LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
May 17, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Christine Maniel, Don Russick, Greg Maniel and others requesting the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Diane Hofer, Isaac Hofer, Debbie Hofer and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lillian Kleinsasser, Dave Waldner, Joseph Waldner and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Storie). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
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. Wowchuk). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal
of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the
board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory
committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has said that
there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new partnership";
and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming,
housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
* * *
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. 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
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 33, The Provincial
Railways and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les chemins de fer
provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House,
and I would like to table the message as well.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 35‑The
Fisheries Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 35, The Fisheries
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la peche), be introduced and that the
same be now received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House,
and I will be tabling the message as well.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of all members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon
from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
On May 5, cabinet replaced a former Tory
fundraiser on the Board of Directors of Manitoba Hydro, one Mr. Terry Stratton,
who had received the ultimate, I guess, in terms of Tory fundraising rewards
and been appointed to the Senate.
They replaced one Tory fundraiser on that
Manitoba Hydro Board with another Conservative fundraiser, one Arni
Thorsteinson, who of course was appointed to the Board of Manitoba Hydro on May
5 to replace Terry Stratton. By
correspondence that we have received, we know he is the chairman of the PC
Manitoba fund, the fund that was sending out letters on April 28 to numerous
businesses and organizations across
Mr. Speaker, it appears to us that this
board spot is reserved for a Conservative fundraising person, and I would like
to ask the Premier what the qualifications of Mr. Thorsteinson were to appoint
him to that board of directors.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thorsteinson is probably on
more boards of directors of more national corporations than all but a handful
of Manitobans. I know that he is on the
board of, for instance, one of the banks in
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thorsteinson has also been
appointed by Brian Mulroney to the Petro‑Canada Board of Directors. Here we see fundraisers sending out letters
to businesses all across
Does the Premier not think, given the fact
that Jules Benson had to quit under The Civil Service Act his position as a
fundraiser for the Conservative Party when the Premier appointed him to
Treasury Board, there is a problem here with a person who is involved in
raising money for the Conservative Party in the morning, making decisions on
procurement policies worth tens of millions of dollars in the afternoon?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the hypocrisy of
this member opposite. The member who is
sitting behind him, one David Chomiak, when he was a member of the equivalent
of the Crown Corporations Council, was sending out fundraising letters to the
corporate community in this province on behalf of New Democrats. One Marty
Dolin, who was at that time the husband of a minister of government in the New
Democratic government, later became himself a member of the New Democratic
government, was a bagman‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, I realize that our rules in terms of what is parliamentary and
what is not usually covers sitting members, but I would perhaps like to remind
the First Minister this is the 1990s and people are no longer referred to as
being spouses or appendages. People are
referred to as being their own individuals with their own views. Perhaps the First Minister might wish to
consider that.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, a final question to the Premier
on the qualifications of the individual whom he has so vigorously defended.
On April 27, a judgment was made on behalf
of the Province of
Mr. Speaker, has the member whom the Premier
has defended, did he pay back the money to the
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, speaking of paying back the
government, the member could tell us whether or not he and his member for
Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) repaid student loans.
Mr. Speaker, we deal with every single
person, regardless of their political stripe, on a businesslike basis, and that
is why we do not give special favours to any individual regardless of their
political persuasion.
* (1345)
Radon Gas
Report
Release
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the problem of radon gas in
I would ask the Minister of
Environment: Why was the report on the
levels of radon outside the city of
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): I am not sure what
the member means by being released independently. The fact is that meetings were held in the
communities outside of
That is what concerns me about the
attention that this particular item is receiving today. Some three years ago, three and a half years
ago, this province released all the information that we had available at that
point regarding radon. We put together
what is considered one of the most comprehensive and useful radon guides for
homeowners. I am looking at this one;
this was the second printing already in October of 1989.
So, Mr. Speaker, this government has taken
a lot of time and effort to make sure that Manitobans are aware of the issue.
Building
Code Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a
more proactive approach that is going to let people know that our homes in
I would ask the Minister of
Environment: Why have the building codes
of
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Those regulatory
changes, which have been worked on and put together in conjunction with the
industry‑‑that is one of the things that disturbs me, however, is
that we should perhaps be very careful on how we deal with this issue, because
at the same time as we want to make sure that Manitobans have all of the
information available to them, I would like to point out that an information
bulletin went out of our department earlier this year, as well.
In that bulletin, it has been indicated
that we have some preliminary results from a decade‑long study that has
been done by Canada Health and Welfare, a study which they will be releasing
later this year. They presented us with
information of their preliminary results, and the indications are that they
have been unable to establish any relationship between the health effects and
high radon levels or household levels of radon as we have in this province.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that this minister
would get into a battle over research studies when there is something as
serious as this that has been shown to be related to cancer and is in the
government's own‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, with your
question.
Home
Repair Assistance Program
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): My question for the Minister of Environment
is: What consideration has this
government given to a loan and cost assistance program to help homeowners cover
the cost of $1,500 to radon‑proof their homes?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated, we have taken the position we took back in 1989 and it has been
reconfirmed, as a matter of fact, by the information that has been recently
released, in fact, reconfirms the information we had in 1989 that the concerns
are such that a person, if they wish, can acquire the expertise to have the
test done of any particular levels of radon or find if there are particular
levels in their dwelling, and we provide as much information as we can as to
how it can be mitigated.
Frankly, the implication that this could
cost up to $1,500‑‑it can be considerably less as well.
Radon Gas
Home
Repair Assistance Program
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): My question also is for the Minister of
Environment.
I have listened to his answers to my
colleague's questions, Mr. Speaker, and I am reminded of the October 5, 1989,
press release in which this minister said that he would be forthwith putting in
radon protection provisions into the
He also produced a facts sheet at that
time which said that radon‑related safeguards would be included in
amendments to the
It has been three and a half years, Mr.
Speaker. When is this minister intending
on actually following through on commitments made three and a half years ago
about a problem that he said at the time, correctly, was extremely serious?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, this is
not just a result of an action by this department, but the co‑ordination
of the other departments and the
* (1350)
Mr. Edwards: I asked about these press releases that are
about the
My further question, Mr. Speaker, is for
the minister: Given that this minister
has agreed this is an extremely serious problem and it is relatively
inexpensive in most cases to deal with, is this minister prepared to speak to
his colleague the minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Downey) to
canvass the possibility of giving loans to be paid back over time through Hydro
payments, as has been done in the past, for this type of home improvement
activity which can only help the health of Manitobans throughout this province?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member implies that this is a
matter that should be dealt with on an emergency basis or dealt with through a
government program that would fund the correction of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, while we
are concerned about what any of these elevated readings may mean, they are
naturally occurring, and the studies that we have from the Department of Health
and Welfare do not indicate that there is a demonstrable relationship in terms
of cause and effect.
Mr. Speaker, I think the best approach is
that we keep ourselves informed, that we make sure that the public has an
opportunity to be informed, and if they believe the concern is of a level that
they wish to do something about it, that the information be available.
Building
Code Regulations
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, the minister's booklet
says: Radon is a significant contributor
towards lung cancer deaths.
My question for the minister: He talks about me wanting to deal with this
on an emergency basis. When is he going
to put the provisions into the Manitoba Building Code dealing with radon
gas? Three and a half years‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, it seems
to me that the member is unwilling to recognize a considerable amount of work
that has been done.
This province had a demonstration project
in 1988‑89 in the northern part of the city of
Mr. Speaker, the information gathered
there, combined with the information gathered by Canada Department of Health
and Welfare, indicates this is the best way of dealing with the issue.
Organic
Farming
Minister's
Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the minister tell the House today if
his idea about the value of organic farming has changed in any way, given the
results of the recent study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology
which links the use of herbicides with prostate cancer?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, over the
course of the last number of years, there has been a lot of concern about the
use of chemicals in the operation of a farm.
We have a registration process in
I think what this sort of information does
highlight to farmers is that they should follow the safety precautions because,
to tell you the truth, when surveys are done to determine if farmers are
following the precautions, many are not following them to the letter of the
requirement to guarantee safe handling of the chemicals.
So it is important that these studies are
done. It does highlight the need to use
safety practices, and those practices do exist.
They are part of the precautions on the labels of all chemicals used in
agriculture.
Agricultural
Industry
Chemical
Health Risks
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the minister tell this House what
steps his government will be taking to monitor the health impacts on farmers in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
department has put together an Agriculture Chemicals in the 1990s video that
was presented to the farm community in the past years. It helps to highlight safe use of chemicals.
We have a process of licensing all
pesticide retailers so they can then pass on the level of education to all
farmers. We, certainly, through the
course of the normal extension activities of the department and any time that I
speak to people involved with chemicals, always accentuate all the precautions
that should be used.
We cannot guarantee that farmers will
follow them. We continue to accentuate
that they should and all the reasons why they should. We also have done a survey to look at the degree
to which farmers are using these, and it does show that rubber gloves, which is
one of the really important ways to protect yourself, are used by 77 percent of
the participants, which is much higher than it was ten years ago‑‑much,
much higher.
* (1355)
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister tell the House then whether
he has read this study and whether he will direct his department staff to
undertake further research that is recommended by the author of the studies,
and undertake measures to educate farmers and protect farmers against these
potentially deadly chemicals?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the
member that we do a number of things in terms of trying to be sure that farmers
follow the appropriate precautions to look after themselves, their families and
anybody around them.
It is an ongoing process, and we have
stepped up that process in the last few years, particularly by putting together
the video, Agriculture Chemicals in the 1990s.
Major, major progress has been made in the last 10 years to get farmers
to understand that they are at risk in the use of these chemicals. The labelling precautions are there. It is an ongoing process. We have stepped it up in the last few
years. We are well ahead of the member.
Sunday
Shopping
Consultations
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Earlier today, the minister was quoted on
a local radio station as suggesting that the opposition were holding up public
consultation on the Sunday shopping legislation. Talk about revisionist history, Mr. Speaker.
My question to the minister is: Can he explain to Manitobans why, when second
reading of Sunday shopping legislation was passed last December, in the
intervening months there has been no attempt by the government to consult with
rural Manitobans, to consult with the chambers of commerce in communities
throughout this province on why this government is wrongheaded and why they are
proceeding with Sunday shopping legislation?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I guess this points out very
clearly that the member for Flin Flon and members of his party do not
understand what a trial period is. The
whole idea of the original bill was to have a four‑month trial period, to
get an opportunity for Manitobans to determine how Sunday shopping affected
their communities or individual lives, to give the government an opportunity to
assess it.
We did introduce another piece of
legislation modelled after
Public
Hearings‑Rural
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, once again, the chamber of
commerce pointed thumbs down on this legislation. The chamber of commerce has said this is not
in the interest of rural
My question to the minister is: Will he now announce in the House today‑‑and
he will receive the co‑operation of the opposition in proceeding with
this legislation‑‑which rural communities will have hearings on
this Sunday shopping legislation? Will
he announce that today so that we can co‑operate?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the member for Flin Flon
refers to a resolution passed this weekend at a Manitoba Chamber of Commerce
annual meeting. I had an opportunity to
have lunch today with the president of the Manitoba Chamber and the Winnipeg
Chamber. They indicated that it was an
interesting discussion and a close vote.
Only 15 chambers voted, the vote was eight to seven. So it shows, once again, the nature of the
issue in terms of Manitobans having different views.
We have said all along on this particular
piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that it will follow the same legislative
process as every other piece of legislation.
Once it receives second reading in this House, it will go to the
traditional committee hearings that are held right here in this building and
which each and every Manitoban can come in person or send in a written
submission. That opportunity is there
for all Manitobans to do so.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, talk about the arrogance of government.
The question to the minister is: Will he identify for rural Manitobans, for
the
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance is clearly across
the way. Here is a member who has been
in this House for many years, and he knows legislative process and he knows
what happens with legislation in this House.
This piece of legislation will follow the same process as every other
piece of legislation.
As well, on the issue for municipalities
that do decide to go to wide‑open Sunday shopping, they have a municipal
process here in
* (1400)
Interdepartmental
Crisis Committee
Target
Groups
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Minister of Family Services.
I asked the minister last Tuesday with
regard to some protocols that the departments are now using in co‑ordinating
information from one department to the other.
On Friday, the minister of Child and Family Services distributed four
documents, three of which, quite frankly, pre‑date the Reid inquest. The final document that was released refers
to children between the ages of five and 11, which does not mean that the Reid
family would have qualified.
Would the minister now today like to give
us protocols that would have applied to a similar incident like the Reid family
tragedy?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, last day, I pointed out to the member that the Reid inquest report by
Judge Norton dealt with addressing difficulties of co‑ordination between
the Child and Family Services agencies and other social agencies and police
authorities in dealing with a specific case.
As a result of that, we have brought in a
number of reforms which I indicated on the record last Friday.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the document which the minister
tabled in fact is new. It is one which
is called a Referral Process to the Interdepartmental Crisis Resource Committee
for Children Between Ages 5‑11.
Are the members of this House to assume
that if there are adolescents, who are outside the ages of between five and 11,
they would not be referred to this Interdepartmental Crisis Resource Committee?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, that was one of four reports that
I tabled for the member who was looking for information on interdepartmental co‑ordination. That specific one deals with a target group
of children between the ages of five and 11.
However, the other documents that I
tabled, Guidelines on Identifying and Reporting a Child in Need of Protection,
another document, Transition Planning Process‑‑and the third one I
would mention is the Provincial Advisory Committee on Child Abuse, which, as a
matter of fact, today is meeting in regular session with staff from the
Department of Justice, the Department of Health, the Department of Education
and the Department of Family Services.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the document the minister tabled
on Friday which is a referral process says:
"Personnel from local school divisions, Child and Family Service
agencies and regional mental health services presently collaborate to develop
community‑based education/treatment programming for children with severe
behavior adjustment disorders. However,
there are some cases where, because of the severity of the behavior, the
complexities of the case and/or local factors, such collaborative planning at
the local level reaches an impasse . . . ." and that is when this crisis
group goes into play.
