LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Tuesday, April 20,
1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Santos). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
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
Nour tenons aussi a signaler la presence
dans la galerie publique de 33 etudiants de la 12e annee du College Jeanne‑Sauve
sous la direction de Bernard Des‑Autels.
Cette institution est situee dans la circonscription du depute de Seine
River (M. Dacquay).
[Translation]
Also with us in the public gallery
are 33 Grade 12 students from College Jeanne‑Sauve under the direction of
Bernard Des‑Autels. This school is
located in the constituency of the honourable member for
[English]
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Canadian Wheat Board
Barley Marketing
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier
(Mr. Filmon): Since this proposal by Dr. Carter will in
actual fact cost malt barley producers $15 million and, in the end, farmers
will be no better off, will the Premier stand with
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that member
to read the report and look at the conclusions, because the conclusions raise a
lot of questions as to whether farmers are getting a fair price at the farm
gate.
I would like to read some of the
conclusions to the member: Under the current system the domestic barley market
has pricing and marketing distortions.
Secondly, industry participants such as maltsters and elevator companies
benefit from these existing distortions and the overall economic impact is that
the farmers are losing 17 percent of the value of market barley at the farm
gate, Mr. Speaker.
Now those are very, very serious
allegations in the system, that the farmer is not getting a fair return. In fact, they are saying that we are missing
markets in the
What that member has quoted is quite a
different figure, so obviously there is a lot of discontent out there in terms
of believing the facts on either side.
My position is, Mr. Speaker, let us find out what the facts are, let us
find out what the truth is. If the
farmers are losing 17 percent at the farm gate I am very concerned, and I will
not support that member who wants farmers to lose‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1335)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this minister is not listening to
farm organizations and he is not standing up with them.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that
farm organizations have not had the opportunity to have input and they feel
that information is inaccurate, and that in the end it will be the producers
who are hurt but they have not had input, will the Premier lobby the federal
government to hold a plebiscite on this matter before any changes are made to
the Wheat Board's mandate?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I have just read from the report
and the member refused to accept the fact that‑‑
An Honourable Member: No, you do not want to listen to the farmers.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the farmer from Niakwa does not know what
farmers want out there, and I am telling him they are losing 17 percent at the
farm gate and he does not care. The
member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking out for farmers in
Because of the serious implications that
this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk:
I want to ask this minister why he is not standing up with
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, we have a very large issue at
hand here. What I said at the Pool is
hat we all believe, and I want to still believe that the Wheat Board is doing
the very best job possible, but this report casts some of those actions in
doubt. If these are true, in any sense, that the farmers are being sabotaged in
the process, then I will stand up for those farmers and ask some very serious
questions. [interjection] I am
appalled at those members over there who would not even consider the fact that
the farmers may not be getting full value for the commodity they are selling in
terms of the prices at the farm gate.
I have said for a long time, I am sick and
tired of the farmers being ripped off by everybody in the sector, from the farm
gate on. Maybe, just maybe, there is
another example here, and we have flushed out some of this detail that the
farmers have not been able to get answers to those questions in the past. I can tell that member, I will be asking the
Wheat Board and the grain companies whether these statements are true in any
fact. If they are not, give me the evidence to contradict it. Give me the evidence. I only want to deal with the evidence, and
that is what I want to have presented to the farm community in
Hunger Prevention
Programs
Government Initiatives
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
Mr. Speaker, comparing March '92 to March
'93, the number of people who relied on a food bank for their primary source of
nutrition went up 91 percent or from 17,000 to 33,000 Manitobans, and the
number of food banks in rural
I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), since
it is clear that hunger in a province like
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services):
Certainly, the community has a role to play, and the community is playing a
role in assisting Manitobans who find themselves in some difficulty, and the
generosity of Manitobans has never been in doubt.
We provide that basic safety net through
our Social Allowances Program, and our allowances program compares favourably
with that offered in other provinces, based on the level of funding that we
flow through the Social Allowances Program and all the other enhancements that
we have added to that program in the last few years.
As well, we have to take into
consideration the cost of living in the
* (1340)
Hunger Prevention
Programs
Government Initiatives
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
When will the Premier of Manitoba take
responsibility for the growing number of children and families in our province
who have no option but to go to food banks, and when will he take action to
help the 13,000 children who went to food banks last month and the thousands
more who simply went‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, like all Manitobans, I certainly
want to ensure that those people who are in need in
In fact, I can show her the press
clippings of how one of her predecessors, Maureen Hemphill, also started a
clothing provision for people because she felt that her own government did not
provide them with enough for either food or clothing in those days in which the
New Democrats were in office, presumably attending to the needs of the needy
and the less fortunate in
So this is not something that has arisen
as a result of any ideology or as a result of any government's action or lack
of action in this province, Mr. Speaker.
It is something that has evolved throughout society, as people have
recognized, churches, charitable groups, ordinary citizens, that they wanted to
play a role in trying to contribute towards the well‑being of families in
society. So things like food banks
arose, clothing exchanges and other matters.
To try and make some cheap politics on
that is absolutely a very low and deplorable thing to be done in this
House. I would say to the member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how raising a
question about 33,000 Manitobans using food banks every month is cheap
politics. I am simply asking this
government to take some action.
Hunger Prevention
Programs
Government Initiatives
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
My question to the Minister of Health
is: Since that report recommended that
this government address the pressing issue of hunger and ensure that all
Manitobans have enough to eat, will the minister now finally make public this
report, which is two years old, and tell us what his plan of action is for
addressing the problem of hunger and dealing with the effects of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, this government has consistently
supported a range and array of programs which exceed those available in almost
all, if not all, other provinces across
* (1345)
Employment Security
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, while it is relatively easy to
identify the price that this government would have Manitobans pay in pursuit of
their vision of how you create jobs and attract industry to this province, it
is more difficult to identify the product of this policy.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Industry and Trade a very specific question.
Why has his government decided to abandon the hundred employees who work
at Manitoba Sugar? Why are they not
prepared to work co‑operatively with the federal government to ensure
that those jobs stay in
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Osborne is
absolutely incorrect in his preamble. We
have had a series of meetings with sugar producers, the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) and myself. I have had
meetings with the Manitoba Sugar Company and we continue to work with that
industry to find solutions to the problems that they face. So clearly he could not be more wrong with
his preamble in terms of the job we are doing in terms of working with that
very important industry within
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could believe the
response, but the industry says that there are no meetings scheduled, that the
growers will not be planting beets this year, and as a result, the plant will
not be able to stay open.
Will the minister tell us what action he
is going to take to ensure that this plant remains open?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I am basically being repetitive
answering the same similar question that the member has already asked me. We have had a series of meetings with
producers. We met with the company. We will continue to pursue initiatives with
the company in terms of ensuring that there is production this year. A proposal was made to the industry. I am gathering‑‑the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), whether or not he has had an opportunity to have
some follow‑up in the last 24 hours, but clearly we are working with all
elements of the industry to find a viable and a reasonable solution.
Mr. Alcock:
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a hundred full‑time jobs, a
hundred and fifty seasonal jobs here in the city.
Will the minister assure the House today
that this company will be in operation this year?
Mr.
Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have
already outlined the process that we are going through. There are many issues affecting that industry
from the producers through to the final production at the sugar company. We are working with all elements of the
industry to see if there is a solution there.
Clearly, we will continue to do that and see if that can be found. There are many aspects to it. I would hope that the honourable member will
take the time to look at all issues affecting that industry.
In the final analysis, we want industries
in this province but also industries that ultimately can stand on their own,
can compete with elements throughout
Manufacturing Industry
Employment Creation
Strategy
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, in the last four years this
province has lost approximately 28 percent of its manufacturing jobs. Part of the responsibility for that decline,
for those loss of jobs has to rest on the shoulders of the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism. His
department has come under criticism by members of the manufacturers in the
province, by members of his own back bench and today came under attack by the
president of a woodworking company in the city of
My question to the minister is: Why, after receiving a consultant's report
from his own department on December 30, 1991, has this government and this
minister refused to support a local manufacturer who could have employed up to
25 people to export product to
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for Flin Flon is totally
inaccurate with his preamble.
Going directly to the question, whenever
we are dealing with any situation of financial support for a
We look at long‑term viability. We look at issues such as security, the kind
of security that we can get for any funding borrowed to a company. We look at the ultimate utilization of those
funds that will come from the government of
It is interesting to note that this member
is the very same member who continually raises issues like MacLeod‑Stedman
and the concerns around MacLeod‑Stedman, whereas there was an example
where we took back security, we ended up with Cotterand Company remaining in
I can assure that member there are many
aspects of the issue that he raises today, and he should look thoroughly into
it before he raises too many questions, Mr. Speaker.
* (1350)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the minister is incorrect in much
of his postamble.
My question to the minister is: If this minister was genuinely concerned
about creating jobs, can he explain to the Legislature, the people of
Mr. Stefanson: I think the member for Flin Flon knows this,
but this particular project has probably received more attention than most
projects, certainly average projects from my department in terms of officials
from all aspects in my department, from discussions with the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) right through our entire system, Mr. Speaker. I assure him, there are many aspects to this
issue. It is not as cut and dried as he
is trying to paint here today.
It is interesting to note, this is the
same member who stands up in the House and wants the government of
So he is the last person‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Furniture
Manufacturing Plant
Department of
Environment File
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, in relation to the problem of
pollution in Transcona from a furniture and particle board manufacturing plant,
the Minister of Environment said yesterday:
"Last year, I think this was probably one of the most closely
tested and monitored sites in
Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, we
are in big trouble because the department has said that they have lost the file
on this plant.
I would ask the Minister of
Environment: Is it government regulation
to maintain files on all operating manufacturing plants, including plants
receiving environmental licences, including all of the original licences and
technical data from the environmental review?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): The member should not characterize this as
any lack of ability to either control or track the operations at that plant.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, as I have said a
number of times in the last couple of days, this is a very vexatious problem in
trying to make sure that we have a situation that is carefully and tightly
controlled and taking into consideration the concerns that are raised in that
community.
But, Mr. Speaker, again, even within the
community, there are various views of the effects that living near that plant
cause, whether in fact there are any or not.
We are presently working with the plant to try some untried technology
to see if there is something else that we can do to make sure that there are
controls that satisfy everyone in the community.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, for the same minister: Why are people in Transcona who are trying to
protect themselves from the pollution of this plant being told that this file,
including the initial licensing information, has been lost?
Mr. Cummings:
Mr. Speaker, this is a very unusual approach. There is a stack of
information on this particular operation that is far deeper than almost any
other file in terms of monitoring plants and operations.
Mr. Speaker, the licensing of this plant
has been very carefully followed. The
problem is that we are dealing with a situation that is most difficult to put
precise confinements on. It very much comes down to a situation where there are
a number of people in the community who believe that the only solution to this
site is to remove it from that location.
* (1355)
Dial-A-Life Housing
Project
Aboriginal Dialysis
Treatment
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions amongst the aboriginal
population in our country. Aboriginal people are being diagnosed at a rate of
three times that of the Canadian average.
I will table a map which indicates that in
some communities, the rate is as high as 40 percent of the people over 45 years
old. A growing number of aboriginal
people are becoming dependent on dialysis services. Many of these people are transferred out of
My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the
Minister of Health. Dial‑A‑Life housing has space available for two
machines, has space available for offices and space for nursing staff.
My question to the minister is: Will he support Dial‑A‑Life
housing in their efforts to provide vital health services to the aboriginal
people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, it is with apologies
that I have to indicate to my honourable friend, I missed some of his detail
around the question, but I simply want to indicate that since coming into
office, we have very significantly and substantially increased the budget for
dialysis in the
That includes, Sir, the commissioning some
15 months ago of the first ever northern dialysis program in
That is an initiative that this government
took in order to expand the provision of service. In addition to that, Sir, we have recently
and we will be officially opening a dialysis service new and in place in
In the meantime, Sir, we have added
substantially new capacity to both Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, but
the difficulty we have‑‑and that is why it is so important for all
Manitobans to seriously consider organ donation, because the number of
transplants we are doing in the
Mr. Hickes: As the minister is aware, many aboriginal
people already have to relocate to access dialysis service because they fall to
the end of the waiting list. The purpose
of Dial‑A‑Life is to provide suitable and affordable accommodations
for medically displaced aboriginal people and their families.
Will the minister ensure that every effort
is made to move aboriginal dialysis treatment to this centre so that people
will not have to relocate out of this province?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first
answer, that is a significant reason behind why we instituted a dialysis
program in
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, there is
a very, very active campaign in terms of education and prevention focused at
the aboriginal community, with the aboriginal community at the table in terms
of developing and helping to implement education prevention programs so that we
avoid the very serious consequences of latter‑stage diabetes which often
leads to renal failure, and that program will help intervene in the most compassionate
way possible by avoiding the illness, rather than treating it after the fact.
* (1400)
Splash Child Care Inc.
Subsidized Spaces
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Unfortunately this particular government,
in the decision that it has made, is saying to the single mothers that if in
fact they are unable to find work within two weeks, that they will not have any
sort of assurance that those spots will be there when they start school in the
fall time.
I am aware of a number of cases, in
particular at Splash Day Care, where a number of the mothers who are looking at
this are saying that they will not be able to go back to school come fall time
unless they get some sort of assurances that the spaces would be there. The executive director there has indicated to
them that in fact they would not be there because of the waiting list.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, to the
Minister of Family Services, how does this government save money by ensuring
individuals remain on long‑term social assistance as a direct result of
this government's policy.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that someone in the
second opposition party is raising a question on daycare. What we have found ourselves with is an
escalating number of people on subsidy.
Just a few years ago, there were about 4,000 families accessing
subsidies in daycare. By leaving it open‑ended,
that subsidy list has now gone up to 10,000.
So in our recent budget decision we have
indicated that we are going to cap that subsidy list at 9,600. Because of the tremendous increases in the
cost on our Day Care line where we overspent that line by some $5 million last
year, we are putting a cap at this time on the subsidies and recognize that
those subsidies will become available only when some people leave the system,
as they do at the end of August as a new group of children start into the
school year.
So there may be, in certain cases, a
waiting list, but we have had a dramatic increase in the number of licensed
spaces we have put into the system.
Also, we have had a tremendous number of increases‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, one daycare‑‑15
single students who will not be able to return to their education or increasing
the quality of education, thereby getting them off of social assistance. The executive director is saying that the
facility will not have the spaces there.
What is happening is we have some single parents who are saying, we are
not going to be going back to school this fall.
They are going to be relying on‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member, with his question.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister assure students who plan to return back to
school next fall will have spots available?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we will assure the member that we
have budgeted for 9,600 subsidized spaces.
We recognize that there may be a waiting list in some cases, but within
our budget, because of the tremendous escalating of the number of subsidized
spaces, we have put a cap on it at this time.
Our Day Care line will still show an increase in this year's budget.
It is a long time since we have had
waiting lists, but because of the number of people accessing it at this time,
there will be a cap on the number of subsidized spaces.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, that does not help the students.
My question to the minister is: Is the minister willing to consider extending
the two‑week time frame at least for half days to give these parents
enough time, at the very least, to find a job so that they can reserve those
particular spots?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member is making the assumption that people
who are leaving school either in the high school system or university or other
training will not find jobs. If they do
that, their children will continue to have those subsidized spaces, but we are
not going to extend the number of subsidized spaces which this budget allows.
Gas Leaks
Contaminated Soil
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks I have received
numerous calls from constituents concerned over the leakage of gasoline from
area gas stations.
I would ask the Minister of
Environment: How much contaminated soil
has been found at the Petro‑Canada site and Elmwood Motors on
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): I did not quite catch the first part of the
question, but I understand that the member wants to know if there are
investigations being done or if there will be.
If there are complaints in that area, they will be investigated.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clarify for the
minister the question, and that is, there has been a lot of digging going on at
these area gas stations in the last couple of weeks. It looks like ground hogs are operating in
the area.
My supplementary question to the minister
is: Since one area business has been
forced to close, the florist shop, and many others are now worried about how
far the gas has leaked, will the minister commit himself today to find out how
far the leakage has gone?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the very obvious
problems associated with determination of the extent of ground water or simply
ground contamination and the extent of plumes from contaminated sites. Obviously, the member should know that one of
the most difficult problems the department encounters is establishing the
length of a plume or how far movement may have occurred.
If he is asking me to make a pre‑emptive
judgment on how far contamination may have gone, I certainly cannot do that.
Obviously, if the department is onsite and if a great deal of digging has gone
on, I presume that that is attempting to find the extent of that plume. I will certainly share any information I have
with the member.
Mr. Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister should be more aware of
what is going on over there. In fact,
the initial digging started last August at that one site.
Environmental Concerns
Contaminated Sites
List
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister is: Would he endeavour to
provide us a complete up‑to‑date list of all sites in the province
that are currently being investigated?
What percentage of the cost of cleanup are the people affected paying?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, there are dozens, in some cases
hundreds of sites, that can be of concern in terms of the possible ground water
pollution or possible escape of gasoline or other fuel products into the
surrounding soils. If the member expects
that I should be able to respond to each individual one on a moment's notice, I
am afraid I do not have that capacity.
Mr. Speaker, we have a list of all of the
sites that we are working on, and we will be more than willing to share that
with the member opposite.
Break and Enters
Sentencing
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice.
The rate of break and enter into private
homes in this province is growing and has grown at an alarming rate in recent
years. In
Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, when
someone's home is broken into, often they never feel the same again about their
own home and, in particular, the elderly are affected by a break and enter into
their homes.
My question for the minister is: Why, when Crown attorneys are speaking to
sentence on cases of break and enter, are they only treating these offences as
property offences? Has the minister
considered, or will he consider, having his Crown attorneys ask judges to
consider these not just as property offences, but as offences against the
person in the sense that people's lives, day‑to‑day lives‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): It may be that
almost everyone knows someone or has him or herself been victimized in this way
at one point or other during life.
It is indeed a very serious offence, so
serious that I think the Criminal Code allows for a sentence of up to 14 years
for the case of break and enter into a business or as much as life imprisonment
in the case of break and enter into a home.
So I think that is a very strong message to the judiciary, to Crown attorneys
and others in the justice system of the importance of safeguarding the homes
and property of our citizens here in
In this regard, I pay tribute to all of
those people throughout
* (1410)
Deterrent
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, again, for the minister, in that
these offences are premeditated‑‑they are intentional break and
enter into people's homes‑‑my question for the minister is: How does the minister intend to get the
deterrent message out to the community, which obviously needs to go in our
corrections system which deals with people who get sentences, has to deal
longer with people who get stiffer sentences?
How will he get that message out when the corrections system is being
reduced by over 4 percent this year, Youth corrections by‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): We are going to get
into a discussion on criminology, I think, if we are going to talk about
provincial time being served for offences that the honourable member has just
talked about as being extremely serious, and I agree with him.
Those who are involved in this kind of
offence as a living usually end up in a federal institution, where you are
there for much longer than two years, generally. It is the federal parole system then that
deals with the issue of release.
I am just not sure where the honourable
member's question is attempting to lead except I think that he is trying to
make the point that break and enter is an extremely serious matter. I have agreed with the honourable member and
said that I would take this up with my department.
Headingley
Correctional Facility
Future Status
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Finally, for the minister: Can
the minister indicate what his plans are for Headingley Jail that has now
experienced a reduction in available incarceration spaces of one‑third? There has been a one‑third reduction in
two years. What are this minister's
plans for that jail which is the primary penal institution for this province?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a penal institution. It is also a correctional institution. The Department of Government Services and my
department have been looking at all of the facilities' requirements, of the
penal system here in
As we develop that particular plan,
changes and plans will be made known to all Manitobans.
Hair Length Policy
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): As the MLA for Broadway, I have a constituent who, like
Samson who fought the Philistines, wears his hair long, but neatly and
decently. He applied to one of the only
growth industries in
My constituent is complaining, and he said
this is discrimination because when he asked if he were a female whether he
would be asked to cut his hair, he was told it would not be so. So the rule applies only to men.
My question is directed to the honourable
minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation: Can the honourable minister explain her
government's policy about wearing hair by males, whether or not it will violate
so‑called corporate policy?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister
charged with the administration of The
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
honourable members to the loge to my left where we have with us this afternoon,
Mr. Larry Desjardins, the former MLA for St. Boniface.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Prior to recognizing the honourable member for
Does the honourable member have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, once again Glenlawn Collegiate
has shown what a talented group of students it has. Under the direction of Marilyn Redekop, 12
students known as Jazz Junction are performing in Showstoppers.
Mr. Speaker, Glenlawn Collegiate was the
only high school in
I would just like to say congratulations
to the students for achieving such excellence and thank you to their teachers
for the time and energy they have spent bringing these students to such a high
performance level. Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Justice have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. Very briefly by way of a nonpolitical
statement, I would like to call to the attention of the House the passing of
former Chief Justice George Tritschler of the Court of Queen's Bench for
For many, many things former Chief Justice
Tritschler will be remembered, but certainly his work at the appellant and
trial levels of the court in
Former Chief Justice Tritschler
contributed much to his country and to his community, and I would like to pass
on condolences to the family.
MATTER OF URGENT
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Before determining whether the motion meets
the requirements of our Rule 27, the honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Carter report was made public on continental
barley markets. This report was full of
inaccuracies and material that was not substantiated. It is absolutely urgent that we know this
government's position on this report and what action they are going to take.
The reason it is so urgent is that we are
led to believe that the federal government could propose legislation as early
as this Friday in the House of Commons that will change barley sales to the
I want to urge the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to lobby the federal government to
protect the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers have not been consulted. Farmers have provided information that Dr.
Carter has not reviewed. Before any
changes are made to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers who are
most affected by this change must have a chance to have input.
It is absolutely urgent that the federal
government conduct a plebiscite on this issue before implementing any changes,
Mr. Speaker. That is the urgency of
this. This could have a devastating
effect on farmers across the country. We
have had no position from this government on this matter. They continue to say that they are going to
review the matter, but time is running out, particularly if we are going to see
the legislation introduced, as we hear it is going to be.
Mr. Speaker, farmer groups held a press
conference yesterday and expressed their concerns. They urged this provincial government to take
a stand as well. One of the main things
they said in their press conference was the many inaccuracies in the Carter
study.
The Carter study assumes that feed barley
yields will increase significantly, that there are going to be new varieties of
wheat that are grown that will increase the yield by 15 percent. Where are these new varieties? We have no information on that. He assumes that the
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker, the Carter study assumes that
the
He assumes that the increased sales from
Mr. Speaker, they assume that
significantly more malting barley will be selected. The Carter report states that 50 percent more
barley will be selected for malting purposes because of lost Canadian Wheat
Board control. New markets could be
found for lower quality marketing barley.
