coverage is not because the bushels‑per‑acre
coverage went down. In fact, overall if
we did an analysis I am sure you will find the bushels per acre probably crept
up to a small extent, on average, in a soil zone. But each individual person's IPI will be
above or below, depending on how he performed.
In 1993 your IPI is 75 percent on the
basis of your production of '90, '91 and '92, each creating 25 percent of your
coverage, and your previous history the other 25 percent, and in '94 you will
be 100 percent on your IPI of the previous four years.
One of the reasons that your dollars per
acre is down in crop insurance is because of the value of a bushel of wheat or
barley. That is why the coverage is
down. It is not bushels per acre
necessarily down, unless you have not before performed competitively relative
to your IPI.
I can assure the member, many people have
gone up in coverage of bushels per acre through the Individual Productivity
Indexing process.
Ms. Wowchuk: What I was getting at is prior to GRIP, I
understand, you could get your crop insurance by different levels. You could get three different levels of crop
insurance. You could take a choice of what level you wanted to insure to, and
now there is only one level that you can insure. That is the concern, that crop insurance has
been weakened in that sense, that the individual cannot choose to insure to a
higher level on crop insurance.
Mr. Findlay: Prior to GRIP you could have two levels, 70
percent or 80 percent. If you are still
in crop insurance and not in revenue insurance, today you can have 70 or 80
percent coverage. If you are in revenue insurance, you get the maximum coverage
in revenue insurance by being at 70 percent.
Beyond that, revenue insurance fills in the gap. So you still have a choice in crop insurance
of 70 or 80 percent. That has not
changed.
Ms. Wowchuk: But in that sense you do not have as much
coverage as you used to when there was just crop insurance. The concern is that the level of coverage has
dropped, so if it has dropped and the choice of different levels of insurance
is gone‑‑if we do not have GRIP, is crop insurance then a weaker
program than it was before? That is the
feeling of producers out there, that crop insurance has been weakened.
Mr. Findlay: The basic answer to her question is no. If revenue insurance terminates sometime in
the future, it will not affect crop insurance coverage, other than, if you are
currently at 70 percent, which you are in revenue insurance, you can then go
back to choosing 80 percent in crop insurance.
But there is no advantage today.
You are throwing money away if you are in GRIP and you choose 80
percent, because you are getting double coverage between 70 and 80 percent,
paying double premium, and you will not get double benefit.
What you are really doing in revenue
insurance today is insuring to 100 percent of your IPI crop insurance yield,
bushels per acre, times 70 percent of the 15‑year IMAP price. So if you want to look at it that way, GRIP
takes you from 70 percent crop insurance coverage to 100 in terms of bushels
per acre, and your gross coverage is multiplied by 70 percent of the 15‑year
IMAP for each crop. So the fundamental
support process in bushels per acre through IPI will stay the same for a farmer
after GRIP, as it did before.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Chairperson, my questions will be
directed in regard to the Lockheads in Minnedosa in regard to a letter that you
sent out, Mr. Minister, on March 9, in regard to the acreage measurements. In your letter you say: The corporation's
policy regarding acreage measurements has been consistent over the past number
of years.
They seem to say that, as far as they can
tell, the corporation's policy has not changed, but there may be a tolerance in
1993, and they feel that the issues have not been dealt with as far as the acreage
and it says here: What about the agents
coming up with different acres on the same crop, same year? What about the crop insurance having the
right to lower acres but not increase them?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, we do not have the letter
in front of us. The member has the
letter and the questions that are asked in the letter are there. I dare say that the response in the letter
that I sent is the correct response in terms of the issue. I guess it is always easy to nit‑pick
on some small detail and nobody is perfect.
People go out and they measure, they measure bushels, they measure acres
in a claim position and whether you are off by one or two acres, to my mind,
they are human errors.
So we have responded to the letter, and we
respond to many letters and concerns trying to help people understand the rules
of the corporation and how agents function in the process of adjusting
claims. Over the course of time,
certainly, procedures do change and are altered as a result of experience. Maybe this is one of those cases, but I can
assure the member this is one of many, many comments that come in, and we try
to answer to the best of our ability. I
will have to also warn the member that nobody is absolutely perfect, 100
percent of the time right on the nose.
It is easy to nit‑pick, and I think staff have done the best
possible job subject to human error which we all are subject to.
* (1610)
Mr. Gaudry: In the letter you mention, Mr. Minister, that
the technique of measuring and using a wheel is an accepted method for
accurately determining acres. In the
previous letter, they mention that they had been advised that the wheel was not
going to be used anymore. How else, otherwise,
would it be measured?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, in the past, the wheel has
been used for measurement and it will still be used in the future‑‑maybe
not to the extent as in the past. What
is called GIS technology or Graphic Information Services, which is really
satellite imagery, may well be used in the future as a technique of verifying
acres.
I would dare say, depending on
circumstances, I would expect the corporation to use both procedures, the older
procedure and any new technology that is available to them, to determine
through overhead surveillance what the acres are, what the number of bales are,
those kinds of situations.
Mr. Gaudry: Do you have an idea what the coverage will be
for 1993 through GRIP? Has it been
established at this date?
Mr. Findlay: Producers received the information for 1993
in basically two packages. By March 15,
they received their Revenue Insurance Premiums and Support Prices, and then by
April 15, they received their Individual Productivity Index coverages and
therefore then you can calculate your coverage per acre.
It goes out in a form like this. You have got the Revenue Insurance on this
side, Crop Insurance on this side. This
is the documentation that went to them in the middle of April.