Can the minister tell the House if that
Crisis Resource Committee would in fact be put into place for those over the
age of 11?
Mr. Gilleshammer: This particular document deals with children
from ages five to 11, as the information indicates. There are other procedures which are used to deal
with older children, where we have interdepartmental committees which do a case
conference on specific cases.
Health
Care System Reform
Centralization
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, like so
much else in health care reform, we are waiting for the message on high from
the minister as to when services will be consolidated or centralized at various
health locations throughout the city of
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, meetings have been held in the
health services field about the consolidation and the placing of orthopedics at
What plans has the minister made for input
from the public, health care professionals and caregivers in the field, prior
to the implementation of those plans?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, at
least my honourable friend, through Freudian slip, has confirmed the source of
his research‑‑rumour mills.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to my
honourable friend, that in part or in whole, possibly some of the discussions
that he is referring to in terms of orthopedics, ophthalmology, urology and a
number of other areas, were subject of presentations by the physicians, in most
cases, who are heading the study committees around those programs in
surgery. They presented their interim
findings to a retreat at which we had members of all of the urban hospitals,
major urban hospital facilities, the
The purpose, Sir, of sharing those pieces
of investigation to date with that wide a group of Manitobans, was to do
exactly as my honourable friend wants, to seek input and feedback.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, what plans has the minister made
for seeking input from the public prior to the implementation of those
particular decisions?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, when one attempts to make
planning changes throughout the system and when one engages the advice of
experts who are part of the
Mr. Speaker, any decision that is made by
myself and announced by government as a result of that kind of across a wide
spectrum of input, I believe, will find significant favour for the health care
system of
The
Dominion
Bond Rating
Mr. Bob Rose (
I know the question must have slipped your
mind. I appreciate the opportunity to
get it in.
Can the Minister of Finance explain to the
House, the reasons for the Dominion Bond Rating Service maintaining
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I am delighted that
this question has come forward, and I am terribly disappointed that my good
friend the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was not the author of
the question.
The Dominion Bond Rating Service stated in
a ringing endorsement of the actions of this government that
It has changed. Our province has changed from being one of
the highest taxed provinces down to mid‑range. Indeed, the midterm plan which we have laid
before Manitobans and they so strongly support, is what has led of course to
this reaffirmation of our rating.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to be
able to present this information.
Indeed, it is an outside report on the fiscal standing of the province
and the way we conduct our fiscal matters.
I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) wants us to abandon the
path, and he wants us, of course, to put at risk our real security, to spend
more, to borrow more, and ultimately to tax more than is found wanting. That is the wrong solution.
We are on the proper course.
Mr. Rose: My supplementary question to the Minister of
Finance, I am sure if we waited till Friday morning, we might get‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member this is
not a time for debate.
Mr. Rose: My question to the honourable Minister of
Finance: What exactly is the difference between an A rating and an A‑minus
rating in terms of actual dollars on our provincial debt?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, when you are downgraded to the
next rank, usually you are talking as much one‑eighth of 1 percent, or
roughly 15 basis points. That tends to
be‑‑and of course when you are talking about a borrowing program,
and in our place in the
By the way, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly
what my colleague the Minister of Finance in
* (1410)
Public
Confidence
Mr. Bob Rose (
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Well, Mr. Speaker,
over the weekend I had an opportunity to talk to many Manitobans with respect
to Builder Bonds, and certainly there is a growing interest.
Naturally, every investor wants to know
ultimately what the coupon value is. I
will be making that announcement next week some time, and I will price them I
think very favourably. I am sure
Manitobans, who have such a strong loyalty to this province, will respond, and
it will be a successful issue.
Garrison
Diversion Project
Government
Position
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, the Garrison project has long been
opposed by environmentalists, farmers, scientists, municipalities, along with
many others. Due to the threat that it
poses to our water system here in
My question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources. Can the Minister of Natural
Resources tell the House whether his government holds the same position today
as
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can
certainly give the honourable member, and indeed all Manitobans, the assurance
that the position of
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we ought to
remind ourselves that it was largely our representation that brought about
significant reformulation of the project, which was then and only then
agreeable to us, which prevented any inner‑basin transfer.
I am aware that the State of
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same
minister, has he been in contact and how is he maintaining contact with the
officials in
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, one of the senior people in my
department, Mr. Clarkson, who served in the same capacity with the previous New
Democratic Party administration has that on his desk at all times.
We are informed, indeed we are invited, we
are participants whenever there are further discussions that are very often
sponsored by the Garrison Conservancy District.
We are observers at these meetings, and we have a continual flow of
information coming across our desk with respect to the Garrison.
Agricultural
Chemical
Transfers
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the same
minister: Does the minister have any
concerns over the likelihood of farm pesticides from the States ending up in
our waters? Has he stated those concerns
to the authorities in the States?
Perhaps I could also ask him to table any correspondence that he may
have had with the authorities in the States.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I have no difficulty in bringing the honourable member up to date with
some particular correspondence having to do with the overall project and the
kind of information that comes to us from time to time.
On the question of agricultural herbicide
pollution, that is an issue that, of course, is facing all of us, not just in
the States. It is an issue that, for
instance, prevents us from recharging underground aquifers here in
Because of that potential danger, we
certainly made that as one of the principal reasons for our concern about inner‑basin
transfers, that significantly large irrigated acreage that could be irrigated
from this project and the
That, Mr. Speaker, remains constant, and
our concern remains constantly voiced in
Labour
Force Development Agreement
Expiry
Date
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
In March of this year the government
signed the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement after more
than three years of unaccountable delay.
From now until September, a committee will decide on management
procedures and eventually, in September '93, the federal‑provincial co‑ordination
of our education and training system may begin.
Will the minister now confirm that this
agreement will expire in March '94 and that three and a half years of
government delays have given us a planning horizon of six months for one of the
most crucial issues facing Manitobans?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): As with
agreements with governments across
Employment
Retraining Programs
Government
Role
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why her
government has cut New Careers, Human Resources
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, again, we do still provide certainly funding in the areas of New
Careers and also funding in the ACCESS area.
I have also written to the federal government regarding their commitment
in the area of ACCESS programming, which we would like to see that they would
be able to reinstate rather than simple funding directly to bands and providing
no funding for ACCESS programs.
Labour
Force Development Strategy
Tabling
Request
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Could the minister tell us
when she intends to table the government's Labour Force Development Strategy,
or has it fallen into the same bottomless pit that the urban aboriginal
strategy has?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as I have
said in this House before, we are working very carefully on our labour force
strategy. We recognize that it is a
strategy which not only involves the Department of Education and Training, but
also it is important to involve other areas of government. I will be happy to talk further about that
with the member during the Estimates process.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if there is a willingness to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? Is it agreed?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Okay, leave is denied.
* (1420)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), 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.
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 Education and Training; and the honourable member for
* (1450)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
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 the Department of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat it had been
considering item 1. Administration and Finance (c) Planning and Policy
Development (1) Salaries on page 34 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): When we
were last together I said that I would table for the members a document,
Parents and Schools: Partners in
Education, which was produced by the Student Support branch of our
department. I would like to table those
documents now.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the
minister's provision of that information.
We would like to have an opportunity to review that before raising
concerns about it.
I want to ask the minister today about the
issue of students demonstrations at this particular time, and the role that the
minister sees for herself in dealing with this issue.
As the minister knows, the 2 percent cutback
in funding that she announced in February was a decision of her government,
along with the capping of the ability of school divisions to raise money
locally to offset the reduction or to increase programming, whatever the school
division felt was necessary. Having
those decision‑making abilities curtailed by Bill 16, and then combining
that with certainly the great deal of frustration that is being felt in the
education community, particularly by the educators themselves, Bill 22‑‑which,
in some cases, as I understand it in a letter that I received from a teacher at
Mountain School Division, is going to result in the loss of eight days of in‑service,
professional development, administration, whatever, and eight days of pay
amounting to a considerable salary cut for those teachers; other divisions will
have varying degrees of implementation‑‑has created essentially a
crisis in many schools and certainly one that is seen by students as being
unacceptable.
I know the Speaker is particularly
concerned about the Mountain School Division because it happens to be in his
area, and he would want to have the teachers who wrote the letters about those
concerns to have those concerns raised with the minister here.
So I want to ask the minister about the
issues associated with the student protest that is going on at the present
time, to ask what position she is taking on them, and what role that she sees
herself and her government playing in that issue.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said from the beginning, we do not
condone students being out of school, and we also, however, I would remind the
member, had very difficult decisions to make this year. The decisions that we made were made for the
benefit of Manitobans. They were made
across departments of government. They were not targeted specifically at
Education. If the member does look
across government, he will see that there is, in each area, a place where
Manitobans will be doing some part in terms of reducing our debt and also
helping to control our spending and thereby reducing the deficit.
In order to do that, again, we had to make
very difficult decisions, but they were decisions which, I will remind him,
needed to be made. They needed to be
made to make sure that people who are students now will have the opportunity to
have jobs and will have a future to look forward to in
So, difficult decisions, but we have asked
Education to do their part as we have asked many, many other Manitobans to also
do their share.
Mr. Plohman: The minister has gone back into the difficult
decisions. We know that the government
has made many wrong decisions, however difficult they might have been.
When the minister talks about spiralling
debt she has to remember that it is her government, led by this Premier (Mr.
Filmon), who made the decision to leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the
table in taxation cuts to high‑income earners and in corporate taxes,
reductions there, thereby removing revenue from the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), which would have allowed for greater flexibility in provision of
services such as education and health care and others. That was a conscious decision that this
minister's government made that this minister was a part of, at least in
caucus, in making at that particular time.
Those cuts have contributed to the difficulty in meeting the costs and
responsibilities of the provincial government.
From that point of view, I think the
minister should not play up the argument about the difficult decisions and
having to make these cuts in order to protect services, because in fact it is a
contradiction in terms. The services are
being cut and the quality of education is being affected.
The minister said that the quality of
education would not be affected by her decisions. She indicated, when she announced the
education spending cut of 2 percent across the board‑‑as I said
earlier, which manifested itself in cuts much higher than 2 percent in many
school divisions. With no sensitivity
for particular concerns or problems that certain school divisions might have,
she said at that particular time that the quality of education would not be
impacted in a negative way. This is
going to be done through administrative cuts and through shortening the
workweek, as it was called I believe at that time, various measures that would
not impact on the quality of education.
We found that is not the case. As a result of the squeeze that was put on
school divisions in a conscious way, in a deliberate way by this government,
first to cut the funding by 2 percent or more in school divisions across the
province and then to put in Bill 16, which caps the ability of school divisions
to raise funds from alternative sources, the quality of education is suffering
and is being impacted upon.
* (1500)
Added to that, of course, is Bill 22,
which has created a great deal of frustration and a feeling of lack of
confidence by the government in the education system and in the people that are
involved directly in providing the services.
That, of course, is the educators themselves.
When you add all of those measures together,
there is no doubt that the minister has to feel directly responsible for what
is happening at the present time, the unrest and concern manifested in terms of
demonstrations by students and also decisions being made by teachers. I think the minister cannot hide from those
results in the streets, those kinds of things that are being manifested daily
as a result of this minister's decisions.
She has to take responsibility for them, and that is why I raise it in
that context at this particular time.
If the minister says it was to keep
property taxes down, I remind her that over the last number of years, she and
her government and her Premier (Mr. Filmon) have increased property taxes as a
result of the offloading, in many different areas, on local municipalities.
Perhaps the frustration at hearing
municipal governments, school boards and other local officials chastising the
government for offloading finally led to this political decision to cap the
ability of school divisions to raise money locally. That is what happened this particular year,
but it was not a concern about property taxes, Mr. Premier. It was clear that this government is not
concerned about property taxes, or why would they add $75 to every householder
in the province at the same time?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to put his
question through the Chair and not directly to any member in the committee.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly.
So I want to point that out to the
minister, that the $75 increase and the $250 minimum for many other property
taxpayers in this province makes a sham of anything the government has stated
about being concerned about increasing property taxes at the local level.
When you combine that with the last number
of years of offloading, where we had a 14 percent increase in the public
education system during the same time that inflation was 18 percent, then you
see there was an offloading taking place over that period of time, a pressure
on the local school divisions to raise money locally to offset the decrease in
funding, the inadequate funding by the provincial government over that time.
I do not blame teachers, school divisions
and parents for being cynical about this government's approach when they
consider that over that same period of time, private schools were receiving
increases at about 10 times the rate in percentage terms than the public school
system was receiving over that five‑year period.
Many people look at that as a lack of
commitment for the public school system, even though the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, said during election campaigns and after that, that he
would be funding education at inflation at least. Even though he said education
is the key to our future, even though the minister had said that education was
a top priority, we have seen this kind of lack of commitment over those years.
Now, this year, comes the crunch, when we
see a major decrease in funding for public education with no consideration
about the impact on certain school divisions which have no other alternative
but to cut programming in order to meet the demands being placed on them by the
province, because they do not have reserves or because they do not have the
wealth that allowed them to offer the kind of quality of education that was
present in other school divisions, so there was a great disparity from division
to division. That has not been
considered in this across‑the‑board, broad‑brush approach by
this government.
So I think the minister cannot just brush
aside and say, well, difficult decisions had to be made. She has to look at the demonstrations that
are taking place at the present time in this province, the concerns being
expressed, and then decide on a course of action to deal with that. I do not think she is making any attempt to
deal with those concerns at the present time.