He does not state that the Canadian Wheat Board already sells low‑priced
barley where there is a demand. This is
very urgent that we discuss this matter before‑‑
An Honourable Member: Urgent.
She just said it is urgent.
Ms. Wowchuk: It is very urgent that farmers know what the
position is of this government and that farmers know what changes are going to
be made into the Wheat Board mandate before spring seeding. They have to know what is going to
happen. They are going to make
investments into planting their crops, but all this is going to do, Mr.
Speaker, is lower the prices for farmers.
We know that farmers in the end will be losers. There is a risk that we could lose the pooling
system. If the Wheat Board loses its
monopoly, there is a risk that we lose the Wheat Board. By undermining the Canadian Wheat Board,
there can be an impact on all of
Will the Canadian Wheat Board be able to
continue without the sale of barley under its jurisdiction? There are 430 jobs‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second
Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, one is always
sympathetic in terms of what is going on with rural
What I wanted to comment on, Mr. Speaker,
is it is a very serious issue and the order of Estimates is actually Highways,
then Agriculture follows. I know our
caucus would be quite prepared to lead off, if the will of the House was to do
that, into Agriculture so in fact we could deal with that issue right now.
I know, Mr. Speaker, there are also other
opportunities whether it is through a condolence‑‑whether it was
through a grievance I should say‑‑not a condolence. What we would like to see is that the issue
be addressed in Agriculture and if the government's will was to do that, we
would be in support of doing that.
Failing that, we understand and appreciate the importance of debating
the issue today. Thank you.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, in my view, the member
for
Firstly, this is not within the
jurisdiction of the government of
As a matter of fact, the member did ask a
question on this in Question Period, and she received a full and expansive
answer from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). I would say that the members of this House,
of this Legislature, have the latest and the fullest response from our Minister
of Agriculture as to the government's point of view on this whole issue. So I say to her, Mr. Speaker, that if you
were to rule that this subject were in order, I would say that everything goes
after this. Not only is it out of the
jurisdiction, but any issue of the day the members opposite could bring forward
and call for an emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker, more than the member having
the gall to bring up this type of an issue and calling for an emergency debate,
was the manner in which she did it. I
think she not only failed to establish the urgency, but beyond that, she argued
completely the topic. Indeed the rules
state in no uncertain fashion that it is not a time for debate. The member has covered all of her points and
I think she abused the rules. As a
matter of fact, I notice members across the way are doing this in a growing
fashion every time they call forward for an emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by indicating
that the members have sufficient opportunity coming up over the course of the
next several weeks and months to address this issue. There are many opportunities ahead. I will not go through the list of them. I know you are fully familiar with them. I would hope that you would rule the request
out of order.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for
I did receive the notice required by our
subrule 27.(1). According to our Rule 27 and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390
for a matter of urgent public importance to be proceeded with, two conditions
must be met. First, the subject matter
must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunity for debate will not allow it
to be brought on early enough, and second, it must be demonstrated that the
public interest will suffer if it is not considered immediately.
Beauchesne's Citation 387 indicates also
that a matter of urgent public importance must be within the administrative
responsibility of the government. In
this case the responsibility rests with the federal government.
I am ruling that the matter is out of
order as a matter of urgent public importance.
I have not been persuaded that the public interest will suffer if this
matter is not debated today, as this matter currently is only a recommendation
to the federal government. Also, it is
not within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. There are other opportunities to raise the
matter available to the honourable member.
She has not used her grievance, and I note also that the Estimates of
the Department of Agriculture will be considered in this Chamber immediately
after the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation. Therefore, the honourable member's motion is
out of order.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Acting
Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, although I have
great respect for your office, I feel I must appeal your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been
challenged, all those in favour of sustaining the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a
recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in
the members.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is, shall the
ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Cummings, Dacquay,
Nays
Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Hickes, Lathlin,
Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Yeas 31, Nays 15.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is sustained.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I move the Supply motion,
I would like to make announcements on House Business.
I would like to announce that the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections that was called for tonight will be
cancelled and set for a date hopefully next week.
Mr. Speaker, also I would like to announce
the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on
Monday, April 26, 1993, at 10 a.m., to consider the 1991 Annual Report of the
Workers Compensation Board and the 1992 Five‑Year Operating Plan.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, (seconded by the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into
a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the
Department of Family Services; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel
Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. Today, this section of the
Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will be considering the Estimates of
the Department of Family Services.
Does the honourable Minister of Family
Services have an opening statement?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I have some introductory comments to begin
the discussion of the 1993‑94 spending Estimates for the Department of
Family Services in the Committee of Supply.
This government has been faced with a
series of difficult budget years as we have addressed the challenges brought
about by a national economic recession, falling provincial revenues, federal
offloading and rising caseloads.
However, the development of the 1993‑94 Estimates has been an
especially complex and difficult exercise.
In spite of these circumstances, we have done our best to maintain the
basic programs and services that are needed to protect vulnerable Manitobans.
In recognition of the importance we place
on these priorities, we again see an increase in the allocation to the
Department of Family Services that is among the highest of any department. The fiscal reality is that there is no new
money. Flat government revenues combined with increasing demands have left
governments across
Much of the pressure comes from the
increasing demand in statutory programs, specifically in social assistance
where despite efforts to target support to the most needy, spending will
increase by an estimated 10.6 percent, primarily due to growth in social
allowances caseloads and costs. The
choices are no longer ones of applying increased resources to new and expanding
programs. They are ones of how to ensure
that our very limited tax dollars are directed to ensuring that basic needs are
met.
* (1500)
During this Estimates process, adjustments
have been made in all program areas to ensure that basic services are available
to those who most require help. Rising
caseloads and social assistance have been experienced by all provinces, and
this trend is of great concern to governments across the country. A number of general societal factors are
contributing to the increasing caseloads at both the provincial and municipal
levels‑‑continued high unemployment rates, certain social trends
such as the increased frequency of marriage breakdowns and a higher percentage
of unwed single mothers raising their children and due to federal offloading,
an increase in costs for off‑reserve treaty Indians receiving provincial
and municipal assistance. These are all factors that work in this area.
As a result, while provincial social
allowance cases are increasing in this fiscal year by about 5 percent, the
municipal assistance caseloads are expected to rise by about 24 percent. Our
approach has been to target our resources to those most in need. To assist families and individuals on
assistance, basic rates were increased by 1.2 percent on January 1, 1993. Based on the average increase in
These increases are intended to maintain
the buying power of provincial social allowances, while other significant
changes have enhanced benefits for targeted groups of recipients. For example, the income assistance for the
disabled introduced last year at $60 per month has been increased by $10 to $70
per month. The goods and services tax
and the child tax benefit have been treated as exempt income. Health benefits will now be continued for sole‑support
and disabled recipients for up to one year if they leave assistance due to
employment.
These targeted benefit enhancements and
the costs of increased caseloads have required a close examination of the more
discretionary areas of assistance. As an
example, we have announced changes in eligibility for health services benefits
which will now be more similar to the benefits provided through private health
and dental plans.
Given the need to target scarce resources,
the categorical student social allowances program will therefore be
discontinued. Current recipients may
still be eligible for either provincial or municipal assistance. Over the last three years, the costs of
providing social assistance have risen by about 65 percent. For the 1993‑94 fiscal year, costs
outlined in these spending Estimates will show a further increase of over 10
percent or another $35.6 million.
Because of the significant increases in
costs, other areas of the department will need to be held to no overall
increase, or will be required to operate on less than in 1992‑93. The finance and administration area, for
example, will operate for 1993‑94 with a net reduction of almost 5
percent. In spite of this reduction, we
will see the implementation of an important new function in the
department. The Children's Advocate will
soon begin to carry out the important job of ensuring that the rights and
interests of children in the Child and Family Services system are protected.
I am pleased to note that Mr. Wayne
Govereau has been appointed as the Children's Advocate and has been preparing
for his new office to begin accepting cases.
We hope to see the legislation governing the Children's Advocate
proclaimed shortly.
Difficult decisions had to be made in the
Child and Family Services area. We are
taking measures to ensure that increasing costs do not jeopardize our ability
to provide basic protection services. As
a result, basic foster care rates have been reduced by $2 per day. I note that even with this adjustment, foster
care rates in
In the daycare area, subsidy expenditures
have risen dramatically in the past year.
In keeping with the belief that parents are primarily responsible for
the care of their children, subsidized parents using daycare have been asked to
pay for a greater proportion of the cost of this service. Subsidized parents will now pay $1.40 more
per day toward the cost of their child's care.
As well, other participants in the daycare system are being asked to
manage with less.
In the area of Rehabilitation and
Community Living, overall expenditures will remain relatively constant in 1993‑94. To achieve this goal, some projects and
services will be delayed or have funding levels reduced. We will however continue to introduce later
in this session important new legislation to protect and support the rights of
vulnerable persons living with a mental disability.
Since so many of the department services
are provided through external agencies, it is not possible to implement the
necessary budget decisions without impacting all of these organizations. As a
general rule, all agencies receiving funds from this department are being asked
to operate on the basis of 4 percent less on the salaried portion of their
funding. This approach is consistent
with the one being followed by the provincial government as a whole and by
other parts of the public sector.
Some agencies will be asked to make a
greater contribution to the tough measures we must take. Those organizations which do not provide a
protective or direct service will be required to operate with a 10 percent
reduction in funds from the department.
Other general organizations such as membership associations of service
providers have had their grants eliminated for 1993‑94.
The challenges faced by the Department of
Family Services are considerable. The
trends and pressures which have contributed to growing demands on Family
Services are expected to continue through the 1990s, creating an ongoing challenge
to better target and manage our range of programs in order to preserve and
strengthen the most critical areas. We
have not sidestepped the tough decisions in the preparation of the 1993‑94
Estimates. We have asked all program
areas and all external agencies to accept their fair share as we reposition our
programs and services to meet the most essential needs.
I look forward to the comments and
contributions of committee members as we review the spending Estimates for the
Department of Family Services. I will
now be pleased to respond to members' questions.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) for those comments.
Does the official opposition critic the
honourable member for Burrows have any opening comments?
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
We in the official opposition appreciate
that this minister and his staff have had to make many tough decisions, an
expression that we have heard over and over again in the Chamber and which our
Leader has agreed with. We understand
that when you have less money you have to make tough decisions. We have also heard from this minister's government
that everyone has to share the pain. I
would like to comment on both of those things.
Although we appreciate that the government
has made tough decisions, we are very concerned about how many of those
decisions have been made and concerned for the staff who have made those
decisions, because it is our understanding that many of those decisions were
made in great haste and yet staff had to implement those decisions without
ample time to do so.
We are concerned that many of the
decisions made in this department were made without consultation and that some
organizations were totally unprepared for some of the decisions that were
made. For example, the Manitoba Foster
Family Association had an agreement that they were hoping the government would
sign that they had negotiated in good faith, and they thought that the
government had negotiated in good faith.
Then very suddenly they had the rug pulled out from under them.
I believe there was very little analysis
or study of the impact of many of the decisions that were made. I believe much of the information that was
provided to the public and to opposition parties was misleading at the very
least, for example, a press release which said that there were 400 fewer spaces
in the child care system. We now know,
although the minister will not admit it in Question Period, that what he really
meant was "cases," and in many cases in the past as many as two or
three children occupied one space. Our
information from the child care community is that is no longer true, and we
believe that many more than 400 children will be denied access to child care.
* (1510)
I am also very concerned about the way in
which the decisions were made, especially the decisions around which
organizations would get reduced funding and which organizations would get no
grant from this government. We
understand that a public opinion polling firm was hired, and members of the
public were asked if cuts have to be made, which of the following organizations
are you in favour of cutting. I believe
that is a very cynical approach to making decisions in government and there are
much better ways. [interjection]
The minister says that I am wrong. I hope that during the course of this debate
he has the opportunity to set the record straight.
I also believe that many of the decisions
were made on an anecdotal basis, including at Treasury Board. I do not think it is fair to make the kinds
of decisions that are the responsibility of this minister and this government
when decisions in this department so greatly affect people. Many of them are very vulnerable people whom
I believe this minister and this government should be protecting and defending.
Secondly, the members of this government
talk repeatedly about everyone sharing the pain. I think you will find that in the budget
speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). However, we believe that low‑income
people have been sharing much more of the pain than other Manitobans.
If you look at the programs that have been
eliminated or reduced or cut back, the evidence is there. The elimination of the student social
allowance program is a good example. The
decrease in fees to foster families, the increase in fees that parents pay for
child care, the elimination of grants to Indian‑Metis Friendship Centres‑‑one
of the cruelest cuts of all, given that aboriginal people have the lowest
socioeconomic status in our society, is the elimination of the grant to the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization, not just an advocacy group, an
organization that provided services to people who needed them.
The decrease or cuts in medical benefits
to people on social assistance and the cut in hours for staff in agencies
including the Child and Family Services agency of Winnipeg, a decision which, I
believe, is opposed or at least questioned by the Director of the Winnipeg
Child and Family Services agency, Mr. Keith Cooper, who is on record as telling
the media that they are already understaffed and stretched to the limit, and
they do not know how they are going to reduce service by 3,000 hours.
It suggests to me that they do not believe
that it can be done. As one of the board
members said to me, there is no down time in Child and Family Services. They cannot rotate the staff with 10 days
off. This is a stupid decision. That is what is being conveyed to me by union
representatives and others who are very involved with Winnipeg Child and Family
Services agency.
I know that the minister is negotiating
with the director and directors of other agencies, but I believe that they have
been handed an impossible task.
The minister blames the national recession,
increasing caseloads and federal offloading for the problems that his
government has; however, I believe there is another view and that is that the
Filmon government is creating some of these problems.
If you look at the results of your
policies, we know that many of the decisions that are being made are going to
result in more people on social assistance, fewer people accessing educational
institutions, people who are unable to get child care and therefore may not be
able to participate in the workforce. Those people, some of them, are going to
collect unemployment insurance, but most of them are going to end up on social
assistance.
We know that the biggest increase in this
minister's budget, and I believe the only substantial increase of any department's
budget in this government, is for social assistance. I believe that part of that is a direct
result of this government's policies.
The minister talks about increasing social
assistance rates for provincial recipients on January 1 this year; however,
they have also cut back by 2 percent in part of the budget that affects social
assistance recipients.
So, at the outset, I would like to say
that we have many, many concerns about how decisions were made in this
department and about whom they are affecting.
We believe that they are going to adversely affect many Manitobans who
are unable to speak up for themselves, many Manitobans who are very vulnerable
and many women, children, aboriginal people and poor people who are taking the
brunt of the pain of the fiscal decisions of this government.
When you compare the cutbacks, the
reductions and the decisions that affect those people with the decisions of
this government that affect affluent people, it is very obvious to me that
there is a great deal more hardship on this community that this minister is
supposed to be protecting than on any other group in Manitoban society. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic from the official
opposition for those remarks. Does the
critic from the second opposition party, the honourable member for
Crescentwood, have any opening comments?
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Yes, I do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I am pleased to be able to provide some
opening remarks as well as have an opportunity to question the Minister of
Family Services on behalf of the critic of Family Services, the member for
Basically, and I will keep my comments
short, because I think it is important to move right into the substance of the
Estimates. Certainly, as the second
opposition party, when we look at the Department of Family Services, we see
this really as one department out of 26.
So a number of our comments and questions will be about specific
programs and services within this department, but certainly within the context
of the entire budget and the other departments.
I think it is important to keep in mind
that when we look at this particular budget, it is not done within an isolated
context of this particular fiscal year.
This government has been in power since 1988 and, although there has
been a change of ministers in this particular department, the government has
remained the same. The decision makers
within cabinet have remained the same.
I think, certainly, some of my questions
this afternoon will be questions that relate to the overall philosophy and
direction of this department over the course of the past five years and looking
on to the next five years and, as well, some questions surrounding the supposed
tough choices that this government has made and, again, although this
government does not use these words "reform" and
"restructure," I think they are very important words now when we talk
about governments in general having to make tough choices.
I would suggest that in fact we have seen
very little evidence of reform or restructuring within Family Services or
within many of the other departments. So
I believe that the tough choices in fact perhaps have not been made. I will look forward to hearing from the
minister as to the criteria that have been used in reaching many of these
funding decisions, whether it is to programs within the department or grants to
external agencies that prioritization that has occurred and how it has done. I recall that in '88‑89 there were
certainly grave concerns as to the lack of criteria that was used when
decisions were made within the department, and I look forward to seeing an
improvement in that particular area.
I think there is no question. I certainly agree with the official
opposition critic that in fact when you look at the Department of Family
Services and the programs and services it does provide, there is certainly an
impact on the disadvantaged because of some of these funding decisions. I know the minister indicated in his opening
comments that the basic services of this department were intact. We will probably debate that issue, because I
would suggest that in fact, no, those basic services have not remained intact
when you are looking at capping of various programs or elimination of some
programs.
Certainly, the impact on people who are
vulnerable in our society or who have more barriers to success such as abused
children, the mentally handicapped, single mothers, other low‑income
families, students, these disadvantages I think are being compounded by some of
the decisions that have been made in this particular department.
* (1520)
I also am concerned about the lack of
clear direction as to this government's policy on workweek reduction affecting
their civil service staff and Child and Family Services staff. I know when the decision was made in cabinet
that in fact decisions had not been made within departments as to who would be
affected and what essential services were.
So given that that is the case, one certainly questions whether the
government had any idea or sense as to what the impact would be within
departments, when in fact they had not even decided what essential services
were.
So I certainly have questions about the
workweek reduction and wonder if in fact there could have been other ways to
perhaps be creative. Although I know the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) in the House in his comments the other day, in response to
the budget speech, talked about a savings for government of 4 percent on the
Salary line, I would suggest to this Minister of Family Services that in fact
there will be other indirect costs of that workweek reduction which will be
hard to quantify, but will be there. Perhaps we will not see those costs so
much in this particular budget year but in the next one and the year after and
the year after.
So I think some of these decisions that
are made now within the Department of Family Services, I see them as actually
having long‑term effects on the clients which they serve, and I look
forward to discussions about these programs and services and look forward to
some discussion with the minister about the analysis of the long‑term
effects of a number of these decisions.
So I will leave my opening remarks at that. Again, I look forward to the debate.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the critic from the second opposition party for
those remarks.
Under
At this time, we invite the minister's
staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, joining me at the
table are Roxy Freedman, the Deputy Minister of Family Services, Martin
Billinkoff, the Assistant Deputy Minister of this particular area of the
budget, Kim Sharman and Wes Henderson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for that.
At this time, we will be dealing with Item
1.(b) Executive Support, (1) Salaries $408,600.
Mr. Martindale:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, under the Expected Results, it says: "Allocation of resources will be managed
efficiently, economically, and effectively."
Can the minister tell us, if it is
appropriate at this line, what plan does his department have to allocate
resources efficiently, economically and effectively when there are fewer resources
to allocate? I presume that we are
looking here in Executive Support at senior staff who have to make many of
those decisions.
I know that in Question Period the
minister did not really have time to answer fully some of my questions. This is the next opportunity. So maybe, if it is appropriate, we can follow
up on some of the questions about allocating resources, for example, in Child
and Family Services, unless you would rather do that down further.
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, that is fine. We
can do that right now.
The critic for the NDP spent some time in
his opening remarks talking about some of the funding decisions that we have
made. He has raised these in the House and is raising them again. Again, I
challenge him to talk about the alternatives.
In his opening remarks, he referenced that
his Leader as well as himself are aware that very, very difficult decisions
have to be made in government. I am sure
he is aware, as he looks at other budgets across this land coming down, that
every government has tough decisions to make.
They are making it in terms of workweek reduction. They are making it in terms of the layoff of
staff positions.
The government of
If the member has not recognized yet that
all governments at this time have those tough decisions to make‑‑he
referenced the decisions we have made and says he appreciates the fact that we
have to make these decisions, yet I still have not heard of one alternative,
any alternative that the member would bring forward within the Department of
Family Services where he would reference other decisions we could have
made. He indicated in the House one day
that by spending more money today we will save more money in the future.
I am telling you that we budget year by
year and we have to save that money now.
Our deficit is going to be contained this year, but our long‑term
debt, most of which we have inherited from his fellow travellers across the
other side of the House, is something that has to be addressed. So these decisions‑‑and I am glad
you recognize that they are tough decisions, but you still have to come up with
some alternatives. I realize in Question
Period you are not allowed to answer questions, but I know that you would be
prepared to do it here because we have a little more latitude in talking about
these things.
The other part of the member's opening
remarks was to criticize the staff in Family Services and say that they were
not prepared to bring forward recommendations, they did not have an opportunity
to make suggestions, that the decisions we made were not well‑thought
out, not well researched, and I say you are wrong. This department in the three years that I
have been here has worked very effectively, very efficiently, and I can tell
you I am proud of the quality of work that they turn out.
I anticipate, even with the reductions
that we have made across the board to a number of organizations‑‑some
of whom were advocacy organizations, some of them are in the service‑delivery
area‑‑I can tell you in meeting with Child and Family Service
agencies, they recognize there is a challenge there. That is what the member does not seem to
recognize. It is a challenge that other governments
are facing. It is a challenge that the
private sector is facing and it is a challenge that we have to come to grips
with.
We are not in a position any longer to
continue to spend money, but even this year in the tough decisions we have
made, the budget line for Family Services is going to go up almost 5
percent. Yes, there is going to be a
workweek reduction within the department, that we will be operating with fewer
staff, but I say the member is wrong if he thinks that we do not operate
effectively and efficiently. We have a very
professional complement of senior staff officers and people who work within
this department.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister is twisting my words. I acknowledge that he has a very capable
staff. What I said was that I believe
that they did not have adequate time or notice to implement some of the
policies that were made by Treasury Board and cabinet. Also, the minister says I do not recognize
the challenge. I recognize the challenge
that faced this minister. My question is how are you going to meet it? What is your plan?
I think this is a suitable time to talk
about the workweek reduction, for example.
You mentioned that it is happening in other provinces. Well, it is happening in
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member says that the staff have not had
sufficient time and notice. I would say
to you that last summer in the month of August of 1992, the department started
to work on budgetary plans. That work
continued through September, October, November, December, right up to the time
that the budget is finalized and made public.
* (1530)
If the member is saying we maybe should
have started in June or July, I accept that as a criticism. We could have started, I suppose, a couple of
months earlier, yet we did not get out of the House until the end of June last
year. Summer is sometimes a little
difficult to really start formulating plans for the next year. If the member thinks we should start on the
1994 budget in June and July, it is a comment we will take into consideration
in looking at the workload ahead of us.
