LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
May 10, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Thomas Hiebert, Rick Thiessen, Vern Kratz and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding of the Student
Social Allowances Program.
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* * *
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Glenn Hosea, Phyllis Tolsma, Grace McConkey and others requesting the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings) to ask for a cumulative basin‑wide federal
environment review of the
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Student Social
Allowances Program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Plohman). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned residents of
the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 31‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Monsieur le president, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 31, The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie,
be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have with us this
afternoon from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
James
Philip Bridson Case
Public
Inquiry
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I know all Manitobans are
hopeful of press reports that the incident in Flin Flon may have come to a
conclusion in terms of one chapter of this event, in that both the victim and
the accused have apparently been found alive.
Having said that it closes one chapter, it clearly opens another chapter
in the events that preceded this particular tragic incident.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Attorney General: Given the numerous
questions that have been raised as a result of this incident, both with respect
to the lack of services that are available in northern
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pass on to
honourable members that at about 11:45 this morning, approximately a kilometre
north of the city of
I am very pleased to report that 13‑year‑old
Meaghan McConnell is safe in hospital.
The other individual is in RCMP custody, and this occurred without
incident. By virtue of the fact that one
of the individuals is in custody, we might well assume that a criminal
prosecution would follow.
That being the case, we are unable to
announce certainly today any immediate plans for any further type of inquiry.
However, we will take the matter under advisement as to how or if we might
proceed after criminal prosecution proceedings have been exhausted.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to remind the
minister that in the Pollock case, the minister did undertake to have someone
with the stature of a Mr. Hughes come in to investigate.
I would argue that this case warrants a
similar type of investigation. I would
urge the minister to begin now to plan to put in place an inquiry which will
address the questions of how so many apparent inconsistencies could have
happened in one particular case, if there was not some way of preventing this
by approaching the necessary agencies, and to find out whether in fact as a
result of, I guess, the last couple of months of government decisions, there
were in fact not adequate resources in the community to deal with this
question.
My question is to the Minister of
Justice: Will he consider, as he
suggested he is willing to do, ensuring that such a public inquiry includes the
role of government services or the lack thereof in precipitating and being
unable to prevent this tragedy in Flin Flon?
Mr. McCrae: I am not disagreeing with the honourable
member, Mr. Speaker, that in light of a tragedy like this, it is certainly
appropriate to review what happened. The
honourable member, though, refers to the Pollock case here in the city of
That is the appropriate way to do it. The Supreme Court of
We have to follow the criminal prosecution
procedure to its conclusion before we can embark on some other kind of review,
but certainly, as the honourable member suggests, we are indeed looking at what
options would be available when that procedure has been completed.
* (1340)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the
Minister of Justice, we are not talking about a parallel criminal
investigation. We are talking about a
review of protocol used by government agencies, by the RCMP themselves, which,
if it had been done differently, may have prevented this tragedy. In the case of the Hughes Inquiry, the
charges were laid in October and the inquiry began in May.
Mr. Speaker, Flin Flon is a community in
crisis, under tremendous pressure.
Families are under pressure. We
cannot wait in Flin Flon for this kind of lengthy delay before we get to the
root causes of this incident.
I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he begin to plan today for a public
inquiry which will address those questions‑‑and leave aside the
question of criminal responsibility in any way‑‑the question of how
the system failed these two families?
Mr. McCrae: While we might like very much to "leave
aside," as the honourable member suggests, the question of criminal
proceedings, I think the honourable member on reflection would agree with me
that we ought to do nothing that might compromise, prejudice or jeopardize a
criminal prosecution. It is a long‑held
principle that a criminal prosecution ought to be left to carry on.
The honourable member says the other
issues are not criminal, but the honourable member ought not to assume that the
other matters have no bearing on the prosecution. So I think we all ought to be careful that we
do not compromise those criminal proceedings.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc.
Funding
Reinstatement
Ms. Becky Barrett (
In light of the events in Flin Flon in the
last five days, has the government now reconsidered its decision to close the
crisis centre?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, as the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has indicated, there is an investigation
ongoing and many unanswered questions involving this case. We had indicated a number of weeks ago that
staff from the Family Dispute branch would be meeting with the board of the
Flin Flon Crisis Centre to look at ways that resources could be used to carry
on some form of service in that area.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc.
Alternative
Services
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services: In light of the fact that the
psychologist wrote back listing the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre as one of
the resources the mother should take advantage of, what resources now exist in
the city of
* (1345)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Thursday of
last week, I believe Thursday or Friday of last week when the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) posed questions in terms of supportive efforts and issues
that relate to the nature of the question my honourable friend poses today, in
the process of mental health reform, Norman region is well advanced in terms of
initiation of specific community‑based endeavours which hopefully we will
be able to give approval to, as we have done in
Mr. Speaker, there is considerable co‑operation
between Family Services and the Ministry of Health, our Mental Health Division,
in establishing supportive services to assist individuals in the
community. The critical incident team,
as it is called within the ministry, is patterned off of a successful crisis
intervention team that has been used on several occasions not only in
The critical incident team has in fact
been part of the community liaison group that is supporting the schools, the
community, chambers, and it is in that fashion that we think the reformed and
reinvigorated mental health system will provide a number of the opportunities
for assistance my honourable friend calls upon.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, given that this situation is an end
result of several years of problems within the families, individually and as a
part of family dynamics, and the fact that there is no longer a resource which
provided those services for over 10 years to families in crisis, prevention
services, what services are there in the city and region of Flin Flon today
that will help families in crisis, families who have long histories of
dysfunctionality and individuals within those families? What is available today, since the Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre was closed?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, not that it is my nature to want
to provide any kind of advice to my honourable friend, but some of the preamble
makes presumptions that I think no one at this stage of the circumstance ought
to be stating as public fact. I mean
this is a very serious incident which requires a very calm and very steady
approach to understanding what happened, and in the process of understanding
what happened, if you will, Sir, to attempt to provide supportive services‑‑as
I have mentioned earlier on with the critical incident team and initiatives in
terms of reform and service development in mental health specific to the Norman
region, Flin Flon, The Pas.
Sir, I would hope that my honourable
friend would work with this government in terms of support, as we have received
in the past for those kinds of community‑based initiatives which have the
opportunity to provide the support of services my honourable friend is
concerned about.
Fatality
Inquiries Act
Inquest
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): My question is for the Minister of
Justice. I listened closely to the
minister's responses to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). I want to take issue with the minister's
indication that no public inquiry or inquest can take place concurrent with the
criminal process.
I want to draw the minister's attention to
an act he has responsibility over, The Fatality Inquiries Act, which in Section
25 gives him the ability to direct a provincial inquest with respect to a death
as a result of a homicide, and in fact mandates him to hold one where the death
is as a result of an act or omission of a peace officer. Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason it can happen
concurrently is because that act, at Section 7 and Section 21 specifically,
indicates there shall be no finding of culpability. So it is not about a criminal conviction
process, and it can happen concurrently; it often happens before a criminal
process.
My question for the minister: Has he looked at using The Fatality Inquiries
Act, which he has jurisdiction over, to hold an inquest which would be an
impartial review of the circumstances surrounding these deaths?
* (1350)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
We fully recognize the power that the minister has under The Fatality
Inquiries Act, but it is a question of when.
The honourable member, of all members in this House, I think knows
better than to suggest that there ought to be an inquest running at the same
time as a potential criminal trial.
I think if he reflects on that‑‑he
says it has been done before. I would
like to know under what circumstances.
If the honourable member can provide me with that, I would be happy to
look at it, but my understanding of the way these things are supposed to work
is that there ought not to be an inquest running at the same time that criminal
prosecutions are contemplated. We ought
to remember, all of us here in this House today, that the investigation is not
over. We are glad that these people have
been found today, but that does not mean that charges have yet been laid or
that we are in the process of a criminal prosecution.
So I ask the honourable member to be
cautious when suggesting that we move ahead into these parallel types of
hearings going on at the same time.
James
Philip Bridson Case
Interdepartmental
Committee
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, for the
same minister, that is precisely why this act has two sections specifically
indicating there shall be no opinions on culpability from the investigator or
from the inquest judge.
Mr. Speaker, my second question for the
Minister of Justice: The minister sits on the committee of other departments of
government. Did the joint committee of
departments involving Justice, Family Services, Education and Health, which is
supposed to be set up so that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing
in government‑‑did that committee ever consider the Bridson case?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
would like the honourable member to be clear.
Is he talking about the group of representatives of those departments
who have been involved in working with the community of Flin Flon in the wake of
this disaster?
James
Philip Bridson Case
Interdepartmental
Committee
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the committee
that this government said they would set up in the wake of the Reid case some years
ago, and that was an interdepartmental committee so we would know for sure that
government departments were not working independent of each other and knew what
each other knew about cases.
My question for this minister is: Did that committee that was supposed to have
been set up years ago ever consider this case, especially given the fact that
the Bridson case and the problems with that family were known to this
government for well over a year?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the
risk of imposing information to questions which I am not sure at this stage of
the game any of us should be engaging in, given the circumstances that no doubt
will flow from this, I can indicate to my honourable friend that at the staff
level in the Flin Flon region there was co‑operation in an attempt to
assist the family's request for assistance.
That is not an unusual response from
ministry staff, whether they are my staff or other departments involved in
programs which can assist families in dealing with perceived problems internal
to the family organization and structure.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I do not
believe I am at greater liberty to disclose details beyond the fact that staff,
to my knowledge, were readily available to assist the family when requests for
assistance were made.
* (1355)
Government
Departments
Service
Co-ordination
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Many of the questions raised today have not
been answered.
Mr. Speaker, we have had inquiries dealing
with the Reid case. We have had
inquiries dealing with the Pedlar report and the call for co‑ordination. The Reid case had the same kinds of
recommendations to the government. In
April I asked a similar question to the government dealing with a report that
was conducted by superintendents, trustees and school principals across
Every time we ask these questions in the
House, we are given a very, very vague answer about an internal committee to
deal with these issues, and then we have to come back to these same questions
when another tragedy takes place, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Premier: Would he instruct his ministers of government
to implement the recommendations that flow from the school trustees and school
principals in Manitoba and that have been called upon by people in the
education area for the last two years; would he instruct his ministers to stop
the internal co‑ordination that they have in place and take an action
plan, as recommended, to have co‑ordination of services externally for
all the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know why we would want to stop internal co‑ordination with respect to
government services. [interjection] That is what the Leader of the Opposition
asked.
It seems to me that there has been a good
deal of internal briefings and co‑ordinations amongst the various
different agencies and departments which were in contact with the individual
who has been named and is the centre of the investigations in Flin Flon. I think it is too early for us to judge as to
whether or not more could have been done.
I do not say, at this point, that questions in the House of a political
nature are going to assist in the investigation.
Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition
that we will do everything possible to ensure that a complete and thorough
investigation is done, as was done in the Reid case, and any lessons that are
to be learned will be learned by government and its departments.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I guess my concern is, whatever
process the Premier argues he has in place, arising from the three reports that
his government now has, does not seem in our opinion to be working on behalf of
the citizens of this province.
Mr. Speaker, some two months ago we raised
this question in the House again. The
government has had a report for some two years from their front‑line
practitioners. The Department of
Education is the lead department. We
have not been able to get the government to table an action plan to respond to
those recommendations, the recommendations on page 16 of that report, that they
undertake a comprehensive review of children's services to co‑ordinate
the activities.
When we review the file dealing with the
school division that has been in contact with this person and dealing with the
family, we see no co‑ordination.
Will the Premier now instruct his department to implement the action
plan, Mr. Speaker, forthwith?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for
his advice on this issue.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc.
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there has been other advice given
to the government today. The community
is in crisis. The community needs its
crisis centre. The member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie) has called for an inquiry to deal with, not only the specific
causes, but also the root causes.
Will the Premier instruct his ministers to
reinstitute the crisis centre for that community in time of crisis and,
secondly, to have an inquiry that is broad in nature to deal with some of the
root causes and resources that are lacking in that community?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite
knows what the functions of a crisis centre are and probably understands that
the functions of those centres would not necessarily have, in any way, been
beneficial to this situation.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I know that
this situation provides for this kind of illusion of connection, and
politically it is good fodder for the member opposite. I suggest to him that if he looked at the
case in realistic terms, this would not be the kind of situation that would
normally be referred to a crisis centre.
Children's
Dental Health Program
Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we are receiving hundreds of
names per day from parents concerned about the loss of the Children's Dental
Program. Today, children delivered to
the Premier's Office several hundred letters asking for reinstatement of the
program, and there are public meetings now being set up by parents and children
in places like Minnedosa,
Mr. Speaker, what consultations and/or
studies did this government and this Department of Health undertake regarding
the 43,000 children who are going to lose this program?
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me
refresh my honourable friend's memory that this program, in terms of its
service provision, was paralleled only in one other province, as my honourable
friend well knows, and that is the
In the approximately 16 or 17 years that
the program has operated in
Mr. Speaker, it was with regret that we
did curtail the treatment part of the program in
Preventative
Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows over 20 dental
nurses are being maintained in the program in
How will those four dental nurses deliver
the preventative programs to the 63,000 children who take part in the
preventative program, since he has cut it back from about 49 to four?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend might want to avail himself of the fact that in the
Hence my consistent answer to my
honourable friends as they question this program, that we have maintained the
most valuable components of it, that being the education and prevention side
which, in the long run, Sir, are not only the most cost‑effective, but
the most beneficial to the children.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer any
of my first two questions.
I would like to ask the minister again in
supplementary: How does the minister talk
to the families out there, the 43,000 who received treatment as a result of
this program? What alternatives are they
putting in place to deal with these children, 43,000 who received treatment and
63,000 who received prevention? What
programs are in place to deal with those children, the increased expenses and
the cost to their parents?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the
My honourable friend has to understand
that what we are calling upon parents to do in rural
Mr. Speaker, I fully recognize that will
change the mode of access dental care, but it makes it consistent with every
other province in
James
Philip Bridson Case
Education
Department Involvement
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
Mr. Speaker, the young man who had been
subject to the investigation in the Flin Flon area has a long history of
violent behaviour as well as difficulties within the school system. The government has been aware of that for some
time. The former member for Crescentwood
wrote to this Minister of Education in January of 1992. I wrote to this Minister of Education in
February of 1992 with respect to this young man.
Even earlier than that, in September of
1991, one of the officials of her own department was aware of the fact, in
information provided by this young man's mother, that he had such suicidal
tendencies, a letter tabled by the member for
Can the Minister of Education tell us what
specific steps her department then took to inform the Department of Health and
the Department of Family Services with regard to this particular individual's
difficulties?
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, we are not particularly comfortable with the question and I will
tell you why. Possibly an individual is
going to be charged with the most serious of crimes, and that is a possibility.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the sub
judice rule applies here or not. Under
the circumstances, given the fact that an investigation obviously has not been
completed, I question whether the Leader of the Liberal Party's question is in
order under the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the
honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness), in respect to the question as
asked by the honourable Leader of the second opposition party, I would like to
quote from Beauchesne's 505, and then I will finish off with a ruling by a
former Speaker of this Legislative Assembly, Speaker Walding.
"505.
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before
the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is
to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who
stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the
House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play."
As Speaker Walding ruled on June 6, 1983,
in a section of his ruling: Members will
note that Citation 339‑‑that is from Beauchesne's 4‑‑makes
it clear that the responsibility of whether questions are proper and are to be
asked and to be answered lies principally with the members involved, the
overriding principle in this case clearly being that members should not make
statements which may prejudice the case.
The responsibility therefore is clearly with the honourable member
wishing to answer or to ask the question, and with the minister to whom it is
addressed.
I will allow the question, after having
made those remarks.
* * *
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): In view
of the remarks that you have just made and the very complicated nature of the
dynamics of the moment, I would believe that perhaps at a later date that
information would be more helpful.
* (1410)
Mrs. Carstairs: Let me ask a much more generic question: When the Department of Education receives a
letter from a member, a citizen of this province, saying they are aware that someone
is suicidal, and the department responds to that letter giving a recommendation
of a number of places where this person can seek help, does the Department of
Education then also inform the Department of Justice and the Department of
Health and the Department of Family Services that they should take an interest
in this particular case?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do respond with great seriousness to issues
which are raised, and raised finally at this office. We do work through our own staff, making sure
that all the information is available so that staff then can work with the
community, and to make sure that the family or the individual may seek the help
that they need.
Mrs. Carstairs: Let me put it even more simply: Does the staff of the Department of Education
get in touch with the staff of the other departments?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, we do work through our staff, also
through communication with the school divisions and with the professionals who
are involved, to make sure that the families are served within their
communities and that the families at least are aware of the services that are
available to them.
Subsidized
Housing‑Students
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, the member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) raised a question in the House which I took as
notice, that question being: Can the
Minister of Housing tell the House what impact the bursary cuts will have on
students living in Manitoba Housing Authority units?
I can advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that
there will be no impact; there will be no change from previous activities. I can say that Manitoba Housing Authority has
charged, for at least the last five years, $125 a month flat fee for any size
unit for any family on student aid of any sort.
Whether it be federal or provincial, loan or bursary, we charge a flat
fee of $125 plus the cost of hydro.
United
Brotherhood of Carpenters
Energy
Efficiency Report
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity to bring
some good news to the House today, and it sounds like we need it. It merely challenges the powers that be to
choose to make our economy more sustainable, particularly in the area of energy
efficiency. I have the report prepared
by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, A Brighter Future: Energy
Efficiency and Jobs in
I would ask the Minister responsible for
Manitoba Hydro and energy if he has received this report, reviewed it, and what
plans there are to implement the recommendations?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I will take under advisement the question of the member and the
comments of the member.
Ms. Cerilli: Pardon, I did not hear the answer. Could I ask the minister to repeat the
answer?
Mr. Speaker: He took it under advisement.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I will take under advisement the
comments of the member.
Ms. Cerilli: I am quite shocked that this minister has not
seen the report.
Mr. Speaker: This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Cerilli: I would ask if there would be some commitment
to immediately meet with the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, that the
minister would meet with this group and review the report with them and make a
plan of action. Will there be a
commitment to do that?
Mr. Downey: I believe, Mr. Speaker, members of my
department have in fact met with those individuals, and, if they have not, I
will see when it may be possible to do so.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this has potential to create
thousands of jobs, save energy and put millions of dollars back into our
economy.
I would ask if the Premier's Round Table
on Sustainable Development has reviewed this report and if there have been any recommendations
to this government to take seriously the recommendations of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, energy conservation is extremely important
and essential to this government, to the
Intertribal
Christian Communications
PST
Collection
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am
responding to questions taken as notice by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) the other
day from the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). It was dealing with sales tax
change notices. I have two answers.
The circular was distributed giving a
notice of changes on April 22. The
circular was not prepared prior to budget day for confidentiality reasons. The changes were made May 1. I might indicate, the Department of Finance has
received thanks from many businesses, computer and cash register companies, for
providing three‑and‑a‑half weeks notice. Provinces such as
The second question, the member asked how
many new small businesses will have to fill out new tax forms. There are no new tax forms. Some businesses such as street vendors will
now be required to register.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Taxation placed a
newspaper ad on April 28 to advise vendors which may require to be registered
and provide a dedicated phone number where vendors could register over the
phone in a matter of minutes.