I would like to know if the minister has
been asked to meet with student leaders on the concerns they have about
cutbacks in services to them, a possible loss of sports programs, band programs
or whatever extracurricular programs teachers may have been offering. Has she been asked to meet, and has she
agreed to meet with the students to discuss these concerns and her role, her
Premier's role, her government's role, in precipitating the potential loss in
these services?
I just want to preface the answering of
that question by the minister with the statement that we hope it does not come
to that. We do not like to see this
chaos in education. We do not like to
see demonstrations. We would rather
things were going smoothly, but this minister has created to a large degree,
her and her government, the kind of crisis and the lack of confidence in this
government in terms of their education policy.
She has to feel responsible. I
want to ask the minister then to answer the question about whether she is
meeting with these students.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am interested to
hear the comments of the member for Dauphin.
I am interested because, of course, I have been in this Legislature for
all of his time in government, and I am familiar with what his priorities and
his actions were when he was in government.
When he talks about why we are in the circumstances
we are in this province, he was centrally involved as a member of government,
in fact, the minister who made decisions that have put this province into the
difficult financial circumstances that it is by virtue of, for instance,
building a bridge from nowhere to nowhere at a cost of $28 million, a bridge
that had no roads leading up to it on either side but was sent out there in
glorious suspension as though it were from a skyhook because it was in the
midst of his Premier's constituency, and it was a glorious project for the
building up of the re‑election of that government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that $27 million
could well have been used to provide for all sorts of funding in education‑‑[interjection]
Twenty‑seven or 28‑‑
An Honourable Member: It was 19.
Mr. Filmon: Well, it was closer to 27 or 28, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, with all of their costs put in.
In addition to that, of course, this
member may want to correct me as to whether or not it was $28 million that was
spilled on the sands of
We could have used a lot of the funds that
the member opposite used to build roads in his constituency in Dauphin to his
cottage and other things, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that might have come in
handy, so that we could have had it for the children in the schools of his
area. Unfortunately, we do not have that
luxury because the member opposite squandered the money in those kinds of very,
very inappropriate choices that he made.
Those were his priorities. They are not our priorities. They are not the
priorities of any Manitobans, and all Manitobans rightfully rejected New
Democrats because they made those priority decisions, which is why he is
sitting in opposition. [interjection] No, the circle has not come at all. In fact, we are a long ways away from
that. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will
see soon enough just exactly what people think of New Democratic priorities
versus Conservative priorities.
The fact of the matter is, of course, I
also have difficulty with his assertion that the quality of education is
somehow totally intertwined with the amount of money that we pay to the
teachers in the education system. Now,
he being a teacher, of course, he has that warped opinion. [interjection] Well,
we see the results where the money that we pay, obviously, does not give us any
assurance of quality. He is the best
example of that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
We know that he comes here with a warped
viewpoint that suggests all you need to do to improve education is pay the teachers
more. We have teachers in our province
who, on average, are the third or fourth highest paid in the country, and that
is not doing anything to ensure quality of education in our schools.
* (1510)
So the fact of the matter is that the
responsibility for quality of education rests with those people who are given
that responsibility within our school divisions and in our schools. If they
would choose to withdraw services in a variety of different ways as their means
of improving the quality of education, then I do not think that they see the
point, but, of course, they are being encouraged, they are being fomented by
New Democrats who want to have this kind of unrest, who go out there with their
organizers in the field‑‑
Mr. Plohman: The Conservative teachers are not very happy
either. I do not know if they are
Conservative anymore.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member opposite is
not making any sense as he usually does not, but he will have his chance to
speak later. I know this is hurting him
to hear the truth, but I will carry on.
He goes out there and foments, along with
his New Democratic colleagues, the unrest in schools and among students and all
of those things, instead of trying to work co‑operatively, as people in
every province are across this country, to try to deal with difficult
circumstances that are facing this nation and every province.
You have the situation in Saskatchewan
next door where for two straight years they have reduced the funding to their
public schools, and the fact is, as difficult as that is to deal with, the
people there will attempt as best as they can to deal with it because they do
not have irresponsible people in opposition, like the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman), who are out there trying to do the negative thing, trying to build up
more deficits, trying to build up higher taxes so that the young people who are
in the school system today will have to go out and pay higher taxes and pay for
the deficit that is being built up today.
We cannot continue to live beyond our
means. That is a fact of life. It is not a Conservative fact of life; it is
a fact of life that has been accepted by New Democrats in Saskatchewan, in
Ontario; by Liberals in Newfoundland, in New Brunswick‑‑in all of
those areas. The fact is‑‑
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Filmon: We can talk about the deficit, but we have had
the Dominion Bond Rating Service say that we have been one of the two most
fiscally responsible provinces in all of
Indeed, all he has to do is read the front
page of Saturday's paper to know that we are considered to be the most fiscally
responsible province in the entire country.
That is why, when we do that, we are not doing it because we do not want
to pay more money into our school system.
We are doing it because we cannot afford to. No province in this country can, and if you
look across the country, it does not matter who is in government‑‑Liberal,
New Democrat, or Conservative‑‑they look at the same information
and arrive at the same conclusions.
It is only the member for Dauphin, who has
a warped sense of what is happening in the world or perhaps who cannot see
beyond the boundaries of his own little office in this Legislature, that does
not understand that there is a reality being faced by people whether they are
in the private sector, whether they are in the public sector, whether they are
New Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives, that there is a reality out there
that must be faced. The reality is that
you cannot keep giving a bigger and bigger portion of the provincial pie to any
one group in society without getting to the point where society can no longer
pay for it and the rest of society suffers.
They cannot pay their bills; they do not have enough money to pay their
taxes and do the other things.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, throughout
this exercise, we have taken a responsible approach, a responsible approach
that has been confirmed by the Dominion Bond Rating Service, a responsible
approach I think that has been recognized by most Manitobans by keeping all of
our major tax rates in this province down, that is the personal income tax, the
corporate income tax, the payroll tax which has been removed off 70 percent of
the businesses who had been paying it when we took office, and, of course, the
sales tax that has been maintained at 7 percent, now the second lowest level of
any province in Canada.
The reason we are able to do that is
because we are making difficult choices.
We are not doing what the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) would do, and
that is, to just spend more money, tax more money, run up the deficit, and run
our young people into a burden where they cannot afford to live in this
province and then will have to move out of this province. That‑‑[interjection]
Absolutely not, absolutely not.
An Honourable Member: They are leaving.
Mr. Filmon: As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
they are not.
Of course, net interprovincial out‑migration
has reduced by a third since it reached its peak in 1989. People now know that this province is doing
the right things and that they can retain their citizenship here and their
residency here because we have (a) a good school system which will get better
as we have people recognize the reality that we have to live within our means.
So I think it is absolutely foolish and,
of course, it is the narrow‑mindedness of the member for Dauphin who
would be so bold as to suggest that only if you pay teachers more will you
improve the quality of education in this province. That does not make sense to any objective
observer, and it certainly does not make sense to those people who view us from
an objective distance.
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) can
hold to that viewpoint and as he does hold to that viewpoint, he will ensure
that New Democrats will not be re‑elected for a long, long time in this
province.
Mr. Plohman: It is interesting to hear the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) talk about keeping the deficit down.
I think when he looks at his deficit and what has happened this past
year and takes the true figures which were provided by the member for Rossmere
before he resigned‑‑that $862 million‑‑he will clearly
know that his policies have failed over the last five years because we have the
highest deficit.
It is a shame, it is an embarrassment to
any government, certainly any finance minister and all of the Legislature, to
have a government that has presided over that kind of massive deficit at the same
time as cutting services. It has not
worked.
Clearly, the minister and the Premier have
to feel responsibility for what is happening with the unrest that is out there
in education, the lack of confidence. He
likes to throw allegations of wanting to pay more without thinking about some
of the other options that are there.
It is not a question of paying more. It is a question of what he is doing and this
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)‑‑this Premier (Mr. Filmon) when
I say "he"‑‑in cutting back salaries by 4 percent or
more, not talking about paying more, and doing it in an autocratic fashion
without negotiation.
If he looks at what he has done in this
province, negotiate a 3 percent and then claw it back from the civil service
and the public sector, you find out how inconsistent and what kind of inability
this government has to manage. On the
one hand, within a few months of making decisions, coming to agreement, they do
not honour that agreement. They claw it
back.
There is no way that anyone can have any
confidence in this Premier or this minister to stick by their word or even
stick by their signed agreements. There
is absolutely no confidence in this minister or this Premier in that regard. I mean, let us look at this thing. They go with a 3 percent increase and then
they claw it back for one year. It is
temporary. The base has been increased
by 3 percent.
In
* (1520)
They do not have the confidence of the
people in that regard, and that is why it has happened that way. It might be nice to throw out some red
herrings about some particular examples and previous governments, but that is
not going to deal with the concerns now‑‑red herrings when he
mentions misinformation in front of this House, by listening to his Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) and the inappropriate, inaccurate figures. If your Minister of Health, Mr. Premier and
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, persists in being out by 50 percent on his Estimates in
spending in Health then I think you have got a real problem here. He deals with billions of dollars. That is a tremendous amount to be in error,
and to have this Premier (Mr. Filmon) sit here and believe and make out to have
any credibility in his words when he gives statements that are so much in error
I think just throws anything he says into disrepute.
I hope that the public, and I know they
are, are seeing this minister, this Premier, for what he is in terms of what is
being said, because you cannot have confidence in what is spoken. They will say anything and hope that people
will believe it.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to just get
back to the issue here. The Premier has
clearly implied in his statements that teachers were being paid too much, and
they are targeted by this government along with civil servants and others. That is the implication that I read. Now the Premier will have an opportunity to‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable first minister, on a point of
order.
Point of
Order
Mr. Filmon: I made no such statement or implication, and I
want the member for Dauphin to be disabused of that thought so that he can be
absolutely certain not to repeat a falsehood anywhere else in this province.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable First Minister did not have a
point of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: I have to agree, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that
it is, in your ruling, a dispute over the facts. However, I said it was implied, and I think
it is clear. I say it again, that I read
into what he said that teachers were being paid too much, and I believe others
would, too, in listening to this. That
is why they were targeted, and the minister has said she was not targeting
teachers. The Premier has said that the
only way that he can get costs down, one of the major ways, is if teachers are
paid less. That is really what he is
saying to this House, to this committee.
So I have to wonder whether the minister has any credibility in her
statements that teachers were not targeted as part of the education cutbacks,
and a direct target by this minister.
But let us get back to the issue of what
is happening in the public school system today.
We see a lot of decisions being made or votes being taken by educators
that in fact they will withdraw voluntary services, which are a very important
part of the quality of education. I
think the minister would agree with that.
As a result, students are taking the position that they are going to
protest because they do not want to see a loss in their sports programs and in
their many other programs that are carried on and supported by teachers after
hours, and so they are afraid about the quality of education that they are
going to receive. They are desperately
concerned that they are not going to have their educational experiences
enriched by these many activities, and I am concerned about that, too. I hope the minister is, and I simply ask her
whether in fact she is going to take any action to resolve this issue, and if
so what action is she prepared to take?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we see the lack of
understanding of the member for Dauphin when he says that we do not have to
deal with the salary costs of teachers or‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I listened to the
member opposite without interrupting him.
If he wants to use his bully‑boy tactics to try and shout somebody
down, we can find him a union beer hall in order to do that. Here, I think he should abide by the
rules. I know he has been here over 10 years. He still does not understand the rules, but I
think he should abide by the rules, and I would give him the courtesy of
listening to him.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to try and
keep the decorum down to at least a happy medium. I have allowed a little bit of leeway here,
but if I have to, I will have to start bringing in the rules a little bit
more. The honourable First Minister, to
continue.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, here we have a person
who has been in government for over a decade and does not understand what he is
talking about when he says that we can control the costs of education without
dealing with salary costs. Salary costs
are more than 70 percent of the costs of education. How are we going to control the costs if we do
not deal with salary costs? It does not
make sense. Mind you, the member for
Dauphin rarely does make sense.
I would like to know from the member for
Dauphin then, if he is so concerned about the services to the students and the
children of this province, whether he agrees with the withdrawal of services by
the teachers? Is this the way to help
the students out, by withdrawing your services and not providing them with
these extracurricular activities that he says are so vital and enriching to the
student experience in
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is interesting to
hear the Premier talk about fomenting when he has to look at what actions he
has taken as Premier and what actions his minister and previous Ministers of
Education have taken that have resulted in this total lack of confidence in
this government. There is no confidence
that there is a real partnership. [interjection]
Now, the Premier, if he wants to resign
and put me into the position of minister, naturally I will have to answer the
questions. Now we have a Premier who
will not answer the questions either. As
a matter of fact, he is trying to answer the questions for his Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey). Has he no
confidence in the Minister of Education? [interjection] Both of those.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I remind the honourable members that we
are dealing with (c) Planning and Policy Development (1) Salaries
$386,800. The honourable member for
Dauphin, to continue.
Mr. Plohman: I think it is highly inappropriate for the
Premier to attempt to answer questions for his Minister of Education. We have a Minister of Education whom he seems
to have no confidence in.
Let me just continue on this issue of what
chaos and lack of confidence has developed as a result of this government's
decisions, as a result of five years of underfunding of the public education
system while the private school system received 10 times as much percentage‑wise
over that same period of time. The public of
While they say they are not going to raise
taxation, they have increased property taxes by a significant amount, varying
percentages, certainly a standard amount of $75 across this province and in
many cases, a $250 increase of minimum tax to many property owners in this
province. They see what seems to them an
obvious hypocrisy in approach, and they can only come to one conclusion, that
there is no commitment to the public education system. There is no commitment to principle with
regard to property taxes. They cannot
believe that this government is really attempting to keep property taxes down,
as they are saying that they have been attempting to do, because they have
offloaded onto the local taxpayers over the last number of months.