I can tell you that last August senior staff and department staff
started to work on this particular budget.
Without starting earlier, I am not sure how we could do that. I would assure you that as we get close to
finalizing the budget, the staff are also working evenings and weekends.
I do not know whether there is a good
criticism there or not, that we are not working hard enough and that staff did
not have time to prepare. In my mind, we
probably used the same amount of time as we have in previous years, and I have
not heard from senior staff that maybe we should have been working longer
hours, because in fact we have.
The workweek reduction, we are dealing
with that within the department in the areas where we deliver service and are
in the process of developing plans so that many of the service functions that
the department offers will continue to take place. The external agencies, and I think this is
probably where the member is most interested, are also developing those plans
and, by and large, that is their responsibility to meet that challenge.
I have indicated to the member before, and
I do not mind repeating it again, in meeting with the board chairs and the
executive directors, particularly of the Child and Family Services agencies,
they are aware of the challenge that faces them. They are aware of the challenge that faces
all governments. They are aware of the
restructuring that is taking place in society.
The Child and Family Services agencies in particular are used to
developing contingency plans for what they call night service. They are used to developing contingency plans
for long weekends and the executive directors of those agencies are currently
working with their staff to see how they can make the most effective use of the
time that they have.
Sure, there are staff who do not agree
with this decision but, more and more, I think they are recognizing that it is
better that we have jobs available for more and more people and that this is a
plan that other jurisdictions‑‑I know Maritime Premiers are saying,
yes, we are going to accept a version of that.
I think the
That is a challenge that we face within
the department and it is an easier challenge to face with the staff who work on
things like policy, who work in administration, who work in other areas of the
department, but I do recognize that we have regional operations where many
staff deliver that front line service in areas where agencies do not
exist. We will develop a version of the
workweek reduction which will allow the basic protection services to still be
in place.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister says that
he is in the process of developing plans.
I do not think the minister has answered my question yet. I would still like to know: What are your plans and how are they being
implemented?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member quoted me correctly and, as such, I
cannot give you the final blueprint before we have finished those deliberations
to see how it is going to affect the staff within the department. At the present time, I can tell you that
ministerial offices will be closed for 10 working days during the year, but
closed to the extent that we are not going to have the civil service staff at
work there. I intend to use my political
staff to answer the phones on those days.
People who want to reach our offices will be accommodated by the staff
that I have referenced.
Mr. Martindale: It seems to me that the minister has just
admitted that they made the budgetary decisions before the plan was
finished. The minister said, if I am
quoting him correctly, that the plan is not completed. They are still working on it. So it appears
that my initial observations were correct that there is not a plan. It was not well thought out, because the
budget decisions were made first and the plans are following.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member wants the heavy
hand of government to dictate to external agencies how they should cope with a
workweek reduction, I think he is wrong.
We are going to allow those agencies to develop their plans which will
leave the service intact and recognize the relationship that we have as
government and being the funder of those agencies, and they are currently in
process of finalizing them. So the plan
may not be the same, for instance, in the Winnipeg Child and Family Services
agency as it is in central
Again, I do not think that those agencies
want to have central government determine how best they can provide the service
by dictating to them which days they will be closed. As far as many of our government offices
where we have staff who are not delivering primary services, they will be
closed on probably seven Fridays during the months of July and August and three
days over the Christmas season. That
will be different, as I have indicated, in our regional offices where they are
the primary service delivery agency.
Those plans will be developed at the local level so that the service
component can remain in place. Some of them will choose to take that unpaid
holiday on a Friday and, perhaps, another segment of the staff will take that
day off on a Monday so that there still will be service provision in place.
Mr. Martindale: I think it would be helpful if I made a
distinction between the minister's department and external agencies, because I
believe that external agencies should be independent from the government as
much as possible but still accountable to the government. I guess what we have is a difference of
opinion here. The minister feels that
the external agencies are aware of the implications of the workweek
reduction. My interpretation is that
they are saying they cannot do it.
If you look at the comments of Mr. Keith
Cooper and his observations about having 3,000 less hours to deliver service,
can the minister tell us how he expects external agencies to provide the same
or a similar level of service in the case of Winnipeg Child and Family Services
agency with 3,000 less hours of staff time to deliver the same or even an
increasing demand on service?
What are those agencies supposed to cut
out? Has the minister made any
suggestions to them about what they should cut besides just hours? Are they to cut out preventative services?
Are they to take less children into care?
What is the agency saying to the minister about the changes and the
implications that will result with 3,000 less hours of staff delivery service
time in the case of Winnipeg Child and Family Services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not want to be too critical of the critic
for Family Services, but the conclusions he has drawn from the observations he
has made from a newspaper article are wrong.
The executive directors of the agencies are simply recognizing that
there is a challenge there, and they have dedicated themselves to working with
their unions, with their staff to find solutions.
* (1540)
At no time should the member read into
what he calls his observations based on a newspaper article that they are going
to throw up their arms and abandon the ship.
On the other hand, they accept this as a challenge and have indicated
that, yes, it is a difficult challenge, but they are prepared to find those
solutions.
I would invite the critic to go one step
further than simply reading newspaper articles.
Perhaps he might want to pick up the phone and have a direct discussion
with the executive director of the agency. [interjection]
Well, the member says he has talked to him, which is good. Then he need not rely on his observations
from the newspaper article. I think he
will well know that the agency is accepting this challenge, and the executive
director and his senior staff are actively looking at options and have the
support of their staff to meet the needs of the children who are out there.
The member, I think, is looking for a
blueprint of how this is going to work.
I can tell you, it is still in the process stage, as we have turned this
decision over to the agencies. I expect
they will meet that challenge.
Mr. Martindale: I guess we have a difference in interpretation of the
situation. The minister considers it a
challenge. I would consider it an
impossible task.
I notice the minister still did not answer
my question. What are external agencies
saying to the minister about what services they plan to cut or reduce or will
be unable to supply because they have 10 days less work this year, in the
fiscal year? Can the minister tell us
what they are identifying as areas that they can reduce their service in
because they have fewer hours to provide the service?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, they have not provided
me with that detail at this time because I think that the process is still
going on.
The fact that they will have fewer people
at work on a particular day is not a new challenge to them. They face that challenge any time there is a
long weekend. They face that challenge
on weekends because that is the critical service that they provide in
protecting children, is their very basic mandate. That is what they will primarily focus on.
They will have to look at all of the other
activities that the agency provides.
They have staff who are responsible for accounting functions and it is
going to have to be part of the agency's plan that the mandatory accounting
functions that they have to do be done in a shorter period of time. They have staff who are responsible for
recruiting foster parents. They are
going to have to perhaps make some decisions in that area and be sure that they
have sufficient supply of foster parents to meet the demand.
You can go through all of the functions
that agencies provide, and I am sure that even within the
This is a prerogative of the agency, to
make different decisions based on what is right for that area of the city. I can tell you that the chairmen of the
boards of the three agencies and the executive directors have not indicated
that this is an impossible task. They
say, yes, it is a difficult challenge, it is a tough challenge, and they are prepared
to meet it.
Mr. Martindale: The minister certainly has not talked to the
board members that I have talked to and I think he should. One of the tasks or part of the mandate of‑‑
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Martindale: Can I finish?
Point of Order
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is asking that I go and talk to
each and every board member individually.
The way we relate to the board is to deal with the chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, part of the mandate of
Child and Family Services agencies is to protect children, and when I have
talked to front line staff, one of the things that they have said to me is that
sometimes children are in a borderline situation, that in some instances they
might take children into care and in other instances they make a judgment call
and they decide not to. I guess maybe
another way of describing a borderline would be a threshold. We hope that the new instrument that is being
developed about characteristics will be helpful to workers in those situations.
What are front line workers, what are
workers in the field supposed to do if they know that there are fewer
resources, fewer hours and fewer staff with these borderline cases? Are they to move the border? Are they to change the threshold and put more
children at risk instead of taking them into care?
I do not think we want to have more
children in care. I think the goal
should be to always have fewer children in care, but that means being able to
provide services like homemakers and preventative services and recreation and
that sort of thing.
If those are not available, how are staff to
make the decision about what is a serious enough case to take a child into care
who needs protection? How are they to
make these decisions in these kinds of cases?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, thank you for the
question, because it gives me an opportunity to address a concern raised by the
critic from the Liberal Party, who wanted to talk about what reforms have taken
place.
One of the reforms that has taken place is
that we have adopted the high‑risk indicators. This is a piece of research and a development
of an instrument in child welfare that is being hailed across
Borderline decisions in child welfare is
normal business and has nothing to do with workweek reduction or changes in the
budget that reflect on other areas of this department. I think we in
This high‑risk indicator is being
acclaimed across the country and in various American jurisdictions as that tool
that social workers can use to make the determination of who should be taken
into care.
Prior to the development of this instrument,
of course, it was the judgment of the social worker, and that judgment is so
critical. Now, of course, it is based on
previous experience. It is based perhaps on the number of years that social
worker has been in the field. It is
based on intuition, based on judgment.
I think the member would recognize that
judgment is a variable characteristic which will differ from one person to
another and probably even accept that maybe social workers would make different
judgments in different cases.
* (1550)
So the high‑risk indicator has been
hailed by front line workers, by supervisors, by agency directors. I think even board members are saying, this
is a giant step forward in the art or science of social work that we have been
looking for, and again, we take some pride that it was developed right here in
It is being field tested. It is being introduced in some of the
agencies and found to really meet a perceived need out there. The front line social workers, as they get
more comfortable with that, should make the same decision in not only
borderline cases, but other cases. They
should make the same decision in various geographical areas of the city. They should make the same decision in remote
areas of the province, given the other parameters around that particular case.
It is something we have brought in over
the last couple of years to help social workers make those decisions. Maybe, if you like, I could go into some of
the other reforms that I know the member for Crescentwood will be interested
in. We have also, of course, brought on
stream the Child Advocate, and we will get into that later today perhaps as
another reform to assist social workers, agencies, but most importantly, to
assist children if in fact the system is not serving them well. I suspect we will get a chance to talk about
that a little later.
The third thing I would mention is the
service information system. Again, I
think I had the opportunity in a previous Estimates to say that I was appalled
when I became minister to find that this department and agencies had not gotten
into the modern technology which exists to do case management with, and to have
records and to have information at their fingertips. Some of the first reports that I received on
particular cases that had gone awry spoke over and over and over again about
how records were incomplete, how files were lost, how social workers did not
have the up‑to‑date information on children who are very mobile and
they move from one area of the city to another, from one area of the province
to another.
I am pleased that we have spent millions
of dollars on developing a service information system that allows social
workers to have that information. I
recently had a demonstration of it at our
I know members will, if not want to
congratulate the government on these steps, at least recognize that we have
spent the resources of the province, in terms of putting these things in
place. We have dedicated staff time to
it, and we do not expect that this is going to replace social workers. They still are the front line caregivers and
have to make those judgments, but the members might want to recognize that
these were issues.
The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
being, I know, an honest and straightforward person would recognize that the
potential to do those things was there in 1985 and 1986 and 1987 and 1988 and
then, because there was no will on the part of the government of the day to do
them, those things did not happen. These are reforms that are recognized in the
academic community. These are reforms that are recognized in the service
delivery community and, I suspect, in the mind of the critic. He would say, yes, these were steps that
should be taken. So while this does not
replace social workers, it certainly enhances their ability to deliver service.
Mr. Martindale: Regrettably, this minister's ideas and initiatives for
reform are limited to the high‑risk indicator in computerizing the system‑‑[interjection] and the Child Advocate,
we will get into that later. However, if
you look at other initiatives by this minister and this government, we see
fewer services for foster parents since the grant to the Foster Family Association
was eliminated, a less accessible, less affordable child care system and less
money for social assistance recipients.
Going back to Child and Family Services
agencies and one of the implications of the minister's budget decision is that
those staff are now going to have to find more families and more placements for
foster children.
Does the minister expect that there is
more staff time available to do that, and where is that staff time coming from,
since other people are‑‑well, since all the staff are taking 10
days off without pay?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member wants to get into talking
about foster parents, the child care system and social assistance. I welcome that.
The fact is, the grant to the Foster
Family Association has been eliminated, but there has been budgetary
consideration to have the services that were provided in terms of legal
services, in terms of insurance‑‑budgetary decisions have been made
to leave that in place. The agencies in
the past have been responsible for the recruitment and the licensing of foster
homes and foster families. We feel that
it makes good sense that they would also be responsible for the training of
those families. The services that were provided will still be taken care of.
Budgetary decisions have been made to ensure that.
The member has also referenced the child
care system. I would challenge him: What is your vision of a child care
system? It should be just open ended and
a statutory obligation to spend as much money to serve the demand that is
there. We are saying that that budget
line, which was around $26 million when the critic of the second opposition
party was in these Estimates in 1988, has now grown to $47 million. In fact, last year it was over $50 million
because we had to get supplementary funding for $5 million.
So the resources have been put in place
for the most comprehensive child care system in
The member has not offered any solutions
how we could spend that $47 million that we have budgeted this year in a better
fashion. We will give fair treatment to
families who present themselves to the system to access those subsidies. The only way we can meet the demand is to
take the cap off and let the money flow.
Well, there is not a government in
The member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray),
representing the Liberal position on daycare, which has always been a mystery
to us because rarely is there a question asked or a comment made on daycare by
the Liberals, but the member is saying, spend as much money as the demand out
there. Well, that‑‑
* (1600)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have concerns that
if we are to get through this Estimates process orderly that in fact over the
last hour we have seen the minister continually twist the member for Burrows'
comments and my comments. I would hope
that he would stick to the facts and listen to exactly what we are saying
because in fact I did not talk about spend, spend, spend.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank the honourable
member. The honourable member did not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
I would advise all honourable members that
we are dealing on a line‑by‑line basis and at this time we are
dealing with line 1.(b), which is Executive Support, Salaries of said Executive
Support. If we could deal with that one
line I would appreciate it.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer:
I am prepared to go line by line and deal with Executive Salaries if
that is the decision of the group.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to give the member for Crescentwood equal time
now.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just moving backwards in terms of
the comments that have been talked about as far as this department, the
minister spoke about capping on child care.
He brought up the issue and I am wondering‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Could I have the honourable member speak into the microphone so that
Hansard can pick it up.
Ms. Gray: I am going to respond to some of the
minister's comments that have been put on the record at this point if I can ask
some further questions.
As I said, moving backwards on the
questions and comments, the minister referred to a cap in the area of child
care. I would ask the minister, he talks
about no other department or service where there is a cap.
Maybe I have missed, maybe there has been
a change but, given that the minister sits in cabinet, if he could tell me at
this point in time, when someone is eligible for a service in home care they in
fact do receive that service, which does cost dollars, can the minister tell me
why we are still continuing to service the aged and infirm and the physically
handicapped in the area of home care where the need is identified but in fact
we have not used that same philosophy when it comes to subsidized spaces, when
it comes to the number of spaces in the child care program?
Mr. Gilleshammer: If the member wants to get into the Health
Estimates, she is going to have to wait until she has an opportunity to talk to
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
What I am saying in child care is, because
our budget has grown so dramatically, this government at this time cannot
afford to have that completely open ended.
The member is aware as a long‑time
Ms. Gray: My follow‑up question then to the
minister would be: Does this minister support the fact that the services
provided in child care that as a government there should be a move towards
having that service as an ensured service similar to home care?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
I think I can safely say there is not a province in this country that
has that policy, whether it be a province that is governed by Liberals, New
Democrats or Conservatives.
In fact, I might refer the member to a
recent article in the
Ms. Gray: Well, I am not quite sure if‑‑I
guess the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is to not pay attention to
newspapers and I am but, be that as it may, the minister still did not answer
my question in terms of this government's philosophy in regard to the child
care system, and given that it is becoming a way of life‑‑we do
have a good child care system, or we did here in
There are certainly studies to suggest
that in fact our gross domestic product improves when there is adequate child
care, and I would ask if this government supports the philosophy that child
care as a service should become an ensured service.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The philosophy that I support is to do the best job that $47
million can do for the needs of child care in
Ms. Gray: That does answer my question then. The answer is no.
A further question to the minister: The minister referred to his reforms, and I am
certainly prepared to defer the discussion of service information systems and
Child Advocate until later and in fact high‑risk indicators, but I am
wondering if the minister at some point would table for the members a copy of
the high‑risk indicators, the package, the material that is being
used. That would be appreciated, because
the minister is correct; I am very interested in that.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, certainly, we would be more than happy
to provide the member and both critics with information on that.
Ms. Gray: The minister has talked about an efficient use
of staff and gave some suggestions of how the Child and Family Services
agencies might perhaps do some restructuring in regard to how they deliver
services, and I certainly think that it is incumbent upon all governments and
agencies to continue to look at their structures.
I would ask the minister if he feels that
his department is efficient and if‑‑well, first of all, does he
feel that his department is efficient, or in fact is there some need for
changes to be made in terms of how his department delivers services?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think that, at any point in time, you would not get
agreement on whether government is efficient.
The view of the greater public out there is that government is probably
very inefficient.
I would say that over the last three years
I have increasingly been impressed by the professionalism, by the dedication,
by the hard work and by the expertise of the people I work with within Family
Services.
Having said that, if the question is, can
we do better, yes, I think we can. I
think that any professional, whether it be in teaching or nursing or
engineering or government, has to constantly say: How can I become better at the job I do? As a result, we have people taking training
programs. We have people going to in‑service
programs. We have people going to
conferences. You always have to balance
your expenditures on that type of professional improvement with the great
demand for money for service.
Yet I believe that every department of
government has to strive to become more efficient, I think was the word the
member used. Efficiency usually relates
to expenditures. I am not sure if that
is the direction the member wants to go, but I think I have had a growing
appreciation for the manner in which this department is able to carry out its
responsibilities. But if the member is
saying can you do better, the answer is yes.
* (1610)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, I am referring to efficiency,
but I suppose I am really referring to efficacy which in fact not only measures
efficiency, but also looks at the quality of service. I think that is important, as well.
I would ask the minister, and let me say
that no one is questioning the dedication and the hard work and the long hours
that civil service staff put in, because I think they certainly do put many
long hours in. Whether in fact their
work‑‑and this is not a reflection on them as individuals, but a
reflection on the system‑‑is productive work, that I think is
another issue in question, because I think in fact civil servants spend too
much time doing nonproductive work that is generated by the system.
When you asked the question, is in fact
this work directly related to the quality of a service that should be being
provided to a client? I am not sure we
can answer yes in a lot of cases. So when we talk about efficiencies of
departments and efficacy of service, I would ask the minister because he has
actually challenged, I would suggest, the Child and Family Services agencies
and probably other external agencies as well, to look at their structures and
look at their way of doing business and perhaps make changes. I would ask the minister if, in fact, there is
any formal process in place within his own department to do that as well?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Well, the formal process would be the meetings of senior staff whereby
they have an opportunity, whether it is in a retreat situation, to examine the
way we do business or whether it is in their normal weekly meetings. But we have done a lot of restructuring
within our department in the three years that I have been here in terms of
trying to put the various units within the Department of Family Services in an
org. chart, if you like, where they most appropriately belong. Yet, there are always operations within a
department that perhaps seem to be a bit of an anomaly. That is true across government and, in fact,
in the last number of years we have made some transfers out of units.
When I first became minister, there was a
group within the department that dealt with immigration, and that has since
been moved over to Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, where there seems to be a
better fit. So that challenge is always
there, and it is ongoing. We are always
looking at ways to do things better.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us, is the cabinet and, again, his department‑‑I
appreciate his comments about weekly meetings of senior staff, but is there a
major process in place to actually look at the restructuring of the various
government departments or a change in how the government does business?
I use the example of the Department of
Labour, where in fact I think there is a pilot project that is underway in
terms of restructuring that department, and I am wondering if that has been
expanded to other departments.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is an ongoing process.
Ms. Gray: It sounds like in fact there is not really
anything definite that is being put in place as a priority or one of the goals
of this particular department, for Family Services to do that.
I would ask the minister, when he talks
about the workweek reduction and basically the fact‑‑I was not
quite clear on one of his answers. He
talked about, I think, the essential services still being in place or ensuring
that there were staff in place. Perhaps he could clarify for me, in regard to
regional services, whether that is Income Security or the other Regional
Operations: Will there in fact be staff
working on a regular basis, will there be reduced staff, or will it be done on
a stand‑by weekend basis? Perhaps
he could clarify.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that will depend on the function that is being provided
by those regional services. An example I
would use is‑‑and the member is aware that we do Child and Family
Services work in some of the regions where we are responsible for providing the
service.
It is incumbent on us then to have in
place staff who can respond if there are children at risk. On the other hand, there may be certain areas
of the department where a certain service is provided that is not regarded as being
an emergency service or where they perhaps are not providing emergency
services, where that unit can shut down for the entire day.
Ms. Gray: Community Services and rehabilitation staff,
will they be working on those days or not?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there is no single answer for that right
now because we are in a process of looking at the needs that are required. For instance, MDC, which is where one‑third
of our staff works in this department, some 600 staff members, will do their
staffing to allow the services that are required to continue.
Again, they will have to plan the workload
at that particular facility which they would normally do for a long weekend or
other traditional holidays and still provide the essential services that are
required there. So when you talk about
our entire staff, fully one‑third of our staff are located at that
institution.
Ms. Gray: I am still not sure‑‑I mean, will those staff in
the institution be working on the Fridays and the days between Christmas? Will Community Services vocation
rehabilitation counsellors and counsellors who provide services to the
handicapped and income security staff be working on those days?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Some of them will be.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell me how this government
has already decided how much money will be saved on salaries with this workweek
reduction when in fact it sounds like some of the planning in terms of who is
working and who is not still has not been determined to this date?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The savings is based on a workweek reduction
of 10 days over the course of the budget year.
The exact planning within various parts of the department is currently
in process.
Ms. Gray: Is the minister then saying that some staff
will be working so in fact there will not be those 10 days reduction, or is the
plan that all staff within his department as an example will actually be taking
those 10 days off without pay?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Staff within the department will be having the 10 days off but in some
areas it will be on a rotational basis so that they are not all off on the same
day.
Ms. Gray: That answers my question. Can the minister tell me, given that
basically all staff who are providing direct service will be off a minimum of
10 days, that means effectively that you are reducing the amount of service
that is available to the consumer, the client, the individual out in the
community, what is the department's policy going to be in regard to overtime?