Just to read down to the Revenue Insurance
category, you have got the IPI, Individual Productivity Indexing; long‑term
average yields for that producer for each crop; Support Price in terms of
dollars per tonne or dollars per bushel for each crop; you have the Target
Revenue for each crop in terms of dollars per acre; it has got the Premium Rate
in terms of percentage; it has got the Premium Per Acre in terms of dollars per
acre and in Crop Insurance basically the same categories.
So at the far right‑hand side, you
have your total GRIP premium, Crop Insurance plus Revenue Insurance and you have
your dollars per acre Target Revenue in Revenue Insurance and your dollar per
acre coverage in Crop Insurance.
So that farmer has a pretty complete
document. It is quite readable and
understandable, and in my mind, a vast improvement over the form in which it
went out in previous years. So I
congratulate the corporation for being able to put it out. A lot of information could be very complex if
it is not properly put on a piece of paper, and it is very well done in this
particular year.
So farmers have all that information. As I said before, the individual productivity
indexing is 75 percent on the yield that they got on those soil zones in '91‑92,
and '90, '91 and '92 got 25 percent on their long‑term average
yield. Next year it will be 100 percent
on the previous four years.
So there are some adjustments occurring
for farmers. You have IPIs anywhere from
.7 to 1.3. I would dare say that 90
percent of the IPIs would be between .9 and 1.1, and farmers will probably be
growing those crops that they are doing the best at and know that if they want
to increase their coverage in the future, they had better do better than
average in terms of production of that crop in competition with other farmers
on their soil zone each year from here on.
Mr. Gaudry: Would it be possible to get a copy of that
report, Mr. Minister, or just an indication of the‑‑
Mr. Findlay: Yes, we will get both members a copy of this
entire package that goes to each producer.
It has a lot of information, deadlines and changes to the programs,
crops for which there is individual coverage, all your deadline dates, a real
bible of ongoing information that each producer should be reading and keeping
at his fingertips over the course of the year.
So I will get a package of this to each of the critics.
Mr. Gaudry: I would like to thank the minister.
One more question. Almost all of the reduction of the Manitoba
crop insurance comes as a result of the cuts to GRIP, and the minister's speech
in the budget indicated that he has been able to maintain the main pillars of
GRIP, but it is hard to see how he will do this given the size of the cuts to
grip. Can the minister give us an
indication of what is going to happen?
Mr. Findlay: The GRIP program in Manitoba was based on an
awful lot of producer input over a period of time, a task force which had about
three‑quarters of the producers on it, and the principles Manitoba
farmers wanted were individuality of their coverage and predictability of their
support prices year in and year out.
Through Individual Productivity Indexing, as I have mentioned, that
individualizes each producer's coverage.
Predictability is there because they know
the minimum support price that they are going to have for each crop before they
plant the crop. Of course, the sort of
example that I have in front of me here, this phantom individual would have
coverage on red spring wheat of $137 an acre under GRIP; $122 for feed wheat
under GRIP; $141 an acre on durum. If he
is growing barley, he would have coverage of $118; if he is growing flax, $152
an acre; if he is growing
He knows his minimum gross revenue from
each of those crops on a per acre basis.
When the harvest is over and he measures his production and the grade is
determined, then you know the market value in terms of yield times price. Whatever shortfall there is between this
target revenue and the marketplace, he is paid that difference out of
GRIP. That is the predictability, the
individuality, predictability that farmers wanted in revenue insurance.
* (1620)
The reason that the expenditure for the
For some farmers, their level of coverage
may remain exactly the same as it was the previous years, because they have
raised their own individual coverage through IPI. There may be more bushels per acre times
lower dollars per bushel. They maintain
their revenue insurance up there. The
premium still comes down because the actual market price projected is higher than
it was the year before. If I remember
the figures right, the reductions in premium for wheat were 9 percent; barley
was 25 percent; I think canola 36 percent‑‑or figures of that
general nature in terms of reductions in premiums.
I have them now: red spring wheat, minus 9 percent; durum,
minus 25 percent; CPS, minus 12.3 percent; utility wheat, minus 15.2 percent;
flax, minus 26.6 percent; barley, 26.1 percent down in terms of premium
reductions. So that is why. The producer's cost in terms of premium is
down; provincial government's cost in terms of premium is down, and the federal
government's cost in terms of premium is down.
The total liability covered last year was
about a billion dollars, and this year, it is slightly less than a billion
dollars. The general market value of a
crop in
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I want to just go back to
the review a bit and talk about some of the recommendations and what has been
implemented. One of the recommendations
was changing the board structure and having it on a rotating schedule. Is that one of the recommendations that has
been implemented? The minister is
indicating it is not. Is there a problem
with changing that, or is that something that is being considered? Would there
be difficulties in following those recommendations as far as the structure of
the board?
Mr. Findlay: The answer is no, we have not done it. I will say it is one of those that is under
consideration, but let me caution the member that although it seemed to be good
from a farmer's point of view, do not forget that we are the ultimate insurer,
we accept, have to pay any liabilities that exceed the premiums. In other words, we accept the responsibility
for deficits. The board members, in my
mind, are no different than the board of directors over at Great‑West
Life. They have responsibility to manage
the program fiscally responsibly from that point of view.
It will not be possible, in my mind, to
have a continuing changing membership on the board who come in there, and I
mean this is a concern I have as an advocate for a certain group of producers
who want something for the producers.