At the same time, they have seen Bill 70
where there has been an imposition of zero percent for civil servants in this
province. They see a negotiation then
later that gives them 3 percent, and then see it clawed back in the civil
service. They have observed the
government waffle on funding this year for education by not providing any
respect for the negotiation process for collective bargaining.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) seems to have no
understanding of any of those principles.
He does not know how to negotiate. That is why I say that there is a
tremendous lack of confidence in the education community. It is a direct result of this Premier and his
directing of his Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and his government. That is why we are seeing the situation that
exists.
I have no doubt, as regrettable as it is,
it is going to get worse before it gets better, unless this Premier starts
acting responsibly, and his minister, and start giving some credibility to
their statements that they consult, that they respect a partnership. The Minister of Education uses the term all
the time.
* (1530)
I would really like to hear from the
Minister of Education as to whether she is going to take any specific action to
start restoring the confidence that has now been undermined and effectively has
been lost by this government. How is she
going to restore confidence so that the students in this province, the teachers
in this province, the school boards, the parents, the public will have
confidence that this minister is committed to the public education system and
this Premier is committed to the public education system in the province?
Right now we can look at the decision
making and come to only one conclusion.
There is no respect for negotiation.
There is no respect for agreements.
There is no respect for what is happening in the public school system
and the quality of education that is being delivered. That is the message that is going out there
daily from this government. I ask the
minister what action she will take to restore confidence.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just want to make
the record abundantly clear that I have every respect for the Minister of
Education and the tremendous ability that she is showing. In fact, every day she runs circles around
the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) as she responds to his juvenile and
rhetorically flagrant comments in a calm, reasoned and knowledgeable manner and
makes a fool of him, which he deserves to be of course.
The fact of the matter is, he does not
understand anything that is going on. He
does not understand that it is absolutely essential that somebody has the
courage in this province to make the decisions that are required to be
made. You cannot just, from the luxury
of being in opposition, be irresponsible day after day and just say, spend
more, spend more, spend more, spend more and do not cut here, do not cut there,
do not cut anywhere, because we would not do it if we were in government.
The reality is that we have plenty of
examples of New Democrats in office. We
know exactly what they do. They can
begin as they do on a temporary basis, and my colleague in Ontario, the New
Democratic Premier found that in being in office in a space of just three years
increased the deficit from $35 billion to $68 billion and then found that the
reality of the situation came down heavily upon Ontario in terms of their
credit rating, in terms of their ability to borrow, in terms of their ability
to manage, and they have to come forward with a plan to get that deficit down.
They are looking to cut $9 billion worth
of government services in this budget exercise that they are currently engaged
in. That is reality. That is not some fairyland that is in the
mind of the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
That is reality.
My colleague Mr. Rae, I think, has the
courage and the commitment to be able to do the responsible thing, even though
it means that he is in a pitched battle with the unions. Whether they be health care unions, whether
they be teaching unions, whether they be any other union, civil service unions,
he is taking a responsible approach because he knows and understands the
reality of what he is facing. But, of
course, reality never ever enters the mind of the member for Dauphin, and that
is why I say he looks foolish. And the
Minister of Education makes him look foolish every day because he does not
speak from any base of knowledge, reason or understanding. He simply speaks with all of this rhetorical
flourish and all of this mindless kind of drivel about: Just give them more money.
Of course, in addition to lacking any
intellect on the subject, he lacks the courage to be able to say publicly
whether or not he agrees with the teachers withdrawing services. He gives us these nonanswers here. He does not say whether he agrees with them
withdrawing services. Is that the way
the children and the students of this province should be helped? No. We do not have any courage whatsoever in the
member for Dauphin. He just walks away
from here, you know, with his hands in his pockets and never gives us any
straight answers.
Well, if that is what we are getting‑‑
Mr. Plohman: . . . giving the answers here. What are we getting from you?
Mr. Filmon: Well, let us have some guts. If you really think that you have a job to do
here and that you are committed to it, let us have some guts. That is what I would like to see, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to add some comments as
well to what our Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said, and I would like to tell the
member again that teachers have not been targeted in this process and in this
budget.
I would ask him simply to look at the
position of other Manitobans, and as I have said before in terms of the
teachers, they may also want to look at the parents of the students that they
are now working with, because many of those parents of students are people who
have also now been trying to share and been asked to share in the economic
recovery of Manitoba. But many of those
parents have also been in a position where they have taken reductions in their
salaries, and others have experienced other kinds of reductions.
So I do not think any one of us has very
far to look when we look at what is happening around us, and then to suggest
that only one group has been required to make these changes is absolutely
wrong. It is ridiculous. That there are many Manitobans who have been
asked to take either‑‑in some cases, it has been a reduction. In the case of Bill 22 we are asking for a
workweek reduction so that we can get the spending under control.
I wonder when the member is going to get
his story straight with the rest of his caucus because I point to Hansard and
the Budget Debate 1989 where his Leader said:
" . . . if there is any document the Government wants us to sign to
indicate our support for getting the tax relief for families, if that would . .
. in any way, we believe that the bigger issue is the break to families, . .
."
There was a concern expressed by his
Leader in terms of protecting Manitobans from higher taxes, and we have, in the
case of Bill 16, said that it is important for us to not look first at a
taxation, but for us to look at controlling our spending and to spend very
wisely.
The member also speaks about funding to
independent schools. I would also like to point out what a former Minister of
Education from his party said: I have
said publicly that I am a supporter of the public school system, but I recognize
that we have an historical and a traditional obligation and a responsibility to
independent schools.
So it seems, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that
the member very often does not seem to really understand what has also been
spoken about and taken as a position by his party. Then, I, too, would like to ask the member
for Dauphin, does he agree with the decision of the teachers?
Mr. Plohman: It is interesting how we have the Minister of
Education and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) asking me questions, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. I find that rather
ironic. They want to be in opposition so
badly, and I hope we will be able to oblige in the very near future.
Let us look at some of the approaches by
this government. They like to characterize criticism of their decisions as
spend more, spend more, spend more. What
we have to do is look at how this government approaches it. I can respond to spend more, spend more,
spend more, by saying negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. What they have done is failed miserably to take
into consideration the partnership I talked about.
There are many ways to increase
efficiencies in the system. This government has failed over the last number of
years to deal with the maximum use of technology that could be possible, the boundary
review that they have shelved, the regional delivery of services that could be
done. There are many ways to achieve
efficiencies.
What we have seen instead is a failure to
deal with those and, as a result, and as a result of the failed economic policies,
this government has gone from a plus $55 million to a record minus $862 million
over the last five years, a $55‑million surplus in 1988 when they took
over government to a minus $862 million at the present time. That is $920‑million turnaround, almost
a billion dollars. They should not be
lecturing anyone about deficits, surely.
Look at that.
Now, we are not saying that it is just a
matter of giving more money. What has to
be done is an approach taken that ensures that the confidence of all of those
in the education system is respected and maintained. I almost find it laughable‑‑if it
was not so serious, I would‑‑when the Minister of Education talks
about a break for families and she quotes my Leader as saying that we need a
break for families and then characterizes the budget decisions by this
government as a break for families. They
have just foisted a $400 increase in taxes on each family in this province.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to remind the
member that I was referring to the effect of Bill 16.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: I will let the minister try to characterize
it any way she would like. The fact that
she said it‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I remind the honourable members that we
are dealing with (c) Planning and Policy Development, Salaries. I would like to try and move along with the
department according to line by line. So
if we could move back to this line, I would appreciate it.
* (1540)
Mr. Plohman: This is a wide‑ranging line, and we
certainly want to deal with the concerns I have placed. I have placed a number of questions. You, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, have given great
latitude for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to intervene on behalf of the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
I think it is important that he sees the
other side. I do not know that he will
actually give it any consideration because he has not up to this point in time
as Premier, but I think it is important to point out that there is a message
coming through to the public loud and clear that there is no consistency and no
meaning behind statements being made by the government that they want to
protect families, when in fact they are throwing more of them into
unemployment.
They are discontinuing support for
families in terms of bursary assistance, even for university. Many programs that were in place to assist
families have been eliminated by this government. We look at the $400 tax increase this year,
the huge increase in property taxes, the huge increase that has taken place by
way of partial harmonization of the PST with the GST. They talk about
maintaining it at 7 percent but there is a significant increase of $40 million
into the provincial coffers as a result of provincial sales tax increases.
When you put that alongside the cuts to
corporations and their taxes which have not resulted in the creation of jobs or
stimulation of the economy‑‑because we have been in last place in
investment for years in this province, and we have languished behind other
provinces in many of the key economic indicators‑‑we can only
assume that the government's policies have failed, and the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) has to take heed of those when she so loosely uses the terms that
in order to have an economic recovery, everyone now has to take salary cuts and
a decrease in services in order to bail out this government's failed policies.
It just does not add up, and it does not
have any credibility with the public out there.
That is what we are saying as often as we can and whenever we can. Let us deal with the chaotic situation that
we find education in, contrary to what the minister has talked about in the
first few days of the Estimates here as we have discussed this partnership the
minister says she respects so deeply and which is included in decision making.
We do not see any evidence of partnership
when we see all of the different publics involved in education protesting
government decisions, whether it be school trustees with regard to Bill 16,
whether it be superintendents, teachers, business officials and trustees with
regard to‑‑perhaps to a lessor extent the trustees‑‑Bill
22. When we see the underfunding in
education by this government, we can only assume that there is widespread
discontent, and now the students have joined in. They said, we do not want to sit back and
just allow the government to destroy the public education system and what we
have come to expect, and so they are taking action.
They, I think rightfully so, should be
directing their concern and their anger‑‑at least to a degree and I
would say to a large degree‑‑at the minister and this government,
not just at the school boards, because the school boards are placed in this
untenable situation as a result of the decisions the minister and Premier (Mr.
Filmon) have made. As I said earlier,
when you cap school funding at a minus 2 percent and you cap the ability of school
divisions to raise money locally, you have put the squeeze on them where they
have no alternative but to cut deeply into the quality of education.
This is not fine‑tuned. The Premier knows there are many school
divisions which cannot continue to function.
The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) knows this, that they cannot
continue to fund education because they have a very low tax base in
comparison. They are in a very difficult
economic situation. In
It is an across‑the‑board,
heavy‑handed approach. The unrest
is not only in one or two school divisions.
It is being felt, by the letters that we have and the correspondence,
the phone calls, we are getting, in all corners of the province.
It may well become much wider, this unrest
that we see now, if the minister does not have the backing of her Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to support some fundamental change in direction, so that she can give
some assurances to the public, that in fact there is going to be a change,
there is going to be a realization of the impact these decisions have had up to
this point, and a desire to undertake the necessary negotiations and
discussions to alleviate the pressure and the frustration that has been
building up.
So I ask the minister again what action
she intends to take to deal with the growing signs of unrest in the education
community at the present time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me attempt to bring the member for
Dauphin back to reality now. He has
really flown off, and I think it would be important now to remind him of some
of the facts in
First of all, just let me give you some
statistics. They are '89‑90
statistics, but Manitoba has the second‑lowest ratio of educator to
pupil, which means that our students‑‑and by the way, the only one
that is lower is the Yukon‑‑which then says that we have paid a
very high degree of attention to our students and to the professional
assistance that students receive within the schools, that is, from teachers,
that is, from teacher‑librarians.
So in fact we know that right there, there is one statement and one area
that we can point to that says
I can also say, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
that we have in terms of our property taxation, in the 10‑year period,
1982‑83, and then the 10 years to 1992‑93, property taxation has
remained constant at 46 percent.
Similarly, the government share has remained constant at 54
percent. But in real dollars that
government share has continued to go up.
There has been a continued increase.
So I think it is important, and the member seems to have trouble
understanding this concept, to understand that the government share of the
dollar in looking at education, has been a very strong commitment, and that
commitment does continue.
Then the member has spoken about the
issues of reform and of confidence, and I think it is important to point out the
reality of the partnership that actually is ongoing with the government of
There are also regular meetings between
those educational partners and their representatives on a regular basis to
discuss the issues of concern, and to point out direction, and to look at areas
where reform might also be looked at, because we know that we cannot stay with
things as they are now completely. The
member does dig himself into a hole. He
thinks the way he has thought forever, and he does not seem to have any way to
move himself into thinking about educational reform and into looking at new
ways in our educational system. As I
have sat through the Estimates process, I have heard him continually defending
a status quo approach.
* (1550)
The status quo approach is not the one
that is going to move us into the 21st Century in education. Educators themselves say that there are a
number of areas in which we have to examine where we are going in education and
that we cannot continue to do things as they have always been done.
Our government has made a very strong
effort to collaborate with partners in education and to listen to Manitobans as
well, not just Manitobans who are representative of educational organizations,
but Manitobans who are interested in education.
The report on legislative reform, which I
have pointed out to the member, represents the opinions of over 6,000
Manitobans. That is a very strong effort that we have made to make sure that
the ideas of Manitobans are paid attention to and are included in reports for
the consideration and decision making of government. In the case of the
legislative reform document, we have released it and we have asked also for the
opinions back of our partners in education.
I think that we have an extremely good
record of working with Manitobans in education and identifying the issues that
face us as we move into the 21st Century with Manitobans. We have been moving ahead in areas of reform
and moving ahead with new thinking.
There are certain realities which the member has continued to ignore and
continues to not see and not see clearly.
I think he does need constant reminders.