I ask that question for a couple of
reasons. One is the agreement, the
government employees' agreement usually refers to overtime hours being beyond
the 36‑1/4 or 40 hours a week, and given that they are taking one day off
out of five days, those hours are skewed, so I am not sure what the policy is
in regard to overtime. As well, when you
look at the overtime hours of staff who are providing service, I would suggest
that you probably have a number of overtime hours. The question is, are you going to allow staff
to continue to work on an overtime basis and be paid and/or compensated for
time off, or what will the policy be?
* (1620)
Mr. Gilleshammer: There will be no change in policy. There may well be need for overtime on the
same basis as it was needed before and we will have to accommodate that.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Ms. Gray: If in fact there will be no change in policy for overtime,
then, and I could be wrong, that would mean that staff, providing they have
permission from their supervisor, would work the overtime. One might assume that a number of staff, being
dedicated, will try to work more overtime hours to do the work that they have
not been able to do on those days that they are off, because there is certainly
work there for five days a week unless we limit caseloads and other things. They are going to try to do that work at
another point in time, i.e., overtime, and they can of course ask for pay and
after 90 days we are required to pay them.
So in fact how can this government be assured, unless they change the
overtime policies, that they are in fact going to save really any money,
because the overtime costs may skyrocket?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, overtime is always a concern
to government because it is a cost that, in many cases, you do not accurately
anticipate. The supervisory staff will
have to work as diligently as possible to do the managing of staff to see that
the savings that government anticipates from the workweek reduction plan, which
is being adopted in many jurisdictions in
I agree with the member that we do have a
lot of very dedicated staff, and I know that they are dedicated to their
jobs. It is part of the management
function to make the allocations of workloads so that government has some
success in achieving the savings that we are looking for. I know the member, because of her extensive
knowledge of government, knows that there are vacancies and there are‑‑and
I do not say that in a derogatory sense.
I readily admit that she knows more about government than I do‑‑that
there are vacancies and there are term staff and there are full‑time
staff and there are people who have longer holidays than others and this
management of staff will have to be done to achieve the savings that we are
looking for with this workweek reduction plan.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, then if I can interpret the
minister's comments, it would be then his expectation as minister that his
supervisory staff ensure that in fact the overtime hours do not increase above
and beyond what they normally are now in the course of a year. So, therefore, the minister is assuming or
will accept the fact that the services to individuals in the community, in fact
that there will be a decrease because of that.
I would then ask the minister, has he asked
his staff to put in place any type of criteria given that the volume may be
more than what the hours of work are available to get the job done, is there
going to be some kind of further prioritization of services to individuals in
the community?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, certainly, if you have hard‑working
and dedicated staff who are going to be working 10 less days, there is going to
be a difference in the amount of output that you would expect if they were
working full time. What the workweek
reduction does is challenge the manager and the supervisory staff within the
department to ensure that the most critical work is done. In child welfare that we talked about
earlier, the child protection is the most important thing that the Child and
Family Services agencies do. There are
other areas that are not as critical.
They are not life‑and‑death issues that we are going to have
to challenge the managers to make those changes in. So this will vary with the various components
of the department as they find the areas in which they can realistically make
those reductions and those savings.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the minister's
comments because I think that you do have a number of managers out there who
would be delighted to take up the challenge in terms of looking at more
efficiencies.
My question then to the minister is: Is he going to allow these managers the
latitude to in fact make decisions so that the existing staff can be more
productive in the hours in which they are working? By that I mean ignoring some of these stupid
rules and regulations that governments‑‑and I am not referring to
this government‑‑traditionally have in place that do not allow
managers to in fact make those common sense decisions so that staff spend their
time doing productive work in getting a service to the client.
Whether that means technology such as
looking at E‑mail, which I understand senior levels of some departments
have, the service deliverers do not, that means looking at lap top computers
and more dictaphones. This may sound
silly but it is impossible for people in a region to actually have access to
some of those basic kinds of pieces of equipment to actually do their job
better because of ridiculous rules and regulations about what you can do and
what you cannot. Are you going to give
some latitude to managers then to come up with some common sense ideas and
solutions on how we can actually do a better job and let them do it?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would dearly hope that government is not an
impediment to people using common sense.
The example that I used before and I just very briefly repeat, when I
first came into the ministry and realized in our Child and Family Services
section of the department that we did not have any automation to any degree, I
tried to make that a priority and my colleagues in government agreed, and we
have set aside millions of dollars. I
know that this member has not said this but other critics are saying oh yes,
you are just spending money on fancy gadgets, that you are just spending money
on automation, you are not spending money on kids.
I am pleased to hear the member say that
these things are important and that she recognizes the fact that we have to
make expenditures in those areas to assist staff to become more efficient, to
give them the tools to do their job. If
she would accept that as a valid example of a commitment, yes, I would
certainly want our managers to have some freedom to manage and to use what she
calls common sense.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I certainly agree with using
common sense and the importance of information systems, however, I do not want
the minister to think that I am necessarily supporting the fact that it takes
20 SYs and a whole new information system to actually put in place a system
that in fact has probably been ongoing for five years, and I would suggest
still is not in place. There may have
been better ways to do that but that is another issue.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member says that this has been ongoing for five
years. I know that in September of 1990,
there was not a system in place, that government had made no commitment to
automating this particular area. In recent
budgets we have made that a priority to spend millions of dollars on automating
that service information system in child welfare. I can assure you that the system, while not
completely finalized, is now in place. I
know that it was, I think, last fall that I had a demonstration of that system
in the
Ms. Gray: The minister probably is correct about 1990. I thought he had referred to in previous
comments that this process had started in '88.
* (1630)
Quickly one more area‑‑the
minister referred to in his comments at the beginning of responding to
questions, talking about tough choices and prioritizations and asking for
suggestions on government priorities. I
would mention to this minister that when this government took power in '88,
there were millions and millions of dollars spent on capital projects‑‑not
necessarily within Family Services, but within government of which Family
Services is one of the departments and this minister is part of cabinet‑‑for
new hospitals, as an example, throughout the province.
Three years later, we now have a
government suggesting to these very same centres that in fact they must
rationalize the types of services that they provide and what they provide. Yet, at the beginning of this mandate, all
this money was spent on these brand‑new facilities when in fact three
years later the government is saying, now as facilities you have to really
change the way you do things and perhaps look at providing the services
differently. Again, I wonder how
responsible that was when government decided to go ahead and build all these
facilities.
I also noticed that as far as our
prioritization, in this budget we still have $2 million in the Community Places
Program. Community Places provides a number of interesting structures to a
number of interesting communities, but I guess my question would be, if we are
looking at $2 million and we are having to make tough choices in the area of
Family Services, Health and Education, are there not perhaps higher needs for
that $2 million than to look at replacing roofs on curling rinks and improving
golf courses? Are there not better uses
to this dollar, given that governments are expected to make tough choices?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased
that she brought up Community Places.
She can go to the Estimates of the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship to confirm this, but that program no longer exists in this budget.
The budget line that the member refers to is to pay for the commitments that
were made in the previous budget where projects have commenced and the payment
is not made until the community organization completes the project and submits
their bills. So I know that the member
will want to congratulate the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship
(Mrs. Mitchelson) for doing what the member is expounding.
Further to that, the member talks about
capital projects. I am well aware of her
record and the Liberal record on capital projects. I recall in 1988, the then member of Ellice
said, do not fix the roof on the Minnedosa courthouse; let the building fall
apart; you do not need it. Hansard will
show that. [interjection] Well, the
member is definitely on record as criticizing a decision by Government Services
to fix the roof on the Minnedosa courthouse and would have that building
crumble to ruin and not have those services provided in rural
I remember her comments and her Leader's
comments on the personal care home in Minnedosa. People do not need to be there; 60 percent of
them could be turfed out into the street; that they were placed there for the
wrong reasons. I remember her Leader and
her colleagues saying, do not build hospitals in rural
The member is critical of community
organizations that want to repair and build curling rinks, skating rinks under
the Community Places Program. When we
came to government, there was $10 million in that program. Last year it was scaled down to about $4
million, and this year there is a pause in the program. It does not exist
except, as I have already indicated, to pay off the commitments that were made
in the last budget year.
The member is saying, do not spend money
on capital. Well, we are proud of the
fact that the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) has a $100‑million
Highways budget. You have colleagues who
are saying, you have to do more in tourism, but you are saying, do not build
highways, because they do not matter in rural
Ms. Gray: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am surprised
the minister is still continuing to twist what the comments were. I think the comment in regard to the roof on
the Minnedosa courthouse‑‑in fact, I know the comment was: If I had a choice between putting monies
towards something like that and monies towards direct service to children, I
would choose children. I still stand by
those comments. Which would the minister
choose?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
We would choose both, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. We would serve children. We would serve people. I know the member from Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)
would agree to that, that we have a balanced approach within our budget, that
you have to provide money for capital.
Sure, that is a quick fix, that you spend less and less on capital, but
that is a one‑year solution. I
mean, the previous government did that.
They came to government when the Highway budget was nearing $100
million. When they were in government, it went lower and lower, not taking into
consideration inflation. But in the late
'80s, when they were still in government, the Highways budget was around $80
million.
So you can make a one‑year or a two‑year
saving, but you will pay for that later on, plus what your are doing is talking
about putting the construction industry out of business. You want to save the $100 million in
Highways, you want to save the hundreds of millions of dollars in hospital
construction, perhaps $30 million in school capital reconstruction, sure, you
can do that for one year, but you spend that later, plus you throw into chaos a
construction industry. You throw off the
five‑year planning that school boards go through. Capital budgets have to be maintained.
Ms. Gray: Well, the minister makes a very good point,
and that is that he talks about how short‑term planning decisions in fact
cost you in the long run. I would ask
this minister: When we look at services
to foster families and how there has been a reduction, what about the
commitment to foster families that this government has failed to provide?
It is nice that we are continuing on our
commitments with existing community services' dollars, but what about
commitments to foster families? What
about the fact that now training and education for foster families, which is
so, so crucial, that Child and Family Services agencies are going to have to
pick that up? Given that their caseloads
have increased, and in fact now they are going to be working less hours of the
week, how can the minister talk about those short‑term decisions? What is the long‑term impact of those
decisions if this minister feels that it is important to make long‑term
budgetary decisions? He talks about
Highways and capital planning. What
about those decisions affecting children and affecting real people? What about that?
I mean, when we get into a discussion of
Child and Family Services and even looking at services to the handicapped, the
increased number of sexual abuse cases we have seen where care providers are
involved, it is so important that we have good foster families. It is so important that we train them to do
the very difficult job they must do.
What is the effect of the lack of
commitment to foster families, and what is that going to be in five years, not
this year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I referenced capital budgets because the
member brought it up, and I thought that she perhaps wanted to talk about it.
This department has no capital budget, so
when you talk about capital budgets, I had to assume you were referring to
Highways, hospitals, school construction and other government services
work. But we have no capital budget in
Family Services. All of our funding is
dedicated to serving people.
The member is referencing foster families
and our commitment. I have here in my
folder the interprovincial comparisons, and
* (1640)
The whole idea of the budget is to have
some balance in your expenditures, and if the member thinks you can take all of
the money out of capital to spend it on people, I say she is wrong, that we
have to have a balance in our approach.
Our commitment to foster families is not what it was last year in terms
of dollars. I grant you that, but it
still compares very favourably with what other jurisdictions are doing.
Ms. Gray: Just one quick question, because I know we are
ready to move on to the next section.
Under Indirect Salary Costs, 11.5‑‑if the minister could
just indicate what that is for and if the minister could also indicate to me,
with all due respect to all deputy ministers, what has been the increase in
salaries for deputy ministers over the last three years?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are moving from a wide ranging discussion to line by
line, I take it. We are on 1.(b)
Salaries‑‑you are in the supplement?
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): I would wonder whether the honourable member
would want to pass item 1.(b) Executive Support and then move on to the next
item of discussion.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Right, I had the answer here a minute
ago. I am told that that is a cost for
overtime.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): Item 1.(b) Executive Support, (1) Salaries.
Ms. Gray: No, we are still waiting for one more answer.
Clarification of the question was, could
the minister indicate to us what the percentage increase for the deputy
minister's salary has been over the last three years, if he has that
information?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not have that information, but I am sure
we could get it. It is part of the
negotiated increase for all civil servants.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): Item 1. Administration and Finance, (b)
Executive Support (1) Salaries $408,600‑‑pass; (b)(2) Other
Expenditures $83,900‑‑pass.
Item 1.(c) Children's Advocate (1)
Salaries $172,800.
Mr. Martindale: I should probably know this, but when did the
Children's Advocate begin his term of employment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Maybe I could take the opportunity, since we have moved to
this line, to introduce Wayne Govereau who has been hired as the Children's
Advocate. In answer to your question
about when he started work in the
Mr. Martindale:
I notice that part of the Activity Identification for the Children's
Advocate is to monitor and/or recommend policy and program changes. I am wondering if the Children's Advocate has
made any recommendations to the minister since he began his employment last
December?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The Children's Advocate, Mr. Govereau, started
in December, and I can say that the majority of his activities to this stage
has been to make other service providers within the province aware of his
appointment and to meet with a great many of these service providers across the
We have met on a regular basis to review
the activities that he has been involved in, and we have had some opportunity
to talk about child welfare in
Mr. Martindale:
Is the minister able to share with this committee any of the
recommendations that the Children's Advocate has made to him?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we have talked about the various agencies and service
providers that exist in the
We have talked about the task force that
is currently working on the native child welfare in
So there has been a wide variety of issues
that we have had a chance to talk about, and we are currently working out
processes and protocols to develop the relationship that we need so that the
advocate has access to myself as minister and will be able to bring issues
forward that I should be aware of. I
think the member can probably appreciate, as a politician taking over the
ministerial duties in an office, you come to that office, in many cases, with a
lot of questions about what the department does. Probably it would be hard to
understand that after a few months in office there were still areas of the
department that I wondered what they did.
* (1650)
Going through the Estimates process the
way we do I find is the best way to understand how you employ 1,800 people and
spend $700 million. We not only have
competing issues across government where ministers need to advocate for their
own department‑‑and I know it will be no surprise to the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) that the Minister of Highways would like to have a
capital budget of $200 million to address those needs across this
province. Similarly, as Minister of
Family Services, we have been pleased over the last four or five budgets to
have one of the largest increases in provincial resources to address some of
those problems, and I am proud that we have been able to bring on board the
high‑risk indicators and develop that particular reform that we spent
those millions of dollars on the service information system, that we in fact
have brought forward the Child Advocate.
There are many issues that we have to work
on in terms of developing the ability of this particular unit to provide a
unique service to children and to families in
Again, it is not a new idea. I know the previous government discussed
this, and at times considered creating an advocate's position. It was recommended a number of times during
the 1980s, and it was not deemed to be a priority at that time. We have brought it forward as part of our
reform of the child welfare system in
So I trust perhaps that this has answered
the member's question.
Mr. Martindale: I should probably have said earlier that I
think you made a good decision in the person you hired. I think he has excellent qualifications, and
everything I have read and seen about him, I have been very impressed by.
But I would still like the minister to
answer my question more specifically.
The minister mentioned that he has had numerous discussions and
mentioned some of the topics he has talked about, and I am wondering if the
Children's Advocate has made recommendations on policy changes, program changes
or even changes in legislation, or whether perhaps the minister cannot answer
that question directly, whether you cannot say yes or no whether he has or not.
If he has, I would be interested in
knowing, if you can tell me; if you cannot, I would be interested in knowing
that, too.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, yes, we have talked about some policy
issues. We have talked about budgetary
issues. We have talked about some
direction that the government is going to go.
You can appreciate that the legislation
has not yet been proclaimed. You can
appreciate that the office is not yet fully open and open to the public, that
staff have not been hired, that pamphlets have not been printed, that we still
have a lot of work to do in a practical sense of getting the office up and
running.
So I think it is fair to say that a lot of
the energy that has been expended to this point in time is dealing with some of
the practicalities of opening the office, of hiring staff, of making as many
people as possible aware of the services, and that a lot of the policy work is
going to be left to after the point where we are fully open and gaining that
experience in working with specific clients and specific cases.
Mr. Martindale: When will the legislation be proclaimed?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am hoping that it will be proclaimed
in the not‑too‑distant future.
Mr. Martindale:
When will the office be opened?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Shortly after proclamation, I would anticipate the office
will be opened.
Mr. Martindale: When will the staff hiring be completed?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
It is in process now, and given the various civil service intricacies
that I am not aware of, it takes time to make some decisions around the
positions and classification and bulletining.
Those things are all underway.
Mr. Martindale: I notice that there are quite a few changes under Other
Expenditures in the budget from last year to this year. I assume that it is because this year you are
able to do much more specific budgeting, but I would like to check out that
assumption with the minister. The total
expenditures are relatively the same, a slight decline. Perhaps the minister could say, well, if my
assumption is right, that you are able to do more specific budgeting this year.
Mr. Gilleshammer:
That is correct. The hiring will
be taking place, the rent is being paid, the utilities are being accounted
for. You know, it is not a big budget. It is fair to assume that the majority of the
costs are in salary. The other costs are
involved with the setting up of the office and the functioning of that office.
Mr. Martindale: One concern I have about the Other
Expenditures budget is that the transportation budget has been reduced from
$25,000 to $19,000. I presume that this
is for travel all over
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): I presume the honourable member is referring
to the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review. [interjection]
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I thank you. Yes, certainly, there is travel involved,
most of it within the province. The
advocate has made a concerted effort to be in contact with our regional
offices, with our agencies across the province, and the travel of the advocate
and staff will largely be dependent upon caseload and the particular area of
the province where service needs to be provided.
Again, as I indicated earlier, as we gain
experience in the workings of the office, I am sure that we will be more able
to accurately forecast expenditures.
Ms. Gray: Could the minister be more specific when he
said the office would be fully opened as soon as the act is proclaimed, give us
an indication of when that might be. Is
he looking at the end of June, is he looking at September, before Christmas,
and by that, as well, can the minister indicate to us when will sort of
referrals be accepted or are they already in terms of specific cases, and can
and will MLAs be able to access the Child Advocate directory of children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There were a whole bunch of questions there,
and I did not write them down, but the legislation will be proclaimed well
before Christmas and hopefully sooner than later.
The Advocate has been involved in some
cases already, and I am sure that he would welcome questions from MLAs, I
believe was one of your questions.
I know that there is just a wide variety
of agencies and groups that he has met with, which has been very time
consuming, but because of his history in the
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Penner): The hour being five o'clock, shall committee
rise? Committee rise.
HIGHWAYS
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will
be dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Highways and
Transportation.
We will begin with an opening statement
from the honourable Minister of Highways.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of
Highways and Transportation): It is a privilege for me to present the sixth set of
Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation. The budget reflects the present state of the
economy, the slow recovery from the long‑lasting economic recession.
The total budget for Highways and
Transportation for '93‑94 is $4 million down or 1.8 percent lower than
the previous year. This will present a considerable challenge to the department
to find even more efficient ways of delivering programs so that we can maintain
the same level of quality programming that Manitobans have come to expect.
Challenging and tough decisions have had
to be made. While decisions may be hard
to swallow, they were necessary decisions for the sake of all Manitobans in the
province today and those of future generations.
While we are forced to tighten our belts, the end result will be a healthier
state of economy for the province.
A desire to reduce spending and cut
deficits is in no way unique to
Despite less overall funding, there is some
good news, increased dollars for a construction program in the Department of
Highways and Transportation. Capital
spending has risen from $103 million to $110.6 million. The reason for the increase in the capital
program is based on the fact that we have been successful in negotiating a very
favourable federal‑provincial Strategic Highway Improvement Program,
basically $70 million in funds to be cost‑shared 50‑50 over the
next two years. That is probably a much
better deal than any of the other provinces across the country have been able
to negotiate with the federal government.
* (1500)
I just had the privilege last week to meet
with ministers from
This program basically will include what
we had considered as part of the National Highways Program, which is PTHs‑‑the
Trans‑Canada 1, the Yellowhead‑Trans‑Canada 16, Highway 75
and the
While the federal government has agreed to
provide short‑term financial support to assist improving some of the
designated national highway network in
I just want to add, to the members, that
for myself and, I think, for other ministers as well across the country, it was
a big disappointment on December 2, when the federal minister Mazankowski made
his economic statement and had not addressed the National Highways Program. But, in his terms and in further discussion,
we regarded this as an interim measure, and discussions will continue to take
place between the federal government and ourselves. In fact, we are looking at having a meeting
of the provincial ministers and federal minister sometime in May to continue
the negotiations regarding the national highway system.
The additional funding that we have
received will have many beneficial effects.
It will significantly improve our provincial road infrastructure, thus
facilitating the movement of goods and people.
It will result in a greater number of jobs, and while it might not
breathed renewed life necessarily that much into the sagging construction
industry, it will at least help to maintain it for the time being.
It will provide benefits to our motor
carrier industry, good roads and good business through less fuel consumption,
motor vehicle maintenance costs, improved safety and more convenient and timely
movement. These things are illustrated
in the study that was undertaken by TAC when we established National Highways
Program.
A major initiative of the department which
will greatly enhance the delivery of the construction program is
regionalization. As of April 1, many of
the currently central engineering and administrative functions will be phased
into five regional offices located in Steinbach,
This restructuring will provide for
greater delegated authority and accountability at a regional level and more
effective organization. We believe that
it will enable greater responsiveness to community needs and better use of
resources.
I am pleased to report that, despite the
fact that the overall level of departmental spending is down, we have been
paying the same level of funding for grants to cities, towns and villages, work
in LGDs and unorganized territory and the Rural Municipal Bridge Assistance
Program.
However, it would have been my desire, had
the funding been available, to increase the Rural Municipal Bridge Assistance
Program. We maintained it at the same
level which I think that for the future has to receive consideration for
expansion. It is an objective of this
government to assist municipal and local governments develop and maintain their
local infrastructure consistent with their needs.
Not only does the department provide
financial support to communities, staff provides numerous other support
services to assist in meeting transportation requirements at the local level.
In like vein, the department is
maintaining its full level of funding to municipal airport commissions to
assure the safe operation of local airports.
The government recognizes the limited
resources available to municipalities to develop local transportation
infrastructure so vital to local economy.
The department has been instrumental in
the negotiation of a new funding arrangement for the 830 kilometres of winter
road east of
The department has worked long and hard in
evaluating its operations to find more effective and cost‑efficient means
of delivering programs. Focus has been
and continues to be the development and delivery of services that are better as
well as more cost‑effective.
At no other time has this been more
necessary than now. The transportation
industry of
Economic recession has resulted in a
decline in traffic which has negatively affected carriers, transport sector
employees and the provincial economy.