Accreditation
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, at a time when one of the few
avenues of hope for people of
I did raise this issue with the minister
in the House two weeks ago, and she did not seem to think it was a particular
concern. I assume by now that she has
had time to consult, and will she tell us now which programs are under pressure
or in danger and what her plan is to deal with this?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
issue of accreditation is always of importance and always of concern. As the member knows, accreditation is done on
a cyclical basis. It is not done every
year for every faculty. We are aware
that perhaps two faculties may be going through an accreditation process this
year.
I will also tell her that I met on Friday
afternoon with the four university presidents in
ACCESS
Programs
Funding
Reduction
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Could the minister tell the House why last
year she made a commitment to maintain college and university ACCESS programs
and that this year, she has cut them by over a million dollars or 16 percent?
Will she tell us what hope she is offering
to those students who are not funded by bands to have some future in post‑secondary
education?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): As the
member knows, the federal funding for the ACCESS program is where we are having
difficulty and where there has been a reduction, Mr. Speaker.
In our provincial funding, we are looking
to have‑‑put in the most efficient way possible. We are meeting with the universities. We are looking to make sure that the
administrative costs are reduced and that the greatest amount of funds
available will actually go into the operating programming.
Chancellor's
Concerns
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Has the minister responded to the chancellor
of the
Will she table her response to that
concern?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): I see
that this member has done her research only by reading the newspaper. I am not sure if she has checked with Mr.
Mauro that this in fact was a most accurate quote.
Let me also speak about university
funding. Let me refer to the former
Minister of Education, who in 1987 said:
While funding may not have been adequate, it is fair.
Anne's
Care Home‑Rorketon
Closure
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Family Services
and the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) may be aware of Anne's Care Home in
Rorketon. It has operated for decades in
providing support to‑‑at the present time, seven clients. The support is being withdrawn as of June 1,
and it will have to close as of June 1 in Rorketon.
These seven residents are severely
mentally handicapped and have received special love and care from the
Sraybashes in Rorketon over these many years, Mr. Speaker. The residents now are being torn from this
home and being bussed to Ste. Rose to ROSE Inc. where they are supposed to,
allegedly, receive enriched services.
I want to ask the Minister of Health if he
can tell this House precisely why Anne's Care Home in Rorketon is being closed
June 1.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, my understanding is that it is the professional judgment of the
workers involved that appropriate training is being accessed in a different
location.
* (1420)
ROSE Inc.
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Family
Services then or the Minister of Health indicate to this House how much money
is being poured into ROSE Inc. in Ste. Rose to take these residents to that
location from the home they have shared with the Sraybashes for many years in
the past? How much money is being poured
into that house?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the question of funding, of course, is always very fundamental within
the Department of Family Services.
The member is asking for specific
numbers. I would mention to him that we
are currently in Estimates, and perhaps he could join us there to get that
detail. Failing that, I can look into
the matter and provide that information for him at another time.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister
whether he is aware that there was no government funding going for the facility
in Rorketon.
If this government is interested in being
efficient and saving money, why are they pouring money into another alternate
facility?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that in
the professional judgment of the workers involved, they want to access the most
appropriate service for these individuals.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, may I have leave for a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to recognize the commencement of Multicultural Week, May 11 to 15
in
Multiculturalism means being proud of our
heritage and openly sharing our pride with our neighbours. It means the promotion of intercultural
understanding, mutual respect, acceptance and harmony between our many cultural
communities which comprise our
Multiculturalism also means freedom and
opportunity for each Manitoban, regardless of origin, to participate in the
broader life of society.
Multiculturalism has been the legacy of our past, the reality of today
and the unlimited potential for our future.
May all of us work together throughout
Multicultural Week and indeed throughout the entire year to promote awareness,
understanding, acceptance and equality within our province and our country to
enhance the quality of life for all.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I know that we all join together in
celebrating the achievements of all of us from the four corners of the world
who have come to make
I just would like to again congratulate
the people of
* (1430)
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave
the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the
Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question to the House, I
advised the critics here the other day that they could move down to the chairs
of the Leader of the official opposition and the second opposition party. I inadvertently forgot to ask for leave of
the House to allow members to move down to said benches, and, also, leave would
be required to allow the members and the ministers to remain seated while
asking and answering questions.
Now, is there leave of the House to allow
this practice for the remainder of this session? [agreed]
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 Department of Education and Training;
and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the
Department of Agriculture.
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
FAMILY
SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon, will the Committee of Supply
please come to order.
This afternoon, this section of the
Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Family Services. When the
committee last sat, it had been considering item 5.(e) Family Dispute Services
(1) Salaries on page 59 of the Estimates book.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess my questions
follow comments that I made with respect to the Flin Flon Crisis Centre last
Tuesday and Thursday, particularly Thursday, at which time we knew that there
had been a violent incident in Flin Flon.
Subsequent, of course, to the committee
adjourning, we have learned that there are many people, including close friends
of the victim Marjorie McConnell, who have expressed the view that the crisis
centre in Flin Flon may have been some help in the hour of need of the victims,
who have made the comment that the victim, the mother in this case, was
concerned about the closure of the crisis centre.
I know, as the minister does, that we will
never know whether, in fact, this particular incident could have been
prevented, had the crisis centre been there for the people involved.
I think it is clear to everyone now and, I
hope, to the minister, that a community of the size of Flin Flon, the region
that it serves, needs these services. We‑‑by
that, I mean myself and the mayors of both communities, social workers, social
service agencies, individuals, women, women's groups, people by the hundreds,
if not thousands, have pleaded with the government to revisit this
decision. Out of fairness to the
community, out of acknowledgment of the difficult circumstances that exist in
economic terms, the uncertainty that exists in terms of families and workers,
and in the knowledge that this is likely to continue now for many months,
certainly over the next 18 months to two years.
My question, therefore, is: Will the minister now agree to meet with
representatives of the community and revisit the issue of providing crisis
centre services in the community of Flin Flon and reopening the Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, as the member is aware, I have met with the board in the
past. The way we left the situation is
that staff had scheduled a meeting with the board that was to be held late in
April. That meeting was cancelled by the
board, because they felt they were not ready to proceed at that time. At this time, we are awaiting word from them
when we can set that meeting up.
Mr. Storie: I understand that the board will be meeting
again following receipt of their audit tomorrow evening.
Am I to take from the minister's comment
that in fact the government is now willing to revisit this issue and that it is
possible that, in consultation with groups in Flin Flon, including Family
Services and the RCMP and the town, as well as the board of directors of the
crisis centre and others, it may in fact now be possible that the crisis centre
would be re‑established?
Mr. Gilleshammer: What the board had indicated to the department
is that they had some resources that had been accumulated as a surplus. We have indicated that the department, along
with the knowledge of the services of the resource centre, would meet with the
board to have discussion with them on what would be the appropriate direction
in which we could go in terms of the expenditure of those resources. We have staff who are prepared to look at some
areas of service that perhaps could be addressed with the use of those funds.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the fact of the matter
is‑‑and I do not want to have these questions digress into a
confrontation, but I think the minister clearly knows that the Northern Women's
Resource Centre would not have been able to prevent this tragedy from
occurring, that the Northern Women's Resource Centre is nine to five. There would have been no one available at two
in the morning, that there is no shelter available through the Northern Women's
Resource Centre. Had the family in
question needed or felt that the crisis centre was available to them, they may
have gone to protect themselves, if they had known certainly.
My question very directly to the
minister: Is he now saying that the
department is prepared to consider the possibility of operating a Flin Flon
crisis centre in the community of Flin Flon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, that is not what I said. I said that we are prepared to have another
meeting with the board, or a series of meetings with them, to look at the
regional services that are provided and to make use of funding that is
available, given the audit supports what we have heard from board members, to
look at the services that are available there, to work with them to make
decisions, and to use those resources in the best possible way.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that simply is not
good enough. I do not know what it would
take to bring this minister and this government to its senses. How many times do we have to go through this
before the minister can be convinced he has made a mistake‑‑in this
case, a fatal mistake?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister, for
some reason, refuses to accept the advice of people in the community of Flin
Flon, people who have worked on behalf of women and families in crisis for 10
years, refuses to accept the advice of people who live through the
circumstances in Flin Flon, and continues to argue that this was a necessary
choice.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, events have proved
the minister wrong. No amount of money
saved by the department in this instance can justify what was done. My question to the minister is: Given the continuing difficult circumstances
in Flin Flon and the pressure it is going to put on other families, not to
discount the additional pressure that exists in the community because of these
circumstances of the last week, when is the government going to acknowledge
that a mistake has been made and reinstitute funding, or work with the
community to ensure that those services can be provided in the community?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I reject the assumptions and conclusions that
the member has come to. I have indicated
before, as have colleagues, that we have an investigation that is ongoing, that
we have many unanswered questions, that we are prepared to review those
circumstances at the appropriate time.
In the short term, I have indicated that departmental staff have been
prepared to meet with the board, and will meet with the board when the board has
deemed it is ready to proceed with those meetings.
* (1440)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what is the
point? The people of the Flin Flon area,
including its representatives on the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre board,
want the crisis centre to remain open, to remain in Flin Flon, to remain
providing services to women and children in abusive situations, in violent
situations. That is what they want.
The minister had argued that the service
was not necessary in Flin Flon, that the people of Flin Flon could do without
it, that we could access other services.
The events of the last five weeks have proven the minister wrong. The question is, and what people of Flin Flon
have a right to know is: How many
incidents of this kind is the minister prepared to accept in some stubborn
effort to maintain the integrity of this decision‑‑a decision that
made no sense from the beginning, that the minister has never been able to
justify? What does it take to wake this
government and this minister up?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated the willingness of the
department to meet with the board and with the Northern Women's Resource Centre
to look at resources that are available and to look at some of the options that
may be there. At the same time, we have
indicated‑‑I have indicated today and in the past‑‑that
we are prepared to look at the results of the investigation. I have indicated there are many unanswered
questions. We have said that there was a
provision for service in place. There
are a number of things that we are prepared, as a department, to discuss with
the board and at a later time, with the Northern Women's Resource Centre, to
discuss the provision of services for that area. We are prepared to commence those meetings
this week if possible.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is the minister
saying, if the results of these discussions end in a conclusion that the
resources of a crisis centre are required in Flin Flon, that the minister will
reinstate funding for the Flin Flon Crisis Centre?‑‑a very direct
question. Is that possible?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have not said that today. What I have said was, there are resources
that are available in that area. As a
department we are prepared to look at a number of options that would make use
of the resources that are being put into the community by the department. We think there are options there that we can
discuss with the resource centre and with the board of the crisis centre. We are prepared to enter those discussions as
early as this week.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I still do not
understand why the minister continues to reference the Northern Women's
Resource Services group. They have said
publicly at meetings in Flin Flon that they offer no similar services
whatsoever to those that the crisis centre offered.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we had a crisis
centre in Flin Flon that could have sheltered this family in this
emergency. They have facilities to
protect people in this kind of circumstance, if they are aware of it, if they
are asked for help.
The fact of the matter is, this incident
may in fact be the tip of the iceberg.
There are pressures on the community of Flin Flon which the government
seems to ignore. One‑quarter of
the workforce of the community is in jeopardy, facing the threat of layoff,
facing the threat of losing their livelihood, facing the threat of losing their
lifetime investments, facing the possibility of losing their community‑‑tremendous
pressure. At that very moment the
government decides to pull out one of its key resources.
I remind the minister that the mayor of
Flin Flon wrote and called this action "inhuman." I do not think it is exaggerating for the MLA
for Flin Flon to agree, to concur with that assessment. The tragic results of this event‑‑some
weeks after the government made its decision, some days after the minister
continued to defend it, some hours after the government refused, again, to
reinstate funding‑‑this event happens.
My question is‑‑not another
reference to some mythical service that can be provided by another group in
Flin Flon, which has never provided like services, the question is: Is it possible that the minister will reopen
the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre, provide the funding that is necessary?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would tell the member that we spend
considerable resources in the Women's Resource Centre in Flin Flon, and the
board has indicated that they have some resources that they have indicated is a
surplus from their operating.
We are prepared, as a department, to
review the services that are being offered in the Flin Flon area. I have indicated that staff have made a
commitment to meet with the people who are on the shelter board. We are prepared to await some of the findings
of the investigation that is ongoing and to work with the community, to use the
resources that we have, to use the resources that are within the community to
look at the services that are provided there and to enter into discussions on
it.
The member I think, will only be satisfied
with one answer today, and I can tell the member that he is not going to get
that answer today. We have indicated a
willingness to review the services. We
have indicated that we are prepared to meet with that particular board and to
talk about the‑‑
Mr. Storie: People are dead, Harold. Talk about . . . .
Mr. Gilleshammer: Listen, the member wants to bring into this
committee certain assumptions that are completely inappropriate. We have been
asked to meet with that board, and I have indicated our willingness, through
the department, to do that.
We, as a department, are prepared to look
for solutions that are going to help with the situation in Flin Flon. We have, at the present time, a response team
in the area working with mental health, working with Education, and certainly
working with Justice. We are going to
evaluate the findings of that. This is
an ongoing situation, and we are prepared to review those findings.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the people of Flin
Flon, particularly the women, the families who have watched the events of the
last few weeks with obvious concern, are not going to take any solace from the
minister's suggestion he is going to review it.
The people of Flin Flon remember the
minister's words when he said he had reviewed the need for the crisis centre in
Flin Flon, when there had been an internal review prior to the decision to cut
100 percent of the funding to the Flin Flon crisis centre. The minister's idea
of a review is a joke.
No one has any confidence that there is
going to be any kind of objective review.
What would give the people confidence is if the minister gave the money
back to the people who were providing the service. I am not asking the government to borrow
another dime. I am saying, go back and
reduce funding equally. Leave the Flin
Flon crisis centre in place so that it continues to provide service.
* (1450)
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this was a
traumatic incident in Flin Flon. It is
not good enough for the minister to absolve himself of blame, to absolve the
government of blame, to absolve the department of blame before we know the
facts. I asked a question. I said, if there is reason to believe that
these services could have been a help in the situation, will the minster
reinstate funding? He would not even
give me a straight answer on that. That
is not acceptable.
Whether the minister wants to acknowledge
it or not, lives are in jeopardy; lives are at stake. There is no denying that. The minister continues
to bafflegab, to talk about review. The
time for talk is over. The time to talk
was over five weeks ago. It is time for
a recognition that this was a mistake. Whether the minister likes the language
or not, people are dead, and the people in Flin Flon want to know whether that
could have been prevented.
People of Flin Flon believe, many of them
that I talked to on the weekend believe, that it may have prevented a tragedy,
that it is the kind of service, the only kind of service available in the community
that could have. The question is: Will the minister, after his discussions and
after the "review," that we are hoping will come, the inquiry, agree
to reinstate funding if there is that kind of evidence?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated the willingness of the
department to look for solutions, to seek answers, based on the facts that come
forward. The department, I have
indicated time and time again, is prepared to meet with community groups,
including the board of the crisis centre, to find those answers, to find those
solutions. What the member is asking is,
prior to the department, prior to any conclusion of the investigation, prior to
any seeking of the answers to questions that are being raised, prior to us
having an opportunity to work with community groups, to make a decision
contrary to the decision we have already made.
I am indicating to the member that we have
expressed a willingness on the part of government to work with the community to
look for those solutions, to seek answers, and, I think it is fair to say, Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is going to take a little bit of time as the
events are unfolding. I can assure you
that the department and the government will be very sensitive to the
information that comes forward.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am sure that the
families affected will be gratified to hear the minister now talking about
coming to a reasonable conclusion after we have the facts. I raised in committee on Thursday a letter
that was sent March 4, 1992, to the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre, which
said there would be a review, there would be an evaluation of the services
before any decision was made. The
chairman of the board has written to the minister and said, where is that? Why was our funding cut before that review
was done? Why was the funding cut before
the evaluation? Why was the funding cut
before the consultation the minister now talks about in such glowing terms?
Where was the consultation before the cuts were made? The minister has not answered that question.
Now the minister wants the people of Flin
Flon, who have experienced the trauma of the last week, the trauma of not being
without their crisis centre for women who are victims of abuse and violence‑‑now
the minister is saying, well, we can wait some other lengthy period of
time. The minister is prepared to accept
that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the people of Flin
Flon are not prepared to accept that. The
people of Flin Flon want to know that service is there for them. This tragedy has only made it more
imperative. There is no reason why they
should have to wait. The minister had
choices. When we met with the minister,
with the chairman of board and the staff, we told him he had choices. He does have choices. Now he wants to absolve himself of
responsibility. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Minister,
it is not that simple. People have paid
a price, not only the people directly affected, but the community. What the minister should do is reinstate
funding.
Talk to the board. If there are concerns about the services, if
there are concerns about utilization, the minister could talk to the board
about that, but the service is required.
It is obvious. It is self‑evident. I do not think we should even be here
discussing this. The minister should
have acted on his own.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the question was
not, will he discuss this? The question
was, if there is evidence to suggest, from the service groups who work with
troubled families, families who are dysfunctional, if there is evidence from
the RCMP who have already said that they routinely report these kinds of calls
to the crisis centre in Flin Flon, will he reinstate funding? That was the question. That is the answer the people of Flin Flon
are waiting to hear‑‑no other answer.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated to the member before that I
reject his assumptions and his conclusions, and I would remind him that there
are services that were left in place within the region and that a crisis line
exists. If it is an urgent matter, the
operator puts the call through to the RCMP.
If it is not urgent, the operator puts the call through to the number in
The Pas, so that there are services in place.
I grant you that there was disappointment,
and the board has put forward that particular case. I have indicated that we are prepared to
review the results of the ongoing investigation to look at some of the
questions that have been raised and to have the department work with the board
when they are ready to come forward to discuss those issues and to work with
the resources in the area to provide the best possible service we can.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the minister
is talking after the fact. Flin Flon had
the best possible service. They had the
services of a crisis centre, of a crisis centre staff, of a shelter for women
in jeopardy. They do not anymore.
Some five weeks after the closure of that
centre, based on a ministerial decision that appears to have no objective
rationale, the minister‑‑in hours and hours of questioning, in
hours of meetings‑‑has failed to provide one objective piece of
evidence which would have justified the closure of that centre as opposed to
other decisions which he could have made, the only centre in the province which
was closed. Why cannot the minister now
acknowledge that it was a mistake?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have heard what the member has said today
and last Thursday when we met. I indicate
to him that we have an investigation that is ongoing and we are prepared to
look at the results of that.
Mr. Storie: Then we would like to know, what would
precipitate a change in the minister's view on the matter of funding to Flin
Flon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am not going to prejudge the results of the
investigations that are going on. We are
prepared to look at the results that are brought forward, look at the services
that are being offered, and at that time, make any appropriate decisions.