I just point to another area which has
been raised several times when I have been in the field, and that is the issue
of violence in schools. When I was
speaking to a group on Saturday evening, the group identified again that the
issue of violence in schools is an important one and one that we have to look
at coming to grips with even more strongly.
We currently do have work ongoing in that
area through our Student Support branch and through the training that we
provide to the field, but because we recognize that it is such an important
issue, we do have a consultation process that will be initiated to look at the
issue of violence in schools. It will be
started in
We do the same thing in areas of piloting
new areas of curriculum. We make sure
that we have the opportunity to speak to the teachers piloting the curriculum,
to look at the kinds of suggestions and recommendations that they would make. We also have paid attention to the kinds of
consultation that has flowed from the high school review and that, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, I have spoken about on the K to 12 side. We also have a similar record on our post‑secondary
side as well, of working with Manitobans.
The member seems to need to be reminded
about those areas. Again, I would also remind him that our goals with the very
difficult decisions that we had to make, and they were difficult decisions, but
the underlying goal was to protect service.
That is why we pointed to the areas of administrative reduction and we
also pointed to the area of workweek reduction so that we could protect what
was happening in the classroom.
The member has continually spoken about
more dollars as leading to quality and that seems to be the one linear train of
thinking that that member is able to come up with. It seems to me now, as we move into the 21st
Century, that we are really being required to think now in much more creative
ways, and we are having to look at creative ways to deliver education. We are having to look at creative ways to
examine quality. We have to look at
partnership. We need to involve parents,
and we need to look at the numbers of services that education is now providing.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also want to
take a moment to speak about Antler River School Division, and I know that we
will be speaking about
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister feel the students are
partners in education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, students are important
and partners in education, as are their parents. As he knows, and as I have said many times in
terms of the post‑secondary side where there are organized student
groups, I do meet with those organized student groups on a regular basis. That includes student representatives from
the
Mr. Plohman: As a result of that understanding that
students are partners in education, I want to ask the minister whether she
feels any responsibility for the student unrest that is in place at the present
time.
Mrs. Vodrey: I think it is very important for Manitobans
to have the most information and the most correct information that they can
have as they understand the current budgetary situation, and I think it is
important for students to have the complete information. As we look at the kinds of information
students have, we can see that perhaps they do not have all the information
that they would need, and they have information that is perhaps coming from
some single sources to the students. So
I would say that it is important for all Manitobans to have the information
about the current budgetary situation.
Mr. Plohman: The minister says that it is important to
have all of the information, and I could not agree more. That is why it is important that they know
the role of the provincial government and this premier and this minister in
what has happened to education in this province. Of course, it is important to communicate
directly on a face‑to‑face basis.
Does the minister intend to meet with the students that are concerned
about the reduction and possible reduction in services? Is the minister intending to meet directly
with those students to discuss the concerns?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister, of
course, meets with students all the time, which is more than the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) does. I would say
that what the member opposite continues to put forward, of course, is an effort
to try and stir up‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon)
to come up to the mike a little bit because we are not picking up‑‑
Mr. Filmon: The member continues to try and stir up
discontent within the public school system rather than being a positive player,
and he has an opportunity to do that. As
Education critic, he could take a positive role, and he could try and, for
instance, offer to mediate and influence his fellow teachers in this regard,
but he does not.
He instead chooses to play a negative role
which is very sad because members of the Legislature, whether they are in
opposition or in government, have a‑‑[interjection] The member
opposite continues to interrupt. I know
that that may be his style; it may be something and that‑‑[interjection]
I have been recognized by the Chair. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), of
course, is rude and disruptive in all of his actions, but I am attempting to
participate in this debate and discussion.
The member for Dauphin is exercised and upset because he would like to
have it just one way. He would not like
to have anybody else speak on these issues because he sees himself as an
expert.
Having said that, we know that he does not
take a very positive role. He does not
attempt to work in a positive way with students. He does not attempt to have them understand
all of the issues that are going on in society.
Rather, he sees himself as an agent of discontent, attempting to foment
all sorts of actions that may be negative.
In doing that, of course, what he is doing
is encouraging the teachers to withdraw services that are very much needed by
students. The students are a helpless
pawn in this game, and if you have people like the member for Dauphin, a former
teacher, who likes the kind of aggressive union tactics as the only way in
which he can operate in circumstances, then you end up damaging the needs of
the students. They are helpless pawns in
this.
The fact of the matter is that if he
wanted to be positive, he would go out there, talk to his fellow teachers and
say, look, this is not the way to settle this matter. Go out there and make sure that you do the
best job you can for the students and do not use them as pawns in what is
obviously a disagreement between you and school boards and administrators and
so on, and perhaps even the provincial government; but, rather than do that,
because it would be positive, he chooses always to take a negative action as he
always has done, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I think that is most unfortunate.
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of meeting with students, I would
just like to give the member just a brief sampling of some of the areas where I
have made an effort to meet with students and where I have made sure that I
have visited across this province.
I have spoken with students obviously in
the Fort Garry School Division, in
I spend a great deal of time, as minister,
making sure that I am in the field, that I am able to speak with people who are
teaching in the field, who are parents, and also students. I have been in the classroom. I have had the chance to speak with graduating
students from many of these areas, to talk with those students about what they
hope that their futures will be like and what they look forward to, and they
certainly look forward to having an economic future in
So there has been a number of ways in
which I meet with students as frequently as I can to make sure that I
understand what their interests are and what their concerns are and to provide
them with information and to make sure that they feel that they do have a
connection with this office and government.
Mr. Plohman: I am sure the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will give
the teachers that message that he would like me to give; he will give that
message directly to the teachers as to what they should or should not be doing.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
I think that, inadvertently‑‑I
do not know whether he realizes it or not; I am sure he does‑‑through
his actions and the actions of his minister, he has, in fact, given a very
different message that has created this unrest and uncertainty. He has to
realize that his actions and the decisions of his government, if anything, are
encouraging the teachers to do what they are doing, not any actions as I, the
opposition critic in Education, have undertaken. I think that has to be on the record clear.
The responsibility lies with the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) and this Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) for any disunity that
exists in the public education system at the present time, and let them not
attempt to blame anyone but themselves for what is happening out there at the
present time.
I ask the minister, in light of the fact
that she said she has been meeting with students‑‑I assume these
meetings have taken the place over the last year on occasions when she may or
may not have been in schools and so on; maybe there have been formal meetings‑‑but
what I want to know is: Have these
meetings taken place since the decisions of her budget? Will she now agree to meet with the students
to discuss the concerns and hear the concerns that they have with regard to
what is taking place now at the present time in the public education system as
a result of her and her government's action in education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I have been in the schools since the
time of the budget, and I have made sure that, in the time that I have been in
the schools, I have spoken with teachers and I have also been in the
classroom. Certainly, since the time of
this budget, I have made every effort to be as accessible as possible and to
continue to show my interest and my commitment to the field.
That commitment continues. I continue to make sure that, as often as
possible‑‑it is somewhat more difficult during the Estimates
process because of the time, the long period of time in which we will be
discussing the Estimates of the Department of Education. The communication, the very direct and face‑to‑face
communication with those in the field has been extremely important while I have
been minister.
Mr. Plohman: That is why I am pursuing this. The minister says this on numerous occasions,
every possible occasion, that the consultation and discussion, which, she now
says, are with the partners in education‑‑and she has confirmed
that she believes that students are partners in the education system as of her
answers today.
In light of that, that is why I am asking
the minister: Will she meet‑‑well,
let us put it this way first‑‑has she been requested to meet with
students involved in any of the demonstrations regarding the concern about
quality of education?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have not been requested to meet with those
students. School divisions are meeting
with students and the school divisions will be explaining to students the local
prioritization that each of the local school divisions has made. The local
school divisions will be explaining, as employers, what their decisions have been
based upon. So these students have had
access, as far as I am aware, to those people who are directly making decisions
in their areas.
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister, in her desire to
communicate with the partners in education, have any desire to meet with the
students on this issue as well?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I have said to the member that the
school divisions are meeting. The school
divisions are the employing authorities in each of the divisions and the
superintendents do work with the trustees in terms of setting out the plans for
that school division. Principals are
also in charge of their own schools, and I know that they too will provide
information. I continue to make every
effort to be in the schools and to be able to speak with as many students as I
can, but, as I said, at the moment, time is somewhat shorter because of the
Estimates process and the obligation of the minister over this time.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister says that the school
divisions are the employing authorities, but the students are not employees of
the school divisions. They are students,
and the minister has a responsibility as the Minister of Education for the
education of those students. Does the
minister feel any responsibility for the concern that is being expressed by
students with regard to the loss in quality of education at the present time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I seems to me
that the students have been speaking about decisions taken by teachers, and the
decisions taken by teachers which have the potential of affecting students and
what students have seen as some of their educational experiences. Some of those experiences occur at various
times of the day. So these students are
meeting with the teachers' employers, the employing authority within that
school division, to discuss the priorities that that school division has set on
behalf of its employees.
Mr. Plohman: The minister prefaces her answer with,
"it seems to me" that the students are expressing concerns with
regard to decisions of teachers. How can
the minister say that is what their concerns are and that is the limit of their
concerns if she has not met with them?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the students have asked for meetings
with their local school divisions and that would be whomever they choose. It may be the superintendent. It may also be trustees. But I have seen the
reports, as the member has seen, where students are concerned about the extracurricular
activities, and those are directly related to what decisions teachers will be
making, and so the students have then moved to the employing authority of
teachers, and that is the school divisions.
So, when I say what the students' concerns are, that is what I have seen
them to be as they have been expressed through the media, and they are
addressing their concerns in the area of the local employing authority.
* (1610)
Mr. Plohman: As the chief educator, or the responsibility
for education in this province, the minister surely does not want to get her
impressions from the media on this. Does
she not feel the need to hear directly from the students as to what their
concerns are?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I suppose we
could speak forever on this topic. The students
have made known their concerns, which are in the area of potentially the loss
of extracurricular activities and support.
That is directly related to the action that teachers may take. Therefore, the students have now approached
the school boards in their areas, and they have had meetings arranged in their
areas. It is from the local areas where
these priorities are determined.
Mr. Plohman: Have these students attempted to talk to the
minister?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have had no
indication that the students have tried to speak with me or to have a meeting
with me in my office.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, have the
students called the minister's office and talked to her staff then?
Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that some students have spoken
with my office, but it was not in relation to a meeting with me.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, was it with
regard to the provincial role in what is happening in Education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I will find out the details of the
request for the member and make sure that he is acquainted with the request
that has come from the students.
Mr. Plohman: I think it is important to determine whether,
in fact, the students do see a responsibility or the need for an explanation
from the minister about what is happening with the extracurricular activities
and the general quality of education in the divisions throughout this province. I think it is important for this committee to
determine whether the minister has been asked to comment and to assist with the
concerns that are being raised.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
that some students did contact my office.
The students wanted some direction in terms of making their concerns
known. They have not asked for a
meeting. The students were advised to
put their concerns down, to send them by letter to the minister. I would certainly have an opportunity to then
look at them and reply. We will see in
what is received what the other official requests might be from students.
Again, I would say that students have
directed their concerns to the employing authority. My understanding is that in many cases, and I
am not able to say in all cases at the moment, a meeting has been arranged
between the employing authority, which is the school division‑‑and
that is the employing authority who employs the teachers‑‑with an
opportunity for an explanation and discussion with students.
I am not sure what the whole range of that
discussion will be, but there has been an offer, I understand, from‑‑and
again I hesitate to say all, I am not sure if it is all, but certainly many
school divisions for students to have an opportunity to have a discussion. Again, I come back to saying their concerns
are related to a potential withdrawal of service by the teachers, and the
employing authority of teachers is the school division.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
keeps referring to the employing authority of the school division. I know we are talking of at least three
school divisions, if not more, that have been involved in student protests
about the potential loss of extracurricular support services. So I would ask the minister whether she is
only talking about one school division or Interlake, River East, Seven Oaks,
which are at least three that there is public knowledge of protests by
students.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I speak of the
employing authority of a teacher, and the employing authority of a teacher is a
school division. Therefore, I have
spoken about a division who employs a teacher where students have been
concerned. I understand that concerns
have been expressed in several school divisions, and I understand that the
division that is the employing authority of a teacher will make arrangements
for students to meet.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is it a fact
that the minister's office, in discussing concerns with students, has directed
the students back to the school divisions and told them they are talking to the
wrong place?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
that, in the contact with my office, students were advised to put their
concerns in writing for us to have a chance to look at the collective
concerns. Then, if there is any request
for a meeting, we will know when the letter arrives.
Mr. Plohman: Did her office also tell the students that
they should be directing their queries to the superintendent's office, not the
Minister of Education's (Mrs. Vodrey) office?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, students have
made a connection between their schools and their school divisions. That is
where they have begun their demonstrations and where the first meeting has
occurred. Our office would have given
the information that school divisions are employing authorities of teachers.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
confirming then that her office has redirected students back to the superintendent's
office and discouraged students from talking with her office about these
concerns.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, that is completely
wrong. What I have said is that students have, first of all, directed their
questions to the employing authority, and my office would point out to students
that school divisions are the employing authority.
* (1620)
Where students have continuing concerns,
we have asked students to put their concerns together, bring their collective
concerns, put them on paper and send them to the minister. When I receive those concerns, I will know
more about what the students are asking for.
An Honourable Member: What she is saying is that the students are
smarter than you.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not think
we need cheap shots from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) here. I know he is very concerned about this whole
issue and how the Minister of Education is handling it; that is why he is
sitting in at this committee. But I
think it is important that we listen to what the minister is saying and how her
office is handling this very sensitive issue.
This is what I am trying to determine at the present time.