The priority goal of this government is to maintain
My department continues to work closely
with carriers, shippers, and users of transport services addressing service
needs and industry problems. Initiatives
taken to assist the
We have successfully implemented 14 of the
17 national safety codes standards which promote safe operation of commercial
vehicles on our highways. We hope to
implement the remaining three standards which deal with carrier profiles, trip
inspection reports, and facility audits by the middle of this year; adoption of
the new uniform inspection standards for commercial vehicles which will be
reciprocal across the provinces.
We have a current review of a number of
regulatory options with a view to enhancing intraprovincial trucking in
We are at the present time giving
consideration for legislation providing authority to prescribed requirements
for contracts between owner‑operators and for hired modal carriers. The
province in the meantime is pressing for an economic component for the fitness
entry test for the extra‑provincial trucking.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
My staff have been involved in studies
with the federal government, and we have some concerns that the federal
announcements of the need to cut the nation's rail system in half, which is of
great concern to the
We have been working with the federal
government and other provinces, the railways and shippers in an effort to
identify what rail line shipments constitute the national rail network. In
In the event of abandonment,
We will continue to press for policies and
programs that ensure that, whatever changes are made in the GATT negotiations,
the method of payment, the WGTA or the pooling system,
In my view the only salvation for the
* (1510)
I just want to mention to the members of
the Legislature that never has a government worked that hard in terms of trying
to influence the movement and the protection of the Port of Churchill, from the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) on who is lobbying the federal Minister of Agriculture and
responsible for the Wheat Board to many of the other ministers that have been
working together, as a result of the agreement that was signed initially by the
Premier in Russia to look for expansion of trade.
The second area was the signing by the
Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) in a further agreement.
Subsequent to that we had a delegation of Russians coming to
In my view, again, that is the only real
hope that I see for the future of Churchill.
If we continue on the basis of what has happened till now, I doubt
whether there will be a very positive result to what is happening in Churchill.
An Honourable Member: Till they get rid of the federal government at least, eh?
Mr. Driedger: Well, that will be the option of all Canadians
when the next election comes, I suppose.
We are also concerned for the future of
the air industry, and I have recently called for a national air carrier policy
framework to deal with the problems in the air sector. It is imperative that we have access to
competitive air services and that remote communities are able to avail
themselves of reliable, low‑cost air transportation.
Our actions in this area include
monitoring the present round of developments in the Gemini proceedings and the
American Airlines' proposal to acquire interest in Canadian Airlines.
We were successful in obtaining a voice in
the Canadian‑U.S. air bilateral negotiations. It was pushed for an expanded consultation
process. Our aim is to ensure that
Canadian service interests are safeguarded in these proceedings.
To protect our airports, and ensure that
24‑hour service continues at
We have also been working with the
Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and the City of
While considerable challenges still
confront us, the department has instituted a number of initiatives which have
had beneficial effects for all Manitobans.
I am pleased to report that the two‑year
implementation phase for photo licencing was completed in December 1992. I think that is one of the bright spots, at
least in my accomplishments. I feel very
good about that.
Henceforth, one‑quarter of all
licensed drivers in
Another major initiative on which we have
embarked is the rewriting of The Highway Traffic Act. The rewriting of this act will provide more
concise and enforceable legislation protecting the safety of
We will continue to work closely with MPIC
in developing the specifications for those elements of the Autopac 2000 project
which would see the introduction of staggered vehicle registration insurance
renewal, hopefully in 1994, the deduction of a transfer of ownership feature
which will provide prospective vehicle purchasers with more readily available
information.
Amendments to The Highway Traffic Act to
facilitate the introduction of the new business practices associated with this
project will be presented at this session.
To conclude, Mr. Acting Chairperson, this
government faces a high value on transportation in
We have introduced several new programs
which greatly benefit the public and will continue to strive for even greater
benefits. On this note, Mr. Acting
Chairperson, I am prepared to listen to the opening statements of the critics
and proceed with the review of the Estimates.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Does the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), the critic for the official opposition, have
any opening statement?
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Yes, I do.
I thank you, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
I think, though, before I get into my opening comments with respect to
the Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation, that we should
take a few minutes to recognize a member of the minister's department who has
recently retired, Mr. Boris Hryhorczuk, who retired from public service after
30 years.
Of course, I am referring to the press
release that the government had issued somewhat earlier this year, and I will
quote some of the information from that for the record. I think it is important for Manitobans to
know the accomplishments of the individual in the various duties that he held
in public service.
Of course, Mr. Hryhorczuk was a native of
Mr. Hryhorczuk between 1961 and 1979
worked for the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg and the City of
Mr. Hryhorczuk, of course, had a great
deal of education. It indicates that he
has a Master's degree in transportation engineering from
I know the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) has spoken often about Mr. Hryhorczuk's abilities and efforts to
assist him when he was the Minister of Highways and Transportation in this
province and for that, Mr. Acting Chairperson, we on this side of the House
would like to thank Mr. Hryhorczuk for his contributions, his 30 years service
of public service to the province of Manitoba and of course wish him every good
fortune and good health in his retirement years. We hope that he enjoys his retirement.
I would like to talk about some of the
comments that the minister has made here in his opening statement, but first I
would like to deal with some of the issues that are going to affect us in
particular in this province, because we have been denied the opportunity here
to debate what is going to happen if barley is removed from the Canadian Wheat
Board control, from a single‑desk selling operation.
If that barley is removed from the
Canadian Wheat Board, from my understanding of it, this will put
If barley is removed from the Wheat Board,
what that will do in essence is go a long way towards driving the final nail in
the coffin of the Port of Churchill, because this government‑‑we
have not seen any ministerial statements come forward in the last year on what
is happening with the Port of Churchill with respect to the Arctic bridge
agreement. We had hoped there would have
been some progress in that by now but there does not seem to be any good news
on the horizon.
* (1520)
If barley is removed‑‑barley
was one of the biggest, I would say, nearly 75 percent of Churchill's export
market was barley to various destinations in the world‑‑from the
Wheat Board, producers then will be able to direct where their barley is
exported. It will be sold by the
marketing agencies, the wheat pools, the private grain interests and other
interests in the country.
Let me assure you that with those private
grain interests dictating where barley is exported, they will also dictate the
port of export. Since these interests do
not have any interest in the Port of Churchill‑‑in fact, they would
very much like to see it go under‑‑I can see very soon that if this
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) does not take some
serious interest in this issue within his own cabinet, that barley is going to
be removed as an export commodity from the Port of Churchill. Then that will be the end of Churchill
because there is no other good news on the horizon from what we can see here.
At the same time, the minister talks about
transportation, in particular, railway jobs being very important to us in this
province. I have not heard this Minister
of Transportation, outside of just a few moments ago, talk about the method of
payment, the change into the WGTA method of payment. If that method of payment changes, and it
goes to pay the producers versus pay the railways, that is going to have
serious repercussions for us on the railway industry within this province and
most likely within my own community of Transcona, because the method of payment
then, the producers will dictate how, where and when their product is moved and
by whom. If they have to move it from
their farm gate, they are going to pick the part that suits and meets their
needs individually.
I suspect they will move away from the
railways, for those that are close to the American border, and will begin to
move their product through the American ports, and quite likely, down the
As we go through the debates here today,
and over the course of the next several days, I will be asking the minister
various questions on different issues including Churchill, rail line
abandonment, rail line jobs in this province, the airline industry, trucking,
all of the sectors of transportation.
We will be talking about the University of
Manitoba Transport Institute, something that I think is important to us in this
province, that I see deteriorating seriously in this province. In fact, I heard
again, just as recently as a couple of weeks ago, and it is my understanding
now that there has been serious pressure put on that facility to vacate that
building altogether as a transport institute, and the Faculty of Management is
looking at taking over that building and structure. We have no investment then.
How are we going to continue to do the
research operations and planning that we need to have done in this province if
there is no staff in the minister's department and we do not have an institute
in this province to do that for us, even under a contract basis, as the
minister has been directing over the last year plus?
An Honourable Member: What about all the money that we have put into
it?
Mr. Reid: A significant amount of money, and we are just
going to throw that investment away.
That is one of the things that worries me about the change in direction
for the
We will be talking about VIA Rail and the
report to the Royal Commission. I will
be asking questions on that and the minister's position on that, because it has
serious repercussions not only for the southern part of the
The minister talked about short‑line
railways, and that he has legislation that is being drafted. I will be interested to see that legislation
and the impact it is going to have on us in this province, because that is one
of the reasons why, when I raised‑‑and the minister used to
criticize us and myself in particular, in this House for not coming forward
with constructive recommendations or suggestions‑‑when we said last
year, we think that we need to have a policy in this province where we can play
a partnership role with the federal government, the province of Saskatchewan,
and the CN Rail in a four‑way partnership to upgrade the rail line to
Churchill.
Now, if the minister is bringing in short‑line
legislation into this province, does that mean that we are going to have to
take over or have that line to Churchill, the bayline, sold off to short‑line
interests? Is that the purpose of this
legislation? That is the only line that
I can see in this province that is going to have any interest in having a short‑line
operation.
The branch lines the railways want to
abandon; they say they are not profitable.
I will be talking to the minister about that and asking questions on
that as well because we want to know what communities are going to be impacted
by that. We hope the minister has a
breakdown by now of the communities that are going to be impacted because there
are going to be serious consequences for those communities and the residents
that are there, and will attack, I believe, the rural way of life in this
province.
We also want to ask questions about
resupply through the
The minister talked about bilateral
services, air, and he says we have a voice.
We will be asking some questions on that. We want to know why we have
not made any representation at the hearings, the competition tribunal hearings
that are ongoing, that have been ongoing for several weeks now. Why have we not made any representation
there? Who is our voice there? Do we have a member of the minister's
government, or is it somebody else that they have contracted this service to?
I know when we were going through the
Budget Debate here the minister seemed to be wringing his hands with glee when
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) announced that we are going to have a 3‑1/2
cents a litre reduction in the fuel tax.
At the time when I was thinking about it, I thought, that is a good
first step to help the railway industry in this province, and transportation in
general because the other sectors were impacted as well. By that I mean the slight decrease in
aviation fuel taxation in this province, and the fact that trucking fuel was
frozen at the current level in taxation.
The question I have for the minister: Where were we three years ago? Why did we not act on this three years
ago? Why did we not take that serious
action? [interjection] I was not here
in this House at that time. No. That was prior to the 1990 election. [interjection] No. I mean, I can pull out a calendar and show
the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) if he wants to see that.
I think it is important that we recognize,
and this is one of the things that I want the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
and the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to get together
on. The railways have been lobbying, I
know, the minister and this government, and they have been lobbying us on this
side as well, to have some changes to the taxation structure in this
province. But what we wanted to see, and
I know this is the case because I have talked to the employees of the railways,
I have talked to the employees of the airlines and I have talked to employees
in trucking, and they all wanted to tie some job protection, some minimum job
numbers in this province to any reduction in the taxation levels of this
province.
Without that, the minister‑‑I
had to laugh because the Minister of Finance said just this week in this House
here, he said that we have lowered the taxation in this province for the
transportation industry to send a clear signal, a message to the transportation
industry that this is a province to come and do business in. Now I hope that the transportation industries
out there have their antennae up and that they are getting that clear signal
that is supposed to be coming from the Minister of Finance.
I suspect that we will probably see in
this province that there will be no announcement coming forth saying that the
job losses that were announced in the various transportation sectors of this
province are going to be rescinded. I
have made that statement in the House last week. I made it again this week. No minister of this government‑‑none
of them will stand up and say that those job abolishments have been
rescinded. That has serious consequences
not only for the
CN Rail announced earlier this year that
they are going to eliminate some 700 jobs in the
There are going to be more layoffs again
next year. We are going to see the same
number or more next year. At the end of
this month, at the end of April 1993, Transcona main shop, CN, going to a four‑day
workweek. How many people are going to
be affected by that decision there? That
decision has not changed.
CP Rail‑‑the minister may not
know this, but CP Rail announced that they were going to move and relocate
their complement of locomotives from the motive power shops at Weston to
* (1530)
Did the minister and his department know
that the shop that is supposed to handle that locomotive transfer complement is
too small to handle that transfer assignment?
Did his department do any investigation on that, or was this just a ploy
on the part of the company to encourage the minister and his government? Is this the ploy of the company to put
pressure upon the government to lower its tax rate in this province? [interjection] Well, maybe the member
for Emerson (Mr. Penner) would like to take a trip out there and maybe talk to
some of the railway employees, the ones that operate regularly that know this
business, I am sure, a lot better, because they have to do this job day in and
day out.
I have got the name in my file here if I
can locate it. It is a senior member of
the transportation department that even told the employees that that was
happening. The employees knew it
themselves, but he confirmed that that was actually the case. [interjection] I said senior member of
the transportation department, senior management level. I am sure the minister would understand that.
There are many other issues that I would
like to talk about, and I know we will get into questioning a bit. I will probably be starting off talking to
the minister about his proposed reduction in the workweek and the impact it is
going to have not only upon the employees of his department, but the impact on
the services that are provided to the people of Manitoba.
I hope the minister has some plans in
place on how he is going to implement this.
He may not, but we will find that out if that is the case. We want to know how he is going to designate
various sections of his department as essential services. I hope he has a breakdown or a list of
that. We have several segments of his
department that I think should be designated essential service. I hope he has taken those steps and that they
will continue to provide those services to the people of
We will have many questions as we go along
as I indicated, and I think with that, Mr. Acting Chairperson, that I will
conclude my remarks for now until we move into the individual sub‑appropriations
where I can ask more detailed questions. Thank you.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): Does the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards), the critic for the second opposition, have any opening statements?
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Yes, thank you, Mr. Acting Chairperson. I look forward to going through these
Estimates in greater detail in the coming days, and I want to thank the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) for recognizing my tie. I appreciate his compliment.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not want to
spend time during these Estimates simply putting rhetoric on the record, not
that I have done that in the past, but I simply say that for the edification of
the minister and the other critic that I hope we can get through this with
reasonable dispatch and do our jobs and understand the issues that are
currently before this province.
We are at the start of the process, and I
look for some efficiency in the way we do our business here, which I think
Manitobans expect of us, so that we can deal with the issues seriously and in a
concerted effort but not use this forum, as it often degrades to, as a partisan
forum simply to trade shots at each other.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have some
concerns I want to highlight for the minister in these Estimates. Obviously, he has talked about the
The member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin)
indicates: Have I ever been to
Churchill? The answer to that is, no, I
have not been to Churchill. Like most
Manitobans, I have not been to Churchill. I would like to go to Churchill. I would like to be able to go on the rail
line to Churchill that I believe is threatened by the‑‑and believe
me, if the government seeks to arrange a trip for me to Churchill, I would be
more than happy to oblige them.
My grandfather was the first white doctor
in Churchill. He left the
I have been to the Hudson Bay Route
Association meetings, as have my colleagues.
We feel most of the time like we are banging our heads against the wall,
but with the Wheat Board and some of the powers that be down east and in other
parts of this country, which do not seem to feel the same way about that port
that we do and seem to resist the economic arguments that we make, but I believe
that it is a viable port.
I believe that anybody who looks at the
facts dispassionately, as I have, will see that it should continue to be a
significant port for this country. I
have to ask, if that port was in the province of Ontario, I just wonder, and I
wonder out loud, whether or not it would be in the same situation year in, year
out, that it is now, where we seem to be clinging and begging for its
existence?
I resent that. That is an incredible asset to this country,
and we want the people around this country to recognize that. They think of the
Prairies in
We seem to be butting heads constantly in
this province with Wheat Board officials and others, and I must say gentlemen
like Charlie Mayer, who represents the federal Conservatives in this province,
is not onside with us. I have heard him
speak about this issue and I have discussed it with him. That is a great disappointment to me, Mr.
Acting Chairperson.
I want that to be an issue in the upcoming
federal campaign. I think all Manitoban politicians, and in particular Mr.
Mayer, have an obligation to make it clear to Manitobans where they stand on
that issue because he has not been with us on that issue. When I say us, I mean I think the people of
An Honourable Member: He has been against.
Mr. Edwards: In fact, he has been an advocate, as the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says, against the survival of that port.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
What we have to realize is it is an
insidious process, because you know if the railway starts to deteriorate, well
then they will have to look at the upkeep costs, and then you will see over the
years more and more arguments, more and more rationalizations to cut that port
in that community off. That is what is
going on. We all know it and we see
it. I am very disappointed in the
response of the federal government but even more disappointed in the response
of some of our local members of Parliament, with the government's side, who
really ought to be standing up for that port and have the power to do something
about it. That is the tragedy.
Another issue I raised with the minister
is the rail industry generally, and, of course, there have been many things
occurring which have taken a lot of the jobs created in that industry to other
parts of this country, oftentimes for very partisan reasons, and there are
certain disincentives which these companies say have forced them to have large
cutbacks.
I think we have to discuss that in some
detail here, and obviously, the pressing concern of the airline industry, the
importance of that industry to this province and tied into that the
airport. I am here with the minister
again talking about the same thing his committee recommended in 1990, I believe
it was, that we need some protection for that airport. We need a consistent plan.
There was a committee. It was appointed by the minister, but I know
there was a representative from the committee Mr. Harvard the MP from St. James
and I established with the airport‑‑as representatives of that
area, we established an airport noise advisory committee with citizens on it in
1988. A member from our committee,
George Chapman, a lawyer in St. James, was on the minister's committee, and
they came up with this report and I was very hopeful.
* (1540)
I read that report and I, of course,
believed that the committee was somewhat partisan‑‑I say, somewhat
in the sense that the minister appointed it but I thought the result was
good. I was not on that committee, the
minister says. I asked to be on and his
department said no, but I did not say anything. I waited for the report and the
report actually I agreed with. Mr. Chapman was good enough to keep me posted
and briefed me on what was happening, and they recommended legislation similar
to that in
Well, I do know what happened in the
cabinet. I believe that the Minister of
Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), you know, somehow got his way and it ended up that
this somehow got thrown back to the city for their Winnipeg 2000 study or
something. Well, where are we now? They have not come up with anything that I
can rely on. I believe it is back in our court, and I think the province has
legitimate grounds to say this is a provincial resource. The airport in
I also want to talk about some other
smaller issues, nonetheless important but smaller, that have come up in the
course of the last year from various people around this province. I think, like my friend, there are many
issues which come forward from individuals which do not warrant perhaps an
immediate question to the minister, but we preserve for the Estimates process,
not intending to belabour the process.
I have a number of letters that I have
received in the past year and will want some clarification of course. The minister in many of those in the past
takes them as notice, and I must say this minister has been very good in the
past in responding to questions he has taken notice of in this process. So I appreciate that, and we will ask him to
continue that tradition.
With those comments, I would be prepared
to commence the detailed Estimates.
Madam Chairperson: I would remind members of the committee that
debate on the Minister's Salary 1.(a) will be deferred until all other items in
the Estimates of this department are passed.
At this time I would invite the minister's staff to enter the Chamber.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of
Highways and Transportation): Madam Chairperson, I would like to take this opportunity to
introduce the staff people that I have here.
The opposition critic sort of upstaged me by making reference to my past
deputy minister.
I had intended to make some comments about
that at the time when I introduced my staff, and at the present time I want to
take this opportunity to just thank the member for his comments. Certainly the
five‑year relationship I had with my previous deputy was a real benefit
for myself, a very qualified individual, a man of his own mind. Our discussions were quite loud and vocal at
times, but we always managed to come up with a good conclusion.
I also want to just repeat the comments
that the critic made in terms of the major role that Boris Hryhorczuk played in
terms of establishing the concept of the National Highways Program. He single‑handedly almost brought the
issue from the start to the final conclusion of the TAC report. Unfortunately, we had hoped that, as I
mentioned before in my remarks, on December 2 that the National Highways
Program would be announced. I think this
was a major disappointment, certainly for myself but certainly for my then‑deputy
Boris Hryhorczuk, who had put a tremendous amount of hours in, worked very
diligently with all the components, federal and provincial across the country
to bring it to the stage where it was at.
So I thank the member for those comments on that, and he can probably
only anticipate how much I will miss that individual.
I would like to now take the opportunity
to introduce Mr. Dan Coyle who is now the acting deputy. We are in the process of advertising for the
position of a deputy minister. Mr.
Coyle, who is the registrar, is the acting deputy at the present time. With me
here I have Mr. Bill Dyck who is the ADM for Administrative Services and looks
after the financial responsibilities within the department, and Doug Struthers
who is the ADM for my Construction department and Maintenance.
Those are the gentlemen I have with me
here at the present time. Thank you.
Mr. Reid: Just for a point of clarification, will we be moving now
into subappropriation 1.(b) at this point, or are we open in that already so
that I can ask my questions?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I have always been
relatively flexible how the members want to deal with this. I would prefer to do it on a section‑by‑section
basis so that I could have my other staff people come in. As far as whether the committee wants to go
on a line‑by‑line basis or cover the general discussion and then
pass it, I am very flexible on this. I
leave it up to the discretion of the critics as to which way they want to
handle that.
Mr. Reid: I note that by the minister's introductions
that he has some experience and advice available to him on, I think, what would
cover most of the areas of his department, if I am correct in that. Maybe in that sense, where we have questions,
the minister could indicate that if I ask a question that is out of turn, and he
does not have staff available, just indicate that to us and then we will ask
that question at a more appropriate time.
Madam Chairperson: 1.(b) Executive Support, (1) Salaries.
Mr. Reid: I believe this is the section that deals with
the minister's support staff that he has, including political appointed staff,
EA/SA staff. Can the minister give me an
indication if he has retained the same staff as he had last year in that
department, or if he has added to or deleted from it in any way?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, is it the desire‑‑a question of
clarification‑‑do we get up every time or do we stay sitting? Is it at the discretion of ourselves? I am talking in terms of whether we get up to
reply each time we speak, or do we remain sitting.
Madam Chairperson:
That is entirely at the honourable minister's discretion. As long as you can attract the attention of
the Chair, you can do that by remaining seated and raise your hand.
Mr. Driedger: In my reply to the member, my political staff,
I have two of them, an executive assistant by the name of Hollis Kinsey and,
no, a special assistant. Which one is it
now? Have I got them right? I have two assistants. Anyway, it is the same ones whom I have
had. One has been with me now for over
three years, and I think one has been with me now a little over four years, and
we have our exciting moments as well, but they are still with me.
Mr. Reid: The reason I asked that, maybe I should ask
this question first. There does not
appear to be any other change in the salary structure or amounts that are paid
out for '93‑94 for the minister's executive support staff. Can the minister indicate if, because there
is a decrease in the expenditures of staff salaries, is this as a result of the
government's announced reduced workweek?