The board has responsibility well beyond that. They have to do what is right for producers,
but they also have to manage the insurance program. Otherwise, it is going to go bankrupt. Government is not a bottomless pit of money,
as I know the member is aware. If we are
going to have advocates for us to make changes and do things for the producer,
it is difficult for them to take the responsibility of being a board member.
In terms of the board membership, I have
tried as best I can to have representation across the province, people from
different interest groups. Whether they
have forage interest or shield crop interest or special crop interest or
expertise from the standpoint of insurance and how insurance programs are run,
that is the kind of expertise I am trying to bring to the board but, whether we
could act on those recommendations, given the concerns I have identified to the
member, I see it as being hard to do, because the board has a responsibility to
manage and run and make decisions on policy, and we have to fund it.
So you can understand, there has to be a
close relationship between the board and the department. We have to strike a budget that we could
afford in the context of the fiscal guidelines of the government as a whole and
the department as a whole. So there are
a number of factors there, and I just want to make the member aware. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying
there are elements of difficulty to act in that direction.
I can understand why a producer wants
it. They want something that gives them
what they want. If you are going to
create high levels of insurance, you create high levels of risk; therefore, you
create high premiums. Premiums will
eventually get so high, people will say, I cannot afford the program, and I do
not think you want that to happen. You
want affordable premiums, a level of risk protection that farmers can farm with
and be affordable all along the way.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I can appreciate that
answer. There has to be a balance on the board to assure that there is fairness
and that the corporation can continue.
Mr. Findlay: I would like to add one other thing, and that
is that the board has met and continues to meet with producer groups who lobby,
say, Keystone Agricultural Producers or the corn growers or forage producers or
cattle producers. They listen to their
input on a constantly continuous basis, as does my office and myself.
I think, in balance, we get the input in
that context to the board and to the minister's office. We do not have to have the advocates on the
board. The advocates can come and meet
with the board. The advocates can come
and meet with the board. Just as an
example, corn growers have lobbied for some time for individual coverage and
the corporation is in the process right now to offer individual coverage to
corn growers this year. So that is the
result of the lobby over time, and my understanding is that there is a high
level of satisfaction with the process that is ongoing.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister tell us then what is the
farmer representation on the board right now, and at the same time what time
commitment is expected of board members, and how are board members reimbursed
for their time? Is it per meeting or is
it on a salary?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the board members who are
currently on the board are: Terry
Johnson, a farmer from Elkhorn, is the chairman; Norm Edie the vice chairman
from Dugald, Manitoba; Gwen Parker from Ste. Agathe, Manitoba; Ian Wishart from
Portage; and Vern Nelson from Winnipeg.
Those are the five members of the board.
The Crop Insurance Act specifies no more than five members.
Ms. Wowchuk: A total of how many? How many on the board?
Mr. Findlay: The board is five. The maximum allowed by The Crop Insurance Act
is five members on the board. You asked
about the remuneration paid and the level of activity. On average they meet once a month and each
meeting is a day to a day and a half.
There is usually a half a day to a day of
preparation for each board meeting because there is a lot of material that is
covered. The remuneration paid to each
board member is $105 a meeting, and the board chairman who has got a lot of
activity beyond the board meetings is paid $8,000 plus $125 a meeting.
The board chairman is in constant contact
with the executive. He is constantly
receiving calls from producers. He is an
entry point for producers who have concerns relative to the board and
operations and he attends a lot of producer meetings at various places across
the province, particularly in the winter.
* (1630)
So in my mind these members are absolutely
underpaid for the duties that they are involved in and the activities they are
involved in and the input they receive from producers individually and some
various organizations. So they are
really committing time and effort on behalf of the farm community that is not
fully compensated for.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just on that, can the minister give us some comparison? What has happened to the salary or the
remuneration? Has it stayed consistent
over the past five to 10 years or has there been an increase in the chairman's
salary? What has the increase been for board members and the chair?
Mr. Findlay: If the member could wait until the next day,
I will get a detail. We do not have all
the figures in front of us, but in general terms, the per diems have changed
very little for some period of time.
I have to also remind the member that the
level of activity, especially for the chairman, has accelerated with the
involvement of revenue insurance, the crop insurance review, so I stand by what
I said earlier that the compensation is not consistent with the level of
activity, involvement and the time that they have to commit.
In addition to that, of course, they
receive their transportation costs, their meals and lodging, if that is
involved.
Ms. Wowchuk: If the minister could provide us with that at
the next sitting, then I would appreciate that.
I just want to continue on in crop
insurance. In January, there was a
change in general manager of the Crop Insurance Corporation, and the reaction
from some people was surprise.
I want to ask the minister, can he inform
us what happened? Why was it necessary to change the general manager? What were the problems that had to be
addressed? Why was there a change?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, like in operating
anything, assessments have to be made, and the board made assessments over a
period of time and felt that it would be appropriate to change the general
manager. The previous general manager
was offered another position in the Department of Agriculture which he
willingly accepted.
I do not think it is constructive to get
into a discussion, in the public sense, on some of the reasons why. I would hope it would be suffice to say that
it was a decision that was made by the board over an extended period of time,
and the previous individual was offered a job that he accepted in the
department.
We have a new acting general manager, who
previously was in
Ms. Wowchuk: Without getting into too much detail about
this, I just want to ask the minister then, was it a difficulty dealing with
farmers, or was it a difficulty implementing the program or was it difficulties‑‑at
what level were these difficulties? Was
it concerns raised by farmers that were not happy with the actions of the
general manager? Was it bad public
relations? In what area were the
problems?