Mr. Storie: It begs a question, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. If it is all of a sudden
now, after this tragedy, the minister is conceding before committee that in
fact a review of the services that are provided and the necessity for a crisis
centre and a shelter in Flin Flon, if it is justifiable now, then the question
is, why was it not necessary, this review, why was it not done before the
crisis centre was closed?
That is the question that has been
plaguing the minds of people in Flin Flon, the people at the crisis centre, for
the last five weeks. Where was the
justification? Why was this done at
all? Why is the minister now, after a
tragedy, saying well, gosh, we are going to go and look and see whether it is
necessary? Does that not seem a bit
twisted?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have acknowledged the honourable member's
skill with doing some twisting of words that I have used. I have indicated that there is an ongoing
investigation, that we are prepared to look at the results of that
investigation, also to look at the services that we are providing in the
community and in the region, and work with the community to make any decisions
after that investigation is completed.
Mr. Storie: Can the minister explain to committee why it
took this tragedy before the minister will acknowledge that this kind of
investigation should have been done? Why
was it not done in advance‑‑before the decision to close the centre
in a major community, in a community that is struggling?
Mr. Gilleshammer: What I have acknowledged is that there has
been a major tragic incident in the community which is under investigation by
the police force. There are other
service providers who are involved at this time, including the school division,
including the Department of Health, as well as our regional office there. We are going to be prepared to look at the
ongoing results of that investigation.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we still have not
heard from the minister whether after this review, I assume again it is an
internal review, if there is evidence to suggest from the RCMP, from other
service providers in Flin Flon‑‑in fact, I met on Friday with
representatives of the minister's department‑‑that the Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre is a valued and a needed service, that the money will
be reinstated to allow for the operation of the crisis centre and the shelter
in Flin Flon.
* (1500)
Is the minister prepared to accept the
verdict from this review should it indicate that that is necessary? Will the money be made available?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say to the member that we have made a
commitment to the board to explore options, and this has been discussed with
the board at the end of March and again in April. Now the member is asking that
we accept the outcome of an investigation that is ongoing before the scope and
the outcome have been determined. What I
am saying to the member is that we will give very serious consideration to any
information that is brought forward through the course of an investigation of
this incident.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I honestly would like
to accept the minister's suggestion that somehow, if there is evidence to
support a decision to reopen the crisis centre, to reinstate funds, that would
actually happen. Unfortunately, because
of the way this was done, there is no sense that that is possible in the
community unless this minister is forced as a result of having to take some
responsibility, however minor, for this event, or for at least the failure to
prevent this event.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the fact of the
matter is that people in Flin Flon want this centre. They want these services. The fact of the matter is that the government
over the past four and a half years or 5 years, have successively removed
services from the community. The fact of
the matter is that there are existing positions with the minister's own
department that are currently unfilled in the community services
department. I am not sure whether they
are the minister's or the Department of Health, but there are positions
unfilled which may have had a bearing as well on services that are available.
The fact, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is that
the community is in a vulnerable position, and if the minister is going to
consider the question of service provision, will he also consider the needs as
are assessed by the community, by the company, by those who are familiar with
the economic circumstances, and the pressure that is likely going to bring to
bear on families in the Flin Flon area?
This is not simply a question of a departmental
budgeting exercise. The minister's
department is a crucial one in terms of providing protection for families, for
women, for children. Right now the people of Flin Flon feel that that trust has
been violated because of the callous and apparently thoughtless decision to
remove funding from the crisis centre.
They do not want weeks and months of
review and study. They want some
assurance that this service is going to be provided, if there is evidence of
need as determined by the citizens and the people who provide those services or
like services in the community. That is
all. Is that going to happen?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is important that government does
work with the community, that the government does seek answers to questions
that have been raised, that we seek solutions to those questions and that we
are prepared to meet and work with the community and look at the broader
parameters that exist with this investigation.
If there is a better way of providing services, then part of our
responsibility will be to work with community groups to find those answers.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, perhaps as an early
indicator of the need for that service in Flin Flon, the minister can tell us
whether the volume of calls to The Pas crisis centre from Flin Flon has changed
significantly, given the hundreds of calls that came into the Flin Flon Crisis
Centre on a weekly basis.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can advise the member that for the month of
April there were four families who were accessing services in the shelter at
The Pas, and that there were 14 calls that were made during that period of
time. I know that the member is aware
that the shelter in Flin Flon was closed for a number of months for other reasons
in 1992, and that it is difficult to compare that to numbers that, of course,
were not available for a full year.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has not
indicated whether the four families were from Flin Flon.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
Mr. Storie: The numbers, I think, indicate the need. I think the minister is also aware that the
Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre had a doubling of the number of bed nights
year over year, excluding the period of time during which they were closed.
The minister keeps ignoring, as the
government has from the day this issue was raised, the increasing pressure on
the community. Everyone has
acknowledged, studies have shown, that the economic circumstances of a family
bear a direct relationship to the number of violent incidents in families. The more uncertain, the more unstable, the
more poverty in a family, the more difficult maintaining reasonable family
relations becomes.
The problem here is the future. Maybe the minister will continue to shirk
whatever share of the responsibility should be his. The question is, what happens from this point
on? For the people in Flin Flon, it
simply is not acceptable that that service not be available. We know there are going to be incidents of
assault and violence against women and abuse of children. It is inevitable.
The fact that four families from Flin Flon
in the month of April, while the crisis centre was closed, while the people may
have been searching for some place to go to deal with their problems‑‑that
this number of families needs to receive support is indicative of the need.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not sure that
we can wait while this minister follows some political agenda. It is not fair for us to ask. It is not fair to ask the women and children
in Flin Flon to bear that kind of pressure.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I move,
seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that this committee urge
the Minister of Family Services to reconsider the decision to withdraw funding
from the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to advise the committee, I will
be taking it under advisement, and I will get back shortly.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Bearing
in mind the ruling of the Speaker earlier‑‑and I do not want to
deal with that‑‑I want to know from this minister, however, what co‑ordination
is taking place at the present time with regard to individual cases between the
Department of Education, the Department of Family Services and the Department
of Justice.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Just responding on the service level, at the
staff level, that will vary from one jurisdiction to another. In the southern part of the province where we
have Child and Family Service agencies, they are in contact with officials in
Health, Education and Justice directly from those agencies.
* (1510)
In other areas of the province, we share
regional offices with staff who are a part of the Department of Health. I think it is fair to say that the decisions
made on that sharing of services occurs on a case‑by‑case basis
with regional staff and with the knowledge that school division officials or
Justice officials can communicate with our regional offices and vice versa
where they have cases that are common to all departments of government.
Mrs. Carstairs: What would be the protocol, for example, if a
worker for Child and Family Services learned that an individual was not
attending school or that such an individual was suicidal or that such an
individual might be in possession of a weapon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is incumbent upon that worker to
do a case conference of all of the service providers that are involved with the
case. I know from my own experience at
the school level that frequently case conferences are called where all of the
individuals who are working with a particular student or particular person are
brought in to do a conference on it and to co‑ordinate the planning that
takes place for the services provided for that individual.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister then tell us if the
Department of Family Services had contact with this particular family? Were they providing any form of family
service counselling or family dispute counselling within this family unit?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would have to advise the member that I am
under substantial restrictions by law of what I can discuss about individual
cases.
Mrs. Carstairs: I respect that particular barrier which the
minister has.
Is it normal for the department, with
department staff here in
Mr. Gilleshammer: The school, as the member knows, has
substantial resources and access to services over and above what the school
division is able to access. However, if
the child is also involved with the Child and Family Services system, there is
again a case co‑ordination that takes place between the agency and the
school. It can be triggered by either of
the two service providers, either the agency or the school division.
Mrs. Carstairs: To get back to the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis
Centre for just a moment, the minister gave the figures for April, but can the
minister give the figures for an average month of clients receiving service at
that particular shelter?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the annual projection was 75 visits
and that includes, of course, as we have indicated before, covering a portion
of
Mrs. Carstairs: Can you tell me how that compares with other
shelters that are operating in the province outside of major cities, for
example,
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it is very low compared to our
other centres outside of the city of
Mrs. Carstairs: Perhaps we can have some more specific
figures. For example, how does it compare with The Pas?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have the exact figure that I would
want to use here, but the bed nights number into the thousands.
Mrs. Carstairs: Excuse me, I do not understand. How many were there at The Pas, and how many
were there at Flin Flon?
* (1520)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
asking for a comparison with The Pas. I
gave you the number of individual visits to the shelter before, and I am going to
change that to bed nights in Flin Flon of 1,080 and at The Pas it was 2,153.
Mrs. Carstairs: For how many months was Flin Flon open that
would have given them a bed night count of 1,080 as opposed to The Pas for
2,153?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That was a forecast at full year.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister give me the same figure for
the
Mr. Gilleshammer: The
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell the committee why a
crisis centre would be closed with a count of 1,080, but open one which had a
projected count of 900? What would be
the rationale of closing one that had a larger bed night count?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I have indicated, from the beginning we
have looked upon this on a regional basis.
The
Mrs. Carstairs: But it is also true that you have a great
number of people who live in the Norman region and Flin Flon happens to be a
city. The
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, again, as I have indicated, we looked
on this in a regional basis. We have a
shelter in that region, and we have, I believe, the only Women's Resource
Centre outside of
Mrs. Carstairs: In the Department of Family Services: Payments to External Agencies, there seems to
be a change from 1992‑93. There was one referred to as the Lundar. Has that got a new name, or has that just
also disappeared?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am advised that they have changed their
name to the Lakeshore Women's Resource Centre.
Mrs. Carstairs: I rather assumed that on the funding basis.
What is the extent of the crisis office in
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that there is a crisis centre
office, that there is second‑stage housing and also some community safe
homes.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is my understanding that these places
where the resource centres and the crisis centres are located, which are
designated in your listing as crisis offices, do not have bed nights. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct as far as operating as a
shelter, as we know it, goes, but they do have, and have developed, what we
call safe homes.
Mrs. Carstairs: Was there any consideration given to
establishing such a centre in Flin Flon in light of the fact that the shelter
itself was going to be closed down?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is exactly what we would like to work
with the crisis centre board on and will be the subject of our discussions with
them.
Mrs. Carstairs: Has any money been put aside in this budget
for such a centre?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We feel that, with the resources that the
crisis centre has and the resources going to the region, we can accommodate
that with those two sources.
Mrs. Carstairs: What would be the extent of the dollars that
the minister will be looking at in that respect?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are still waiting on the audited financial
statement of the crisis centre. I have
heard numbers like $40,000 and $60,000.
We also have, I think it is $123,000, going into the resource centre in
that particular community. We feel that,
with the resources that are potentially there, we can work with them to develop
an extension of services in that matter.
Mrs. Carstairs: Does the minister not think it would have
been more appropriate to have put such plans in place before they closed down
the shelter?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have been attempting to meet with the
group for a number of weeks now. They
have asked us to wait until they have completed their audited statement, and
that is the situation we are at at this time.
Mrs. Carstairs: I find it difficult to understand that a
government would decide to close down a shelter‑‑I have already
acknowledged that this government has made tremendous advances in terms of
providing shelters and in providing additional dollars for women in crisis‑‑decide
they are going to shut down a shelter, which I consider to be a very backward
step, and then say they are going to talk about opening a crisis office.
Surely, if there was a determination that
a crisis office was perhaps the way to go in the future, that should have been
the step put in place prior to the closing down of the shelter.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have indicated to the board that with the
resources of government that is going into the area and with the resources they
have indicated they have, we are wanting to look at some additional services
that could be provided in that area over and above what the Women's Resource
Centre is doing now.
* (1530)
We had a meeting set up a couple of weeks
ago which the centre board asked us to delay.
We are again in the process of rescheduling that meeting to discuss the
services that we feel we can provide in the community with the assistance of
the community.
Mrs. Carstairs: I certainly have not visited all the resource
centres, but I have been at
Yet the minister constantly refers to the
Northern Women's Resource Service located in Flin Flon as an alternate service
to those who will no longer have a shelter.
Have they therefore changed the mandate of the Northern Women's Resource
Service, and what is this new mandate?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, we have not changed the mandate, but I
think the member would find if she had visited all of those resource centres
that their mandate has been a pretty open‑ended one in terms of
developing the programs which they feel are appropriate for their particular
area. We are indicating that we would,
as a department, work with the resource centre, with the board and with the
resources they have to develop a continuum of services within that region.
I think the department has brought forward
the idea that there is a willingness to take a look at the services that are
provided in that area to come up with the best possible service we can, given
that we have withdrawn that particular funding for the crisis centre.
At the same time, we have an ongoing
investigation, as I have indicated earlier.
We are prepared to look at the recommendations that are brought forward
by that investigation. I can tell you that the department is prepared to seek
answers and to look for solutions that would provide a service in that
particular area of the province.
Mrs. Carstairs: Has the minister met with the Northern
Women's Resource Service and asked them to pursue a new mandate with respect to
providing crisis service to the women living in Flin Flon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have not met with them personally, but
senior staff have done so.
Mrs. Carstairs: Have they accepted this new mandate?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is fair to say that there is a
willingness to co‑operate with the department in looking at service
provision in that area.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I understand that we are past Community Living
and Vocational Rehabilitation Programs, but if the minister and his staff would
prefer to have it dealt with under Minister's Salary when there are not
any. I just ask, which is more
appropriate?
I would like to ask him a couple of
questions about the home in Rorketon that I was discussing with the minister
during Question Period today.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we are prepared to enter into
discussions at the present time, and I have staff from Rehabilitation,
Community Living coming to the table at this time.
Mr. Plohman: Thank you.
Could I just ask the minister, first of all, how many clients are being
serviced at the Anne's Care Home in Rorketon at the present time?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are seven clients who are
living there. Four of them have a new
day program site.
Mr. Plohman: The four are being bussed to Ste. Rose for a
different program. Can the minister tell
me why that is and exactly what the difference is in activities?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that four of the clients have been
transferred to Ste. Rose and the per diems for the day program have been
transferred with them and enhanced to reflect the programming that they are now
receiving. The clients are also having
work placements with local businesses in Ste. Rose.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister tell what level or class of
handicap these people have?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that these were individuals who are
what is called or termed a Level IV.
Mr. Plohman: Level IV being the most severe as opposed to
Level I?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Level IV being more severe than I.
Mr. Plohman: Would it go further? Would there be Level V, VI? How far would it
go?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It goes up to Level V.
Mr. Plohman: So we are talking about one level from the
most severe mentally handicapped people in terms of these classifications.
Mr. Gilleshammer: These are individuals who would have
substantial difficulties if they were to be living in the community or trying
to access worker programming.
Mr. Plohman: I understand that is the case. The minister talked about enhanced day
programs now, and enhanced per diems.
Could he be a little more specific?
My understanding is that over the years at the Sraybash's‑‑Anne's
Care Home in Rorketon, they received training in woodworking and other tasks as
well as a home setting that they were experiencing. This was not deemed to be good enough for
Level 4 people in terms of their potential, I would understand. I guess that is why the department wanted to
have them moved. I would like a little
bit better understanding, and so would the people in the area who are concerned
about this move, a little better understanding of what we are talking about
here in terms of experiences.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The whole thrust of community living has been
to have individuals not only live within the community, but also to access work
placements and to normalize their situations as best we can. Sometimes, to find those work placements,
individual clients will have to access that work experience in a different
centre or a larger centre, and it was the professional judgment of our staff
that, in the case of these individuals, a different work placement be accessed.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, how much was
the per diem at Rorketon and how much is it going to be at ROSE Inc.?
* (1540)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that the per diem in Rorketon was
$8.94 a day and that the per diem in Ste. Rose is $21.22 a day.
Mr. Plohman: That is a considerable difference, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, more than double, and my understanding is that these people
are being bussed to Ste. Rose to do menial tasks like pick up garbage for the
R.M. and for the village. Is this what
the minister would deem to be more enriched day programs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the member is no doubt aware that we
rely on the staff and the community to provide day programming and training for
individuals. In some cases it involves
working in restaurants, it involves working in the community, and in some cases
it may mean working with municipal levels of government to provide work that
other people in the community handle.
The placement from time to time is rotated so that the individuals get
experience in a number of things.
Some of the tasks that clients may be
involved with could be regarded as menial.
The challenge that is before the staff of the department is to find the
most suitable work experience placements that they can and to give them that
variety of experience within the community that other individuals are
experiencing.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Plohman: So as not to take any more time than is necessary,
can the minister provide some additional information on the placements of these
four individuals at the present time as to their current activities? I have received reports, as I indicated, that
basically this is the extent of their activities, and I would like to assure
myself that is not the case.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would be pleased to have staff look into
that and to provide the member with an update.
Mr. Plohman: Also, I would like to know whether there was
any capital money from the department ever put into the Anne's Care Home in
Rorketon? In that same question, also
whether it is his department that is providing capital funding to ROSE Inc., or
is this coming from a different source?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would point out to the member that we do
not have a capital budget within our department, that we flow the fundings on a
per‑diem basis.
Mr. Plohman: So, again, we get back to this co‑ordination
thing. Surely, the minister or staff could
tell me then, which department is providing the funding for the housing that is
going to be provided to these people by ROSE Inc. in Ste. Rose? I understand as of June 1, they are going to
be moved there and no longer bussed from Rorketon
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am reminded that community groups often
access money through the Community Places programming, through the Community
Services Council, and that some of our per‑diem money is sometimes
translated into some of the upgrade that will take place in community
residences.
Mr. Plohman: Then, to get more specific in this instance,
can the minister provide any indication of how much of the per‑diem money
has been translated into capital and as well any other sources of revenue that
are coming into ROSE Inc. for the purposes of providing these facilities for
these residents?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will be happy to provide that information
that we do not have with us today on Community Places and Community Services
Council and get an answer for the member.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister tell us how many residents
are expected to be housed by ROSE Inc. from Ste. Rose and how many from
Rorketon?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am advised by the departmental staff that
there are four members to be housed there.
Mr. Plohman: From Rorketon, but how many from Ste. Rose,
local?
Mr. Gilleshammer: My understanding from department staff is it
will be the four from Rorketon.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, who supervises the
construction, the work done by an organization wanting to incorporate and get
into the business of providing these services such as ROSE Inc.? Is that done through the minister's
department or is that done through Housing or some other department?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our regional staff is responsible for the
overview of the programming. We also
have a licensing function within the department that licenses facilities for
that purpose.
Mr. Plohman: That is for the programming once it begins,
but in terms of the establishment of a facility, the capital costs, the
minister indicated, may come from other sources, but who supervises, for
example, the tendering and the procedures that are followed?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is done by the community group that are
the proponents of any program. Our
responsibility is to license the facility and then, through the regional staff,
to monitor the ongoing programming that exists.
Mr. Plohman: So there is no special role for the
department in the initial stages then.