Is that why there is a reduction from $412,000 down to $404,000? I think the minister indicated to us at the
last Estimates process what the salary levels for these individuals are and I
do not think it is necessary for us to go into that again unless the minister
has some new information for changes affecting these employees.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the reason for the decrease
in the salaries is the same reason that will be throughout the whole Estimates
here, the 4 percent cutback or, if you want to call it, the reduced
workweek. It is affecting everybody,
including my political staff.
* (1550)
Mr. Reid: I say this a bit tongue‑in‑cheek,
Madam Chairperson. Can the minister indicate to me whether or not he has
designated any of his support staff as essential services?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, my political staff have a very unique
privilege in that they work the same hours that the minister by and large does,
and they are considered essential services, but they still have to work all the
time.
Mr. Reid:
One last question there. I do not
see it indicated here, and I think I should ask it, because it has occurred in
other Estimates process where there were vacancies that existed within certain
segments of the minister's department.
Can the minister indicate if there are any staff vacancies in this
department, either the managerial, professional/technical, or administrative
support?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, at the present time in
these positions, there are no vacancies.
However, I must indicate to the member that my department which has over
2,300 employees, there is almost ongoing turnover, and we have an ongoing
vacancy rate which does not change that much.
Mr. Reid: Maybe to make it somewhat easier for the
minister and his staff‑‑last Estimates I asked if the minister
could provide the information relating to the number of females that were
employed within his department, not only those that were employed in
administrative functions or capacities but in also other functions. I would also be interested to know, and I say
this to the minister now to give him and his staff the opportunity maybe to
come back at a later sitting somewhere as this Estimates process progresses, that
he could provide that information for us if it is not readily available. We would also like to know if there is
information available relating to the visible minority component of his
department, because I think it is important for us to know that as well.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, one of the blessings I suppose, or maybe
not, when going through the Estimates process with the same critic a few times,
you already almost anticipate some of these questions, so we had anticipated
that this is probably when it would be coming forward.
Out of a total component of 2,411
employees as at March 1992, we have 447 female employees in my department; we
have 108 aboriginal people employed in my department; we have 27 disabled
people employed in my department; and we have 27 visible minority people
employed in my department. [interjection]
Oh, there are changes here.
Okay, I have the figures for '93 in which
there is not that much change. It is 447
for females, 111 aboriginal, 28 disabled and 25 visible minority out of a total
component of 2,369. The member should
maybe understand that this department, in terms of the female employment it is
a little bit more difficult because‑‑we were talking about it this
morning‑‑we do not have too many female operators on our motor
graders or some of the‑‑the kind of work is such that it does not
necessarily have that many female employees in some positions. However, in the engineering end of it we are
continually looking at getting more females employed within the department. Like I said, we have two very qualified
ladies right now in the bridge department.
So there is more and more interest from that aspect in this department.
Mr. Reid: I am not sure if I have asked this in previous
Estimates. Maybe the minister can
clarify for me, and if I have not I will ask the question now. Does the department have any kind of a hiring
policy dealing with people with disabilities, women or those of First Nations
or aboriginal people? Is there any
preferential hiring policy in the province in the minister's department?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, when it comes to, let us say, hiring for
our northern operations in airports, et cetera, first consideration is given to
the aboriginal people in hiring out there.
In fact that is where most of our aboriginal people, the 111 whom I have
mentioned, are.
Madam Chairperson, I am just going through
some information here. In our
advertising propositions, we always advertise as an affirmative position so
that the option is there in terms of placement.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, maybe I can just ask why and what was cut
in the reduction of expenditures here from 480 to 468. Where did that come out of?
Mr. Driedger: Just for clarification, Madam Chairperson, can
the member be more specific where he is asking his question? Is he following the Supplementary Estimates?
Madam Chairperson: 1.(b).
Mr. Edwards: The Estimates of expenditure are down by about
$12,000. I see 10 of that‑‑or
eight of that appears to have come out of Salaries and another three out of
Expenditures. Is that salary reduction,
and is it reflected all through these Estimates representing the 10 days which
staff are taking off? Is that what it
relates to?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, just so that I can maybe clarify for both
critics, this will be taking place throughout the whole Estimates, and that is
reflective of the reduced work program that we have instituted. Above that, you will note that throughout the
whole department there are further reductions in other expenditures
continually, because we were challenged through the budgetary process to meet
certain targets. Invariably, you will see reductions in almost every category
on the wage side, the Salaries side, as well as Other Expenditures.
Mr. Edwards: Just for clarification on the reduction or the reduced work
year, that was throughout the entire department including the deputy minister
level and right up to and including that level?
Or was that cut off at a certain managerial level?
Mr. Driedger:
Madam Chairperson, it is affecting all personnel in my department, but
there is provision that we can make some adjustments in the construction end of
it with. For example, when contractors
are working in the course of the summer there is some proviso that they will be
taking their time during the off season.
We have the same thing that will apply to
the ferry service up north which we cannot really take and cut back on the
services, but these are positions that by and large get laid off during the
winter months. We are working together
with the Civil Service Commission to try and work out the details that they
will take certain time off on the off season.
Mr. Edwards: Well, I am glad to hear that because one of
the things that struck me about this and other departments is that if in fact
work has to be done during that period of time that the same dollars or more
dollars would be spent on overtime or other times to get work done if that was
applied rigidly. So it is good to hear
that there is some flexibility in order that the true cost‑saving can be
found and the intent can be worked out, that being the government's intent.
The other, moving on to the next, the
minister mentioned staff numbers. Can he
indicate how many staff he has in his Executive Support under this line?
* (1600)
Mr. Driedger: Is the member asking under Executive Support
service? There are nine, and they
consist of three people in my office, three people in the deputy's office, my
two political staff and myself.
Mr. Edwards: Is that the same number as was there last
year?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that has been the same
number that has been there for virtually five years now.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support, (1) Salaries $404,200‑‑passed;
item 1.(b) (2) Other Expenditures $64,500‑‑passed.
1.(c) Administrative Services, (1)
Salaries $536,400‑‑passed.
Item 1.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $110,700.
Mr. Reid: I may have neglected to ask this in my opening
comments when we moved into the individual subsections. The minister had provided for us, as the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has said, much information for us and we
appreciate that. To this point in time,
we have only received the supplementary Estimates book and the minister has
usually provided for us a copy of the construction program that is planned‑‑the
planning program, and has given us the opportunity to view that. I am wondering if the minister has that
information available so we might take a look at it before we move on a bit further
into the Estimates?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I do not have that
available at the present time. Part of
the reason is, and I will want to maybe explain that, we are working on that
right now, but we have not got it completed.
What sort of deterred it a little bit was the Estimate process this year
until we finally had a capital target established, and then we had the SHIP
program which we were quite excited about, took away from some of the time as
well. So I do not have that information
at this time. I will give the
undertaking that the moment that we have completed that, I will be tabling that
as I have in the past in the House. The
only unfortunate thing is that it is not available here right now in terms of
the program.
Let me maybe explain to the critics to
some degree. The program that would be
submitted for approval at the present time in the spring would basically be
next year's construction, 1994 construction, because we have basically been
working on two years in advance to allow us to have a project's‑‑and
if we run in to problems with environmental licenses, acquisition of right‑of‑way,
any other problems, we are always two years in advance. So what we would be approving this spring
would be 1994 construction.
Then in fall, we go forward to approval
for my colleagues as well for the advance program which is basically certain
programs or projects that we feel are on the major trunk highways, not
necessarily but‑‑so we have two sets of approvals. We have one that we do this spring which will
be for 1994 and then we have the advanced program in fall which basically would
be tendered during the winter as well.
So we have not completed this year's
program for approval. As soon as we have that, I will take and submit it to
both critics.
Mr. Reid: If I understand the minister then, there was a
project list that he had provided for us in past Estimates. His department will be working from that
project list, completing the current projects that are on that. Is there a short list that he has that can
give us some kind of an indication of what projects his department will be
working on through the course of this construction season that may be underway
now, or due to start soon? Can he give
us an idea of how long we might expect to wait until he would table that
information, just roughly?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, what we try and do each
year is submit a list to the heavy construction industry in terms of the
projects that have been tendered and a timetable for projects that will be
tendered during the course of the next six weeks, two months, whatever the case
may be. We have just completed that end
of it. I am prepared to take and give a
copy to both critics of the scheduling that we send out to the heavy
construction industry. I do not know
whether that will suffice for the present time, but that basically would be
dealing with the actual activities that will be taking place during this
construction year.
Mr. Reid: I believe, Madam Chairperson, we are in
Section 1.(c)(2). I have questions here
concerning information that is provided that indicates that internal audit
services fall under the heading of Administrative Services here. Can the minister give me some indication on
the type of audits that are performed under this department's control and
direction?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, during the past year, the
following audit reports were issued. One
was on the DDVL Safety Directorate, Records and Suspension Section; Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Programs, the Motor Transport Board, the Taxicab Board, the Highway
Traffic Board, the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, Traffic Engineering,
Construction Contract Progress Payments and five annual shared‑cost
agreements. Planned for the '93‑94
audits is the
Under DDVL we have the Financial Branch,
Licencing Branch, Vehicle Registration, shared‑cost agreements, and Audit
Assistance, sectoral envelope. The last
ones that I read are the ones that are looked at being audited during the '93‑94
year.
Mr. Reid: Am I clear in my understanding then that the list that the
minister read out goes through the audit process every year; they are audited
as part of the normal course or they only select certain subcomponents of the
minister's department, such as the Highway Traffic Board or the Taxicab Board,
for audits? How do they make that
determination on which they are going to audit then?
Mr. Driedger: It is part of a five‑year program that
is set up, where it is sort of cycled, where the executive by and large set up
which is going to be part of the internal audit. It is prioritized every year in a five‑year
program so that every element gets audited every five years. Everything in the department gets cycled
within five years for an internal audit.
Mr.
Reid: I can understand that and
appreciate that you have a cycle, and I suppose departments should be audited
on a regular basis. How do you
prioritize? What criteria do you use for
prioritizing which departments are going to get audited? Is there some discretion that a minister or
the department heads would use in determining that audit would be done for the
subdepartments or the board or the agencies under the minister's direction?
Mr. Driedger: The deputy and the directors and ADMs are the
ones who get together at the beginning of the year and make those decisions.
Mr. Reid: On page 23, Sub‑Appropriation 1C lists
transportation costs under Other Expenditures.
What type of transportation costs are we talking about there? Is that for staff to move about the province in
the performance of their duties, or are there other items that I may not be
aware of here that maybe the minister can bring to my attention?
Mr. Driedger: In that particular case, it is car
mileage. I want to refer the member,
maybe both critics, to page 115 where there is a sort of a classification in
terms of what comes under the various categories just so that it might help
when they look at the supplementary information, where we have Transportation,
Communication, Supplies and Services, accommodation, et cetera.
It is outlined there. That might help put some understanding as to
what it covers. Okay?
Madam Chairperson:
Item 1.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $110,700‑‑pass.
Item 1.(d) Financial Services, (1)
Salaries $691,600‑‑
* (1610)
Mr. Reid: Under Financial Services, one of the Expected
Results is: Timely and accurate customer
invoicing.
Can the minister indicate for me who the
customers are?
Mr. Driedger: All suppliers for all supplies purchased
within my department.
Mr. Reid:
It is my understanding‑‑I could be wrong on this, I am
probably not the best business person to ask‑‑but invoicing to me
indicates that you send someone a bill for services or goods that you have
provided for them.
It says here customer invoicing. Are we invoicing our subdepartments out in
different parts of the province? Are we
invoicing or sending payment for goods or services received to suppliers?
Mr. Driedger:
That portion of it is where we do work for others, where we do work for
some of the Crown corporations, where we do work for municipalities, where we
do work for individuals, for example, up north where we provide certain
services in isolated areas for grading or snowplowing, et cetera. That is what this is making reference to.
Mr. Reid: Okay, I can understand that.
What type of work would we do for Crown corporations? Are we talking provincial Crown corps? Are we talking federal Crown corps here? What type of service would we provide as a
province or a department that they themselves would not be in a position to
provide or do for themselves?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, actually we end up doing work for many,
many people including Hydro, Telephone, at certain times, especially in areas
where we have equipment and they do not have equipment.
Just an example that we talked about today
was, for example, where we provide services for the RCMP where they virtually
commandeer our equipment at times for certain reasons, either accidents or
spills or, you know, looking for things.
So we have all components that we basically provide a service to and
that we bill them for the services provided.
We do that with some municipalities as
well that do not have all the equipment that is required. We do that for individuals up north. So we provide a variety of services really
with our equipment throughout
Mr. Reid: I may be misinterpreting the way the Estimates
are printed here, but it is shown under the heading on page 25, Staff Years,
that there has been a change from 19.7 down to 15.2. Now am I misinterpreting that as staff years
when that is meant to represent dollar value?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, if the member will look a little higher
under page 25 where it says Total Salaries, there is the SY component of 20 and
last year's was 20. Where he is making
reference to Other that is 19.7, and 15.2 that is Operating.
Mr. Reid:
Dollars?
Mr. Driedger: That is dollars, yes.
Mr. Reid: I take it then, although I do not know this for sure because
this is, I would sense, more an administrative function, that there may be more
females employed in this section of the minister's department.
Can the minister give me an indication of
what the ratio of this sub‑department would be here if he has that. If not, it is not critical‑‑and
if there are any vacancies in this department as well?
Mr. Driedger:
I do not have the breakdown as to how many female employees there
are. If we go through, especially the
administrative, this section here, I would expect that probably the majority of
that would be about two to one is female employment in this area here because
this deals a lot with the office staff.
I think just by the heading itself will probably give an indication that
this is more office and clerical oriented than the physical aspect of it.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):
Item 1.(d) Financial Services, (1) Salaries
$691,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $128,100.
Mr. Edwards: Line 1.(e), Mr. Acting Chairperson.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):
Yes.
Item 1.(e) Personnel Services, (1) Salaries $819,100.
Mr. Edwards: I wanted to discuss Other Expenditures. I understood that was what we were on or are
we still on the Salaries line for l.(e)?
In any event, Mr. Minister, Other
Expenditures, Supplies and Services is listed as accommodation. What does that relate to?
Mr. Driedger: Yes, that is the rent that we pay for accommodations. You will find that in every one of these
categories‑‑office accommodations.
I do not know whether I clarified that, under Supply and Services,
Accommodation, this is a subcategory, that is the rent that we pay out of that.
Mr. Edwards: Our Personnel Services of the Department of Highways
pays $78,200 a year in rent?
Mr. Driedger: Every component or every section of my
department pays rent. It is broken down
this way. If you see there, Supply and
Services, a total of 81.9 and Accommodation is 78.2, which is the rent paid,
and the 3.7 is other expenses at the time.
Mr. Edwards: The minister can just touch on this generally then. He says every, and I have not looked through
this and have not touched on this in prior years, but does the government, the
Highways department, not function in buildings that the government owns in some
cases, or is it all rented space that this department operates out of?
Mr. Driedger: In some cases we own property. For example, in the rural areas where we have
our shops, but in this particular area here, this is office space that is
rented in the city here to provide these services. It is allocated based on the amount of square
footage that I think everybody has, but we do have properties which we own
outright. The garages we own outright,
but the district offices, in most cases, are leased as well. So, in most cases, we lease the properties.
* (1620)
Mr. Edwards: Is that all done out of the Department of
Government Services? Does the department
put in a request for a need and a location and then Government Services handles
it, or how does that work? Does the
department itself make the arrangements and make a determination as to purchase
or to rent, and if so, rent at what cost and purchase at what price?
Mr. Driedger:
It used to be that Government Services was responsible for that. What is happening now is that Government
Services makes the arrangements and the departments pay, so they still do the
negotiations for space, but we end up paying the bills.
Mr. Edwards: The department being the one who pays the
bills, I assume the answer to the question is to who makes the
determination. Is it the department‑‑the
department decides whether to buy or to rent, and if to buy, at what price, and
if to rent, at what price? Is that a
departmental decision in the Highways and Transportation department?
Mr. Driedger: To my understanding, it is sort of a joint decision that is
made where Government Services‑‑let us say the department needs
some space, which happens from time to time. This information is relayed to
Government Services, who then go out and look for the space. When they come up with the required space,
the discussions take place and the decision is made, which ultimately has to be
approved by the necessary process in terms of whether that space is acceptable,
the price is right, et cetera, but it is sort of, we tell them how much space
we need, and they go out and see where they try and provide it. Then it is a matter of getting approval to
get that space.
Mr. Edwards: When the minister says approval, what is the
approval process? Treasury Board?
Mr. Driedger: Yes, Mr. Acting Chairperson, ultimately that is where most
decisions get made.
Mr. Edwards: What is the Other under Supplies and Services, $3,700, and
why is it down from eight? What was cut?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is office supplies.
Mr. Edwards: Is that‑‑and I have not looked
through this entirely‑‑a consistent thing that, I mean, supplies
here have been able to have been cut less than half?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, those are some of the
tough decisions that we made, but this will be applied throughout the
Estimates. Everywhere we have had to
take a percentage and apply it, and every department within my department had
to take a look at being more efficient and doing it cheaper.
Mr. Edwards:
It is just interesting to me because, I mean, it is just one little line
but it is less than half of what they spent last year. It is incredible to me that this one little
area could survive and function with half of the office supplies that it did
last year. I am not objecting to
that. I am just saying, does that mean
you have deferred the purchase of supplies to the next year or used up stocks
of overbuying in previous years or is it new technology or what is it?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to clarify that
because that looks a little deceptive there.
I am told that in this particular case there was some equipment that was
bought that is not being bought now, which is part of Supplies and Services. This could involve typewriters. So the 3.7 is basically office supplies. The eight that you see on the right‑hand
side is probably including some equipment.
I do not have the details here.
Mr. Edwards: Just going down on that. The Other Operating, the word
"other" always strikes me as something that, you know, I would like
to ask questions on. Other just sticks
out, and I realize you cannot get into great detail, but Other Operating and
then computer related, and then there is an "Other" under Other
Operating. What is "Other"
Other Operating?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am glad the member is asking that
because I think that is one way of, you know, how our system tries to get past
the minister from time to time too. So I
will try and get a clarification on that "Other" Other.
Mr. Edwards: It just always strikes me as, and I appreciate the dilemma
the minister is in, but when you have got Other on top of Other I think it is a
fair question. It is only $13,400, but
that is sort of lost money that it would be nice to define what has been spent.
Mr. Driedger: I am told that it could include training. It could under Other Operating include
hotels, meals, computer related charges, loss, damage, insurance and
extraordinary cost, publications, employee education assistance, relocation and
transport costs, other membership fees, hospitality‑‑there we are‑‑uniforms,
conference, convention, registration fees, incidental allowances.
Mr. Edwards: Just for fun, let us get a list of what the
$13,400 was used to spend, and I do not intend to do this on every line, but
just as an example. I have just noticed
that it is actually Other on Other on Other, because the Other Expenditures is
the heading and now we are in Other Operating and now we are in Other under
Other Operating. So it would just be
interesting to me, and I do not intend to do this on every line, but let us
just get a list, and it would be interesting to me to know how $13,400 was
spent on Other Other Other Expenditures.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not have it right
here, but I will get it for the member in this particular case, but he is not
asking for a breakdown on everything like this. Like, in this case just to show
an example of what has happened, fine, I will give that undertaking. I will have that information by the next time
we meet.
Mr. Reid: The minister had sent around a letter
indicating that there was some restructuring within his department. In the last Estimates he had said that he was
moving from 13 districts down to five regions.
Under this subsection here it indicates that two positions were
transferred from
I take it, it is the professional and the
technical people who were transferred.
Can the minister indicate if that is so, and where did these people get
transferred to?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, maybe on the
regionalization I should do a little bit of a clarification that we‑‑by
establishing the five regions, you will notice that not only under this
category, but under other categories as well we have a note on the bottom where
positions have been transferred from Winnipeg to regional offices due to
regionalization.
We have the five regional offices now, and
I should maybe explain that the purpose of that is for more efficiency. We used to have 13 district offices. Now we have five regional offices. When we
finish our reorganization on regionalization, we will probably be moving as
many as 40 people out of
We feel that, for example, that payroll,
to some degree the services will be provided from out of there. We have a variety of services. We are trying to provide a better service
right at the regional level. Instead of
having before going through a district office and then up to the head office in
So every once in a while, confusing as it
might seem, we will see under the bottom of these where certain positions have
been designated to be moved to the regional areas.
Mr. Reid: The minister says staff has moved and there are 40 positions
being relocated. Can he give me an
indication of whether or not‑‑because I am not sure what procedure
was followed in his department. We had
heard some stories in the last fiscal year where employees were forced to
transfer, decentralize in effect, and it caused one spouse to go one way and
one spouse to go the other way in a family.
The people that were attached to those
positions, obviously important, were they canvassed as to a willingness to go
to these areas, or were they directed to go to these areas? Can the minister give me some indication on
the process that was followed?
* (1630)
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, these positions were all basically posted
starting from the top down within the department to allow for movement, you
know, for people within the department and to these areas. They chose their area. I do not know of one case where anybody was
forced or inconvenienced to some degree. My administrative staff took great
pains in terms of making sure that there was the least inconvenience to any
people in terms of changes.
We always have a little bit more problem
with the Thompson office. Not that many
people are that receptive to moving up there, but invariably we have managed to
work that out without anybody being inconvenienced. As we did the regionalization, positions
opened up. Those who had been up North,
who wanted to move down, had the opportunity to bid on positions. So we have taken great care to make sure that
we did not inconvenience people to any degree.
The same thing applies to the ones who will be basically moved from
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that explanation.
There has been a reduction that has been
indicated here from eight staff years down to six for the people who have been
transferred due to the change, yet when I calculate out the average salaries
that were paid for the eight on the past fiscal years' expenditures versus the
monies that are being spent average‑wise for the six who are now
remaining in the department, there seems to be an increase in the average
salary that is paid to these employees.
In the past year, the average for the
eight was $42,500. Now the average for
the six is $43,666. Are there merit
increases for the employees in this department, because it seems strange that
we are going to see a corresponding increase in the average when there are other
departments or subdepartments that we have gone through to this point that
indicate that there is going to be a decrease in the monies that are
expended? Can the minister provide some
explanation for that?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that is because in
certain categories there are certain merit increases that are brought into
play. That is the case in this
particular one here.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): 1.(e) Personnel Services, (1)
Salaries $819,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $206,000‑‑pass.
1.(f) Computer Services, (1) Salaries
$1,177,800.
Mr. Reid: I believe the department has embarked, I think
it was a year ago or maybe it was two years ago, to upgrade some of the
computer equipment within the department.
At least that is what I recall.