Can the minister indicate whether her
office has also provided the students with the whole story, as she said
earlier, which is important, and that is, the whole story being that the
province has cut funding this year by 2 percent and many school divisions by
more than that, and that she has capped the ability of school divisions to
raise money locally and as a result the squeeze has been put on school
divisions, and they therefore have very little option but to make cuts that
will impact on the quality of education?
Has the minister's office also told and
explained that to the students when they call?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the students
have not called with their specific questions, and we expect that the
questions, which will be a collective of questions we believe from students
within certain schools and divisions, will be addressed, will be sent to me and
with that I will be able to answer what the concerns are and provide
information for students.
Mr. Plohman: In a slightly different vein, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask the minister whether she has any concerns
about the impact of Bill 22 on school divisions and the employees insofar as
the differentiation of impact? Has she
thought this through before bringing in her portion of Bill 22 which gives the
employing authorities, the school boards, the option of‑‑as she
calls it, and which I said is a, largely, misnomer because school boards do not
have a lot of options. Nevertheless, since that bill does give school divisions
the option unilaterally to withdraw salaries for days that would normally be
used for professional development, the 10 days that have been allocated, has
she thought through the way this will impact on different school divisions and
the fairness of that kind of a proposal?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are only
now receiving information on what school divisions intend to do. But I can tell the member, and he should know
this, that agreements vary division to division, that teachers of the same
classification may receive a different salary division to division, that
benefits such as dental benefits, for instance, vary from division to division
depending upon what that division is able to afford, what priorities that
division has put on certain areas. So
there have always been differences among school divisions in terms of certain
benefits that teachers will receive.
School divisions now have the option of using up to the eight days of in‑service,
and we will be able to see what number different divisions use.
As the member knows, some of those days
are in‑service days. So we are looking to see what divisions have decided
to do, but I can tell you that by using the in‑service days, the number
of days that actually occur with teacher‑student contact will remain the
same, and that for the benefit of students that number of days will continue to
remain the same. It is the days in which
there is not student contact which divisions may decide that they would like to
bring in as part of the workweek reduction.
We did speak earlier on in the Estimates
process about times that teachers have for professional development and that
they may still wish to use some of those days as professional development. Many people do use days in which they are not
specifically paid to attend a professional or an in‑service day, but
which they do anyway. People sometimes
do that on Saturdays. Sometimes people
do it in the evening. Sometimes people
do it in the summertime.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
So we will look to see what the divisions
have decided to do in terms of the workweek reduction, but I will remind the
member again, it does not affect the teaching days. It does not affect the days in which teachers
and students would have contact, and the benefits do vary among divisions
across this province.
Mr. Plohman: I am quite aware that the benefits, the
salary levels vary across the province from division to division. So, from the minister's answer, can I assume
that she does not think it is unfair the way the withdrawal of these days is
impacting on teachers from division to division? Is that an accurate way to sum up the
minister's feeling about whether this is fair or not?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we have done is
give divisions a flexibility in determining how they would like to apply the
workweek reduction. We have also
protected programs by offering this as an option. We have also minimized layoffs by offering
this as an option, and we have done this to protect teaching positions. Surely, this is one way and one action that
the member would want us to see to protect teaching positions and to protect
the number of days of teacher‑student contact. So there is an element in that area, I think,
of great consideration on behalf of teachers within the
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I received a letter
from a teacher, an Anne Marie Philippot in the Mountain School Division. She writes:
I would like to bring to your attention a serious problem that is developing
in education in rural
I ask the minister, considering the points
that were raised in that letter, whether she thinks that the way this is being
applied is fair.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said in the
answer which I have just given, there is difference in benefits and difference
in salaries among divisions at the moment, and that benefits that teachers
receive will vary from division to division.
I certainly worked in two separate school
divisions, and I am aware that even between those two school divisions, which
are both city school divisions, there were differences, and the differences
were not a secret. People knew that
there were differences. So we have to
understand that we are starting from a place in which teachers are aware that
from one division to another there is some difference in terms of their
agreement.
The member is saying that he would like a
specifically uniform scheme that he thinks would perhaps be more beneficial,
and then to remove some of the local autonomy and some of the decision‑making
which boards are able to do right now.
I have to say it seems that the letter‑writer
has suggested that a reduction of salaries is a tax. Well, we have certainly looked at the
workweek reduction as a way to assist school divisions to minimize
layoffs. I think that is an important
consideration, that we make every attempt to keep Manitobans working, and we
make every attempt to protect the quality of education in
Mr. Plohman: I noted, with a great deal of interest, the
minister's implied concern about local autonomy and her seeming concern about
minimizing layoffs, and I have to just ask her the question: Was Bill 16 also an attempt to preserve local
autonomy and minimize layoffs?
Mrs. Vodrey: The intent of Bill 16, as the member well
knows, was to offer a protection to the taxpayers of
* (1630)
Mr. Plohman: The minister talks about concern about local
autonomy and minimizing layoffs. How can
she reconcile those statements with her introduction, and support therefore, of
Bill 16, which limits the ability of school divisions to make decisions
locally, and to thereby minimize layoffs?
Mrs. Vodrey: What Bill 16 does is to limit the amount that
the special requirement can be increased and, therefore, how much additional
money might be raised by the local taxpayer, by the special levy.
I think it is very important for the
member to know‑‑and we will get into this when we speak more fully
about Bill 16‑‑Bill 16 does offer latitude. It allows for considerations of differences
among divisions, an increase in student population, the phase‑in funding,
which is now in its second year. So we
have made an attempt to protect the taxpayers of
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, does the minister
then agree that, by definition, it limits the local autonomy of school
divisions? I mean, on the one hand, the
minister said that she wanted to preserve local autonomy by not specifying a
minimum number of days that had to be included in professional
development. So that was very noble; she
wanted to protect local autonomy. On the
other hand, we see Bill 16, which does, frankly, quite the opposite. It limits local autonomy, limits local decision
making.
I want to say to the minister and ask the
minister whether she would agree that by definition, limiting the special
requirement, that, in fact, it limits the local autonomy of school boards and
impacts and undermines that local autonomy‑‑yes or no.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, setting a limit on
how much school divisions can raise through property taxation over the last
year was not an easy decision. However,
it is important that the province provide some leadership at a time when it is
imperative that all organizations that are dependent upon government funding
practice expenditure restraint.
It would also be important for the member
to understand the two additional points that need to be made. First of all, it is important to note that
within the limit set, the divisions are free.
They budget as they wish and they determine how those funds will be
used.
Secondly, those divisions receiving phase‑in
funding can increase their property tax up to the limit, plus the amount of
phase‑in funding that they receive for '93‑94.
So there is some latitude which is
available to school divisions, but the province also acted on behalf of
taxpayers and also did provide some leadership at a time when this is very
important.
Mr. Plohman: So then the minister agrees that her decision
has in fact limited local autonomy, when she introduced Bill 16 and proposes to
put a cap on the special requirement?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member really
attempts to put words in my mouth which I would not have said. We had to make a decision, as I said, which
would protect the local taxpayer, which also we believe would protect students
and staff.
We have put forward Bill 16 which limits
the amount that can be raised with the special requirement, but we also
attempted to provide Bill 22, the workweek reduction, which we believed would
assist in minimizing layoffs which might need to occur in terms of salary
obligations. In addition to that, we
also have looked to protect students. We
have looked to protect their programs. We have looked to protect students by
protecting the number of teaching days and to make sure that those teaching
days remain constant.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is very noble,
once again, of the minister to take all those measures to provide so much
protection, but how does the minister reconcile the concern that she has
expressed about property taxes, when she is a part of a government that has
increased property taxes by $75 for every homeowner by reducing the property
tax credit by $75? How can the minister
reconcile her public statements that she is concerned about increasing property
taxes, when she supports the decision to increase property taxes by $75 for
every homeowner in the province and by much more for many with a minimum $250
tax on all property?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, in the area of
education, specifically, I did let the member know that the amount of funds
raised for education by property tax has remained constant over the past 10
years. The amount of funds which have
been provided by government from the general revenue has also remained constant
in terms of its ratio and in terms of its percentage.
I will remind the member again that the
government share has, in terms of its ratio and percentage, been 54 percent
with the property tax portion being 46 percent.
Point of
Order
Mr. Filmon: On a point of order, I do not want to, in any
way, inhibit the member opposite from getting all the information that he
wants. I do point out that the property
tax credits are a matter for the Department of Finance. They come under the Estimates of the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness). I believe that
the member opposite should address any questions with respect to property tax credit
to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Plohman: On that point of order, I am not asking the
minister about information about the property taxes, except to acknowledge the
fact that she is saying that she wants to keep property taxes down as a result
of actions that she is taking and bills she is introducing in the Legislature,
when, in fact, her government has made decisions contrary to that‑‑simply
to reconcile those two actions. It is as
simple as that. I am not asking her to
explain various aspects of the property tax credit system.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: After considering the point of order brought
up by the First Minister, the First Minister did not have a point of order, but
I would advise the committee that we are dealing at this time with Planning and
Policy Development. If we could keep the
discussion and the debate relevant to that line, I think it will keep the
decorum and aid the decorum of this committee.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would also like to
remind the member of a fact that seems to slip his mind. Last year this government reduced the ESL or
the Education Support Levy by one mill.
This year we held it at that same rate.
We did not move in and increase that.
We reduced it by one mill when we introduced the new funding
formula. That was again an effort to
protect the taxpayers of
* (1640)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister knows
full well that over the last five years this government has, by not funding public
education at inflation or above, offloaded education onto the property
taxpayers in this province, the local taxpayers. As a result of that, the minister has, in
fact, increased indirectly the property taxation.
I know the Premier is aware that this is
commonly called in
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member
for Dauphin that all members here are to be looked upon as honourable members.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not think that
should be taken out of context. I was
referring to the jargon used for a name of a tax, not to a member. When referring to the Premier, I certainly
would not just refer to his name. I have
many other ways of describing the Premier.
In this particular case, I was talking about the tax that has been, I
guess, named in a rather friendly way, the GFT.
It seems very appropriate and very realistic, I guess, particularly
hurtful for the Premier because in fact this has bothered him in the last year
so much that he has actually moved in and put a cap on through his Minister of
Education's Bill 16 on the ability of school divisions to offset provincial
cuts to Education in real terms.
I think the minister has to put this in
context from the point of view when she says that she has dropped by one mill
the ESL. In fact, what she has done is
increased the property taxation over the last number of years.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member is wrong. He is wrong again, as usual. I think it is
important that we get the correct information on the record.
Yes, we did reduce the ESL by one mill
last year. That is important for the
member to recognize. It seems to slip
his mind. I have also explained to him
that the government share and the support to Education compared to the property
taxation of ESL and special levy has remained constant from 1982‑83 to
1992‑93.
Also, I can tell you that the government's
share in percentage of real dollars to Education has increased in the past five
years by 36.6 percent. The rate of
inflation in that time has been 23.5.
Therefore, the variance or the increase of the government's share, the
greater part of the government's share, is 13.1 percent.
So government, this government, continues
with a strong record in terms of its support to Education and also in
maintaining its share from the general revenues into Education and to maintain
that share of the general revenues at a higher rate than any of the property
taxation.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister knows
full well that the total support to the public education system announced by
the government over the last five years has been 4 percent, 3.8 percent less
than inflation during that particular period in time. If the minister wants to dispute those
figures, she should provide, table that, in fact show that inflation was not
what we said it was during those five years and the increases to public
education were not what was announced by the minister, her colleague who was
previously the minister, the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach), as
Minister of Education.
In fact, those announcements, if taken in
their cumulative total, will add up to 14.2 percent. Inflation, as of Statistics Canada's
information during that same period of time, was 18 percent. There is a shortfall of 3.8 percent in the
total dollars supplied by this government to the public education system.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is really
having trouble understanding this. Let
me try again.
We as a government have provided, from our
general revenue, an increase of 36.6 percent.
That is from the general revenue. Now the disbursements from the PSFB
have approximated inflation during the same period, but his includes that property
taxation portion of the Education Support Levy.
What I have been speaking to the member about is the government
commitment from the general revenue support to education.
Mr. Plohman: The minister can choose to quote
selectively. I think what is relevant
here is not from general revenue as much as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would like
to say so and joins in the chorus here in cheering for the minister on that
statement.
The fact is that overall the total dollars
provided by the
If the minister can show where that is
wrong then she will have to do a better job of explaining rather than talking
about general revenues. That is not the
question here. We are talking about the
total amount of dollars that the government has provided over that period of
time by way of the announcements. It has not kept pace with inflation.
That is precisely why the government was
so vulnerable when attacked by members of the public and the opposition with
regard to offloading property taxes for education purposes. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) knows that and the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) knows that and that is why they have never
attempted to use those figures that the minister is giving here at gatherings
of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees or UMM or MAUM or whatever
because in fact when those concerns were raised the government was vulnerable
and guilty as charged.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the member
seems to have some confusion about general revenue and where the funding from
education is coming from‑‑from the general revenue. I am surprised. I thought he had understood those
things. So I repeat that we as a
government have provided from the general revenue an increase of 36.6
percent. That is real money.
The member has now been carrying on about
property tax. Well, I have been explaining to him the funds that have been
allocated by this government in real dollars to education and how that has
increased beyond the level of inflation.
Now, when we do add in the property taxation funds, the ESL, then we are
at approximately the rate of inflation, but what I have been speaking about is
the support that this government has provided from general revenue.
When I put it to him another way to help
him understand, I have explained to him again that the real dollar support has increased
by 36.6 percent and that the percentage of money which has been available to
education from the government share from the general revenue side has remained
constant at 54 percent and that the property taxation portion has also remained
constant at 46 percent.