There is no overseeing of the procedures followed.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we receive the application and
provide any assistance that we can through either our regional staff or through
the licensing branch.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate whether he has
reviewed this situation personally with regard to the four residents that are
being moved to Ste. Rose with his staff as a result of petitions and letters
that were sent in earlier? Is he
satisfied that the care they are going to receive is superior, considering what
they have been offered at the previous residence over many years?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have received some letters and responded to
those letters of concern. I have asked
the senior staff responsible for both the regional delivery of the program and
the licensing to look at the situation to be sure that we are doing the best
for the individuals concerned.
Mr. Plohman: I just want to close‑‑to indicate
to the minister and draw to his attention that the couple, the Sraybashes, who
have been offering the service over the last number of years, have no desire to
retire from this service. They have been
providing all of their own financial resources towards the capital costs and
have received no government funding for that other than the per diems of, I
guess, $8.94 a day and whatever they might have been over the years, and have
been functioning as a mom and dad to these residences.
Everyone in the community that I have
talked to feels that there is a very close relationship, a loving
relationship. They are referred to as mom
and dad. Considering their handicap,
their disability of a Level 4 classification here, I would ask the minister to
consider the impact that this is going to have on those people. They cannot continue to open with three
people left of the seven. They cannot
continue to operate. It is not
financially viable for that residence to remain open, that care home, with the
remaining three. So they have to close
as of June 1, and I understand their per diems are being pulled. I think that decision should be
reviewed. It is going to impact on these
four individuals very seriously.
Sometimes we look from a program point of
view or a bureaucratic point of view, which might look to be more ideal for
them, has to be considered in light of their own personal condition and
situation that they have experienced over those years. I do not think that that human touch is
necessarily being reflected as the most important in this situation. So I ask the minister to review that, and I
will leave that with him at this particular time with the understanding that he
will be providing me the additional information that I have asked for.
* (1550)
Chairperson's
Ruling
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Earlier today, I took under advisement a
motion moved by the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), which reads:
That this committee urge the Minister of
Family Services to reconsider the decision to withdraw funding from the Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre.
This motion repeats in substance a motion
moved by the member for Flin Flon last Thursday, which was defeated by this
committee. Therefore, I am ruling that
the motion is out of order because it contravenes our own Rule 31, which states
in part: "No member shall revive a
debate already concluded during the session . . . ."
* * *
Mr. Storie: I had intended the motion to be a different
motion, but I recognize that there are similarities, and I accept your ruling.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a question to the
minister: In the House earlier today, it
was referenced that this government has received a number of reviews of the
issue of domestic violence of support services for families in crisis. In reviewing some of the comments made by the
Pedlar report on domestic violence, one of the comments made in the report, and
I quote: In particular, the justice
system must work toward effective training, protocols and policies that will
promote commitment, consistency in communication, within and between components
of the system so that safety and sensitive treatment for women is ensured.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, earlier today, I
asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) whether he would instigate a
commission of inquiry to look into the incidents and the events leading up to
the incident last Thursday morning, and look at the question of co‑ordination
of services in particular, but also the larger question which we have been
discussing here, and that is the question of services generally to northern
Manitoba and the community of Flin Flon in particular, both with respect to the
victims of family violence, but also with respect to the issue of mental
health, psychological and psychiatric services.
Can the minister indicate whether he would support such an inquiry?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has
responded to the member in regard to the timing of the initiative that is being
requested, and I respect his concern about that.
I think that in the area of co‑ordination
of service between government departments or between any other group that is
working together, this is something that has to be constantly reviewed and
monitored, and I can say that that is a concern of mine, that we continue to
work diligently in that area to be sure that service providers are
communicating on a regular basis.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the last number of
months, the last year and a half, perhaps, there have been three other
incidents of women victims being stalked.
The more we learn of this particular incident, the more it looks like a
result of stalking, that in fact there is evidence being revealed as we speak
that this event is a result of a premeditated, in effect, plan to harass.
I am wondering if the minister is prepared
to tell us what the Department of Family Services is doing to deal with these
kinds of insidious threats against women and children and families.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member indicates that there is evidence
being revealed as we speak, and I respect that in many ways this investigation
is just in its very, very initial stages.
The whole area of combatting criminal activity is first and foremost the
responsibility of the Department of Justice, but having said that, we will make
a commitment within Family Services to co‑operate and provide any
information and input that we can to this larger question.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(e) Family Dispute Services (1) Salaries
$267,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $90,500‑‑pass;
(3) External Agencies $5,037,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 9.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $100,791,600 for Family Services, Child and Family Services
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
The last item to be considered for the
Estimates of the Department of Family Services is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary
$20,600. At this point, we request that
the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I move, seconded by
the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie),
THAT line 1.(a) Minister's Salary be
reduced to $1.
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reason for moving
this motion is to express our dissatisfaction, our disappointment and indeed
our sadness with the budgetary decisions of this minister and this government. In particular, we are very disappointed by
the cutbacks to a number of social service organizations, particularly, the
decision to eliminate the grant to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization
and to friendship centres. While there
are many organizations that are going to survive and find alternative sources
of funding, we believe that this is going to have a devastating effect on the
ability of the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization to deliver services to
people and also on friendship centres to deliver services to people.
We do not buy the minister's line that all
of the 56 organizations were advocacy organizations, as the original press
release said. We believe many of them
are involved in providing service to the public, and that is very true of both MAPO
and friendship centres.
We move this motion because we are
disappointed with this minister and this government in his budgetary decisions
and the effect that is going to have on Child and Family Services agencies, and
in particular the Winnipeg Child and Family Services. We know that‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask those people in the galleries, if
they want to carry on some conversations, to do it out in the hallway. We are having a little bit of trouble hearing
at the table here.
Mr. Martindale: We know that there are many existing problems
with delivering service, and these budgetary decisions are going to make the
problems worse. The funding cuts will
prevent the staff from properly caring for abused children. The director of the Winnipeg Child and Family
Services, Mr. Keith Cooper, has said publicly that he shares the staff's
concerns, that he is worried about the impact of cuts, that kids in crisis
might have to wait longer for a response.
In fact, he is quoted as saying: They simply cannot do the amount of work they
are doing now with 10 days less work. We
know that is true because of other decisions of this government, and that there
will be many more fewer days of staff time.
In fact, I have erroneously said 3,000 hours less staff time. In fact, it is 3,000 staff days less time to
deliver service.
* (1600)
Also, the Winnipeg Child and Family
Services lost a $250,000 grant from the
The number of children in care is
increasing by 10 percent a year, so the demand on services is going up. The amount of funds available to do the job
adequately are going down, waiting lists are escalating. The staff are already handling twice the
number of cases as recommended. The
staff are saying workers have almost no time for preventative work. A board member has said to me that there is
no down time in Child and Family Services.
I believe the result of the decisions of this minister will be to reduce
the amount of preventative work and the amount of work at the front end of the
system. It will result in apprehending
more children at the back end, at the more costly end of the system.
We are condemning this minister and this
government for the closure of the crisis centre in Flin Flon. If this minister intends to follow through on
this decision, then I think he should, at the very least, rewrite the purpose
statement in the minister's annual report and say that the crisis shelters are
no longer a community‑based service but are a regionally based
service. The minister should inform all
women who might be potential users of crisis shelters that is now the case,
particularly in Flin Flon.
We move this motion because of the
increase in fees for child care, because of the reduction and capping of spaces
in child care and the reduction of the job search time for parents with
children in child care.
We know what the effects of this are going
to be. In fact, the Manitoba Child Care
Association has already surveyed their members to see what the effects are, and
this minister has not done the research that we believe he should have done
before making these decisions. I asked
the minister several times if they had been in touch with Canada Employment Centres
and asked them what is the average length of weeks that people are registered
searching for work, and, apparently, the minister or his staff did not make
that inquiry.
We informed the minister that the average
length of time that people are on unemployment insurance in
All of this is going to result in fewer
children in child care and the parents who are going to pull their children out
are the ones who can least afford it or the ones who absolutely need child care
in order to find employment or to stay in employment. We know that parents are
already pulling their children out, either because they cannot afford the new
fees or because they have been adversely affected by one of these three policies.
We know from a survey that was done that
seven staff have already been laid off.
We also know that some family day care providers in some centres are not
passing on the new fees, and the result is that staff are taking a cut in
pay. The occupational group in
We are condemning this minister due to
cuts to social assistance rates. This
government has repeatedly said that their budgetary decisions are fair. If they were fair, we would have been hearing
an outcry from the rich, but instead, what we hear is that this budget is an
attack on the poor, and the proof is that people who are already the lowest
income people in this province, people on social assistance, are having their
rates cut.
We already have the highest rate of
poverty in
We are condemning this minister for
eliminating the Student Social Allowances Program. In effect, what this government is doing is
forcing these people onto city welfare and out of education. When they are on city welfare, they cannot be
full‑time students because on municipal assistance, you must be available
for work and looking for work. You
cannot go to school full time and be looking for work or available for work.
So these are students who have been in
school, many of whom are going to be on social assistance and out of school,
and we know that this greatly jeopardizes their chances to improve their
educational status and to improve their employability and indeed their ability
to obtain a job and to keep a job and to keep a decent job.
We know that, with the less education
people have, the lower‑paying job they have. This is denying the future of these students
by taking them out of school and putting them on social assistance. We know that this government is cutting in
every area‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask those members standing on both
sides of the table and sitting on both sides of the table to please keep it
down to a low murmur so that I could hear the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr. Martindale: We know that this government is cutting in
almost every department. The budget of
the Minister of Family Services is one of the few, if not the only budget, that
have been increased.
The reason for that is that his social
assistance budget is up. It is up from
$379,000 last year to‑‑[interjection] Thank you for the
correction: $379 million last year to
$414 million this year. There is only
one reason why that is happening, and that is because the budgetary decisions
of this government and the failure to create jobs and stimulate the economy are
resulting in an increased social assistance rate. This government is doing absolutely nothing
about it, and it is a disgrace.
Most of that is an increase in the
municipal welfare budget, which has gone from $76 million to $111 million,
which means that by far the greatest increase is for people on Municipal
Assistance, the people who are employable.
This is very graphically displayed in the
information from Winnipeg Harvest food bank, which has shown the growth in
people seeking assistance from Winnipeg Harvest in the category of city of
So we believe that this budget and the
decision to increase social assistance because they had to because the demand
is going to go up in the next year are not only a condemnation of this
minister, but a failure of his entire government to stimulate the economy, to
create jobs, and to get people off social assistance.
What this minister and this government
prefer to do is to pay people to stay at home and collect social assistance,
instead of encouraging them and enabling them to participate in the labour
market.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the motion that is
before us is not a motion which I take a great deal of interest in supporting,
but I must support it. I said I do not
take a lot of interest in supporting it because I really think that these
motions verge on the silly, and always have, but it is the only way that the
opposition has an opportunity to express our dissatisfaction with the
government of the day.
It is the only opportunity that we are
given to talk about choices. It is the
only time that we have an opportunity to tell a minister that we do not think
that he fought hard enough for his department.
That is what concerns me most.
Let us go back a few weeks ago when the
Child and Family Services Estimates were available long before any others were.
We had Agriculture and Highways. We were
not given the entire budget, but that led me to the sad conclusion that somehow
or other the Minister of Family Services, along with his colleagues in
Agriculture and Highways, had given up the fight, that they were not prepared
to debate any longer with their caucus colleagues about resources which they
require to run their department.
* (1610)
I also spent a great deal of time speaking
in the House because I would not allow the Estimates of Family Services to be
debated until we saw the rest of the Estimates.
I wanted to know if, in fact, the cuts to Family Services were
indicative of the cuts to all other government departments. Tragically, that is not true.
We have a cut to Education of 2
percent. While I may not like that cut,
if it is going to be across the board for every department, and it was for
Health, then perhaps one says that is the government's decision, but at least
they have been fair and equitable to everybody.
But one looks at the department that we
are dealing with today, we have to realize that, if this government had not
merged income security with this particular portfolio some years ago, this
department would see a rather massive cut because one looks at the individual
sections: Administration and Finance,
which does not give me a lot of concern, was cut by 4.9 percent; Registration
and Licensing, by 2.9 percent; Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care,
by 1 percent; and Child and Family Services, the big numbers in this
department, by 4.7 percent. The only reason that this particular branch of
Family Services looks as if it is getting an increase of 4.5 percent is because
Income Security and Regional Operations, which used to be a different
portfolio, got an increase of 9.3 percent.
Everything to do with children, and
everything to do with the vulnerable, was cut.
It was not cut at 2 percent. It
was cut at figures like 4.7 percent.
That is what disturbs me most about this particular portfolio. When one looks at the groups and
organizations that have been cut, always it is to people who are the most
vulnerable. We cut a crisis centre,
1,080 bed nights, according to the minister a few moments ago, that were
available in the community of Flin Flon last year are not going to be available
for women and children in crisis.
When we look at Student Social Allowances,
we look at cuts to those who are trying to get their lives in order. They are the very people who said: I do not want to live on social assistance
for the rest of my life. I am going to
go back to school, I am going to upgrade my skills, so that I can find a job,
so that I can be a contributing member to the tax rolls of this province. Those
were the people that we chose to cut.
Why the minister chose to cut the Indian
and Metis friendship centres I simply do not know, because, as our society
becomes more and more aboriginal in content‑‑and all the demographics
show that Winnipeg and Thompson and Brandon will have larger and larger
aboriginal populations‑‑many of those people come with few skills,
usually very high unemployment rates, suffer already from demographics that the
rest of us do not suffer.
One of the places where they turned to for
service was the Indian‑Metis friendship centre. These vulnerable children who received
sometimes playtime in the center, sometimes language training, sometimes just a
friendly pat on the back at the end of a school day where they felt isolated‑‑these
children are not going to get the kind of service they previously had because
of the cuts to this particular budget.
The minister cut support for the Manitoba
Anti‑Poverty Organization. It was
such a minor amount of money in the scheme of things that one wonders why they
would choose such an advocacy organization.
Regrettably, I can only make the decision that it is because in their
advocacy they were often antigovernment.
When your group gets all of their support
from government, because people who go to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Association are usually people who are living on social assistance, then they
feel they need somebody to advocate on their behalf, and that is what the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization did.
But it did a lot more. One of the things they did that caused me
some interest was the fact that they kept the daily papers available to people,
so that they could come in and look at the want ads and come in and look at
things that were for sale, so they could perhaps buy secondhand products to
support their families.
This budget has not suffered the same
scrutiny of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). It has suffered far more because how you can
cut Child and Family Services by 4.7 percent and say you are fair and equitable
is beyond my comprehension.
So what I will be doing in my statement is
not criticizing the minister for the way in which he manages the
department. I will be criticizing the
minister for not fighting hard enough for vulnerable people, and I will be
criticizing his colleagues for not understanding that in tough times we have to
make tough choices, but those tough choices have to be on those who can afford
to provide some of the wherewithal for themselves.
Nowhere was that highlighted more for me
than in the changes to the daycare fees.
The minister did not choose to put up the fee for the family of
professional people. He did not ask them
to pay an extra $1.40 a day for child care.
He asked people who were receiving subsidy. The minister gave me a figure. A single‑parent mom with two children
in child care would get full subsidies for those two children; the cost to that
parent now is $650 more than last year.
How does a single‑parent mother
earning $16,000 a year come up with another $650 a year for child care? I do not know how the minister can expect her
to do that, and what I am very afraid will happen is that that mother who has
been working and earning, granted not much above minimum wage but living with
some dignity, because she is bringing home a pay cheque and looking after her
children to the best of her ability, will now choose to go on social
assistance. Then she has no child care
expense and probably her real income will not in any way be affected; it might
even to some degree be enhanced. That is
a real tragedy when we invite somebody to go back on social assistance.
We are asking students to go back on
social assistance because we know that without skills they will not get
employment. We are asking mothers to go
back on social assistance because we can no longer give them full subsidies for
their child care. We are asking women in
crisis to take a bus, an hour and half, or by bus it is actually closer to two
and a quarter hours to another shelter down the road. We are asking vulnerable aboriginal people to
take less services from their friendship centres. I simply, quite frankly, do not understand a
government that believes fairness means that those who have the least are the
ones who have to pay the most.
I took a look at this government budget,
and I have to say that my family is not affected by it. My family is not going to suffer anything
because I have to pay a little bit of tax on items that I did not ever have to
pay tax on before. Quite frankly, I do
not even know what I pay for some of those items. If I need them, I buy them,
pay at the checkout counter. I do not
look at what a 7 percent increase on that item is going to be. People in my incomes do not, but people who
are living on low incomes do. It has a
tough impact on them.
That is why the minister says, well, tell
us how you would do it, and I make no bones about telling him where I would do
it. I would have cut the Community
Places grants completely. I told the
government that last year. I cannot
understand a government funding golf courses, but they cannot fund a
shelter. I simply do not understand that
priority. I do not understand a priority
that says, pretend we have not increased taxes and increase those of homeowners
by 75 percent, whether you live in a $150,000 house or a $300,000 house or a
$27,500 house. I do not understand that
kind of taxation system.
* (1620)
I have said that if people in upper
incomes like mine have to pay additional taxes, then we will pay those additional
taxes. Some may grump, but I will not, not if that money in turn is used to
support shelters and the Indian and Metis friendship centres because those are
services that I think are essential in our society.
I think the government's priorities are
wrong, and so when I vote today, it will be because I think that government
priorities translated into bad decision making for this particular department
of government. Thank you.
Mr. Storie: I think my colleague from Burrows has done an
excellent job of outlining why members of this committee should support this
motion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know it is, in
part, tradition when you disagree with a minister's decisions or the direction
a department is taking that you introduce this kind of a motion. I want the minister to know that, as far as I
am concerned and, I think, perhaps my colleagues who have spoken on this motion
already, this is more than a symbolic motion, that there are serious mistakes
being made within the department in terms of priorities that are going to be
damaging to the fabric of the quality of life in our communities.
While I have spent a great deal of time in
my comments in the department's Estimates talking about the crisis centre, I
want the minister to know of the same concern over the way decisions have been
made flow from other aspects of the budget and the cutbacks in this minister's
department.
I have talked at length about how Flin
Flon is experiencing difficult times, and I want to tell the minister that with
Lynn Lake, although it is enjoying now more stability and more security than
over the past couple of years, the decision by the government to withdraw
funding to the friendship centres, in particular the Lynn Lake Friendship
Centre, is a devastating blow to the community.
The friendship centre is the social
services centre for the community. It
provides support for literacy training.
It provides support and counselling for those who are plagued by
addictions of one form or another. It
provides support to people coming into the community for medical services. It provides translation services. It provides recreational support to a
community that has lost virtually everything.
I do not think this minister appreciates the damage he has done to the
service infrastructure in the community by undermining the friendship
centre. It is going to be a tremendous
burden.
Obviously, in Flin Flon as well, the
friendship centre provides tremendous support to social agencies in the
community. They provide tremendous support to the community. They are an economic boon to our community,
as is the friendship centre in
The fact of the matter is, and as my colleague
for Burrows has outlined, so many decisions have been taken in the department
that appear to fly in the face of the minister's and the government's expressed
concern for those who have the least.