Mr. Findlay: I think it is fair to say it was a general
assessment and farmers had a lot of input over a course of time that led the
board to that decision. Because of the
purpose, as you look in the Vision for the 1990s, the farmer is our client and
he is No. 1 on our mind, and if there is a concern in any area over a period of
time, they require analysis. The board
did their analysis and made their decision.
Ms. Wowchuk: What interactions would the general manager
have with farmers? Would he deal with
farmers on a day‑to‑day basis or would farmers have direct contact
with him? What was his role?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, the general manager is in contact with
farmers on a day‑to‑day basis, farm organizations, direct communications
and certainly different farm meetings across the province. Plus there are all the indirect contacts
through the other staff. So I can assure
the member that the general manager in this corporation is very much in contact
with the farm public, and they can access him and his board and his executive
very freely.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, the minister had indicated
that this individual had been offered another position in the department and
has taken it. Can you tell us where he
has gone and what job he is doing now?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the individual has
accepted the position of acting executive director of Manitoba Farm Mediation
Board.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess I find that a concern, because if
this person had difficulty dealing with farmers, and that in fact is what we
have been told, that farmers could not communicate with this person in the
position of general manager, now he has gone over to an area that is even‑‑farmers
who go to the Mediation Board are even in more difficult situations and need
supports. If there is difficulty there, how could this person have been
transferred into a position if he is not sensitive to the needs of farmers?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I do not think it is fair
or right to discuss personnel issues in a public forum like this. These
decisions are made by the executive of the department in consultation with the
board, and it was not an easy decision for anybody. I think, from my point of view, it was ultimate
fairness for the department's executive to offer another position to the
member. Let us face it, there is not a
whole list of positions available or open.
That is the way it is.
* (1640)
The executive has confidence that whatever
problems might have existed before, which the member for Swan River has
identified, there will probably be less in the new position because there is
less contact, less complexity of contact.
We have all the confidence in the world that the duties of that position
will be fulfilled adequately. I would
prefer if the member would leave it at that.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess I am prepared to set it aside for now
but would hope that the minister would monitor it and that we would not see
difficulties arising in another department that is a very sensitive department
for farmers, particularly when they get into a mediation situation. We will just set it aside for now and, if it
arises, we will discuss it at another time.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I want to make the member
very aware that the executive of the department monitors all positions in the
department on an annual basis. It is an
ongoing process of evaluation and annual reports. It is standard policy of the department. No one position will be different than the
other in terms of that activity.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just one follow‑up question then on
that. The minister says that they follow
up and do a monitoring. Is there a
probation period that goes with this as well when somebody moves in from one
area to another, particularly in a situation like this?
Mr. Findlay: The current position of general manager is
acting and will be filled by competition in due course. The position of executive director of the
Manitoba Farm Mediation Board is an acting position at this time. Again, the same thing, it will be filled in
due course by competition.
Ms. Wowchuk: In due course, the minister says. What time frame would we be looking at to
having both of those positions advertised and filled formally, rather than an
acting position?
Mr. Findlay: That is a decision that the executive of the
department will make as they make on all positions that need to be filled. They will act when they deem it appropriate
to act.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister tell us then, between the
position of general manager and the acting position on the Mediation Board, how
do the salaries compare? One carries
much more responsibility than the other.
Would there be a difference in salary or is this man being paid at the
same rate that he was in the other position?
Mr. Findlay: Well, I want to assure the member that the
department executive is following what is called due civil service process and
the individual is, at this point in time, receiving the same salary as he
received in the previous position. That
is subject to what we call due process by The Civil Service Act.
Ms. Wowchuk: Is the minister saying the classification is
much lower or the original person who was in that executive position was at a
lower salary, but this person just transferred over, their salary with them, even
though there is less responsibility in it?
I just want to know who was in that position before, what they were
making versus the acting person. Is
there quite a difference in salary?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, as I said earlier, the
individual is currently at the same salary he was at as general manager of Crop
Insurance. He is in what is called a red‑circled
position. He maintains that salary until
the position is advertised. After the
competition‑‑it is actually a lower category‑‑the salary
would be adjusted at that time. It is
the process that is used in all such movements of people.
If she wants, we can give her specific
classifications of what they are. There
is nothing unusual, she can be assured.
Ms. Wowchuk: We will leave that for now.
We were on the crop insurance review. One of the areas that I want to discuss is
eligibility for contracts and whether any of the recommendations are changed
for eligibility for contracts. If the minister will recall, last year we raised
the concern several times of women who were wanting to set up their farm
operations but were not being allowed to take out their own crop insurance
claims and were having to put their crops under their partner's application. In some cases, this led to difficulty because
there were those who chose not‑‑where one partner might not have
chosen to have crop insurance.
I want to know whether any changes are
being made in that area now and whether those women, females. who choose to
farm on their own are going to be allowed to get crop insurance. I know there were some that were allowed to
get crop insurance; others were not. Is
there any change in this eligibility category? What recommendations are being
followed in this area from the crop insurance review?
Mr. Findlay: The corporation established a questionnaire
to determine eligibility for contracts, particularly for where there was a
request for contracts in a family situation.
This is not only what she s referring to of husband‑wife. It refers to father‑son, two brothers,
father‑daughter. Any of those
kinds of circumstances.