It indicates here that this Computer Services prepares strategic system
plans for the department. Can the
minister provide me with some explanation for that, and also can he give me an
understanding on whether or not we contract out, because I believe, if I recall
correctly, that there were some contracting out of computer services? In past Estimates, we had talked about
it. Is that still the case? Do we contract out Computer Services as well?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we do not develop new
programs. We try and pick up systems
that other people have already established, and then we modify them to our use.
I just want to maybe give a bit of an
insight into our Computer Systems, which are very important to us. You know, we use them, first of all, in our
regional offices, and we are trying to establish, as we establish our regional
offices, now to try and get computers in there.
There seems to be a misconception,
sometimes even with my‑‑choke, choke‑‑Treasury Board,
that we have a very sophisticated computer system. That is not necessarily the case, but
certainly they play a very important role both in my registrar's department
with DDVL and also in the construction end of it where we can do our designing
with very sophisticated equipment.
However, in spite of the conception that
is out there that we have a very elaborate, good computer system, that is not
the case. I am not telling tales out of
school, but my registrar is very nervous with the antiquated system that he has
there. There is continuous negotiation
that takes place in this department with Treasury Board in terms of trying to
get our system as updated as possible.
We find that the private consultants
possibly have much more sophisticated equipment that they can use than we have
within my department. I just wanted to
put that on record as well.
Mr. Reid: The minister may have missed it. I suppose that resources are scarce, as the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has said quite often here. It is probably difficult for the department
at this time to look at major expenditures for upgrading of computer equipment,
and I hope that the equipment will continue to serve until the time his
resources become available. Do we contract
out any of the computer services?
Mr. Driedger:
There is no contracting out of computer services.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I am at l.(f)(1) Salaries
$1,177,800‑‑pass.
Item 1.(f)(2) Other Expenditures,
$585,700.
Mr. Reid: Under that Other Expenditures it indicates
that there are rentals of $41,000 planned for the current fiscal year. Are those rentals, is that a tendered process
when we look to rent equipment for the computer services department?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that means Data Communications
Line Rentals.
Mr. Reid: There is also a line there that is called
Computer Hardware Rentals. I should have
indicated that that was the section that I was interested in instead of the
previous one.
Also, under Computer Maintenance, if I
understood the minister's answer prior to this question where he said that
there was no contracting out, did that also include Computer Maintenance, or is
Computer Maintenance done by his internal staff?
Mr. Driedger:
Some of our hardware is rented, and some of it is owned, and some of it
is leased.
Mr. Reid: For the part that we lease, do we tender out
for that? It is a major part of the
subdepartment or is it a relatively minor portion of the expenditures?
Mr. Driedger:
Yes, it is tendered. It is always
tendered.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):
Item 1.(f)(2) Other Expenditures, $585,700‑‑pass.
Item 1.(g) Occupational Health and Safety
(1) Salaries $113,300.
Mr. Reid:
I am trying to form my question here, Mr. Acting Chairperson, collect my
thoughts.
There has been a decrease in the
administrative support staff here, again by transfers of two positions from
Can the minister give me an indication of
where this staff is transferred to? What
regional office did this staff go to?
What function did they perform when they were here in
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, these two that were
transferred, one was transferred to Steinbach and one was transferred to
Mr. Reid: I must have missed something there then, if you
have got a decrease in the numbers from the previous year from five staff years
down to three, how you calculate out you have an increase in staff. Also, can the minister indicate whether or
not other areas, other regions of the province, have these same safety
inspection staff that the minister indicated would be transferred to Steinbach
and
Mr. Driedger: Yes, we will be having‑‑and if the
member will look further down in the supplementary information, they are being
paid out of the regional district office so there will be one at each one of
the regions.
* (1640)
Mr. Reid:
Under the Activity Identification, page 30, indicates that the
Occupational Health and Safety segment of the minister's department conducts
worksite inspection and environmental monitoring.
Can the minister give me an indication on
the type of worksite inspections, how many one might expect that these
employees would conduct, and what type of environmental monitoring is being
referred to by this Activity Identification?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, what happened in '92‑93:
Implementation of a Co‑operative Accident Reduction Effort called CARE
program which was a department initiative designed to promote accident
prevention within the department.
The program was introduced at 16 training
sessions with supervisors and workers and included instruction on effective job
instruction, motivating and increasing safety behaviour, communicating
effectively. A 40 percent reduction in
loss‑of‑time injuries occurred in the '92‑93 fiscal year,
some of which we believe could be attributed to the program.
Also, an initial establishment of a risk
management program and committee, audiometric testing of 610 employees, first
aid training for 335 employees, 20 operational and safety related start‑up
meetings with construction and maintenance personnel. That was what was done in
last year.
What we are proposing to do for '93‑94
is employee safety training, workplace and work zone protection inspections,
traffic control training, full development and implementation of a risk
management program under which is staff training on risk management concepts
and practices, identification and control of liability concerns, identification
and control of facility security concerns, first aid training of approximately
250 employees, audiometric testing of approximately 500 employees, review and
amendments of the department's health and safety policy procedures, development
of safe operating checklists for equipment and work activities, and development
of an ergonomic program, including ongoing task analysis and back (injury)
prevention program.
Mr. Reid: There is quite an extensive list there. Can the minister give me any indication, does
he have any statistical data to show‑‑because I take it that his
department has a fair amount of construction activity that would take place
under his department‑‑the type of injuries that would occur for his
department employees? Is there is a
breakdown on the type of injuries that are there, the type of lost time one
might expect to see? Does he have any
year‑over‑year comparisons indicating whether or not this program
has been effective in reducing the number of lost‑time workplace
injuries?
Mr. Driedger: It is available, but I do not have it here
today. I will give an undertaking to get that information.
Mr. Reid: The minister talked about audiometric
evaluation or studies of the employees because there is probably a fair number
of large pieces of machinery that the employees of the department would operate
through the normal maintenance program in the province. Does he have any data that we can see or
become aware of indicating the effect that the operation of this heavy
equipment would have on the hearing of the employees who would do the
operations of this equipment?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, in conjunction with the other information that I
am going to try to get, I will try to get you as much detail as I can in terms
of what our accident rates are, how many workdays or hours we have lost, and
also as much detail as I can. I will
have to provide that. I do not have that
here because that is pretty detailed information.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate‑‑because
when you are in this type of industry, and I came from heavy industry myself‑‑does
the minister have a program within his department for employees who are injured
or sustain workplace injuries? Is there
is a light‑duty program within his department? Do we also have some kind of a program in
there to rehabilitate workplace‑injured employees to get them back into
the workplace, or do we find alternate employment for them? What type of program do we have?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, yes, we have a program. We are very proactive in
that whole area of rehabilitation and shifting where injury has taken
place. We try to accommodate them with
light‑duty jobs.
Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister, when he is providing other information,
could include that as well in the stats, where we have been able to
rehabilitate employees back into his workforce for the department.
Can the minister also provide with that
information, because he most likely does not have it available here today, what
the workers compensations claims and costs would be for his department?
Mr. Driedger:
I am prepared to get that information.
I do not know how fast we will be able to get it, because as we go
through this Estimate process here, I am loading them up pretty good. We are taking note of the commitments that I
am making, but I do not know whether I can necessarily assure that we will have
all this information by the next time we meet.
But I will get it to the members.
Mr. Reid:
I thank the minister for that. I
mean this is for my own information. It
is an education for myself. As well, I
want to know how the department functions, the programs and processes they have
in place, the costs that are associated with operating the department.
I do not mean to put pressure on his staff
here. They say they have to do this
right away for the next sitting. If he
could provide it in a number of weeks to follow that would be fine as well as
long as we have it sometime maybe before the summer.
Also, it indicates here that there are
expected results in the detection and elimination of safety and health
hazards. What successes have we had in
reducing workplace injuries in the minister's department, since that is their
expected result?
Mr. Driedger: I had indicated before that we have a reduction of about 40
percent of injuries for '92‑93, and we think that our training programs
have a lot to do with it.
Mr. Acting Chairperson, with the amount of
detailed information that the member is asking here all the time, I am very
prepared to get that information. I have
no difficulty with that, but I almost get the impression that the member is
thinking that someday he will be the Minister of Highways and
Transportation. That makes me terribly
nervous.
Mr. Edwards:
I will not touch that last comment from the minister. The two positions which were cut from
Administrative Support, can the minister give descriptions of those jobs?
Mr. Driedger:
Is the member referring to page 31, the reduction from 5 to 3?
Mr. Edwards:
If you go up to Administrative Support, from 4 to 2.
Mr. Driedger: I had thought I had clarified that those are
two positions that we have moved to the regional offices‑‑the
Occupational Hazard office occupational health officers. They have been moved, one to Steinbach and
one to
Mr. Edwards: I am sorry.
I misunderstood then. The note
then means that the positions were transferred‑‑not two of the
positions of the three but two of the five so that there in fact is no
decrease. That is what the minister
seems to be saying.
Mr. Driedger: There is actually an increase in the amount of
safety officers that we will have available.
We will have five‑‑one in each region and plus we will still
have three operating out of
* (1650)
Mr. Edwards: Thank you for that clarification. One of the things that occurs in this
department is the reintegration of injured workers into the workplace, into the
workforce. That is a very interesting
challenge for all departments but of course this one in particular.
There are many other departments I am sure
where there is a lot of manual labour involved and there are going to be
injured workers. I think particularly of
Natural Resources as another department in which this would be a challenge.
What is the philosophy of the
government? Firstly, is this done within
each department separately or is there an overall governmental strategy towards
modified duties and reintegration of injured workers?
Mr. Driedger: I cannot answer for other departments. I am told that we operate our own function,
and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), who used to be my critic and got
fired, for obvious reasons, is now trying to get into the fray here.
Mr. Edwards: Does the department‑‑it says works with the
Workers Compensation Board and things, I am sure, to deal with injured
workers. Of course, a lot of workers are
injured not because of compensable accidents, oftentimes injuries occur outside
of the workplace, but nevertheless there is a worker who is injured. Is the position of the department to create,
wherever possible, modified duties and thereby give the injured workers
priority on other jobs maybe that they can do, not the job they were hired for?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, first of all, if you are injured on
a job we would make an extra effort, I suppose, to try and accommodate them on
lighter duties and rehabilitate them. If
they have been injured off the job, let us say at home, I would like to think, without
having full guarantee, that we would be relatively compassionate in terms of
trying to keep them employed and get them back into the work stream. But, you know, I am making that assumption
that we are doing that because I would like to think that my department by and
large is a very proud, close‑knit group so that where there is this kind
of a misfortune taking place that compassion would be used in terms of trying
to accommodate these people.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):
Item 1.(g)(1) Salaries $113,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $44,500‑‑pass.
We will set aside item 1 to review the
Minister's Salary at a later time, and we will move on to item 2. Operations
and Maintenance, (a) Maintenance Program $48,075,000. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Reid: Those big numbers scare me, Mr. Acting Chairperson, every
time I see those. We seem to spend so
much time on the tens of thousands of dollars and gloss over the millions. It is something I still have not gotten used
to, how we can spend so much time on the, what appears to be, relatively minor
expenditure amounts.
Under this section, the Maintenance
Program, can the minister give me some indication on what he anticipates his
department will be able to maintain by way of service through the Maintenance
Program during the course of the coming year now that we have gone to this
reduced workweek? How is this going to
impact upon the Maintenance Program for his department?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, first of all if the
member looks on page 33, which basically is a breakdown of our Maintenance
Program, what comes under Operations and Maintenance. In the Maintenance Program we have a
reduction of approximately $5 million just in straight maintenance, and that of
course is a matter of grave concern.
Part of the reason for that‑‑and staff is not necessarily
that pleased with me‑‑but offered up some of the maintenance money
just to keep my capital program up, and you know that bears a lot of concern
and possibly some discussion on that.
If the member turns over to page 35, it
will show him exactly where we are cutting in terms of the maintenance
itself. Coming back to page 33 it shows
the reductions in each one of the categories.
Under Operations and Maintenance he will see reductions throughout the
whole area, and we have also the five regions, the expenditures as affiliated
with the regions, which we changed from the 13 districts to the five regions,
so we related the expenditures comparatively there.
I just want to raise that if the member
looks on page 35, this is the impact it will have, by and large. We will be doing less summer maintenance,
cutting back on our gravel supply to some degree, dragging and dust control,
roadside mowing. Where we did pretty extensive
mowing, we will only be making one or two cuts now, even on our major PTHs.
These are all part of the difficult things
that are going to be impacting visually for the public and is a matter of
concern. Our maintenance is going to be less than the way I would desire it,
and certainly maybe the people of
If you look under the second category,
Extraordinary Maintenance, that is our patching and crack‑filling, we
have quite a reduction in there as well.
Then under Winter Maintenance, we have cut that back as well in terms of
trying to just hit the targets that were expected from my department. So there is going to be, I make no bones
about it, a dramatic impact when you have a reduction of this nature in our
total maintenance program. For example,
under the Winter Maintenance, what we actually implemented already for part of
the last year was the snow clean‑up at intersections and towns, villages,
snow fencing, drainage, all these things, sanding and salting, we are cutting
back on that. Ultimately there is going
to be criticism coming forward because of what we are doing in that regard.
Mr. Reid: Well, I recall the minister saying in the last Estimates, I
believe it was, that he was cutting back his summer maintenance program and
that they were only going to do the roadside mowing. They were cutting back, I think, from three
to two, if I am correct in that. Now he
is saying that he is going to cut back further in the roadside mowing. To some that might be just for aesthetics,
but I think it also has something to do with safety as well. Continued maintenance of the road support
services, where we do not provide that type of maintenance to allow proper
drainage that is necessary for any of the roads in the province, if you are
going to cut back on that you are going to have water retention. Is this going to create problems for future
maintenance costs?
How is that decision that he is making now
to cut back on that type of program going to impact him and his department
somewhere down the road?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, naturally there is
going to be a downside of the cutbacks that we are doing in maintenance. When the member made reference to the
roadside mowing, on certain of our major arteries we still did total mowing,
mowed the total ditches. We will not be
doing that anymore. We are still trying
to address the aspects of safety‑‑safety will not be affected, but
certainly the quality of maintenance is not going to be there in roadside
mowing and grading, and the dust control.
Even in the aesthetics that we have, for example on the Trans‑Canada
where we have our planted trees and hedges and stuff of that nature, where we
took some pride in making sure that they looked relatively proper, that kind of
care is not going to be there anymore.
So there will be a very visual impact in
terms of the cutback in our maintenance throughout the province, and I expect
to hear criticism coming, and rightfully so.
However, these were some of the decisions that we had to make in terms
of meeting certain targets within my department.
Mr. Reid: I suppose there will be some criticisms,
probably from the municipalities around the province through which these roads
would run. I am sure the municipalities
will come forward with those complaints and the minister will probably hear
about them.
Can the minister give me an indication‑‑
* (1700)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): Order, please. The hour being five o'clock and time for
private members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mr. Jack Reimer (Acting Chairperson
of Committees): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the Committee of Supply has considered certain
resolutions, directs me to report our progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Sturgeon Creek, that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
House Business
Hon. Harry Enns (Acting Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Leader
(Mr. Manness), just a bit of traditional House Business.
The Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources will meet on Monday, April 26, 1993, at 10 a.m. to
consider the annual reports of the Workers Compensation Board for the years
ended December 31, 1991 and '92, and their respective five‑year operating
plans. This replaces the announcement
that the House leader made earlier today.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable acting
government House leader for that information.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Also standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of 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).
Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of 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). Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill which is a
very short bill indeed. It consists of
two paragraphs. It provides for the
right of tenants to be protected in order to organize tenants' associations in
either public housing or private rental housing. It protects tenants from being harassed by
landlords.
I believe that this is something that is
necessary because, if you look at landlords and tenants, you see that there is
an imbalance in what is basically a relationship of power, that is, that
landlords have more power than tenants.
Landlords normally have the financial capacity to hire lawyers so their
interests are always protected. Tenants
frequently do not have the financial capacity to hire lawyers so frequently
their interests are not protected.
We have many, many low‑income
tenants, especially in the inner city of
I would have to say that The Residential
Tenancies Act, which was passed when the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme) was the Minister of Housing, is an excellent piece of
legislation. It was approved by all three
parties in the House. It was supported by all sides. That legislation was about six years in the
making and was passed on December 14, 1990.
As far as we know, it is a good piece of legislation and no one has
suggested any amendments to it up until now.
We hope that it is providing the kind of increased protection for both
landlords and tenants that it was originally envisaged to have.
However, people are still living in
substandard accommodation and need to make improvements. One of the problems now, as to why they are
living in substandard accommodation, is that the system at the Residential
Tenancies Branch is complaint driven. That is, unless the branch receives a
complaint, they do not do an investigation.
If they do not do an investigation, charges are not laid, or landlords
are not told to fix up their premises.
If they are not told, then frequently they do not do it, and tenants are
left to their own devices or are left living in substandard accommodation.
One of the reasons that there continues to
be problems, another reason, is that there are no inspection programs. Now there used to be an excellent inspection
program known by the acronym of CARUMP, which stands for the Core Area
Residential Upgrading and Maintenance Program.
It was jointly funded under the Core Area Initiative by three levels of
government, and the service was delivered by the City of
The housing inspectors went door to door
and checked on rental accommodation. If
there were a need for repairs, then they would issue repair orders under city
by‑laws. If there were a need for
tenants to relocate because the place was so bad that it was condemned, then
the social workers on the staff would help people find another place to live.
The teacher‑homemakers were there to
help people with skills in order to be good tenants and good homemakers so they
did not contribute to the deterioration of their rented premises.
This was an excellent program that was in
place until the funding ran out from the Core Area Initiative. So one of the current problems is that there
is no inspection program and so the system is entirely complaint driven. If somebody phones The Residential Tenancies
branch, then the process begins to investigate and/or to issue repair orders or
whatever the problem is that needs rectifying.
Consequently, in the absence of an
inspection program, when I go door to door and when my colleagues‑‑and
I would have to say that the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has far more
rental accommodation in her constituency and far worse accommodation in the
private‑rental market, and the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and
the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) all have much more rental accommodation in
their constituencies and much more that is substandard. I have been in some of those places and I
have seen them, but nonetheless it still exists as well in the constituency of
Burrows. So I recently went door to door
in an entire apartment building and almost everybody had a complaint. So I
obtained work order repair forms from The Residential Tenancies branch and gave
them to the tenants. I told them how to
fill them out and where to send them in and even offered to help fill them out.
The kinds of problems that we find are
very, very sad. We had a family with an
infant living in an apartment that was terribly cold in the month of January
this year. The baby had been sick two or
three times since October, had been to seek medical attention for their
illness, and every time the baby was sick the mother was missing classes at
* (1710)
I reminded them of the slogan of the
housing concerns group that I was involved with for about 10 years and that
was, do not move, stay and fight. We
always encouraged people to stay and fight for their rights. That is what I encouraged my constituents,
the tenants on Winnipeg Avenue, to do, was to fill out the repair order forms
and send them into the branch so that the landlord would be ordered to make
repairs.
Well, I also contacted the landlord
myself. I talked to the property
manager. I was told that everything
would be taken care of. I went back a
couple of weeks later and knocked on every door in the apartment building and nothing
had been done. I talked to the
caretaker, and the caretaker was quite forthcoming in telling me that this
landlord had no intention of spending money on the apartment. What was the landlord doing while children
were sick and people were freezing in his apartment block? He was in
So what happened when the landlord found
out that I as an MLA was going door to door to organize and to assist the
tenants? Well, the landlord went to see the caretaker and wrote out a statement
and asked the caretaker to take it from door to door and get people to sign
it. This is what it said: On February 4, I was approached by a man
named Doug Martindale and he identified himself as an MLA for the province. The reason he was apparently visiting myself
was that he wanted to leave a repair order form with me and that if I had any
problems living here or problems regarding my apartment that I could fill out
the form and return it to his address.
He specified that he was handing out the form due to apparent complaints. End of statement.
So what was the landlord doing? The landlord was intimidating and harassing
his tenants and encouraging them not to fill out complaint forms and not to co‑operate
with me as the MLA, so that he would not have to spend any money turning the
heat on and making necessary repairs. So
this proves the need for this bill. I
thought up this bill, and I put it in the hopper way before this happened to me
with the tenants on
I submitted the text for this last fall,
and this happened in January and February this year. That is why my bill amending The Residential
Tenancies Act says that no person shall knowingly hinder, obstruct or interfere
with a tenant in the exercise of the right to organize or participate in an
organization, the purpose of which is to secure and enforce rights established
under this act. It also says that no
person shall knowingly harass a tenant with the intent to prevent or discourage
the tenant from securing or enforcing rights under this act.
So that was the suggested amendment that I
had and this is the proof as to why it is needed‑‑the kind of
harassment and intimidation that the tenants in that block were experiencing
when they tried to enforce their rights.
So I believe that this legislation is necessary. I have not had a chance to talk to the
minister yet, but I am hoping that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) will agree with my suggested amendment and that it will
pass.
I know that the minister is a very co‑operative
person and actually agreed to an amendment submitted by the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes) which actually passed in the last session. So private
members' bills actually do get into legislation from time to time. I will be looking forward to, first of all,
talking to the minister responsible for The Residential Tenancies Act and
asking her to participate in the debate on this bill, and to accept this
amendment to The Residential Tenancies Act so that it can become law and so
that there will be enforced protection for tenants, especially in the inner
city of Winnipeg.
Now I would like to talk about a slightly
different aspect to this problem because the members of the government are
always saying, well, what are your suggestions to us as opposition members, and
how would you save money? How would you
do it differently? What would you do? [interjection] So I am being asked, how
would we do it differently?
Well, I have a suggestion to save
money. It is estimated that something
like $60 million goes to people on social assistance for rental accommodation
in the inner city of
One of the proposals that I would have is
that the social assistance staff not be allowed to rent accommodation if it is
substandard. I believe this kind of
economic boycott‑‑because really that is what it would be, an
economic boycott‑‑would force landlords to fix up their premises in
order to get tenants.
Now I would have thought that the last
couple of years that landlords would do that voluntarily because the vacancy
rate is so high. Indeed maybe some have,
because they are so desperate for tenants that they may indeed be forced to fix
up their premises in order to attract a tenant, but I believe it is unfair to
the taxpayers of
Mr. Speaker, I have a report by Prairie
Research Associates Inc. entitled Tenant Organizations in
I hope that every MLA is aware of this and
that they encourage their tenants to become organized and apply for this money,
because it is there. This is a right
that tenants in public housing enjoy, and many of them have taken advantage of
it and many of them have made good suggestions to management and to boards and
made improvements in their housing.