The cutbacks in this department attack those very people directly, and
while we all understand the minister's refrain that tough decisions had to be
made, these decisions have to be viewed in the context not only of a
significant budget in his department, but in the context of government
spending.
We are now attempting to understand how
the government is going to spend $200,000 in a public relations exercise for
Autopac when cuts go to the crisis centre and cuts go to friendship
centres. It is going to be hard to justify
to the people of
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to go
on record as not only supporting this motion as a symbolic indication of the
minister's failure to lead this department in a way that benefits Manitobans
generally, but I want to go on record as supporting this motion because of
specific decisions the minister has made and justified ad nauseam because of
their impact on my communities and the communities in my constituency. It is just not right.
I give the minister fair warning that this
issue does not end here. This issue is
not going to end when we vote on the minister's salary. These issues are going to be kept alive by
the people in Flin Flon who remember that this government is the government
that took those services away, that callously disregarded the need, that simply
could not empathize with what people in those communities, in my communities,
are going through. That is a serious
indictment as far as I am concerned. So I will be supporting the motion.
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have listened very
intently to some of the things that were said.
I am rather surprised by some of the comments that have been made by,
specifically, the Leader of the Second Opposition, and also the person who
moved the motion to eliminate the minister's salary.
I have also been part of numerous election
campaigns and have listened very intently to some of the things that some
people have said during election campaigns.
Most of us, and I am not any less guilty than anybody else is around
this table, come to this place and we say we should make changes. We should make changes in how government does
business. Yet, when we have the
opportunity, we revert back to the same old tactics that have been used
traditionally to express either our support or our opposition.
I think there is an opportunity around
this table to make those changes, to recognize those changes and make
suggestions, make some serious suggestions as to how to better the political
process that sees us come together on some of these issues. But to simply move a motion, to say to the
minister that we will reduce your salary, does not do anything. It simply accomplishes nothing except the
satisfaction of having moved a motion, and whether that is an expression of
satisfaction or disappointment or whatever you will, it simply accomplishes
nothing. So it can be deemed as a total
waste of time.
Those of us who sit around this table who
are paid by the public, that are at the public trough, are wasting those public
dollars by doing what we are engaging in here right at this time. Secondly, the member who moved the motion to
decrease this minister's salary to a dollar is a member of society and serves
society in another capacity. I believe
that there are some social agencies that are not funded publicly, and I refer
to the churches in general, that have a tremendous responsibility to society
that some of them have negated.
I include my own churches in that
statement, because I believe if those churches were truly carrying out their
responsibility we would not be here today discussing some of the issues that we
have discussed today, and we would not be blaming either the justice system or
the education system or the medical system or the family services system for
not being responsible and for not acting responsible, because there are some of
us who carry also the responsibility of helping the healing process from
another angle. We have simply negated
that.
* (1630)
We walk away from it and we ask government
to constantly throw more money at resolving problems, and has it got
better? I ask you, I ask all people
around this table, has it really become better?
Have we done better by spending more money? I say to you members around this table that
the answer is no. The answer is no, we
have not done better by simply throwing more money at it, so there are, I
believe, different ways and different means of dealing with some of these
social issues.
We should not be moving motions that
simply say we will throw out the minister's salary and therefore solve all the
problems. I think that is irresponsible.
I would ask both parties in the opposition to reconsider and ask them to
withdraw the motion that would not force us to even vote on this and then sit
down around the table to discuss whether there are not some means and some
process that we can initiate that will get us to a different place and get us
to a point where we will deal with these issues in a different manner, co‑operatively
to look at ways of enhancing the processes as we sit here.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the
comments made by opposition members are consistent with what they have said
over the last 25 or 30 hours that we have been debating Family Services
Estimates. I appreciate that the member
for
The members choose to ignore the many
reforms that have been brought in by this department over the last two and
three years that have enhanced social allowances. I am going to refrain from going into detail
on those this evening because I think I did have a chance to put them on the
record once before. I know that the
member for Burrows has acknowledged the fact that many of these have been
positive changes and in fact spoke glowingly one day of the leadership provided
within this department. Today he has
seen fit to bring forward that particular motion.
I did not have a chance to talk in any
detail about Child and Family Services and the reforms in that area but we did
spend, I think, maybe a couple of hours on it.
I would point out that a number of the things that we have done in that
area are going to enhance service immeasurably in the whole area of Child and
Family Services, reforms that date back to the early '80s that the previous
government chose to ignore and which have been brought in over the last couple
of years. [interjection] Well, the member for Burrows, I think, wants to get
into some debate on those issues. If he
does, I would be pleased to engage him on that.
We have covered that area before, and he acknowledges that some of those
changes there have been very positive.
In the Rehabilitation and Community Living
we have a number of initiatives, including some legislation before the House
which are tremendous reforms in an area of the department, an area of
government that has not received adequate attention during the 1980s.
So a number of these things, while the
members recognize that they are positive, I want to zero in on specific
budgetary items that we have had an opportunity to discuss in some detail. If it is the wish of the group, we could deal
with the question at this time.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the proposed motion,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Mr. Martindale: I request a recorded vote, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows has
requested a formal vote. A formal vote
has been requested. This section of the
Committee of Supply will now proceed to the Chamber for the formal vote.
* (1430)
AGRICULTURE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture.
We are on item 2.(a) Manitoba Crop
Insurance Corporation, page 14 of the Estimates manual. Shall the item pass?
Will the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber?
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
When I asked the question previously the
minister indicated that would be very difficult to implement, but I think that
it would be a fair way to go. Just as
with other boards, there should be farm representation and they should have the
ability to have input; it would be a better representation if there were more
farmers in the group.
Now the minister named the people that
were on the committee, I believe, but those representatives are not put there
by farmers. As my understanding is,
these are not all farmers that are on the board or people who are involved in
the farming business.
I do not see what the difficulty would be
in implementing this change. I do not
think it would be that difficult to have more farmer representation on the
board. If that happened, farmers would
maybe have more confidence, and it would more reflect the needs of farmers if
they could have more input into it.
I just want the minister to comment on
that, if there would be any way that we could have more‑‑if he sees
any way for more farmer representation, as there are on many other committees.
When we have boards, there are employee representatives on it. Why would it be
so difficult to have farmer representation on this board and representatives
that would rotate?
Also, on the whole section on the annual
meetings, that was another recommendation, that there be annual producer
meetings held in each of the directors' districts. This seems like a fair recommendation. It is something that producers want. I believe it would be to the board's benefit,
to the corporation's benefit if people would go out to the various districts
and hear the concerns of farmers and, by doing so, perhaps encourage more
people to use crop insurance rather than have people drop off from using that
insurance.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chairperson,
four out of the five representatives on the board are farmers, I would like to
tell the member, and the fifth person represents the insurance industry.
We are running an insurance
corporation. As I said the other day,
farm lobby groups have an open‑door opportunity to meet with the board,
to meet with the minister, to meet with staff to do the lobbying for the various
interests that they have. I think it
would be very difficult to run a crop insurance program if the various
individuals were appointed by the farmers and came there feeling they were to
lobby the management and the executive for certain changes. It would put the whole ability to financially
manage that corporation into some degree of difficulty.
The member says that she thinks the people
should be appointed by farmers. Well, if
anybody thinks that I appointed them, then they are obviously appointed by a
farmer in consultation with a lot of other people who are farmers, too.
The representation we have, I think,
broadly covers the
The member will say, well, there is nobody
from the northwest. Well, the act only
allows five and we cannot cover everything all the time.
We also have people that are in the
special crops, people that are in forage, people that are in cereal grains,
people that are in livestock, so we have I think a pretty broad cross section.
In terms of having more farmers, I do not
know how you could do it, when four out of five really are actively
farming. The fifth person, as I say,
represents the insurance industry. I
think it is important to have somebody there with that sort of understanding.
In terms of annual meetings, I think it is
a good idea. I think the board also
believes it is a good idea to meet on a more formal basis with people that are
interested. I will also have to tell the
member that the chairman particularly has gone out to a large number of farm
meetings over the course of the last couple of winters. Different board members have met at different
locations around the province with interested groups, and certainly the staff
are constantly available for any organization that wants to have a meeting on
any specific issue related to crop insurance.
I can assure the member that the idea of
keeping an open door and the constant consultation with the producers will be
an ongoing process. It is the way it has
been evolving over the last couple of years.
Certainly right at this point in time there is significant consultation
going on with the corn growers as individual coverage is evolved. So it is not a closed‑door relationship
between the board and the farmers or between the staff and the farmers.
Ms. Wowchuk: I do recognize that the Minister of
Agriculture is a farmer, but his appointments are being done as the Minister of
Agriculture, not as a farmer, and I do not think that covers up what the Crop
Insurance Review Committee was suggesting.
I would hope that the minister would give‑‑the crop
insurance people, the people who did this review took a lot of time to do
it. They consulted with a lot of people,
and I think that they listened to what the producers were wanting.
I would hope that the minister would take
this seriously and look at how possibly he could give some consideration to
this. As I say, when there are other boards there is room for people who are in
the industry, employees to put their representative onto those boards. In that way the producers have some input. If
there was some way that perhaps the producers could have their representative
on the board, that might be something that the minister would consider.
I would hope also that the annual meetings
would be taken on. I wanted to ask the
minister if that is a possibility that we will see those meetings out in the
various regions carried out before the next crop year.
Mr. Findlay: The corporation is planning on having some
annual meetings before the next crop year.
How many and what locations are still to be determined, but I think it
is fair to say that there will definitely be more than one. They will be held in a way to try to cover
the majority of rural
Since I have been minister, we have
basically revolved everybody on the boards.
One of the main prerequisites was to get a very good, broad cross
section of representation in terms of areas and in terms of production types
around the table.
Ms. Wowchuk: We look forward to hearing about that
schedule of that meeting later on in the year.
As I said, we hope we will see meetings carried out through a broad area
of the province, and that all people have an input.
* (1440)
Basically, the goal of this is for people
to have the ability to raise concerns with the way crop insurance operates and
their coverage policies. By having input
we can only make the corporation more user‑friendly and offer the best
service possible to the producers who use the program.
Moving on, under the Crop Insurance
Review, I want to ask about the coverage that is in place on wildlife damage
and on waterfowl damage, whether any of the recommendations have been taken
into consideration, and whether we are going to see any changes in crop
insurance coverage in those areas, and whether or not that damage is going to
reflect on the coverage that an individual has.
The damage, particularly with wildlife and the game damage, is through
no fault of the producer.
I wonder what is happening with that. That was a concern last year by several
people in my area in particular along the
Mr. Findlay: Certainly waterfowl damage and wildlife
damage are serious problems in those particular areas of the province where it
turns out to be prevalent and particularly in a year like last year when there
was a fair bit of crop left out when migration of waterfowl was taking place.
If the member remembers, last year we made
a significant move to remove the impact of hail from a person's actual
coverage. In terms of getting the other
players to accept the same principle for wildlife and waterfowl, it is a
somewhat more difficult process. It is
fair to say we are still in dialogue with Ag
I am also of the opinion that wildlife‑type
government agencies and nongovernment agencies like Ducks Unlimited have a role
to play here too, because, you know, their interest is to promote particularly
waterfowl, and they are spending a lot of money to do it, and one of the side,
I guess, disadvantages of that is more wildlife or more waterfowl damage. So we are certainly asking and wanting them
to play a bigger role in terms of trying to, I guess, compensate farmers when
damage does occur. It is not always the
taxpayer that should do that. I think if
they are going to promote waterfowl, in particular, they should also play a
role in compensating where damage occurs.
I know that they will say, well, we are
putting in lure crops and various other things to try to minimize the
damage. That is all well and good, but
where that does not work and where there still is damage, we want to entertain
a discussion with them to see if they will take some responsibility. Currently, the coverage right now on
waterfowl is 80 percent and wildlife is 75 percent, which in neither case do I
believe, personally, is high enough.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to agree with the minister on the fact
that the coverage is not high enough in both of those cases, because it in
reality is no fault of the farmer that this damage is there.
I guess I have to agree that other
departments have to have a certain responsibility as well if we want to promote
wildlife, which we do, and we want to have those resources there, be it for
hunting or for the pleasure of other people.
The government does get revenue from the licensed hunting of those
various animals and birds. Then we have to
look at a way that farmers who are suffering the damage from it can be compensated. I see the recommendation here says 100
percent coverage. I would hope that we
could move towards that.
The question that I ask is, has a change
been made of coverage as far as GRIP goes?
If the farmer has his yield reduced because of wildlife damage or bird
damage, is that reflected in his GRIP payment?
If it is, is there any way that can be addressed?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, there are two different
ways I can answer the question. I was
not sure which way she was asking the question.
I will find out in a few minutes I guess.
For revenue insurance payments that occur
for‑‑let us take '92 as an example.
If the farmer had a Part 2 hail claim or a private hail claim, it does
not affect his revenue insurance payment.
If he had a wildlife claim, it does not affect the revenue insurance
payment. If the person had waterfowl
damage, it is in the federal‑provincial agreement that the amount of the
payment for the waterfowl damage is deducted from the gross payment under
revenue insurance. So if the person had
a $20,000 payment under revenue insurance and $1,000 was paid out as waterfowl
damage, the net result is that the revenue insurance payment would be $19,000.
The question I think goes further in
wanting to know the impact on the person's IPI.
In the future, any wildlife or waterfowl reduction in production for
last year will affect IPI in the future, but for hail, not.
I was saying to the member earlier, we
have the recognition that hail has to be removed from a person's experience but
have not succeeded for either waterfowl or wildlife at this point in time.
* (1450)
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, that is what I was getting
at was the individual IPI. So then the
minister is saying that it has been addressed as far as hail goes, but it has
not been addressed as far as waterfowl damage or big game damage. Then he may have said, but I did not hear,
what steps are being taken to correct that so that they will not be punished or
have their average lowered through no fault of their own because they really
have no control on the big game or the waterfowl damage?
It is not because they are not good
farmers that they have not done all the farming practices to raise up their
average, but there are other things that are affecting them. What steps are being taken to address that?
Mr. Findlay: I will tell the member for
Through the national GRIP signatories
committee we have been attempting to get that recognized, and so far there is
only casual interest on behalf of Alberta and nobody else is prepared to support
us in that direction including the feds.
So we are kind of the lone voice in the
wilderness and at the national GRIP signatories committee saying that this
should be done the same as hail, and so far there are about 10, 11 people
around the table and the only one that is really pushing the issue.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess I would encourage the minister to
keep on speaking, because sooner or later a lone voice gets heard and maybe we
will make progress. I hope he can make
progress on it quickly.
One other area that affects the individual
averages that was a factor in the last crop year was frost which occurred
through no fault of the producers. They
had no control on that, but in reality has lowered the production of many
producers in
Does the minister feel that when there is
frost damage it should be treated the same way as hail damage, because again it
is something that farmers have no control over?
Is there any way that this can be addressed so that farmers do not see a
loss in their averages because of the frost, as occurred last year or when it
may occur in the future?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, frost falls in the category
of a natural peril, and normally when it happens it hits a large area. So all your neighbours for many miles around
are generally hit, like last year. If
you are in an area, particularly
If you are in a soil zone that has been
hit by frost, you may well have a positive IPI, because the critical thing in
IPI is as long as you are above the average for the soil zone. So if your yield is half of what it was, but
if you are still above average, it will have a positive impact on your
IPI. So the critical thing is always to
follow the first line of defence‑‑the old saying, earliest crop and
manage it right‑‑to try to prevent the impact of natural perils
will keep you above the average and, therefore, you will not be negatively
impacted in terms of your IPI. So it is
a natural peril of which we pay both crop insurance and revenue insurance, so
the impact of that has to be entered into the long‑term average yield as
part of the rate‑setting mechanism.
I want to assure the member that as long
as you are above average, your IPI will not be negatively impacted. That is the critical thing. You can manage against the impact of frost if
you sow the right varieties and you sow early enough and all that sort of
thing. Those of us who live in that
region think of that often when we are sowing at this time of the year. Last year was one of those extremely unusual
and unfortunate events that, for many farmers in the area of impact, thank
goodness revenue insurance was in place, because crop insurance by itself would
not have given the kind of support that they needed to survive into '93 in as
good shape as they are in.
Ms. Wowchuk: There is another area that I want to move
into and that is dealing with the whole issue of computerizing the crop
insurance offices. I understand that
there are plans in place to get the whole system computerized and there should
have been computers bought. There are
supposed to be two computers bought for each of the offices and everything was
to be on‑line by May 1.
I want to ask the minister where we are
with this, whether all of these computers have been put into Crop Insurance
offices, whether they are up and running now and what the status of that is.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, over the course of the
last two or three years, there were three agency offices that had computers to determine
the feasibility and the loopholes of setting up the system. As of May 20, every agency office will have
at least one computer, and training is now going on with staff so that all the
agency offices will be fully computerized with one computer by the 20th of May.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, just to clarify further,
the plan was to put two computers into each office, but that has been cut back
to one, or was it the plan to put just one into each office?
Mr. Findlay: The plan right now is the one computer. Yes, we would all like more than one, but
there is a certain budget feasibility.
Whether it will be with buying other computers or using department
computers, over time we will try to expand the computer fleet. I think it is a major move to have one in
every office at this time.
* (1500)
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister tell us then whether those
computers were bought out of last year's budget, or will they be bought out of
this year's budget? Were they purchased
before the end of the last fiscal year?
Mr. Findlay: They were bought out of last year's budget.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): In regard to Administration, there was an
overall 10‑percent decrease in expenses.
In this one, Section 2 here, there is an increase. Is that due to the purchase of the
computers? Why the increase when you
have an overall decrease of 10 percent?
Mr. Findlay: I would ask the member for St. Boniface,
which figure are you looking at? [interjection] Which figure again?
Mr. Gaudry: Last year it was $4,398,100; this year it is
$4,497,500.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, to the member for St.
Boniface, we are looking at a difference here of $99,000. It is made up of increased expenditure on MDA
or Department of Agriculture secondments, clerical assistance, benefits and
pension payments, and a small part of it is to do with the computerization of
the agency offices and head office. So
it is scattered over a number of categories.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, Madam Chairperson, in regard to the
waterfowl and wildlife damage, have all the claims been settled for the ones
that were put in last fall?
Mr. Findlay: Within the next month, they expect to have
all the waterfowl and wildlife damages settled.
At this point in time, on the wildlife, about 75 percent of the claims have
been settled, and about 90 percent of the waterfowl claims have been settled at
this point. As I said, the remainder
will be done within the next month.
Mr. Gaudry: What is the average number of claims in
regard to wildlife and waterfowl yearly?
Mr. Findlay: I will give the member the wildlife summary
first, which goes back for about six years.