So the government share continues to be
greater. The real dollars have increased
greater than inflation. The property
taxation portion has also remained constant at 46 percent less, which is less
than the government share.
Mr. Plohman: In fact, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when I have
the announcements of each of the last five years by the Minister of Education
as to the increases in the public education system with the decrease of this
year, the increases have been cumulatively 14.2 percent and the inflation over
that period of time was 18 percent.
I will have the table again to provide to
the minister. I do not have it with me
right at this time but, clearly, the minister is‑‑
An Honourable Member: You do not know your facts.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I know the facts, for the Premier's
(Mr. Filmon) edification. The fact is,
it is 14.2 percent versus 18.
It reminds me, when I was looking through
my book, of the Premier trying to find in vain his briefing notes on the
environment or some other portfolio of the minister in attempting to make some
points in the Legislature and tries in vain to find it and comes up with
another hollow answer that provides no facts.
The fact is, here we do have the
information. I will ensure that this
information is made available to the minister.
I provided it in the House. I
have tabled it in the House. The sheet
clearly shows the inflationary rates and the total funding for the public
education system. There is no way that
the minister will be able to miscontrue this information, to leave the
impression with the public that she has spent more than inflation over the last
five years. I will say to the minister
now that that is one of the reasons why we have this unrest and the kind of
crisis we have in education at the present time.
When you consider the 2 percent that took
place this year, the reduction, it was on top of a long chain of funding
announcements that were, in some instances, less than inflation, and,
cumulatively, most certainly totalled less than inflation. I would like to ask
the minister whether her statement of this year regarding the $75‑tax
increase is a fair and believable statement that the government wanted to keep
property taxes down.
* (1650)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. At this time, I would like the honourable
members to choose their words very carefully.
Some of the words that are coming across could almost carry us into‑‑"falsehood,"
"miscontrue," those types of words do tend to bring us into a little
bit further debate, and the decorum of the meeting tends to leave us.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I would say to the member and just
remind him of the concrete actions of this government in terms of
education. I will remind him again that
we did reduce the ESL by one mill last year and this year we did not raise
it. We left it at that one‑mill
reduction, and we have continued to support education from our general revenue.
The past government, the one that the
member was a cabinet minister in, I do not think that they might have wanted to
increase what came from general revenue.
We have been able to increase the real dollars. We have a good record in that area. I
continue to point out to the member our commitment. It speaks for itself. The portion of government funding, the percentage
in relation to the total funding for education that has over the past 10 years‑‑we
have held that at 54 percent, and that with the ESL mill rate, which was
reduced last year, does speak to our commitment to protect the taxpayers of
Manitoba.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister may not
answer the questions in the Legislature, in the House, but in the committee,
hopefully, she would. I asked her to
reconcile this statement that she is concerned about an increase in property
taxes when she, in fact, has supported a minimum $75‑increase for every
property taxpayer in the province. How
can she reconcile the two?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, in looking at the education funding
for Manitoba‑‑and I have been speaking about our commitment to the
funding of education in Manitoba and also our effort in terms of our commitment
as a government to fund education from the general revenue and to assist
property taxes in terms of reducing the one mill‑‑I would say that
if he would like to have further explanation about rationale of the government
in terms of the $75‑property tax, he might like to speak to my colleague
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Mr. Plohman: Yes, I would not want to ask the questions
that I would ask the Minister of Finance, but the minister cannot hide behind
the Minister of Finance on this one. It
is clear that the government has taken the position to reduce the property tax
credit by $75 and to create a minimum property tax of $250. So in many cases the increase is much more
than $75.
I would just ask the minister to comment
on whether in fact it is believable to say that she is concerned about property
tax increases and, therefore, caps them through Bill 16 when, in fact, she is
part of the government and supports an increase in the property taxes of $75
for every homeowner in Manitoba? Is that
believable?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I can answer again and very
much in the same way as I have been answering all afternoon. Our government does have a commitment to the
taxpayers of
We have made an attempt to assist the
property taxpayer in Education by the reduction of the one mill rate, and also
this year by providing some leadership through Bill 16 in an effort to say that
we have to look at protecting the taxpayer and asking in Education for us to
look at how we are spending the money and how we can do the very best job in
looking at the money that we have available to us right now.
Mr. Plohman: I would just in closing on this issue today,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to indicate to the minister that in 1988 when
the former Minister of Education, at that time the honourable Roland Penner,
January 15, announced the provincial funding for
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Excuse me, Mr. Deputy Chair, a point of
order. I just have to point out to the
member that the figures that he speaks about are general revenue and ESL, and
that is combined. What we have been speaking about was a commitment from the
general revenue.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is admitting that it was
selective quoting, not the whole amount.
It is interesting, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. We have given the Minister of Education the
totals and she knows that the increase is only 14 percent.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I just have to
point out that it is the member who does not understand when we are looking at
the commitment of government funding to education. Outside of the property tax,
we are looking at the commitment from the general revenue, and that is what we
have been discussing. The numbers that
he is discussing now also include the ESL, not just the general revenue
portion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please, the honourable minister does
not have a point of order. It is a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: No, her point was that she is just talking
about ESL and general revenue, and we are talking about the total funding for
the public education system, which has not increased by more than inflation,
has increased by less than inflation over the last number of years, no matter
how she wants to break this down, and that is a significant point.
Over the course of this afternoon, the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) has joined in the debate with the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) to attempt to provide some additional support for actions by this
Minister of Education which she has to be responsible for, which are not
supportable and explainable insofar as this Legislature is concerned. She has tried over the last number of days,
as well as this Premier who felt it necessary to come in and bail her out
today, but, in fact, this government has not been fiscally responsible. Over the last five years, they have failed in
their economic policies that have resulted in increases in taxation that have
taken place, as well as the tax decreases to the corporate sector.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: I just would like to say the member is
wrong. The member is wrong. He has not understood the discussion this
afternoon, and he has been quite wrong in the conclusions that he has been
trying to draw. I look forward to being
able to clarify.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being five o'clock, and time for
private members' hour, I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. The Committee of Supply will resume at 8 p.m.
Thank you.
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. When we concluded with the Estimates last
Thursday, we had been dealing with item 7, but that item has not yet been
passed. Is it the will of the committee
to proceed and deal with item 7 before reverting back to deal with item 6? Agreed.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Resolution 3.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,040,000 for Agriculture, Canada‑Manitoba Soil
Conservation Agreement, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
My understanding, there was an agreement
now that we revert to item 6 on page 17 of the Estimates manual, Policy and
Economics.
Item 6.(a) Administration.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Madam Chairperson, as I understand it, when
we raised several issues earlier on dealing with the transportation assistance
and the third line of defence and the whole issue of barley, we were told by
the minister's staff that this was the section in which we would be dealing
with those issues. So I will begin with
a few of those items.
I want to begin with farm safety. As I had indicated to the minister earlier, in
the
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Chairperson,
the overall issue of farm safety is quite wide, quite sweeping. We can talk in
terms of safety, in terms of use of equipment, and I think it is fair to say
that all modern equipment that is used in agriculture has an extensive degree
of labelling on it. By standard or by
regulation, all the safety precautions should be well addressed on equipment.
Certainly, as I mentioned in a response to
a similar question a few days ago, Manitoba Hydro does a good job of going to
various fairs and explaining to producers the fear or the problems of augers
and overhead hydro lines. The overall
process of pesticide registration certainly highlights safety for any user of
the chemicals as well as the environment and public at large.
We certainly upgraded the process in terms
of standards for equipment, pesticide registration over the course of the last
few years. We have in the department
along with ACC,
To say safety on the farm is a very
significant priority for the department would be an understatement. It is there all the time. I think that, over the course of time, we
continually improve people's awareness of how to do various operations
safely. But I think a lot of the
accidents that happen come down to stress, come down to being tired, and just
not thinking. Those momentary lapses sometimes can lead to the inevitable
situation that we all want to avoid, no matter how much work you do ahead of
time.
* (1430)
But there is no end of effort trying to be
made, to make the operation of farming as safe as possible. I think farming is recognized as being one of
the more hazardous occupations. I think
it is more hazardous than mining, if I remember right. So we just have to continue to work. Certainly, through various 4‑H
programs, safety is accentuated. It is a
never‑ending task that everybody in the department must continue to do,
to use whatever opportunity exists, whether it is in personal contact, whether
it is in meetings or whether it is via media, to give farmers constant
reminders of what they do can be hazardous if they do not apply the appropriate
safety procedures and use common sense and caution. An old motto that should be used is safety
first at all times.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, the minister raised two points
that I want to address. The first one,
he talked about the amount of stress on the farms and that as long as financial
pressures stay there, farmers will continue to be under a lot of stress, and
when weather gets bad, that even gets worse.
There have been requests and suggestions
made that there should be stress lines set up where farmers can phone in to get
support, to get counselling and that sort of thing. Has the minister given any consideration to
establishing those lines to deal with putting supports in for farmers when they
get into these difficult situations?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, certainly there is stress
in the farm community. Today's life
styles and today's economics probably mean the stress is greater than it used
to be. Things are happening faster and
there is less room for error in what you do on the farm. This all adds to stress. There are demands in the family. There are demands by the children to have a
life style equal to people in the urban environment, and on it goes.
The business of having a stress line is
not magical in itself in my mind. The
person answering the phone on the other end has got to be able to handle the
situation. It probably makes the
situation worse if somebody in dire need makes a call and the person on the
other end says, well, call so‑and‑so or I will put you on hold
until I find somebody. So it puts a lot
of pressure on the person on the receiving end to be able to handle the
complexity of situations that obviously will come on a stress line.
Certainly, my department has been in
consultation with the Department of Health about putting in such a line. There is the National Farm Management
Business Program, which a proposal is in front of them to look at a stress
line. In Agriculture, we would be
prepared to do some training of people that would be answering such calls.
If you are going to have a stress line, I
am sure you have to have it there 24 hours a day, or at least 16 hours a day at
the very minimum, because calls are more often to come in the early morning or
late evening than they are during the course of the day.
Although I hope the member does not think
it is a magical solution in itself to have that in place, I think the critical
thing is that if you do put it in place that you have people at the answering
end that are adequately trained to be able to handle the situation, to keep it
at least on hold until other professional help can be brought to the situation.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, of course, by no means will
it be a magical solution, but I think that with the technology that we have
today and the resources that we have in other departments, there is the ability
to set up various types of services by telephone. I think that it would be something well
warranted to look at and see whether there is a way that support can be in
there.
As the minister well knows, farmers many
times are in isolation. It is not that
you can always just go next door and talk to your neighbour about
something. Farmers are also very private
people who sometimes do not want to talk to their neighbours about the
difficulties that they are facing. I
think we seriously have to look at how we can implement this type of
service. It might not be easy, but there
are other services that are there and, perhaps, there is some way that we can
tie into those.
I want to just move onto another area
briefly on the whole issue of chemicals.
I raised the issue today that came out of a newspaper article, an issue
of the risks that farmers are facing with the use of chemicals. We talked about organic farming and moving in
the direction where we will not be using as many chemicals, and I wonder
whether the minister will consider looking into the fact that there are too
many chemicals used and ways that we can reduce that, but also ways that we can
ensure that farmers are using chemicals properly.
I know you cannot legislate somebody back
to saying you have to do things in a certain way, but there are
regulations. There must be something
that we can do, get more information, particularly, the information about the
risk, the health risk, the risk of cancer.
These are very potent products that are being used. If they are not being used properly, I think
that we have to work along with the companies to get that information out to
the farmers, but I believe that government does have a responsibility to let
farmers know the health risk that is involved with using these chemicals, and
they must be used more safely. Perhaps
the amounts that are used have to be cut down.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I neglected earlier to
introduce the two staff that have now joined us at the table: Heather Gregory, the Director of Economics;
and Gord MacKenzie, the Director of Boards and Commissions.
To the member opposite, there is never
going to be a totally safe environment as long as we have to farm. I think I said the other day that, over the
course of developing the industry of agriculture, we have certainly gone to a
monoculture situation. We have improved the environment for insects. We have improved the environment for
weeds. All insects, diseases, and the
weeds, Mother Nature has endowed them with an incredible ability to survive.
To think that we can get away from
chemicals is probably a wish that cannot happen. I think all farmers are economically aware of
the cost of chemicals. I mean they are
very expensive, so that in itself is certainly self‑limiting the amount
that is used.
* (1440)
In terms of making people aware, back when
I was a professor at the university, I gave a lot of lectures around rural
I am sure that 20 and 30 years ago farmers
were totally unaware that these chemicals are volatile. Sometimes you cannot even smell the volatile
chemical. It can be absorbed through the
lining of the lungs very, very effectively.
It can be absorbed through the skin; although it may look impervious, it
does absorb these chemicals. Certainly,
there are certain levels of toxicity with chemicals, and LD50 values are
certainly out there.
We spent a lot of time explaining to
producers the fact that organic phosphate insecticides were really the same chemical
make‑up as nerve gases in the Second World War‑‑that
certainly got their attention. They
operated the same way by interfering with the central nervous system, and they
were pretty quick at acting. That is why
they killed insects.
You get to the herbicides; they are not
quite as lethal in terms of LD50. But,
certainly, the long‑term impact on the body of continuous exposure,
people are becoming more and more aware of it.
The best way to prevent impact is to protect your body in the course of
handling and using chemicals.
Certainly, in all courses that involve
pesticides and the department, the issue of safety and protecting yourself is
highlighted. Wearing rubber gloves is
one of the first and foremost, and certainly wearing a respirator. If the chemical is volatile, or you are
worried about a spill, that is the way to do it. Many times when you are pouring chemicals,
sometimes a little bit of wind, and a splash can cause considerable trouble.