Over the course of time the corporation in
1992 amalgamated a lot of contracts where there had been separate contracts in
various kinds of family relations. They
examined whether the people were really separate in their operations or really
in joint partnership or a family corporation or whatever it was, and they
amalgamated a lot of contracts‑‑and we will get the number for you
shortly.
But the questionnaire that is used
identifies such areas as land, machinery, storage, management, finance and
marketing to determine whether there is one operation or whether it is really
precisely two separate operations.
This questionnaire was given to the Human
Rights Commission and was asked to look at it and respond to it, and they gave
the corporation the indication that it was a fair and reasonable questionnaire
to determine eligibility. The
corporation is in the process of putting together a new brochure to explain the
process of applying for separate contracts, but I want the member to be very
aware that it applies to all kinds of family relationships.
The corporation is trying its best to keep
the risk level of offering insurance as low as possible therefore, so the
premiums for everybody can be kept as low as possible.
I think the member must be aware that if
you have a situation where you have got, say, three members in a family unit
and they each have a contract, they can do what is called a risk
splitting. That increases the risk for
the corporation offering insurance, and they have to apply that risk to all
contract holders.
* (1650)
So I think going through the process they
are going through, and it is not just male‑female, it is male‑male,
it is female‑female, male‑female, and I think it is fair and
reasonable, there is nothing to stop a couple from having the contract in the
name of the female. Nothing to stop
them. There is nothing magic about
having it in the name of the male. It
just happens maybe most traditionally that is the way it has been.
The corporation has gone through a fair
bit of analysis on this over the last two or three years as a few particularly
celebrated cases have come forward, but the corporation ultimately has to make
decisions to the betterment of all contract holders. I think this questionnaire that has been put
together and reviewed by the Human Rights Commission is as fair and reasonable
as they can be.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister had indicated there was a
questionnaire, I believe he said, being put together, or is it being used now?
Mr. Findlay: It is being used now.
Ms. Wowchuk: The other one. I just want to ask about one specific case
that got a lot of coverage last year. I
want to know whether that one has been resolved, and that is the case of Pat
Roth, I think, who took her case to the Human Rights Commission, and at what
stage is that? Has she been able to
establish herself as an individual farmer or are they still considered a
couple? Could the minister just fill us
in on where that case is?
Mr. Findlay: The board's decision on it has been no, and
it is currently in litigation, so we will just leave it at that.
In terms of amalgamation of contracts, in
1991, 720 were amalgamated; in 1992, 56 were amalgamated. A committee that was two members of the
corporation staff and two members of the department staff reviewed these
contracts. In 1992, they also reviewed
34 existing conditional contracts and amalgamated four; in 1993, 150 new application
reviews were completed and 14 were amalgamated.
So it has been an ongoing process of analysis by a committee involving
the department and the corporation.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that this goes across
the board, whether it is husband‑wife or father‑son. I want to ask him, are there many young
families, not as many as we would like to see, trying to get started in farming
right now? Because of the high costs of
equipment and facilities, many times when young individuals start up their operation,
they cannot afford to buy all their equipment, and they do share equipment with
their parents, with the other generation.
Does this policy make it more difficult for young people, for young men,
to get started in farming?
I am not opposed to the idea. I understand why these contracts have to be
amalgamated, and I understand that there should not be abuse of the system as
there was in some cases. My concern is
whether this is making it more difficult for young people, whether there is
recognition of the fact that, because of the difficult financial situations,
they cannot buy all the equipment that they need up‑front, they have to
share some of the equipment. Are these
people able to get their crop insurance, or does it have to be combined with
their father or someone else?
Mr. Findlay: Equipment can often be shared. As I mentioned earlier, of the information
areas that are in the questionnaire, and there are six of them, machinery is
only one of them. Provided there is a demonstration of adequate separation in
the other categories, sharing machinery in itself is not going to cause a
person to be turned down.
In other instances, people will be granted
conditional separate contracts over the course of two or three years. They have the opportunity to prove their
separation, that they operate separately in terms of management and decisions
and various other factors.
I want to remind the member that she is
looking at it, maybe it is a negative for the young person getting
started. I am a farmer too, and I say it
is a positive for the son to get the benefit of the father's previous
experience. I think in many cases you
will find that fathers, if they are successful, they would not be able to help
the son, and if they are successful, I guarantee they are more likely to be
above the average in terms of their IPI.
If the son comes in as in a partnership with the father, he is subject
to higher coverage technically than he would be able to on his own if he had to
start right from scratch and prove himself.
The father's experience I think will gain
you a few bushels per acre higher yield than the son being all by himself. So there are some positives for the joint
relationship. Once the son gets his feet
under him, you know, two, five, whatever years later he may want to apply for
separate contracts and set up a separate operation. So there is a positive side, too, to work
with dad or mom.
Ms. Wowchuk: And do we not all know it. I mean, many of us have gone through that.
I guess just an example, and there are
cases where of course you take advantage of the knowledge that the parents
have, and parents are very good at supporting, but also there are instances
where for whatever reason these people may want to set up their own
contracts. I guess I want to use an
example, and I want to know whether this person would qualify, without using
names.
If a young man was getting started in an
operation but worked away from home, coming back on weekends to work on the
land, but was working out to supplement his income or get established, would that
be something that would be considered not a separate operation even though he
had his own land and was working along with his father, but was working off the
farm because, as many farmers do, needed that extra money to get started? Would that contract have to be tied in with
the parents or would that be a situation where he or she, whatever, would be
able to get a separate contract?