One example would be the tenants at Lord
Selkirk development. Another would be
Gilbert Park public housing. They became
a pressure group and they worked with Manitoba Housing and they co‑operated
with them and were able to make substantial improvements in their housing. They are to be commended for their initiative
and I would even commend the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) for him and his
staff co‑operating with these tenants to make improvements, including
very expensive capital improvements which are quite visible. If you go to Lord Selkirk development in the
north end, you can see where the Minister of Housing and CMHC have spent money
to make improvements.
One of the main reasons for that is, the
tenants were able to organize to fight for their interests and, at one time,
they actually got elected people on the board of directors. Regrettably, they
were only there for three meetings, and then this Minister of Housing (Mr.
Ernst) abolished all the public housing authorities in Manitoba‑‑98
public housing authorities. He fired 600 volunteer board members with one Order‑in‑Council.
So now tenants are not on the board of any housing authority in
The point I am making is that tenants in
public housing have many more rights and they enjoy them, and it is to their
advantage to organize as tenant's organizations and to fight for those
rights. This is not a privilege and it
is not a right that is enjoyed by tenants in private housing, and that is where
I believe a great majority of the problems are, with low‑income people
renting substandard accommodation, mostly in the inner city of
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 208?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. Are
we proceeding with Bill 209?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Bill 211?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Bill 214?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Okay.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 15‑Permanent
Stubble Burning Solution
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the depute de
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that
WHEREAS stubble burning is still widely
practised in the
WHEREAS stubble burning has been
recognized by the Manitoba Department of Agriculture and other major farming
organizations as counterproductive to the long‑term productivity of soil;
and
WHEREAS stubble burning can cause thick
smoke to travel up to 50 kilometres before dispersing; and
WHEREAS stubble burning can cause serious
health and safety dangers for thousands of Manitobans caught downwind of
stubble fires each year; and
WHEREAS stubble burning has repeatedly
attracted unfavourable attention to the
WHEREAS many Manitobans, including
WHEREAS the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba recommend that the Ministers of Health,
Agriculture and Environment consider striking a committee of interested
Manitobans to work together to formulate a permanent solution to this long‑standing
and serious problem.
Motion presented.
Mr. Edwards: Now, Mr. Speaker, some members have come
forward prior to this coming to the fore today and said, well, have we not done
what the resolution called for? I want
to acknowledge at the outset of my comments that in fact a committee was struck
I think‑‑and I do not want to be overly humble about this‑‑as
a result of some of the efforts of myself and others in our party who have over
five years brought this issue up every single year asking for some sort of
solution to stubble burning.
Now a committee was struck and the
committee published a report which was made public or it came out March 9,
1993. That committee has now come
forward with recommendations which the government has, in fact, agreed to put
in place for the 1993 year. The biggest
problem, of course, occurs in the fall‑‑August, September and
October of each year. I wanted to go
forward today with this resolution and bring this to the floor and have some
further discussion, because I want to discuss this report. I want to have the government understand that
the key to this whole process is going to be enforcement.
You can come forward with recommendations
and talk about solutions and put things in place, but what we learned when the
emergency measures had to step in last year was without enforcement the whole
exercise is undercut. Let me remind the
government of the final conclusion of the committee.
The conclusion was this: To achieve the desired impact of these
recommendations it is the opinion of the committee‑‑and the
committee represented two members from the Keystone Agricultural producers; it
included, in addition, representatives from the farm community; it included
representatives from the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. So this includes the four representatives
from the agricultural community. They
agreed that the key to this was timely and consistent enforcement of
regulations to deal with infractions.
* (1720)
They went on to say, this will be the
critical factor. I agree. That will be the critical factor. Does the government have the courage of its
convictions, and will it go out to enforce these regulations? I think these regulations‑‑I
would have preferred that they be stronger, but the point is they are
here. Frankly, if they are enforced
adequately, I believe there will be a major improvement in the environmental
quality, the quality of health of citizens of this province and, I believe, in
the agricultural community as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly draw to
members' attentions what the regulations are going to be. It is going to be restriction mostly on
nighttime burning. The restrictions are
more onerous during the season, August 1 to November 15. In fact, daytime burning is going to be
allowed almost on an unrestricted basis outside of that August 1 to November 15
period. It is going to be interesting to
see whether or not there is burning outside of that period which occurs from
those who are intransigent on this issue in the farming community, but there is
going to be regulation in place August 1 to November 15. There is going to be a ban from two hours
after sunset to 11 a.m., and in addition to that, there is going to be this
regulation during the daytime.
The way it is going to work is that there
is going to be notice given, before 11 a.m., each day is the hope, that this is
an okay day for people to stubble‑burn in this quadrant or in this
section. The idea is that people in the
community, farmers, are going to hear this, listen to it as a normal report,
that they would be interested to listen to it if they wanted to stubble‑burn. If it is okay in their area, they will burn,
and if it is not okay, then they will not.
That is the idea. Now, how well
that is going to work, Mr. Speaker, we are going to find out. It is going to depend on the co‑operation
of the farm community, quite frankly.
I would have preferred a licensing as
opposed to a notice system, and I advocated that. That is in place in other jurisdictions, most
notably in
The word "licensing" throws
people off because they think, oh, I got forms and fees and time delays and
bureaucracy. That is not the way it
works in other jurisdictions. That is
the system I would have preferred because then the person is more accountable,
that is, there is no difficulty in proving that you did or did not have
authority to do it. The problem in
enforcement that I foresee is that people will say, "Well, my radio
broke," or "I was not listening," or "I did not have notice,
sorry." Meanwhile the fire is
started.
My concern is that when you move to the
notice, there is less accountability on the individual farmer. I would have preferred to have what is done
in other jurisdictions, which is a one on one with an appropriate 1‑800
number‑‑and that is what they do in other jurisdictions‑‑where
the farmer simply calls in and gets approval right there or approval for
another time of day. The conversation is
recorded so that it is verifiable if there is a question as to whether or not
or what the person was told. That is the
way they do it.
So, Mr. Speaker, that was something I
preferred, but I am willing to see if this system works. This committee worked long and hard, and if
they have come up with something that they think is going to work, I am prepared
to take their advice and see what happens this year. But we will be watching closely.
It has been five years that I have been on
this issue, every year, consistently. It
is interesting to me, and it is the classic case of how government works. Government reacts to crisis apparently in
this province, and that is what happened last year. It was bad in prior years. Oh, people got sick. Seniors complained. There were the normal complaints that came
in, and people like me, opposition politicians, got up in the House and raised
it. The government said year after year
after year, you do not know anything about farming; you are out to get the
farmers; sit down. That is what they
said four years in a row.
The fifth year, it was so bad, there was a
crisis, and they started hearing from some of their constituents this
time. I think the numbers increased, and
they decided they had to do something.
It is a form of crisis management, but the point is, after five years,
it worked.
Now, was it an emergency last fall? Well, I am happy Emergency Measures stepped
in because I think it was, but emergency is defined as an unpredictable
event. It is an act of God, or an
earthquake or something. That is
generally what people think of in terms of emergency.
This was an entirely predictable incident
last fall. Everybody who was watching the situation‑‑and it is on
the record in this House and from the agricultural people‑‑knew
that this was going to come. Designated
as an emergency, certainly. Unpredictable, no, it was purely predictable. It had happened the last four years past and
the last 40 before that. It was just
that it was worse this year, and people's environmental and health and safety
consciousness has raised to a point where they just did not want to take it
anymore. They were tired of taking their
asthmatic children or seniors with emphysema were tired of going to emergency
departments. It is not a fictitious
thing, Mr. Speaker.
I am fortunate enough not to suffer from
those medical ailments, but as a child I did.
I had asthma for the first 13 years of my life. I went to the hospital two, three, four times
a year with it and stayed in one of these tents where oxygen is pumped in for
three or four days.
I know that irritants like this, the rest
of us, it is a smell irritant. You know,
it gets in your house or something, it is double, it is not that bad. For people with those ailments, they are in
the hospital and they are still there when the smoke has cleared. Their ailments are still with them. They generally have reacted. If they have sensitive lungs, and thousands
and thousands of Manitobans and Winnipeggers do have those ailments, they are
suffering before you or I or others are detecting that there is a problem in
the air. So we have to remember that
there is indeed a health risk, and it is not just a handful of people.
Dr. Chochinov, head of emergency at
I was first and foremost, and I recognize
here in this resolution, wanting to include always the agricultural
community. I think that they needed to
understand that there was a problem that had to be dealt with. Nobody was asking for unrealistic solutions
that the farming community would not be able to live with.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this proposal
which came forward from this committee is implemented. I hope that it is enforced, that fines are
levied and they are stiff, and that the police and authorities are vigilant in
enforcing it. Because this is the
critical year. If it is not enforced
right off the mark, the wrong message will be sent, it will continue and it
will get worse, and people will abuse it.
The government has made all this big fuss
and the press conferences about this, which is good. It is publicized that it is going to
happen. It is now up to them to follow
through.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to them doing
that. I will certainly be present in
this city and in this province during those months. I will be looking forward to a new era in terms
of relationship between the farm community and the urban community on this
issue because it is one that divides the community. That is not good. There needed to be compromise.
I hope that we have reached a solution
that will work. It will only work if
this government's commitment follows through. I am, I must say, skeptical, but
I am willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt, and this will be
the most important year in proving that.
So I look forward to the government's following through on their spoken
commitments in the course of this last six or eight month process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I am pleased to speak today on an important
issue, one that has gained the attention of most Manitobans and certainly
people in the city of Winnipeg and surrounding areas over the last year because
of the unusual year that occurred last fall with the burning and the severity
of the problem of stubble burning last year and its impact on people with
respiratory health problems, particularly elderly people and others suffering
from asthma and other respiratory conditions. It was a very serious problem for
many people, and even those who were not suffering from particular diseases of
the respiratory system were in a great deal of discomfort as a result of what
was happening. So the issue is very
serious and was particularly serious last year.
* (1730)
The resolution, as I see it, simply on the
surface would seem to support what the government has done, that is, form a
committee and come to a decision about recommendations and how this could be
limited and reduce this problem in the future.
The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards)
said this is the telling year, this is the year that is going to determine
whether this is working or not. I do not
say that is necessarily true because it depends what kind of a year it is for
stubble burning. It may be a very
limited problem this year depending on the conditions, the weather conditions,
at that time of the year.
So I do not think we can judge this on one
year. I think it may be that it would
take several years before the effectiveness of this regulation and new policy
can be judged, but I do agree with the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) when
he says that he has some concerns about the enforceability of this kind of a
regulation as it now stands. I think
that when it really is a problem in the future, we will see if in fact the
government is able to carry out what it has announced in the recent
announcement of April 15 with regard to stubble burning.
The committee that was set up did hear
from a lot of different groups in the province before making its
recommendations and the government seems to have adopted many of those
resolutions or those recommendations, but it has also left out some major
areas. If I was going to take this resolution
and make it more reflective of the problem, I think I would amend it and
include that the government should deal with the issues of alternatives to
burning, to look at other ways of utilizing straw, of other ways of treating
that straw so that it could be worked into the soil more easily, and research
on products that could be developed, machines that could be used, and so on.
There are a lot of different things that
have to be done to deal with this problem other than just regulating the time
of burning. It could certainly include
the whole issue of education and slowly changing the normal practices of
farmers throughout the province. That
takes time, and over years a lot of people will carry on the same practice that
their fathers and grandparents and others have done over the years and may not
necessarily change those practices until they have been exposed to other
alternatives.
But this resolution does not deal with
that aspect at all, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the policy that was
announced on April 15 does not deal with that.
The committee made some very direct recommendations to the government
that were not even dealt with in this announcement. One was that a committee oversee the
implementation of this policy, that they monitor how the policy is enforced
over a period of time and the effectiveness of this policy and make
recommendations for changes. So, in
other words, there would be an implementation committee in place. That implementation committee is not
mentioned in the announcement by the minister on April 15. There is no reference to an advisory
committee to continue its work.
As well, there is no reference in the
announcement of April 15 by the minister dealing with the issue of projects and
other activities in promoting crop residue management practices that are
acceptable, safer, and sustainable, than burning. In other words, it recommends to the minister
that other alternatives be looked at as well as dealing with the issue of
burning, when burning should take place.
I think that it is a major oversight if
the government is not going to deal with that aspect of it and was indeed, on
April 15, silent on that part of the issue.
So we should see the commitment by the minister to research on machines
that might be developed or attachments that might be developed to attach to
combines or a separate machine that would be able to pulverize this straw to
break down the fibres more completely so that it could be incorporated into the
soil much more quickly.
One member is saying, well, we have lots
of those things, but the fact is, he is not aware of some proposals, I do not
believe, that are being made now, of using a hammer mill type of technology
that pulverizes the straw. [interjection]
No. Much more effective than that‑‑to
pulverize it to the extent that it is actually, really, a dust, if that is
possible to that extent. It is a separate machine that is being proposed.
* (1740)
The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) should
be aware that the proposal is for a separate operation, a separate machine,
because of the power‑‑the member for Emerson is not aware‑‑that
it takes to actually pulverize the straw with the hammer mill technology. It
takes a lot of power and, therefore, maybe a separate machine and operation
would be required, but it is something that is being proposed by some
people. I think that is something that
is not being dealt with in this policy.
In addition to that, they have not dealt
with the research for other uses of straw.
For example, there is a proposal and pilot project going on in
I think that we should, in fact, be looking
at that aspect of it for building materials or whatever, because there
certainly would be a market for particle board to be made. I think that is another aspect that should be
looked at.
In addition to that, there should be more
research done, at least a mention of it in the government's policy, with regard
to varieties that do not produce as much straw, in other words, less straw‑heavy
varieties. As we get into the situation
now, most of these varieties produce a lot of straw, and it is impossible to
incorporate it into the soil with present technology in an efficient way, and
so burning is required.
We need to do more research in this
area. Again, the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay), who announced this policy‑‑[interjection] It was the Minister of Agriculture who announced
this even though they mention The Environment Act. I know the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) was involved in this as well, but the Minister of Agriculture and the
Minister of Environment were both involved in the announcement. That is true.
I would think that both of those ministers
should have included those aspects‑‑the commitment by the
government to develop alternative varieties, the commitment to develop
alternate technologies and, of course, the commitment to look at research for
products that could be made from straw.
Particle board comes in many different shapes and sizes. One member mentioned two‑by‑fours. I do not know whether sheeting of some kind
could be made, but certainly for use in agricultural construction, loose
housing, and livestock barns and housing, these are all uses that do not
require a high grade of fibre and could be commercially viable.
I think the minister should have dealt
with those aspects in the policy. Having
said that, I think that the resolution deals with the recommendations,
basically, that the government has implemented.
The government has fallen short in not following all of the
recommendations of the advisory committee.
The monitoring aspects that were recommended, I would draw to the
attention of the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) Section C of the report
to the advisory committee. Number 1 was
introduced here and implemented it seems, but No. 2 was not implemented, Mr. Speaker.
I think that that is a major shortcoming
of the government's actions and would urge the government, the minister, to
follow through with both of those aspects in the near future because it is very
important to have that monitoring as to the effectiveness of this policy.
Clearly the major shortcoming is the
ability to enforce this kind of a policy and that is why the whole issue of
continued emphasis on communication and education of farmers as to the need to
deal with this problem other than by burning, and to co‑operate in a co‑operative
atmosphere with the people that live around them. I think that is a major challenge for the
policy. Although I believe that most farmers want to co‑operate, and
rural people are trying to co‑operate on this issue, there is still a
need to do more in that area in terms of education and so on.
I know the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) is going to introduce an amendment to this resolution. I think we have the topic on the floor here,
on the floor of the Legislature. It is
for discussion purposes, and probably the idea of the making some amendments
that will simply pat the government on the back or whatever are not really
necessary here to have a discussion about this issue.
It is a useful issue. It is an important one. It is good that we have an opportunity to
raise these issues with the government, and I hope that they will heed some of
the suggestions that have come across.
They are always saying that there are no ideas, there are no concrete
suggestions, no positive suggestions from the opposition. There certainly are in a number of
areas. This is one example.
I believe that the policy that was
announced can be made much better if it includes some of the things that I just
mentioned and some of the aspects. I
would urge the government to relook at that, revisit that, and review it from
time to time, not just leave it and say, well, we dealt with and now we have
something in place, because there are going to be problems in the future. They
should try to foresee them and to ensure that action is taken that would make
them as small in terms of the severity as possible in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): I would like to keep with the general approach
that the two opposition critics have taken.
That is that this is a matter of some considerable concern and
substance, and it does need to be debated in a rational and a sensitive way.
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) had
indicated I would introduce an amendment, and I will, Mr. Speaker, but that
amendment will simply ask that this Legislative Assembly support the actions
that government has taken in response to the issue.
I would like to put on the record before I
propose that amendment, however, some thoughts that I think are pertinent in
how the government responded to the issues that we were faced with last year
and over an extended period of time.
I might have to say that the Liberal Party
has been fairly consistent in their view that this should be a permitted
system. That would be the way they would recommend handling this problem where
there is a desire by some to burn and a need for others to be protected from
the impacts that would come from that practice.
I would clearly want to say that was an option that was looked at, but
it was one that I think was somewhat impractical in its ability to be
implemented.
The City of
The conclusion that we came to very
quickly, and that was recommended by this committee, is that there has to be a
predictable regime. There has to be a
regime that protects the health of those who feel impacted, or could be
impacted, by the result of careless crop‑residue burning and, at the same
time, recognize that during a transition period there will be a need for the
agricultural community to have some access to this practice.
* (1750)
I use the word "transitional"
because I believe that following on the educational program the Department of
Education has been working actively with over the last three to four years,
combined with what is now seen in a much more sensitive light some of the
problems that can come as a result of any kind of unregulated crop‑residual
burning, that we were charged to strike a regulation and a regulatory format
that would address those primary concerns.
The introduction of that regulation occurred last week. Members of the House have copies of the
announcement as it was made.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, what we have
is a regulated situation primarily during the August 1 to November 15 period
when specific regulations for the burning of crop residue would be in
place. Those regulations would require
only daytime burning, that burns be properly managed, fire guarded, and that
all fires be out within two hours of sunset.
That seems fairly simplistic in its
approach, but it is far broader and reaches far further than probably just the
casual observer would realize because attaching these regulations to The
Environment Act means that they can be extended.
One reason we made the announcement last
week, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), was that
we wanted to be in a position, if a situation arose where spring burning was of
the nature and under the conditions that would lead to a repeat of thick smoke
drifting into heavily populated areas and putting some of the population who
are high risk at risk again, to implement on six‑hours notice a
regulatory regime that would require:
(a) that burning not occur if the climatic conditions are wrong, or (b)
that if it occurs, it occurs during a time frame and during the time of day and
under proper climatic conditions that would have the least possible impact on
the urban community and on the rural residential community as well, as far as
that goes.
Mr. Speaker, something that goes with the
implementation of these regulations, and I am not sure if it is something that
is very much appreciated by the members opposite, is the very heavy
responsibility in terms of working with the agricultural community to do
everything we can to make their operations practical, reasonable, and the
operation in conjunction with these regs something that is in fact capable of
having a practical application.
One of the concerns that the agricultural
community has is that some future government might use these regulations to
arbitrarily create a situation where essentially agriculture would be
handcuffed or handicapped in its operations.
Frankly, we are putting a handicap in terms of agricultural operations,
because they will now have to be sensitive to the climatic conditions that
occur during a time which they might burn.
The province will be divided into zones
that will‑‑obviously, the zone that surrounds the city of
I say that with some sensitivity, because
there are large parts of the province that simply do not agree that burning
should occur at all. There are occasions
when, for example, as we are right now, and I look to the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk), there is heavy straw that was not combined last fall, probably
will have to be combined this year.
Unless the conditions are ripe, there is going to be a very extreme
shortage of time. So while the farmers
in the Red River Valley felt somewhat picked upon and felt that maybe the
regulations were being written only for their edification, the fact is that we
have a good part of the province north of Highway 16 that could well be
impacted as well, if spring burning regulations have to be brought into place.
So the sensitivity and the co‑operation
of all communities in dealing with this will be important. Nevertheless, what occurred last fall was
recognized, and I would take some strong disagreement with the characterization
that the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) gave this in terms of whether or
not it could have been predicted that there would have been a burning problem
last fall.
Obviously, I do not think anyone up until
the last three to four weeks could have predicted the volume of smoke. Certainly, looking at the crops standing in the
summertime, you could have predicted there was going to be lots of volume of
straw, but sometimes, given proper conditions, that straw will break up given
the equipment that we have today, and the burning does not become necessary
because the ground at the same time may be dry enough or receptive enough to
having the straw worked in. We had a
combination this last fall that mitigated against both of those situations,
compounded by pressures of time, we had a situation that was simply getting out
of control.
Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of those
examples where a combination of events and unforeseen problems does lead,
through necessity, to the implementation of action and/or frameworks that will
have some long‑term benefit.
If you were to ask me when I came into
government, Mr. Speaker, if I would ever be responsible for regulating farm
residue burning as a member of the Legislature, I would have said no. If you would have asked me a year ago, I
would have said very unlikely. If you
asked me last fall, I say you bet. That
is, frankly, the result of having seen what can happen when a combination of
too many wrong events culminate at one time.
I have talked about the regulations that
we have imposed. I have talked about how
enforcing them will not be easy. It will
require the co‑operation of a number of departments, including Natural
Resources, Agriculture. The only reason
that enforcement is a concern is that if we have a situation where enforcement
has to be used in order to enforce these regulations, it will still require
some considerable co‑operation on the part of the agricultural
community. I can tell you that I am
confident that we will get that co‑operation because every farm group
that I hold discussions with does believe that it was unfortunate what happened
last year, that it does point to a better way of doing things.
I believe that equipment will be
developed, and certainly we are involved in discussions about certain equipment
modifications that people would like to see.
We are also involved in, through the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) and university research, the development of additional short‑stemmed
straw varieties that would be suitable for the
So, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that Resolution 15 be amended by
deleting all words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them with the
following:
The government of Manitoba has recognized
increasing concern of Manitobans about the impact of smoke from the burning of
crop residue, has responded accordingly by establishing the Crop Residue
Burning Advisory Committee to carry out a consultative process with stakeholder
groups and the public to review and recommend regulatory and enforcement
measures to control burning; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
implemented two additional committees to recommend long‑term measures
regarding residue handling, equipment and protection of soil quality, as well
as alternate uses of cereal and flax straw to minimize the necessity for
burning; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government actions to respond to
the Crop Residue Burning Advisory Committee recommendation.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I will take the honourable minister's amendment under advisement,
because the hour is 6 p.m.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).