Go back to '87‑88, the number of claims, 132, total cost $223,000;
the next year, '88‑89, 130 for $163,000; '89‑90, 200 for $266,000;
'90‑91, 166 claims in wildlife for $192,000. So there were four years where it varied a
little bit but not dramatically. Then in
'90‑91, there were 294 claims for $356,000, and in '92‑93 a drastic
increase, over threefold increase over the average to 720 claims estimated for about
a million dollars. So a substantive
increase in the wildlife claims.
On waterfowl, I just have it for the last
three years: '90‑91, $126,000 paid out; '91‑92, $137,000; and last
year which we expect to be a bad year in waterfowl, about $570,000 spent to
date.
So in both wildlife and waterfowl, there
is a substantive increase last year, and it is primarily due to the fact that
the crop was late in maturing, late harvest and subject to all kinds of damage,
of course, in that process. So they were
both well above normal.
Ms. Wowchuk: In the Supplementary Estimates on page 32,
under Administration, I just want clarification. Are these the various people who have been
seconded from other departments to work under GRIP, the 1G, the 4G, 5F,
6F? Is that what that is, before I ask
my question?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, that is what that represents. You have the Estimate for last year,
$641,900, and this year, a little over a million, and that is recovered by the
department from the corporation for seconded staff. The member probably knows that the feds pay
half the administration, so we recover half the cost from the feds.
* (1510)
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification again, we are into the
program already, and the minister indicates they are moving toward computerization. You would think you would need less staff,
but when I look at these numbers it appears there are going to be more people
seconded to do the work of GRIP. Why at
this point would we need more people?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, what the member sees there
is '92‑93, $641,900. Staff are
just looking it up, but the actual expenditure was closer to what we are
projecting this year. It was over a
million. We will get the final figure,
but it actually ended up closer to what we are projecting for '93‑94.
That is one of the reasons why it is high, over a million. The other thing is, of course, the
computerization does not happen instantly.
There is training, and until staff get up to speed with using them,
additional secondments are expected to be needed at least for this fiscal
year. The figures from the actual last
year and what is projected this year are much closer than what appears in the
budget from last year and the budget for this year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I would want to ask the
minister, then, if they have done an analysis of what the impact has been of
seconding these people from various departments. I know that I have talked to people in
various regions who feel that some of the services in the regional offices
might not be as great as it was while people are busy working on GRIP, and, as
I look at it, on ag development and marketing policy. Has there been an impact on the work or the
level of activity that has been carried on in those departments? As a result of this, is the department still
able to provide those services that are needed adequately with this number of
people removed from their staff?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, this is one of those
situations where decisions have to be made and you are damned if you do and
damned if you do not. When GRIP came in,
it was definitely the highest priority for the department, and the farm
community desperately wanted to have the program delivered. We are obviously under financial strain as a
department and as a government trying to maximize what we can do with the
existing dollars.
I will give the positive side of the
secondment process before I talk about the other side, but certainly on the
positive was the fact that for the department's extension delivery, GRIP was
No. 1 priority in '91, '92 and '93. We
believe very strongly that every staff member that was seconded to do the job
got a better understanding what the program was about, and it was a complex
program that did go through a fair bit of evolution. Those seconded staff are
then in a much better position to actually answer questions of the farm
community when they were back on their regular job because they had actually
been there and saw how it was done. So
that was about the best training program they could have possibly had was an
actual secondment to work in the program for two‑week or four‑week
periods of time.
The other side of the coin, as the member
probably has to be aware, is that if the GRIP contract which is now five years
is not renewed in some fashion beyond '95, then GRIP is wound down as
Certainly in terms of delivery of other
programs, we would have to acknowledge that there would undoubtedly be some
impact, different times and locations. I
feel that the staff are very professional and did the very best job they could
to minimize that impact. Some programs
they might have been doing in farm management or grassland work might have been
delayed. I would not say anything was
postponed or terminated, but it might have been delayed.
I am sure that there would have been
occasions where there would have been bits of impact, but I think the positive
side far outweighs the negative in that other department staff had a better
understanding of revenue insurance. We
did a better job of increasing the number of contact points throughout rural
I think everybody has a better
understanding of the complexity of the program and can do a better job of
informing producers when they ask questions about the program.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to agree that the staff has handled
the situation well.
I think one of the frustrations that
producers felt and that staff had to deal with was the delay in getting information
out. In fact, this year there was still that delay. There are people who have raised that issue
that they are not getting information soon enough about the crop‑‑about
what their coverage is and various information like that. It is those people on the front line who have
to deal with that.
I want to ask the minister, was there any
specific reason that there was a delay with getting information out to farmers?
Can that be addressed in the upcoming year?
I look at a specific letter that I have here about people saying that
they have to have information prior to or much earlier than they had it this
year. Is there a way that can be
addressed so that producers can go ahead with their planning? They know what coverage is at, what crops
they should be seeding. Is that a
possibility that information can reach the farmers' hands sooner than it did
this year?
* (1520)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, there are quite a number
of factors at play here and the complexity‑‑I will try to give the
member for Swan River an understanding.
Farmers are asked to have their harvest
production reports in by the end of November, and I am sure the member would
realize, not a lot of people met that deadline.
So there are a number of factors that the farmer had to contend
with. One was late harvest and getting
ready for winter. In fact, some crops
were still in the field, so even 6 percent of the harvest production reports
were still outstanding at the end of January.
So on that side of the ledger the farmers did not meet their
deadline. That delays the corporation.
It is difficult to calculate a soil zone
average for each crop if you are missing a fair bit of data. Between the end of November and the end of
January more and more steadily came in so that the corporation in terms of
getting on with doing their business was delayed because of a lot of late
reports coming in. A lot of staff time is, at the agency level, spent chasing
those people to get their reports in so that the package can be complete so
that they can get on with calculating people's IPIs.
In terms of other delays, certainly
calculating out the impact of hail on IPI took about five weeks of time. The federal government was certainly not
early in getting their numbers to us in terms of market prices and
premiums. Farmers did receive their
premiums in about the middle of March, their premiums and the support prices
for '93 by middle of March. Middle of
April they received their IPIs and their coverages.
Although farmers like to have every bit of
information they can in front of them in their planning, and I appreciate that
and I am one of them, we also have to recognize that this is an insurance
program, not a farming guideline.
Farmers should be looking at the marketplace in terms of deciding what
crops to grow, because the majority if not all of the income the farmer is
going to get is going to be from the marketplace. Revenue insurance or crop insurance kicks in
only if there is some sort of negative impact, some natural peril or price
decline that is not predicted.
Farmers that have asked that question say,
I need all that information so I can make my decision. I say, that is not your most critical bit of
information. You have to know what you
are going to get from the marketplace, what you can market. There is no sense in growing a crop that you
cannot sell. Even if you do grow it and
there is a revenue insurance payment, if it is only 10 percent or 20 percent,
that is all you are going to get from the program. The other 80 percent still has to come from
the marketplace. You better be able to
market it and at least at the prairie average price and over the course of the
next few months from November through to March you are going to get your market
income. So I think it is false for farmers
to look at this program in making their cropping decisions. They should be looking at the marketplace.
As the member looks at the Stats Canada
seeding intentions, I am very pleased to see the farmers are shifting into
special crops. They are certainly going
to grow more barley and more canola, and it is really good that they are
growing more canola because of the present strong prices and the demand for
canola. They are going to grow more flaxseed.
They are going to grow less wheat.
So I think farmers are very clearly looking at the market signals and
the market opportunities and the marketability in making their seeding
decisions.
This is also a nice piece of information
to have to know what crops you have the highest level of support on so you can
determine if your production costs are in line with your IPI and coverage
levels. The corporation is doing the
best it can to get the information out as fast as possible. It did a better job for the '93 crop than it
did for '92, but the program has been put into gear on everybody running, and
it takes time to get all the information in stream fast enough to get the
information out earlier next year than it was this year.
But there are a lot of players in
this. The farmers have to get their
information, the feds have to get their information to the corporation before
they can finalize the figures that they are going to put out to the farmers.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I agree with the minister
that farmers should not be farming to farm the programs. That is not fair, but unfortunately with the
situation that many people are in, they are forced to do things like that.
I guess the recommendation I have in this
letter is that producers are saying they need the information before March 1,
and that seems like a reasonable time, not necessarily to decide whether you
are going to grow according to the program, but it is also an important part of
it. They have to know what their
insurance rates are; they have to make their plans. If there were a way to get this information
out to the producers by March 1, I believe that is a reasonable request from
the producers. I hope that the minister
would give consideration to that and try to have that information to the producers
by that date next spring.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, certainly the
corporation's desire is to get it out as early as possible, and March 1 would
be very nice. I would like to see it out
by March 1, but there are a number of factors that come into play. If we have an early harvest and farmers,
instead of waiting for the deadline, get their information in two weeks or
three weeks earlier, it gives the corporation a running start on meeting its
guidelines. There are always delays that
crop up along the way that are surprises. If we get an early spring, have an
early harvest and farmers get their information in ahead of time, the
corporation is in a very good place to get it out some time in March, if not by
March 1, for '94.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister mentioned the difficult harvest,
and it was a difficult year. In fact, in
our part of the province it is very frustrating right now because you can see
combines going; you can see people applying fertilizer; some people are seeding
and some farmers are under a tremendous amount of pressure just trying to get
all that work done so that they can get ready to put the crop in.
Just on that, is there much work going on
right now with farmers for those particular crops that are out in the field?
Some of them are damaged to the point where they virtually have no value. What is happening? Are exceptions being made? Are the agents working along with those? Are they inspecting those fields and making
decisions that the farmer does not have to go through the extra expense of
taking off that crop, if there is no value to it, and in that case allowing
them to burn it? Or are each of the
farmers being told that they have to go through that crop and take it off, even
if it is for a minimal amount?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, this past fall there were
1,665 claims for crop that was in an overwintering position. So there is quite a bit of crop out there.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
In terms of whether a farmer combines it
or destroys it in some fashion, the decision to do that is ultimately the
farmer's. The agent does an assessment
of what is out there in the field. If it
is three to four bushels, say in the case of wheat, the corporation will call
it zero. The farmer can harvest it for
that three or four bushels or destroy it.
* (1530)
If it is six or eight or nine bushels and
the agent says that is what is there, the corporation will write it off. I said if it was below four, so he will say
that there is really five or six bushels there that they have to say is the
production from that crop. The farmer
then decides whether he wants to go out and get that five or six bushels by
harvesting it or whether he wants to destroy it and effectively lose that
amount of his crop insurance‑‑[interjection] The difference, yes.
So the farmer ultimately decides whether
he is going to destroy it or whether he is going to harvest it. Before the claim can be settled, he has to do
one or the other, but the farmer decides.
Now he is obviously going to talk with the agent to see how much am I
going to lose if I destroy it, how much am I going to gain if I harvest
it. The ultimate decision is the
farmer's, but something must be done with the crop before the claim will be
settled.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am glad for that clarification, because my
understanding was that the farmer had to take the crop off. Sometimes when
there is one or two bushels there you have to look at the benefit of it. The cost of taking that crop off can end up
costing you more than‑‑you may as well destroy it for that. My
understanding was they had to remove the crop.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it is a popular
misconception that is out there that the farmer has to harvest their crop. As I said, the answer is he does not have
to. He decides.
Where the misconception probably comes
from is, say, they cannot settle on that crop until something is done. He does not have to harvest it. He can go out there and destroy it by burning
it. That is completely acceptable. All he has to do is arrive at what the amount
was that was in the field before he does that.
Once that is decided, the farmer then decides what to do. It is a common popular misconception.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to thank the minister for that
clarification.
The minister said that the farmer can go
out and burn it if he so chooses. That
leads me into my next question which is to deal with stubble burning. With the new stubble burning regulations that
have come into play this year, is there any implication on farmers
burning? My understanding is the
regulations apply in the fall, but in our area of the province when you want to
burn you have to go to Natural Resources to get a burning permit.
How do the regulations that are now in
place affect spring burning and what is the process for those people who are
outside the forestry area as far as applying to burn? Do they just go and burn now? Do they have to get an application? Are there any restrictions on spring burning
or do the regulations apply only to burning from August 15 to November?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member refers to
park regulations. Those park regulations
will stay in effect. They are not
affected at all by the new regulations that we are bringing in as the
Somebody wanted to point out to me, it is
not stubble we burn, although it is a popular terminology that is often used.
It is really crop residue we burn and when you stop and think about it, it is
really right.
The regulations we brought in, as the
member well knows, is the result of a committee that was set up with broad
representation. It was a situation they
were asked to come to a conclusion on an almost impossible task really where
you had on the one side people had said they did not want burning, and on the
other side the people were adamant that they had to have the right to
burn. The two positions were
diabolically opposed really in the public in some sense.
I would have to congratulate the members
of the committee who, over the course of several meetings, talked their way
into a consensus position. One of the
things they came to realize was that it is not the burning that is the problem. It is the smoke created that causes the
problem to people in the city or people with asthma.
In terms of the regulations that we have
in place, the first most important regulation is there is no burning at night
any time in the year‑‑no burning at night. In the spring, at this point in time,
somebody can burn anywhere in the daytime, but they also have to keep in mind
safety factors on highways and people, because if they do cause some trouble
somewhere, the minister has the ability to step in and institute regulations if
circumstances require.
The major regulation occurs in the
fall. I believe it is August 1 to
November 15. I think that is‑‑I
could be wrong in my dates there, but in that period of time, a farmer will be
allowed to burn on the basis of recommendations done daily, given atmospheric
information. Department officials and
Department of Environment officials will make a determination before eleven
o'clock of each morning as to what municipalities can burn and what hours in
which they can burn.
Now if climatic conditions are good, they
will be able to burn from eleven o'clock in the morning till two hours after
sunset. That is the maximum, but each
day they will make a call. Maybe all
fires should be out by five o'clock or maybe they should be out by three
o'clock if there is not sufficient air movement to clear smoke out of the air
before evening sets in and the smoke conversion situation certainly rises at
that time.
So it is in the fall where the primary
impact of the regulations will be enacted.
The desire of the regulations is to prevent accumulations of smoke that
negatively impact innocent people. That
is the intent. It will be done on a
daily basis.
The province is divided into four
areas. I would suspect that the call
will be in the three areas that do not include
If wind conditions allow, they will allow
burning on the west side of the city, or maybe the next day it will be on the
east side. It will be dependent on what
the expectation is for climatic conditions to cause smoke problems when fires
are burning. They may decide to let only
a few municipalities burn each day‑‑let us say 20 percent of the
municipalities‑‑just to keep the amount of potential smoke down on
any given day, spread it out.
That information will be made available,
we hope, by radio stations every day at 11 or before 11. Certainly, the information can be obtained
from Ag reps, and we would like the municipalities to also have that
information. We will send it to them,
and there will be a 1‑800 number that can be called by anybody who is
interested in knowing what the call is for that day. In sort of a nutshell, that is the process.
Ms. Wowchuk: I agree with the minister on most of what he
is saying, except he said that the majority of the problem is the smoke and
that is the visible problem, but in reality there is much more damage that is
done by burning. I really believe we
have to look at different agricultural practices, other things that we can do
to discourage the burning of crop residue, because there is a lot of
damage. There is a lot of fibre that
could be put back into the soil.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
I really think that is where we have to be
looking at, on how we can change those practices in that we do not have to burn
nearly as much. I realize that last year
was an exceptional year with the amount of straw there was and with the
difficult weather conditions we were facing, but in reality the smoke has been
a problem, particularly around the city of
These regulations are a good step. I am sure they will help to control the problem
that we saw last year, but I would like to see more initiatives taken to
discourage the practice of stubble burning, because I think the long‑term
damage of that is greater.
I guess I want to ask the minister just
with the new regulations whether there have been many calls at his office this
spring, whether people have been concerned with the burning that has gone on in
the spring. Has it caused much
concern? I do not know how much burning
there is around
* (1540)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, ever since I became
minister and now starting the sixth year as of two days ago, I guess, or as of
yesterday, maybe‑‑yes, as of yesterday‑‑we have been
attempting to educate farmers, particularly in the region around the city, on
the negatives on the soil if they do burn, trying to promote the positive
impact of incorporating straw for tilth and for nutrients and so on.
That educational approach will
continue. Certainly, there is research
going on, some research being funded to look at how we can maximize the amount
of short‑strawed varieties and what the impact of short‑strawed
varieties is in terms of reducing the amount of straw. One thinks about that. Shorter‑stemmed wheat does not
automatically mean less straw, because often those shorter varieties stool more
so you might have the same amount of bulk of straw.
Different varieties also have different
kind of fibre content, and some of it breaks down faster than others. I would say Glenlea wheat is one of the most
difficult to break down of the wheats, because it is a thick straw and it just
does not degrade as fast as Red Spring wheat, wheat straw. There is also some work going on with
flailers, things that chop up the sugar beet tops, to go along after the
combine has already chopped it and chop it up into almost like cut feed, little
short pieces and then try to incorporate it.
Farmers around
There are unusual circumstances, and I can
tell you personally we have had a battle the last week trying to get crop in
because of the straw that is there, trying to get it incorporated and trying to
get the crop in. It just is a problem, a
problem I have not seen for a long, long time.
When you have to harrow a field three times in order to break the straw
it gets expensive, so you get a little frustrated with it. I know farmers in
the
Lots of people do not want to burn, but I
am afraid that the experience they are having this spring is not very positive
for their attitude come the fall of '93.
If it is early enough and you get the crop off early and it is hot enough
and there is some moisture, degradation occurs real well after you have worked
the fields, particularly if you can get them worked in early September or even
late September. Last year was extremely
unusual, and I think the farmers that did not burn probably some of them are
regretting it now, although they did the right thing last fall. I mean there are lots of agronomic reasons
why they should not burn, but there are also some very compelling agronomic
reasons why it is the best process if you are going to have a good crop in the
succeeding year.
Every farmer has to take all that into
balance. It varies by wheat
variety. I mean, you will have an
academic saying you just have to work it in and it will all degrade. It is not true with every variety. Canola is always quite easy. Your Red Spring wheat varieties are not too
bad, but you get into your high‑yielding barleys, your durums and your
Glenleas, you better think twice that when you are harvesting relative to what
is going to happen before next spring to make your decision.
I am not a proponent of the burning, but I
have always argued it is a management practice farmers should have, because if
they do not have it, it is very expensive to try to get rid of that straw and
get the land ready for next year's crop.
We all know farmers are going to keep their expenses down, so you are in
the horns of a dilemma as to what you should be doing.
I have always advocated we should not be
forcing farmers into a situation where they cannot burn, and that is why we put
the committee into place to try to find a solution that would minimize, if not
completely eliminate, the impact of smoke, but at the same time give the farmer
some opportunity to use that management practice where and when he believes
that he has to do it based on the kind of equipment he has, the kind of crop he
has, what crop he is going to grow next year on that land. I hope the member will support me in that
process.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just wanted to add my comments to that
because I do not agree with the practice, but I think the farmers have to have
the flexibility to use it when necessary.
In our farming operation we have not used the practice probably in the
last 10 or 15 years, but last year we had to.
We had no choice. I think that we
have to leave that management practice there.