Mr. Findlay: It is impossible to answer in terms of
generalities. The only way that the
corporation could look at it is to fill out the questionnaire and in balance,
if there is adequate separation, there will be separate contracts; if in
balance there is not, there cannot be.
There is no generality that that can be used, because every situation is
different, and the corporation has the responsibility, the staff, to analyze it
and make an ultimate decision on the basis of all the information on the
questionnaire.
* (1700)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report
progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, prior
to the reading of the order of bills and resolutions, I would just like to
indicate there was agreement yesterday by all parties that the resolution
standing in the name at the top of the order, the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen), would remain in its place, and we would proceed to the next
resolution, the name of the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). I realize that we have to go through bills
and whatnot. I just wanted to make sure
that was clearly understood. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable deputy government House leader
on the same point of order.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would concur in the remarks of the opposition House leader that we
would ask for leave of the House to ensure that member's resolution did not
lose its space in the order.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow
Resolution 20 to remain in its place in the event that we would get there after
going through all of the order of bills as listed, and that we would just by‑pass
Resolution 20, move directly to 21, and that Resolution 20 would remain at the
top of the list? Is there agreement?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is done.
Okay.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 200 (The Child
and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a
l'enfant et a la famille), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that it remain standing?
[agreed]
Also
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans)
who has one minute remaining.
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter also remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202 (The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation),
standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion for the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203 (The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion for the honourable member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205 (The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 208 (The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 209? No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 211?
No. Are we proceeding with Bill
214? No.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 20‑Seasonal
Job Strategy for Post-Secondary Students
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, Resolution 20 will
remain standing in its place.
Res. 21‑Churchill
Mr. Speaker: Moving right along to Resolution 21, the
resolution of the honourable member for Point Douglas, the
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that
WHEREAS unemployment and a deteriorating
economy are causing layoffs and rising costs for communities throughout
WHEREAS Churchill is endeavouring to
increase the economic activity that will ensure the viability of the rail line
and the port; and
WHEREAS the reactivation of the
WHEREAS the economic viability of Churchill
is important to all of
WHEREAS reactivation and upgrading of the
Churchill Research Rocket Range will ensure Churchill's viability and provide a
major boost to the general provincial economy.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba indicate its concern with the provincial government's slow
positive response to Churchill's efforts to assist AKJUIT Aerospace Inc. to
reopen the Churchill Research Range; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
request the provincial government to consider making the reactivation of the
research range a top priority in the current fiscal year.
Motion presented.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time, to
speak on this important resolution, a resolution and issue that is not only
vital to the long‑term economic future of the community of Churchill, but
to the economic future of much of northern
As everyone knows or should know, the
Fortunately, thanks to the consistent
lobbying of supporters for the port, including Churchill member of Parliament,
Rod Murphy, the federal government has confirmed that the port will be open
this year. But, being open is not
enough. If we can keep the port open
and, with it, the bayline, then the rocket range itself can be revived. The community of Churchill, along with a
private firm, have been working very hard to revive the port. Now we are in a situation which, if the
federal and provincial governments will get behind the proposal, the rocket
range can be revived and literally more than 200 jobs will be created at
Churchill, along with several hundred more in northern
Mr. Speaker, it really is that
simple. The people of Churchill and
northern
AKJUIT Aerospace Inc. has put forward a
viable plan. They, along with the people
of Churchill, have been extremely patient waiting for the news on this
proposal, but time is running out, and the competition is preparing their own
plans. We need a commitment now. To wait until this fall will be too late.
Reviving the rocket range will be a major capital investment of over $150
million. Churchill is in an ideal
location geographically for launching rockets, as has been proved in the past
by the over 3,000 rockets that were launched there in the past.
The provincial government has made
commitments in the past to seeing the range reopen, and I fully support what
commitments they have made. We were very
excited, as many northerners were, when we heard the throne speech on December
5, 1991. They stated that the reactivation
and expansion of the
Sadly, a year later, there was no such
commitment in the next throne speech, and questions remain as to what actions
the government has taken over the 14 months to get the range operating. The often promised $75,000 of provincial
funding to match the funds raised by the residents of Churchill has still not
materialized. For this reason, we were
very disappointed and, frankly, shocked that there was no mention whatsoever of
the rocket range in the most recent throne speech. Despite questions in the House, we have not
received any indication as to why the range was not mentioned in this throne
speech or why the government has not taken a more proactive stand on this
issue. This should not be a political issue.
It is an issue that should be supported by all Manitobans who want
economic growth in this province.
* (1710)
The rocket range should be an economic
priority of this government, not just something that the government should
simply pay lip service to on an annual basis.
I look forward to hearing good news from this government on this issue
as soon as possible because the major companies, the communications companies
that want to use this rocket range, they want to be launching by the year of
1996. If that is to be a reality, we
have to start acting now. We cannot keep
continuing to put it off, because the longer we put it off, the better plans
that their competitions will have, and they will lose faith in the ability of
Churchill.
It is crucial, Mr. Speaker, that this
government hopefully will support this resolution for the betterment of the
community of Churchill and all of
We have to commend the whole community of
Churchill, the mayor and the council, the residents that have supported this,
especially the community of Manitoba who supported this idea because they
realize, Mr. Speaker, that if this project, the space board, is a success, that
will also mean the success of the Port of Churchill, the success of maintaining
our railroad through northern Manitoba, which benefit all the outlying
communities.
When I say outlying communities, you are
looking at Pikwitonei, Ilford, communities of Gillam‑‑[interjection]
The rail line does not go through those communities. It goes through Thicket Portage, and it goes
on through Herchmer and all the way through to the community of Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, without that rail line going
through, then we will lose the opportunity of maintaining our shipping to the
If we have the successful reactivation of
the range, then the Port of Churchill and the rail line should follow in step,
and it should make Churchill a thriving community like the community I remember
when I was a child growing up, when we used to have about 7,000 people living
there. We had an active rocket range at
that time. We had the air force in
there. We had the army, the navy. The community was thriving. We had employment opportunities for anyone
that wanted to work at that time. Now
there is very, very little.
An Honourable Member: And it is because of the Tories.
Mr. Hickes: No, the economy is bad, and Churchill has been
very, very patient. They have continued
their willingness and the efforts to try and rejuvenate their community.
Mr. Speaker, we in this House should
support such actions. I hope the
government, in their wisdom, will support the community and hopefully will
negotiate the $75,000 that was promised to the community. It has been passed and everything, but the
community has not received it yet and that is only the first step.
When they are talking about dealing with
Western Diversification at the federal level, I hope this government will
support the community in their endeavours to achieve the dollars from Western
Diversification to get the spaceport reactivated.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker, because
we have a community hospital there, we have good schools in there and we can
get the community thriving again. We
have very, very active leaders in that community. You talk to the mayor and the councils, they
have nothing‑‑[interjection]
The member says, where is the member for
Rupertsland? I say, the member for
Rupertsland is waiting for this government to call an election. If they will have the courage to call a by‑election,
you will see the next member sitting right on this side. That constituency has not had an MLA since
November. I say, shame on the
government. The government should have
called that by‑election by now, because the constituency of Rupertsland
wants and needs an MLA to represent those communities. The North needs a representative that will
represent the interests of the North.
I am glad that the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) raised that question of where the MLA for Rupertsland is, because I
say, call the by‑election and you will have your‑‑call the by‑election.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will
look at supporting this resolution and help Churchill become a thriving,
enthusiastic community which the mayor and the council and residents are trying
to maintain with low job levels.
I do not think this is a partisan
resolution. I think all it says is that the
government support the community of Churchill to reactivate their
spaceport. The way I look at this
resolution is that I cannot see anything negative in this. All it is asking is for all members of this
House to stand up and support a community that is in need right now and that,
with a little assistance and strong support from the government, will be once
again thriving.
Mr. Speaker, with that, thank you for the
opportunity and I welcome the response from the government.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to comment on this resolution and inform you, Sir, and
the Clerk, that it was on a cold, cold winter night that I, in the company of the
Deputy Premier, the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), along
with the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) travelled up to the community of
Churchill.
Why were we there, Sir? We were there specifically at the call of the
mayor, Mayor Webber, and a committee he had formed to do precisely what this
resolution talks, to examine the possibilities, to encourage us as the
provincial government to support the community of Churchill in their endeavour
to reactivate the rocket site that has had and seen some great days.
Mr. Speaker, we know that Churchill is
uniquely situated for this purpose of satellite launching and rocketry because
of its environment. Southern Manitobans
may think that strange, but in terms of sunshine hours, in terms of weather
disturbances, in terms of climatic conditions, Churchill is one of the best
sites that we have in
Without even in fact jeopardizing our
collective position with respect to our Treasury Board and Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness)‑‑because honourable members, well, there are not too
many members here now that have had previous Treasury Board experience, but
certainly Treasury Board and former Treasury Board members on this side will
understand that you do not commit public dollars without at least a passing nod
to Treasury Board, least of all, the Minister of Finance. We committed dollars right on the site,
$50,000 to help that committee that was specifically working on a very exciting
potential project that they were competing with other sites for the‑‑[interjection]
Was it 75,000? There it is. It was 75.
I was being modest, Mr. Speaker, as is my style.
* (1720)
What are we talking about‑‑the
potential of Churchill. We are talking
about, first of all, involving, dare I say it Mr. Speaker? I will whisper it to you, Mr. Speaker,
because we would need the Americans involved.
We would need Yankee dollars. We
would need Yankee technology. They would
be the major users of the space port.
It never ceases to amaze me when it comes
to my good friend, the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), who understandably and
for every good and right reason will get up in this Chamber once in a while and
chastise this minister, this government, for not being concerned about or not
developing enough with respect to the forestry industry in the North.
The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will
talk about attention not being paid to the North. The honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes), who comes from a noble and long serving whale hunting family, talks to
us about the need for and the legitimate concerns that Churchill has in this
interest.
Yet these are the same people who just
bridle at the idea of trade, free trade with the Americans, commercial ties
with the Americans. They want us to
build a big wall. I mean, what is being
envisioned here is globe‑circling satellites, a series and launch that
could bring the rapidly changing communications industry into the 21st Century.
It may have severe implications for existing
telephone companies, but surely the members opposite are not saying that these
rockets should be launched at Churchill, and just when they get close to
Gretna, they should do a right‑angle turn and maybe go to Melita and
Reston and fly over my colleagues from Virden and those places and then land
back there.
Surely we are talking about the
international implications, global implications, financed by international
money. When we are talking international
money, we are talking American money. That is what free trade is all about.
So, Mr. Speaker, honourable members cannot
have an opposite. If the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) wants to
see 500 or 800 or 1,000 people employed in a woodlands division of Repap in his
home community, he has to understand that we in
The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton),
representing one of our biggest mining consortiums, Inco, at Thompson‑‑Canada
only used 5 percent of all the nickel produced.