It has to be discouraged to as great a degree as possible, but in
particular situations, it is just impossible.
You cannot, if you are going to put a crop in the following year, then
you have to have that ability to make that decision, but I guess we, as
farmers, should make that decision very consciously and give consideration to
the other people who are affected by our decision. We have to respect those people and we have
to respect the soil, but I agree with the minister that farmers have to have.
I would not like to see regulations that
would say, ban the burning of straw completely.
There has to be regulations to control it, but if we start to ban it, we
may see that there is a dramatic decrease in some people's revenue because they
just cannot deal with that.
It is just as with any other
situation. Sometimes we have to leave
the flexibility for those people who are making a living to make some of the
decisions on their own because they best know how to operate. So I am pleased to see that the regulations
do not completely ban burning, but that we also respect the other people who
are affected by our practices.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I am actually really
pleased with the response of the farm community after the recommendations were
published from the advisory committee.
Most farmers love to have uncontrolled opportunity to do their burning,
but I think the vast majority realized that the conditions that happened last
fall, on October 7 and 8, just cannot be allowed to happen again. It was totally intolerable and they
themselves lost the opportunity for complete freedom in how to do it.
I think a lot of them realized they better
be very accountable this fall and the following fall so that they do not
violate the guidelines because if they do, they run the risk of somebody else
coming along and saying you are totally banned in the future. I think the response has been very positive
in the farming community in the broad sense.
I would say there are 10 to 20 percent who
just do not think they should have to abide by any regulations, but I think
even those people realize that common sense has to prevail. I think the recommendations from the advisory
committee are exceedingly common sense.
Even the people, the Lung Association,
people with asthmatic children also, were very responsible in how they said, we
do not want the impact, but we also realize that farmers sometimes have to use
this practice. All we want them to do is
to do it in a fashion that minimizes the impact, preferably keeps it at a very
small level.
It is going to be critical this fall that
farmers do not burn at night because what happened last fall could happen again
so quickly, if a few people violate the no night‑burning situation.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess from that we know there are some
farmers who never want to change, and there will always be those.
I want to just move on a little bit and I
want to talk about GRIP and abuse of the program. Earlier in the year, at the beginning of the
year, there was quite a bit of discussion on abuse of the program, and in fact
there was one newspaper article about a very large abuse case that we never
heard the results of.
I want to ask the minister, to what degree
does he believe crop insurance and GRIP, particularly crop insurance, is being
abused, and what amount of time is being spent tracking these cases down?
I think when we see abuse, it is an
indication of the times. People are desperate and trying to raise their
income. Although I do not condone it, I
can understand where some people are trying to raise their income and out of
frustration have no other way to go, although I do not condone abuse of any
program. It is an indication that farmers
are very desperate and will do anything to increase their revenue, so I guess
the question is: To what degree is the program being abused? How much staff time is being spent to track
down and even further to that, how much has the corporation lost? Is there an analysis of what the abuse has
cost the corporation?
* (1550)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I can also understand what
the member is saying, that some people feel so desperate that this is their
last gasp at trying to survive, but when you break the law, you break the law. It is unfortunate. It is almost like robbing the grocery
store. There is no way you can condone
it. It is illegal.
Over the course of the last four or five
years, I have certainly heard a lot from farmers about crop insurance. Two issues were constantly raised. One was, coverage levels are not high enough‑‑I
do not have enough individuality for me, so we have IPI to take care of
that. The other issue is, the abuse has
to be stopped, the abuse is far too rampant, there are too many people getting
away with it, there are people boasting about getting away with it. I will not be part of a program where abusers
are not being brought to task.
The corporation has been actively
attempting to get a handle on the amount of abuse and to give a clear signal
that it will not be tolerated.
Certainly, cases are turned into the offices out there. They are turned in to my office. People say, check this, check that.
Over the last four months, the number of
compliance officers has been increased from two to four. There are 64 contract‑holder files that
have been referred for final audit, intensive field investigations. Ten of those files are still under active
investigation. Six contract‑holder
files have been referred to the RCMP, and three contract holders have been
charged in criminal court with fraud. So
that is the process. You see that the numbers, you work your way down from 64
investigated, 10 under investigation, six referred to the RCMP, and three have
been charged, obviously, I would assume, with fraud.
It is unfortunate. The corporation does the work on the file and
then turns it over to the appropriate law officials for action. Fraud is fraud. There is just no other way around it. It is
illegal, and it is important to long‑standing crop insurance contract
holders that the most flagrant abuse be acted upon.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess it is no different
than house insurance or anything else.
It has to be addressed because I guess it has been a complaint in many
areas that there are those people who collect, and then it ends up raising
premiums for everybody. It should not
be.
When I was referring to the desperate
situation of farmers, although I do not condone what is happening, I guess what
we have to look at is how can we address the needs of farmers that they do not
resort to something like this. I know
that there are those people who will try to abuse any system, but that is not
what I am talking about.
I am talking about the desperate situation
some farmers are in, and the fact that it appears that GRIP is not meeting the
needs of farmers. There is not enough
revenue coming to farmers, and that is part of the problem. It is the whole return from the cereal crop
section that is a problem.
I do agree that these have to be looked
into, the ones who are abusing it, because it is not improving the value of the
corporation. But I would hope that the
government department is not spending so much time on tracking down the abusers
that they are not spending the time on improving services to farmers. The real area that has to be addressed is how
we can improve the level of supports for farmers, offer services that are
required to help them make a living.
On these people who are being charged,
will this money be recovered? Will these
people be expected to pay back the money to the corporation, or is it out of
the department's hands? What is the
point of tracking people down if it is not going to be recovered? You said there were three that were
charged. It is the process from being
charged. What happens then?
Mr. Findlay: It is difficult to give the member a
definitive answer because the legal system and the courts ultimately decide the
final disposition of a particular case, but the corporation believes that it
has saved, through the audit process, over half a million dollars. A lot of that would be payments that were not
made, because the fraud was caught before payments had actually occurred. Some of it is people paying back. It is a significant amount of money that
could have gone out fraudulently had the compliance activities not been taking
place. So it is significant, around half
a million dollars.
Ms. Wowchuk: Further on audits and follow‑ups that
are being done, is there a system on targeting particular people? The reason I ask the question is that in our
area there were a couple of people that called and said that they had been
audited two and three times. There was
no particular reason for them to be audited.
When they called in to the crop insurance office to find out what was
happening, they said, oh, well, your name just keeps getting kicked out of the
system.
I wonder what is the system that detects
these? Is it just through the computer,
or is there a manual way of going through to find who is being audited, or what
is the process that is followed?
Mr. Findlay: In 1991, the corporation did 2,000 audits; in
1992, it did 1,364 audits. In 1992, some
people were re‑audited if there was a high variance in the '91 figures
between what they sent in and what was found on the audit.
* (1600)
Also, agents have the right to inform head
office if there are particular individuals they feel would be appropriate to
audit. But the majority of the audits
are done at random. But if there are
discrepancies or variances found, re‑audits will be done. I am not saying there is anything
particularly wrong, but there is an open question as to why the variance
occurred the previous time.
If somebody is making honest mistakes, it
will get sorted out through the audit process.
But, yes, some people can be picked up more than once, and it is
primarily because of a variance the time before. I am not saying anything was wrong, just
really going back, rechecking with the individual, and the process will be
ongoing.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to move to the Livestock Feed Security
Program. I just want to ask whether any
changes have been made to that program.
I recall seeing an Order‑in‑Council with some change in some
regulations; unfortunately, I do not have those with me right now.
But I wonder if the minister could go
through and explain any changes that have been made to the Livestock Feed
Security Program, and why these‑‑[interjection] Yes, in fact, I
just sent them. There were some Orders‑in‑Council
changing some of the regulations on the forage program. So what has happened with that?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, what the member is
referring to is done annually. It is
updating the regulation. There were a
number of changes but all relatively minor and small. The deadline for entering or exiting from the
Livestock Feed Security Program used to be March 31. Over the last couple of years, we have moved
it ahead to January 31.
The coverage levels available for horses
or for ewes or for cows, they moved a little bit. I cannot remember which way, whether it was
up or down by $10 or $20 per animal, like from $200 to $220 or $220 to $200,
something of that order. The small
changes in the premium calculation process‑‑because the corporation
and all its various programs went through actuarial certification in this past
year, and in order to have all the programs actuarially certified there were
some small premium changes‑‑relatively all minor, nothing major in
terms of the way the program is operated for 1993.
I would just like to make the member aware
of the number of contracts in Livestock Feed Security. In 1989, there were 6,600 contracts; 1990,
5,100 contracts; 1991, 3,660 contracts; 1992, 1,700 contracts; and this year
about 1,100 contracts. So you see the
tremendous drop off in people who are holding Livestock Feed Security
contracts. A couple of reasons are
obvious; one is there is lots of feed available. There has been the last two or three years,
lots of feed. A lot of farmers look at,
well, rather than pay a premium on a program, I may as well just spend that
money to buy feed, be my own insurer, so to speak. The price of feed has been quite low because
of the large supply across
So that is why a lot of people are opting
out, and it is a serious issue. What do
we do beyond here? When you get down to
only 1,100 contracts with a high administrative cost of operating it, there are
some open questions. Farmers, obviously,
see less and less need for it. You go
from 6,600 contracts down to 1,100, basically the 20 percent over the course of
four years, that is quite a significant drop off. So what do you do from here on? If it goes
down to 500 or 600 next year, one would have to question whether there is a
need for the program, I guess, in the present form it is in. There are a number of other 4‑H type
programs available in addition to Livestock Feed Security.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister partly answered my next
question. I was going to ask him what
the costs of this program were and whether there is any analysis being done on
it, whether it is worthwhile keeping or does it mean that this program is not
meeting the needs of the farmers and we have to look at designing another
program? Is any of that work being done
right now?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, there are two other
programs that farmers can partake in.
One is cultivated forage program, where they can have individual
coverage for alfalfa varieties or for alfalfa grass varieties for a period of
time after establishment. The second one
is the alfalfa hay test program, which has been in for the last two or three
years. It is available in selected
areas. It is more or less on a pilot
stage at this stage in time.
The member mentioned, well, we should have
another program. What we are running here is not government programs but
insurance policies for clients if and when they need them. The Livestock Feed Security came in from a
few years back when there were problems with available forage, there were
reasons why crops were lost and farmers wanted an insurance program. They did enroll in large numbers and then as
conditions got better from their point of view saw less and less need for
insurance. Even the numbers in
cultivated forage programs, there are only 200 to 300 producers, so it is not
very many. The alfalfa hay test program,
there are still less than 10 producers involved in that program. In my mind it
is an open question as to whether Livestock Feed Security in its present form
is serving the need or not.
I guess we will look for input from
producers and certainly the board and the corporation will be looking for input
to determine if the program is needed.
If clients are not going to enroll, obviously they are giving a
signal. They do not see that it serves
their need at this point in time. I said
earlier, the reasons are, basically, hay is cheap and there is lots of it
available. That might change real
quickly. We have had three or four
pretty good forage production years and more and more acres are going into
forage for a variety of reasons.
* (1610)
There are better and better forage
varieties available and farmers are now starting to see that they can make
money on growing forage for their own cattle on Class 2 land that 10 years ago
you would not even think of growing forage, you would try to find your cattle
feed elsewhere or you had to grow wheat on that land. Now you see you can actually make better
money by growing forage. Good varieties
of forage properly managed on that land, you can make as much or more money as
you can growing wheat or barley.
Farmers are looking at the alternatives,
and I say there are more and more acres going into cultivated forage and the
forages are being managed much better.
Say 10 or 20 years ago, farmers just went out to cut it. They did not make much effort to be sure they
managed the crop particularly in terms of fertilization or weed control, but
now farmers put a lot more effort into particularly fertilization and they find
they get substantively increased yields.
They turn the stand over every few years rather than leave it in forage
for 20 years. So the management side,
the availability and the price are all the reasons why the farmer is becoming
more and more independent and seeing less need for the insurance.
We will work with the farmers and their
various farm organizations as we determine what is going to be needed in the
future, but from the Crop Insurance Corporation's side, we have to be cognizant
of the administration costs and whether there are enough clients out there to
warrant all these programs in their present forms.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess that would be one
of the values of holding public meetings that has been one of the
recommendations of the corporation. If
you go out and the board meets with the farmers, we might get a better
understanding of why they are not using the program and what the farmers' needs
are.
There has to be a particular reason. As the minister said, it could be that it is
a better crop out there now, more hay available, but maybe there is another
reason why people have chosen not to use this insurance right now. I think we might learn more about that if the
corporation decides to proceed with the public meetings, and that is why it is
so important that we go ahead with that this fall.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I would not, for a moment,
want the member to have the impression that the corporation, the board and the
minister are not constantly meeting with groups. In meetings that may not be set up
specifically to talk about crop insurance, the issue comes up and we talk about
elements of it with the various farm organizations.
All farm organizations and individuals
have an opportunity to access agents or the corporation directly as individuals
or as groups, and that has always been going on. I think it has been speeded up in the last
couple of years, but it has always been going on. So do not ever think that anybody is in
isolation from what farmers think, either individually or through their various
farm organizations. That is an ongoing
process and lots of information flows back and forth, not just from general
farm organizations but from specific commodity groups also.
Public meetings would broaden that,
yes. It may increase the exposure 10 or
20 percent from what it is now. Right
now the exposure is very good in the interface between farmers, the corporation
staff, the board and the minister's office.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I do not doubt that there
is communication, but if we can increase it and open more doors then so much
the better.
Just moving on to soil testing and soil
zones, one of the concerns that is raised quite often is that farmers are not
happy with their soil classification, with the coverage that they get in their
particular soil zone.
I wonder whether there are any plans
within the corporation to deal with that issue, whether you are going to be
addressing the whole issue of the classifications of land and different soil
zones and coverages in those areas. As
has been raised by some people, there is just a whole need to review the soil
classifications.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the issue of soil zones and
coverages on soil zones certainly has been an issue in the past, and producers
who want to have their soils investigated to see if they should be upgraded can
request a reclassification. Basically the cost is $100 a quarter.
With the introduction of Individual
Productivity Indexing, a lot of the discrepancies or variances or
dissatisfactions because of being classed as too high or too low, or your yield
is too high or too low on a particular soil zone, has been taken care of. If you are in a soil zone where the average
is low, you think it is too low, you can raise your coverage on that soil zone
through Individual Productivity Indexing because if you are better than the
average, you are obviously going to do better than the soil zone average and
move yourself up.
Your coverage in '93 is based 75 percent
on the yields that you got on that soil zone the last three years, '90, '91 and
'92. So Individual Productivity Indexes
takes care of the variances, discrepancies, inadequate coverages that may have
existed in the past, to a large extent takes care of it, and that farmer is in
control of his own destiny in that process.
Though you can have reclassification done,
that is not the critical element in terms of your future coverages. The critical element, each crop you produce
as a farmer on each soil zone that you have in your farm will be determined by
your production in comparison with the soil zone average. As long as you are above you keep moving your
IPI up; if you are below the average it will go down. So the coverage will be sorted out on the
basis of each individual's ability over time.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification, has not that been
limited with the removal of superior management? Does that not affect the individual's ability
to raise their individual average?
Mr. Findlay: On the year in question, like for '93, your
IPI is 75 percent on the basis of 25 percent from '90, 25 percent from '91 and
25 percent from '93. So your IPI is not
affected by SMA. If SMA was in place
this year, retroactively you could have higher coverage if you did better than
5 percent higher than the soil zone average.
But SMA, for the year in question, it raised you above. The only thing that affected your IPI was the
number, the actual production you had that goes into your production experience
for the next year. Follow me? Starting in '94, your coverage is 100 percent
on your own production for the previous four years.
* (1620)
At SMA, if you were a superior manager and
if you were 20 percent above the average, in that given year you got 15 percent
through SMA. But if you have been doing
good, the better farmers have already moved their coverages up through IPI, and
the ability to source extra support or program support through SMA is it was
getting fairly limited after two years of SMA because the IPI was moving them
up. If you had a good yield that goes
into your production record, it affects your IPI. SMA was an annual bonus that you got because
you did better and you actually paid a premium to get that bonus.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess the concern was by those farmers who
were not in crop insurance. They felt
that they were at a lower level. Those
that were in crop insurance had a higher level of coverage. They felt that they could not catch up. When I talk to those people, there is an
indication that even now that Superior Management is gone, they will not have
that ability to catch up now. That could
be wrong. That is what I am asking the
minister. Are those people who were not
in crop insurance and still are not in crop insurance, who did not have their
records prior to GRIP, were at a different level of coverage, are they now able
to catch up, or have they caught up, or are they still being punished for not
having been in crop insurance prior to GRIP?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, for individuals who have
been in crop insurance for 10 or 20 years, they have been paying premiums. A lot of people have built up surpluses in
their account. They have actually paid
more in than they have taken out. For
that they cannot be discredited. They
have to have a credit for that.
Somebody who has not been in crop
insurance has paid no indemnities, has done nothing to keep a crop insurance
program in place. When they come in‑‑if
somebody came in new in '92 and said, well, the soil zone average does not
reflect me, they were given the opportunity to have their IPI calculated using
'90‑91 data. For '93 they have '90‑91‑92
data. So three‑quarters of their
IPI is determined by their own yields, '90‑91‑92.
They can very quickly catch up to where
they should be or where they would have been had they always been in crop
insurance, very quickly. Yet they did
not build up any positive surpluses in their accounts where many people did and
kept the corporation solvent through many, many years.
You have to consider the people who have
been in there, who paid the toll, who have been part of the program. The new ones coming in cannot instantly have
everything that the guy who has been there all of the time achieved. Through IPI they very quickly are able to
establish their level of coverage by their own production practices‑‑very
quickly.
I think for '93, anybody who came in in
'91 or '92 for the first time is very, very close to where they would have been
if he had been in crop insurance for the last 10 or 20 years.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess going back to a comment that the
minister made, he said that those people who were not in crop insurance did not
support the corporation but, in fact, they were probably paying for their own
insurance and did not cost the corporation any money either. I disagree that they should be having to pick
up the costs‑‑not pick up costs, but be punished because they were
not in insurance.
I just want to go back then because I did
not hear the minister's answer. Have
these people then caught up to those who were not in crop insurance on their
coverage or will they always be a little bit behind?
Mr. Findlay: What I said before was that those that have
not been in crop insurance and enrolled in the last year or two this year have
their coverage determined 75 percent on the basis of the production that they
did in '90, '91, '92.
Next year, everybody is 100 percent of
what they did over the last four years.
So for next year, whether you are in crop insurance or not, prior to
1990 will have no impact on your coverage.
Your coverage for '94 will be 100 percent of what you did in '90, '91,
'92, '93. So there will be no discrimination
or whatever you want to call it. For '93
it is basically all removed anyway through IPI, a program we brought in for
'91.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, when we look at the whole
GRIP, we have said continually that‑‑I remember when the program
was being implemented, we said that there were lots of flaws in the program and
that it should not be rushed in and perhaps the minister and the government
should have taken the time to work out more detail on it.
There were concerns on some of the things
that it was based on, that it was not based on the costs of production, it was
in some cases not affordable for some people.
There are many concerns with the program.
The minister has indicated the program
ends in 1995 and he has to decide whether it is a program that this government
is going to participate in further or whether there is going to be a new
program. I am sure that there will;
something is going to have to be put in place.
What I want to ask the minister is: Who is analyzing the program? When you look at whether it is the kind of
program that we need, who is looking at what the program should be after
1995? We have two years to do the
planning and I would hope that when a new program, whatever it is, comes into
place that a lot of thought goes into it, that we do consider that it is
affordable and that there is only so much money that is available. I agree with the minister.
How do we use that money to best address
the needs of the farming community? I
guess that is where I would like to start. Is the program being analyzed, and
who is doing the work on the next step, so to speak, on designing whatever it
is that will replace GRIP?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member refers to the
program being rushed in. It was not
governments that rushed it in, it was farmers who wanted it desperately for the
'91 crop. It had gone through ad hoc
programs in '86 and '87, special grains programs, because of low prices,
basically about a billion dollars across western
It was payments in response to public pressure,
political pressure created not because of low prices of '86 and '87, because of
drought in '88 and '89. In 1990 there
really were no payments, and the farm community saw that there was, you know,
great trouble on the horizon because grain prices were not looking good and
they had already had two short crops, and your gross income determined yield
times price. If you do not have yield
and you have a poor price you are in pretty bad shape.
A task force was set up, 33 people, 19 of
whom are farmers. They went through a lot of analysis, representatives from
across the country, and they came up with a basic design of principles of the
revenue insurance program to be built on top of crop insurance. That was their basic recommendation, and they
were adamant this has to be in place for '91.
It was not an easy process to get it up and running. I mean, everybody worked extra hard‑‑and
the complexity, yes, it was complex.
Yes, there were glitches, but they have basically been worked out.
* (1630)
I ask you where the farm community of
Farmers wanted a program in
As I said earlier to the member, we have
done some case studies of four different types of farms and showed that very
clearly the program worked, and it did target.
The more the hurt, the more the loss of crop, or the more the crop laid
out in over‑winter condition, the greater the payment‑‑exactly
the way it was designed and set up. But
it does not fill 100 percent of the void.
There just are not enough public dollars to offset all the impacts of
all the natural perils and grain price wars and this sort of thing.
So I think the program has worked very
well. I think if you ask any farmer in
What GRIP is broken down to is each
province has so many different wrinkles, there is no commonality. Really, the safety net the task force wanted,
a level playing field in all of
What process is in place? I have tried to make people clearly aware
that it is a five‑year contract.
Some decisions lie ahead for producers, for governments. What do we want? What will serve the need? What is going to happen in GATT? We do not know the answer to that. What is going to happen to world grain
prices? We do not know the answer to
that. How satisfied are farmers with the
premiums they are paying for the coverage they are getting?
That process of analysis and discussion
will unfold over the next number of months.
I am sure it will be a major, major discussion item at the federal‑provincial
ministers' meeting at the beginning of July, where each province will be coming
in with sort of an idea of what they would like to proceed with. The feds are 50 percent partners, so out of
that I hope we come with a common approach as to how we will structure the
input and the discussion.
We really have two full years to work on
it.
I want to make producers clearly aware
that it is a five‑year contract.
What do we do beyond '95? What is
needed? Is whole farm NISA the
answer? I have always advocated a level
playing field in the country and whole farm stabilization, so it is not crop
specific or commodity specific so that you are distorting the market in any
fashion. No matter what you do, you
maximize the dollars you can net at the farm gate and make it stabilization on
that basis.
Maybe whole farm NISA is the way. That discussion is ongoing in various places
and levels. I am sure various farm
organizations will be making input as we move along. I am sure some more formal structured process
to solicit input and response to ideas and principles will unfold after our
federal‑provincial meeting.
I can assure the member that
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess I want to pick up
on a couple of points that the minister mentioned. One of them is a national program. In fact, that would be much better if we did
have a national program rather than different programs in each province. I think that is one of the weaknesses of the
program that we have now. I guess the
other problem is that the federal government has offloaded so much of its
responsibility onto the provinces, and that becomes difficult for provinces to
pick up that cost.
The minister referred to
The minister talked about GATT. We have been talking about GATT for a long
time. We do not seem to be getting
anywhere with it. I do not know where
that process is now. I do not know
whether anything is happening. I do not
know how long we can continue to do that, whether there is any answer, whether
GATT is the answer or whether there is another way to deal with the world
prices.
Yes, we, as a province and as a country
have to decide whether or not it is the grain industry, whether the farming
industry, not only grain, but the farming industry that we really want to
support. It is the cereal producers that
this addresses.
The minister said that we cannot go on
cost of production because we just cannot afford it.
I want to ask the minister, in his
analysis of the program, with limited dollars that we have, whether he has ever
given consideration to capping the amount that will be paid to each producer
and in that way targeting the family farm and ensuring that we do keep a base
income for the farmers and that would then limit the amount of money that would
have to be spent.
Has any consideration been given to that
along the way as the first program was being designed and as we look into the
future? Is this something that he would consider?
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
* * *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam
Chairperson, a motion was moved in the section of Committee of Supply meeting
in Room 255 by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). The motion reads:
I move that line 1.(a) Minister's Salary
be reduced to $1.
A formal vote has been requested.
* (1640)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. A formal vote has been requested. Call in the members.
* * *
(Concurrent sections in Chamber for
formal vote)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The question before the committee is that
line 1.(a) Minister's Salary in the Estimates of the Department of Family
Services be reduced to $1. All those in favour
of the motion, please rise.
A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:Yeas 21, Nays 26.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
The hour being 5 p.m., and time for
private members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being after 5 p.m., it is time for
Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 20‑Seasonal
Job Strategy for Post‑Secondary Students
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I am glad to have the opportunity to rise and
speak to this today. It seems to me that‑‑[interjection]
Sorry.
I move, seconded by the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that
WHEREAS the cost of post‑secondary
education is currently prohibiting many Manitobans from receiving the education
they need; and
WHEREAS students need consistent, useful
employment during the summer to help pay for the mounting costs associated with
a post‑secondary education while they gain valuable work experience; and
WHEREAS average youth unemployment rates
are significantly higher than the general population; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has made
substantial cuts to programs like STEP and CareerStart, which offered seasonal
employment to students and provided employers with educated staff; and
WHEREAS financial assistance programs are
not keeping pace with the escalating costs that students are forced to bear;
and
WHEREAS education is a key factor in the
revitalization of our economy.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider an expanded
seasonal jobs strategy to place post‑secondary students in meaningful
employment to enable them to meet the increasing costs of education and to gain
practical skills to assist them in finding work after their schooling is
completed.
Motion presented.
* (1730)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the
opportunity to speak to this today.
I think we are all aware that students are
at the moment lining up at job centres around the province and at the few
federal job centres which are left in an attempt to find some work, any work in
most cases, that will help pay for the increasing costs of their education.
It is a difficult time for students. I think every member in this House will know
that. They will have had calls from
people in their ridings. They will have
spoken to people on the doorsteps who know how increasingly difficult it is to
find any kind of job in this economy and particularly difficult for those
people who are only available at certain times of the year and who so clearly
need the money to pay for their next year of education.
I do not think I have to emphasize to any
member of this House, either, the importance of post‑secondary education
in this economy. It is an obvious part,
a significant part of any economic strategy of any government in this part of
the 20th Century.
Every economy, particularly in
I do not subscribe to the argument that
post‑secondary education is for a narrow training in a particular skill
or a particular profession or a particular technology and, certainly, I know
that the idea of a well‑educated citizenry is one that is certainly
shared by most community leaders, including business leaders, in the present‑day
I wish that we could see a clear strategy
from this government of their valuing of post‑secondary education. It is unfortunately very difficult to see
their plan for post‑secondary education.
They do have a University Review, which was scheduled at first, I
believe, to report in March; now I hear it is going to be June. In the meantime, we see a minister who is
making ad hoc decisions and particularly ad hoc cuts to a whole series of
matters which affect post‑secondary education. So in that context, it is very difficult to
see what kind of place this government sees for post‑secondary education
in the
This is a government which has been in
place since 1988, which took until 1992 to decide that it needed a University
Review and which in the meantime had made a series of decisions about grants,
about funding for infrastructure, about funding for students, about the number
and size of a student body that there should be at each of the post‑secondary
institutions, which made these decisions, in effect, in the absence of any
overall policy.
It is, I think, in that sense, striking to
see a comparison with other jurisdictions where there have been some clear‑cut
policy decisions made about universities and colleges. I have commented before upon the kinds of
decisions which New Brunswick has made about its post‑secondary
institutions, the way in which it has related its research institutions to its
economic strategy and the way in which it ties those very clearly together in
the minds of its own people as well as in the people whom it wishes to attract
to New Brunswick.
The value of an educated and bilingual
workforce is one that they stress very clearly, and I think it gives a sense of
focus and a sense of purpose for students who are in school now as well as for
the kind of external case that
Similarly, we could look at jurisdictions
like
That is a very dramatic change. It is a clear point of policy and one which
has given a great deal of hope to students, to young people and to families in
I wish that I could see some kind of
indication from this government that it had any policy on post‑secondary
education, and one that would give hope to people of this province.
My resolution relates particularly to
students, our concern for students.
Since this government took over in 1988, we have seen an escalation of
student fees. We have also seen an
escalation of the proportion of monies which are paid by students in university
expenditures. So simply by absence of
decision, absence of policy, the government has been making clearly policy,
continually the same policy year after year, and that is to transfer
increasingly the costs of post‑secondary education onto students and
their families. It is a consistent
pattern in policy.
It would be useful to find some indication
that the government acknowledges this as its policy, but I have really given up
expecting any kind of indications of those types of policies from this
government.
How do we pay for education in this
context? Well, I know some students, for
example, who graduated a couple of years ago and are now in the position, in a
very low paying job, where they are only able to pay the interest on their
loans. They are on a treadmill. These are people who spent the four to five
years in university, took the full amount of loan, because they came from families
who could not afford to do otherwise.
They now find themselves in the low paying jobs which are available to
them, with their Bachelors' degrees, that they can only afford to touch the
interest on their loans.
Or talk to students who, for example, took
loans of $17,000 to pay for anything up to a Master's degree. Those students now paying at 12 percent
interest at the time that that loan was negotiated, will in effect be paying
$37,000, a good portion of it to the banks, for the cost of their education.
So, Mr. Speaker, when we talk of student
loans, we have to talk not just of what is being loaned at the time, which is
essentially in the region of $3,000 to $6,000 per year‑‑this is not
a rich loan‑‑but we also have to look at the burden on students and
the amount of money which is then going directly into the banks afterwards.
Most students do not want loans. Students want jobs. They want to be able to pay up‑front
for their education. They want to be
able to have the money to afford to live, even at the limited levels which the
student loan program enables them to.
* (1740)
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, a government
which had a policy, which had a plan for students, which had a sense of who
should be going to the universities and colleges, the number of our young
people who should be going to those universities and colleges, the regions that
they should be coming from in the province, the representativeness of that
student body, would also have some indication of where the jobs could be
created by government or to be created by the universities or the colleges
themselves to enable students to work, to do the work that they want to do, so
that they can avoid the dreadful burden and treadmill, in some cases, that many
of them are finding themselves on after graduation.
Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to
mention the difficulties that rural students face in this situation. Again, I cannot believe that there is a
member in this House who does not understand that a rural student or a northern
student has to pay almost two to three times as much to attend university as
anyone coming from the city or from living in
They face the dislocation of leaving home,
but they also face the added problem of an $11,000 to $12,000 burden that is
being placed upon them every year that they are in university. Again, for them, although some jobs are
available in their home areas, increasingly, there are far more students than
there are jobs and people who are forced to take loans because there is no
work.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if you
look at other jurisdictions, again, if we look at
The University of Winnipeg, and I want to
commend them, in my constituency, has itself instituted a work‑study
program on a very, very limited basis, limited because of the inability of the
university itself to provide a large amount of funds for that. They have also,
I believe, developed a program which relates the availability of work to the
needs of the student. It is a
commendable program, and it is one, of course, that we find much more commonly
in universities in
There have been federal programs like
this. I think it was in the late '70s,
early '80s, that there was an extensive federal program of work‑study
institutions that could be run in part by the university, in part by the
government, and which were very flexible and very free and enormously
creative. That is the other side of this
program, Mr. Speaker, that I want to emphasize.
Yes, students need jobs. They need jobs in order to pay for their
education, in fact, even to get their first step on the ladder of post‑secondary
education that might later on enable them to be eligible for bursaries from the
universities or scholarships from elsewhere.
They need that first rung on the ladder, and they need work because of
that.
But also the kinds of programs which
universities in Ontario, for example, and on a small scale the University of
Winnipeg has run are programs which enable students to use their creativity and
their energy to devise their own programs, to find a teacher to link up with,
to find a research program, to create one, to develop a daycare centre, to
develop a variety of programs that they might do in community work, whether it
is in theatre, whether it is in film, or whether it is in more community‑based
research, for example, historical walking tours. All of these things, I know, were done in
universities when we had that particular federal program.
I emphasize that sense of energy and
creativity because that is what our students need. That is what they need to have, is the kind
of support of the government for those kinds of activities because what we are
losing in
If we look, for example, at a recent
report in the Free Press today, it reports on a situation which most of us know
is quite common in many of the large high schools, is that students are
essentially becoming part‑time students because they do not see the
future is there for them in post‑secondary education or in Manitoba.
That, I think, is a very dangerous sign,
and I want the government to take account of that. Students need to have the sense that they can
get to university, that they can get there with their own efforts, that they
can find work, and that they will have the opportunity to sustain themselves by
their own labour in education, because we are losing them. We are losing their dedication to education
and to learning at earlier and earlier ages.
That is what, I think, Mr. Speaker, makes me so very despondent, is the
loss of that sense of the future for
I hope that the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), who I assume is going to respond to this resolution, certainly takes
the resolution in the sense in which it is offered. It is the future of our families, the future
of our young people, who want to maintain themselves with their own labour and
to find a future for themselves in post‑secondary education.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): I am
pleased to have a few moments to speak on this resolution today.
I would like to begin by stressing how we
do view the importance of post‑secondary education on this side of the
House. We think it is so important, Mr.
Speaker, that we did commission last June the Roblin commission to look into
university education, and they had a very wide mandate.
They were to look into issues of
assessability. They were to look into
the issues of governance. They were to
look into issues of funding, and they were to look into the mission and the
mandate and the role of universities as we move into the year 2000. We believe that our universities are very
important to
We were concerned about the universities
themselves as a system. We were also
concerned about those people who would be students at the university because we
recognized that university students now are not only those sequential students
who move from high school into a university program, but they are also people
who are returning to university. They
are people of various ages, and I was one of those people who returned to
university myself. I returned at 38
years old, with three children, to study law, and I was not the only one in my
program. So we recognize the variety of
students who are studying.
As I have said to my honourable friend
before, post‑secondary education is university education, but it is also
education at our community colleges. Our
community colleges offer a type of post‑secondary education that is
extremely valuable in
When we look at a second issue of reform in
the post‑secondary area, our community colleges have just moved to
college governance. What that allows
them to do now is to operate with a board of governors. It allows them to seek and to work directly
with the federal government, to work directly with industries and business and
labour within the
We have tried to make our community
colleges much more responsive. That is a
real reform initiative, to make them more responsive to their geographic area
and to make them more responsive to the labour requirements in their areas, so
that when a business, industry or labour group within their community identifies
a type of training that is required, the colleges may respond to that request
in a much quicker way than they had been able to before.
Then I would also remind my honourable
friend that post‑secondary education also involves training. We have a great number of training programs
within the
I want to make it very clear that in the
post‑secondary side of education we are very interested in that whole
post‑secondary range of education.
We have taken a number of reforms and initiatives in each of those three
areas to make sure that it maintains its importance.
Student employment is also a very
important aspect, so students are able to take advantage of a post‑secondary
education, whichever their choice may be.
This government has taken some steps to assist those students. If we are talking about universities, I will
remind my honourable friend that we did direct the universities to cap tuition
fees at a 5 percent increase this year.
On behalf of students, we wanted to make sure that university education
continued to be as accessible as possible and that students were not the ones
who had to continually bear an increased tuition fee. We took that action on behalf of students and
because we value post‑secondary education.
We also recognize that the importance of a
well‑trained labour force is very important to
* (1750)
We would like to help students also match
their interest to future employment and to future prospects as well. Because of that and because we feel it is so
important, this government has initiated a number of programs of summer
employment for students in
I will just remind the members of the
House of the success of these programs.
I have the statistics from last year.
We have the program called CareerStart.
This is a partnership with business, industry and labour within
In 1992‑93, this particular
initiative of this government helped employ 3,550 young people. I think that was really a very good number of
young people who had the opportunity, and I say young people, because the
people who are eligible for that particular initiative must be between 16 and
24.
We also had another program which allowed
young people to work within government.
Working within government, they were able in some cases to also match a
future interest with a summer job opportunity and that program had 317
positions approved in '92‑93.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention our
Manitoba Youth Job Centre programs. We
have 44 centres located across
Last year there were 9,500 jobs attained
by Manitobans through these particular centres, so that is a very large
number. We have this year maintained
those programs. I will be pleased to
speak more about those when the member and I are able to look at that in my Estimates.
We also have the Partners with Youth
program. This was an initiative between
three departments. This year it will be
an initiative between Rural Development and Education. The importance of that is that Manitobans are
asking government to co‑operate among departments and to look at what the
needs are. That is one program in which Manitobans will be able to see us look
to create jobs for Manitobans and to assist them as they earn money for their
post‑secondary education.
Mr. Speaker, we are very encouraged by the
fact that within
With that statistic, I believe, it does
show that
Mr. Speaker, one last initiative which we
have to make sure to try and assist young people and Manitobans onward into
post‑secondary is co‑operative education. We have co‑operative education programs
at our community colleges. People who
take part in those study for a period of time and then are able to go out and
work in their area of study. These have
been very successful, and we encourage them.
We are looking to develop those further.
Because I also have such a strong belief
on behalf of our government that post‑secondary education is very
important, that we wish to do everything that we are able to assist Manitobans
to the accessibility and the affordability and to assist them in terms of their
job strategy, I would like to propose an amendment to the member's resolution.
I move, seconded by the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Resolution 20 be amended by deleting all
words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them with the following:
The government of
WHEREAS these training opportunities will
enable the students to gain practical skills in finding work after their
schooling is completed.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba commend the government of Manitoba for working with
educational institutions, business and industry to better enable Manitoba's
youth to engage in a competitive environment.
Mr. Speaker: There has been an amendment moved by the honourable
minister. I will take that matter under
advisement at this point in time.
Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the
Chair with the understanding that the House will reconvene at eight o'clock in
Committee of Supply.