Where else does the 95 percent go?
It goes in trade with the world, principally with the Americans.
[interjection] No, I am just saying, the kind of old‑think that still
pervades on the other side.
The biggest allies that you have, I say to
the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) with respect to support of this
resolution, is with the half a dozen American companies who are seriously
interested and who are examining several sites, one in Alaska, one in the
Scandinavian countries. I understand
they are also looking at a southern site in the California area, and Australia,
of all places, or somewhere down under is in competition for some of the long‑term
plans that consultants have talked about that could possibly bring about the
rejuvenation‑‑I should never try to use these big words‑‑try
to bring back‑‑
An Honourable Member: Renewal.
Mr. Enns: The renewal‑‑thank you. The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is
always there when high school dropouts need her‑‑the renewal of the
rocket range at Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways
then. There needs to be a greater awareness
shown by members of the official opposition that cross‑border trade,
working relationships with our principal customer, particularly in this area,
is of utmost importance. You cannot in
isolation demand international attention, international money to help develop
the Churchill rocket site one day and then spend the next 10 days blasting away
at your favourite phantom enemy, the Americans, free trade, NAFTA.
What is maybe possible at Churchill is
global international activity in rocketry and in satellite launchings that
would call for a tremendous degree of integrated services being developed in
the communications industry that may have very serious impacts on some of the
existing facilities that we have.
I have been briefed, and I have listened
to some consultants tell me that it is entirely possible with this system, with
a host of satellites to be launched from a spaceport like Churchill that
cellular telephone use could be available to us throughout the planet, whether
you are standing on top of a mountain in the Himalayas or on the prairies of
Saskatchewan or on the coast in British Columbia, that you could with a series
of communication satellites access the world‑‑Tokyo, London,
Winnipeg, Ottawa‑‑with your cellular. Technology is developing that people and
engineers and the consulting firms, investment firms, manufacturing firms are
in fact thinking along these lines. How
that will shake up existing communications systems is a worry for us all, but
we cannot worry about these things. We
have to move to meet these challenges.
Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem
with this resolution other than the fact that I think it needs an amendment.
I move, seconded by the member for
THAT Resolution 21 be amended by deleting
all of the words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them with the
following:
The community of Churchill has a number of
unique geographic, demographic and infrastructure characteristics which have
resulted in a varied and unique economy and economic activity; and
WHEREAS Churchill, through its unique
economic activity and history, has shown that it can also play a unique role in
the economy of the province through a diverse range of activities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government's action directed at
supporting community and government activities for the promotion and the
reactivation of the Churchill Research (Rocket) Range.
Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to you,
Sir, and the House for my not having sufficient copies of the amendment. I beg your indulgence and with your
generosity that I know you have in the bosom of your heart that you will
forgive me on this occasion.
* (1730)
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable minister
for the explanation. We will attempt to
resolve the matter in a few moments. I
believe the young Page has just taken a moment to run out and make a few copies
for the honourable minister.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a few comments on
the record both in regard to the amendment and the original resolution. First I want to comment by indicating that I
am very pleased that the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), as a
transplanted Churchillian‑‑I believe that would be the appropriate
phrase‑‑I think it is very fortunate, given the fact the government
has not seen fit to call a by‑election in Rupertsland, that, now the
community sits officially unrepresented, there is someone like the member for
Point Douglas who knows Churchill as well as he does to bring forward matters
such as this into the Chamber.
So while there may not be a member
currently for Rupertsland, because of the vacancy, we certainly have an acting
member for Rupertsland in the form of the member for Point Douglas.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it
unfortunate that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) felt that he had
to amend this resolution, because what it does, this amendment waters down the
original resolution which talks about the Assembly requesting the provincial
government to consider making the reactivation of the research range a top
priority in the current fiscal year.
There is no question, the member for Point Douglas pointed out, that
there were commitments made in throne speeches, not the current one but the
previous one, for funding and support for the rocket range from the provincial
government in conjunction with the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, the point of this resolution
is to ensure that it happens and that it happens as soon as possible, and that
it goes beyond simply working with the community to get, as the amendment
suggests, common understanding of the factors affecting the commercial reactivation. That is not the point. The community of Churchill, the people in
Churchill understand the situation. They
also understand that they are faced with some grave economic uncertainties in
that community.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion,
I think this is a good resolution. It
should be part of a plan for Churchill, a community that, by the way, in the
early part of this century‑‑I have seen drawings that show that
Churchill was going to have room for 100,000 people. It was going to be the source of pride for
I have heard the member for Point Douglas
talk about the days when there were 7,000 people. I remember when I was a kid in Thompson. At one point we were pretty well the same
population. When I first moved to Thompson as a kid we were about 7,000 or
8,000 people. What a sad tale of two
communities. Thompson now close to
15,000 and Churchill at 1,200.
Churchill should be far greater in terms
of importance for us all nationally. It
is of strategic importance, it is of economic importance. It is only when we start getting resolutions
such as this taken seriously, and not amended into a weaker form‑‑and
I do not think it was not well‑intentioned. I am saying, though, it is a weaker form, the
current resolution. It is only when we
get clear recognition we have to do something for Churchill that we are going to
get results. So I would urge members of
the House not to support the amendment.
I would suggest the government perhaps
might even consider withdrawing the amendment and let us deal with the original
resolution, which is fair, which is nonpartisan, which is in the best interests
of Churchill and the best interests of our province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Speaker, would it be the desire of the
House to call it six o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).