Wearing protective clothing like coveralls and properly washing them, rather
than putting on the dirty coveralls every day, those are some common‑sense
things that have to be continued to be stressed.
Certainly, from an economic point of view,
I see less and less chemicals likely being used. I do not see us getting away from them. I mentioned last day in the department that
biological control work has been done on leafy spurge and nodding thistle. There is certainly a potential in the future
that we will have a few more biological control agents that will work on
weeds. Biological agents control a weed,
but they do not kill it.
We now have a particularly dangerous
situation in barley of a new strain of rust.
We have, in the past, dealt with rust by breeding resistance into the
various plant species.
To go back to what I said earlier, in
terms of the various organisms of Mother Nature being very resilient, here is
an example. We have bred rust‑resistant
strains, wheat and barley, for years and years, and now there is a new strain
called QCC, which seems to be able to attack even the most resistant barley
varieties. There is one of two ways to
go: breed in the resistance, which we
have done in the past, but that will be long term; or else use a fungicide in
the short term to control it.
Now, the fungicide is very expensive and
probably that will be self‑limiting.
But now that the rust strain has appeared fairly recently, it may take
10 years to breed in the resistance, and what do you do in the intervening
time? Some chemical will undoubtedly be
used. So it is a balancing act between
trying to breed in resistance or develop biological control, and use chemicals
that continue to produce the high‑quality products we produce, and allow
the farmer to survive economically. It
is a balancing act.
In the course of all the various courses
we have put on and whatnot, we will continue to accentuate the safe handling of
chemicals. The registration process lays
out all the precautions and guidelines.
One of the best things we can always tell the producer, be sure to read
the label so that you understand the degree of toxicity and how you should
protect yourself in the course of handling or applying that particular
chemical.
Ms. Wowchuk: It is the chemical companies that produce the
product; it is the chemical companies that make the majority of money off of
these products. The chemical companies
put out nice, glossy ads advertising their products, but nowhere in those ads
do we see the risk of these products, the danger of them.
Does the minister feel that the companies
have any responsibility in making farmers more aware of the toxicity, the risks
that come along with the product, because I believe the company does have some
responsibility, but I would be interested in hearing the minister tell us whether
he believes companies are doing enough to make the producers aware of how
dangerous those products are that they are selling.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I have attended a few
chemical meetings over the years, and I will give the chemical reps reasonable
marks because they do talk about safety and the handling of chemicals. Some of them have a field day once in a
while, and they use videos to explain to producers the safety and handling of
chemicals.
You will see, certainly with some
herbicides and insecticides, a pair of rubber gloves is in the package with
each container. I think the vast
majority of people in the business of selling agricultural chemicals are aware
of the consequences of not being publicly responsible. I think that they have upped their level of
involvement in trying to maintain safe practices for handling chemicals.
The Crop Protection Institute, which
represents all chemical dealers in
So they are taking control of their own
destiny. They are being
responsible. The chemical company, the
member says, they get the profits out of these chemicals. Well, they have also got all of the costs of
developing them. Whether it is one in
100 or one in 500 chemicals that they research that actually ends up entering
the retail market, I know it is a very small percentage, but they do all the
research.
The guidelines for the research
information needed in the labelling process is laid down by Ottawa, and
Agriculture, Health and Welfare and Environment are all involved in the
registration process. These companies
incur all the research costs, not only the efficacy work to determine the
effectiveness of the chemical, under what conditions it will work, but they
have to do all the appropriate safety work, too.
They have to do all the toxicological
studies both in terms of LD50, in terms of long‑term, indirect effects of
the chemical. So that is all done at the
expense of the chemical company. I think
our process in
The member talks about the glossy ads, but
if you look at the labels, all that information is on the labels of the
containers. Often there is a little book included with the herbicide or the
pesticide and that booklet may contain 50 or 100 pages of all relevant
information. Our effort is to be sure
that the producer reads that information so he gets it first‑hand.
* (1450)
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I want to leave that topic
for now.
I want to talk about an issue that is of
concern to all farmers in western
All of this started back in 1990 or
somewhere around there. I am looking at a particular meeting of the Agriculture
ministers meeting in
I want to know, when the ministers were
talking about more efficient services and better handling and improvements to
the system, was the discussion more in improving the bottom line of the
railways or were the ministers more concerned about improving the services for
farmers and reducing costs for transportation? What was the most important
purpose of changing when we look at the transportation efficiencies? Was the goal of it to improve the efficiency
so that the railways would benefit or was it to improve the service so that
farmers would have a better service and get their grain to their destination at
a more reasonable cost?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I have been minister now
for a little over five years and transportation discussions have been on the
table for at least four out of those five years. I can unequivocally tell the member that my
sole purpose for entering these discussions or participating in them is to be
sure that the farmer has a chance to survive in the marketplace on the value of
the grain he is producing.
I said many times, and I have also told
the member in this House, if you go back and use the figures from 1980 to 1993,
you will see that the costs of elevation, cleaning, transportation, shippers
cost for transportation, costs of terminal elevator, costs of Lakehead
shipping, those costs have basically doubled in the last 12, 13 years. Those costs are all pushed back to the farm
gate. If you take wheat or you take
barley as examples and look what the farmer is getting for those commodities
since then, the price has basically dropped in half.
The bottom line in my agenda is, that
cannot go on forever, that the farmer has to accept less and less of the
commodity and everybody from the farm gate to the consumer wherever in the
world gets more and more. It is just
unacceptable. That is the basis of all
the discussion in transportation. It is
the basis of all the discussion of changing in our system, whatever it is. The
farmer cannot live with a system that always passes all the cost back to his
gate and gives him less and less for the commodity while everybody else can
take more and more and more. That just cannot be tolerated.
Yes, we have to have increased
efficiencies. That means decreased costs
in some of those components, because they have gone up so much. They have gone up so much over the last few
years. Just take, for example, the
freight rates from different points in
Every sector of the system has done the
same thing‑‑higher cost, higher cost, higher cost. They all have the reasons, and they justify
it: Yes, they are regulated rates. They have to go to this authority or that
authority to get it approved. But at the
end of the day, the farmer has got less at his farm gate for wheat and barley
and many commodities over the last 10 or 12 years. We cannot tolerate that forever.
The whole system says, well, we cannot
survive, so we have to go to the government for ad hoc programs and safety net
programs. Yes, the major reason was a
grain trade war, but the other reason is, our system was increasing costs and
the value of the commodity that is eventually sold is not increasing in value.
It is the farmers in the future who are
going to be forced, by economic reality in western
The worst example in the past, as far as I
am concerned as being a farmer, and I am going back a few years, was, whenever
the system came to a stop because of a strike at the Lakehead or at the west
coast, farmers were forced to pay demurrage, the cost of the ship sitting
there. The farmer was totally powerless
in that circumstance, yet he was forced to absorb the cost.
I will say 10, 15, 20 years ago, the value
of grain versus the cost of producing it, there was room for farmers to absorb
some cost. That does not exist
anymore. Farmers cannot absorb any more
cost. If we continue in the next 10 years
on the same path we have been in the last 10 years, the kind of cost increases,
all the way through the system, I do not know how we are going to be able to
continue to export.
Yes, the prime reason for my being at the
discussion, I know what the costs have done at the farm gate. They have all been pushed back to me as a
farmer, and I have to accept less and less.
I cannot do it any longer. That
is why I am at the table and why we look for solutions that create a system
that will allow the farmer to get more return at his farm gate. That is the bottom line. The farmer must get more return for what he
is producing at the farm gate on a wide variety of commodities. He cannot accept less and less.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I want to ask the minister
then‑‑he says he wants to help farmers reduce their costs. One of the concerns is branchline
abandonments. Branchline abandonments,
if these lines are abandoned, are going to in fact increase costs for many
farmers. They are going to be left with
no way of shipping their grain other than moving it onto the road system, which
is in effect going to cost more because the maintenance of the road is then
shifted onto a smaller tax base.
In reality, if we have some of these
branchlines closed down, it is going to mean a change. Farmers in many areas will not be able to
grow the product that they are growing because they will not have the ability
to sell that product. The railway lines
are going to be gone. Sure, you move
over to trucking, but there is added cost there. In fact, this is not going to be cheaper for
farmers, there are going to be more costs for them. So how can the minister then say that he
wants to see the farmer's costs reduced but yet one of the goals‑‑all
of this efficiency study and improvement to the transportation system‑‑one
of the goals is to abandon rail lines in many of those areas. How is that going to help farmers?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member tries to
simplify a very complex situation. I did
not just say we must reduce farmers' costs; I am saying everybody in the
system, from the farm gate on, must reduce their costs that they pass back to
the farm gate. I want farmers to
increase their income at the farm gate.
If you look back in history over the last 20‑30 years, over 50
percent of the elevators in western
As large and more efficient elevators have
been built, a large number of branchlines certainly have been closed. In Manitoba, 1,153.6 miles have been
abandoned since 1975, and certainly there was a lot of concern back when that
was happening about the impacts, exactly the way the member talks‑‑farmers
who will not be able to get their grain to market, it will cost more, and on it
goes, and the impact on roads. Yet we
have gone through a process, and over 50 percent of the elevators are closed,
1,153 miles of branchline have been abandoned, and, you know, that is the
essence of change. Farmers have larger
trucks. Roads are better. I agree with the member, there does come a
point where the distance to haul will start to become prohibitive. If you are located in a situation where you
are a long way away from the railroad, you have to evaluate whether you can
afford to haul it or whether you should feed the grain on the farm. I will come back to that in a moment.
* (1500)
Let me just talk a little bit about impact
on roads. As I look back over the last
20 years‑‑I often use that term because that is a term of a lot of
change in agriculture. Twenty years ago
all machinery came into a town on the rail.
All fertilizer came into town on a rail. All the grain produced left on the rail. Nowadays, if you watch what is going on in
your community, all the machinery comes on trucks. An awful lot of the fertilizer comes in by
trucks. Fertilizer plants are no longer
located beside railroads. They do not
even tend to use the railroad. It is all
going to be trucked in. Fuel, large
volumes‑‑trucked. Special
crops‑‑trucked, contracted and trucked.
The railroads are not handling large
volumes. Even CSP Foods at Harrowby who
take in a lot of that canola at their elevators send it from the elevators to
CSP by truck rather than by train. So that evolution has occurred. Whether half of the commodity weight that was
hauled into towns and out of towns 20 years ago came by‑‑sorry,
half of what used to come in is now going in trucks, I cannot answer, whether
it is 60‑40, whether 70‑30, but an awful lot of commodities are
handled on a road now as opposed to on a rail.
One would argue that rail should be more efficient. The bottom line is why is it not? You can put a whole string of cars together
and one engine and away they go, but yet trucks are taking away more and more
of the business.
Even if you go into livestock‑‑I
mean, 30‑40 years ago it was all in and out by train. Now it is all by truck. You do not even see any cattle cars on the
rail anymore. Why did they lose the
business? Obviously, it is cost and
service related. If there are
opportunities for farmers to be more efficient and have a better return at the
farm gate because of increased efficiencies and allowing other people to
compete, I think it is important we allow them to do it.
In terms of looking at rail lines and
trying to be sure that the right decisions are made, some of the principles
that we look at are that the line should not be removed until an alternative
service agreement is in place. When
evaluating alternatives, all costs including road upgrading, maintenance,
municipal tax base, elevator costs and producer costs must be considered and
the least‑cost option must be selected.
Specific guidelines must be applied consistently across the Prairies and
a periodic review of the guidelines and their application is appropriate to
ensure that they remain relevant.
Line closure compensation payments should
be made for a fixed time frame, maybe five years or some period of that nature,
regardless of when a line is closed and it should be made to all adversely
affected parties, in other words, a compensation component for those that are
negatively impacted by having to haul longer distances.
I agree fully with that. To tell you the bottom line, I think, because
I look at the future, and whether we will be exporting the volumes in the
future we are in the past probably is not even the issue at hand. I look at where the markets of the present
and the future are. They are basically
off the west coast, they are basically
I want producers in
So it is no question, there will be areas
that will be more negatively impacted than others if more lines go out, but I
like the idea of being able to give them some degree of compensation because of
the extra costs that they will encounter in terms of getting their product to
the main line, but do not lose sight of the fact that an awful lot of the
commodities moving off farms nowadays are going by truck as opposed to‑‑by
truck from the farm to the point of processing or destination.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, just going back to when all
of these discussions started, there was a paper. It was called the Western Grain
Transportations efficiency discussion paper that was released and outlined the
improved efficiencies under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
I wonder whether the minister's staff has
reviewed that paper and the recommendations in that paper and reviewed what the
impacts would be on grain producers if those changes that were recommended in
that discussion paper were implemented.
The author is‑‑it is a paper put out by Agriculture
Mr. Findlay: The paper the member refers to was a
discussion paper in February 1991. After
that discussion paper came out, 108 submissions went back in to Agriculture
Ms. Wowchuk: Is the minister then saying no analysis was
done on the impact on farmers, whether it would be beneficial financially or
whether there would be a negative impact on them from the recommendations in
this report?
Mr. Findlay: What we were dealing with there was the
discussion paper which certainly caused some thinking processes to emerge in
terms of whether what was outlined there was reasonable or unreasonable. Certainly, the analysis we did was part of
the response paper that we put in. But I
have just gone through a process that we believe is appropriate for delineating
what the impact will be on each line, and the member says, well, they are
negative impacts to farmers.
You are not able to make that sweeping
statement. The analysis can be done on
each line that is proposed for abandonment, along the lines that I just
mentioned, the criteria that has to be taken into effect. Only then, when you go through those
criteria, do you determine if there is negative impact, and if there is, we
have set a compensation for at least a period of time for those producers that
are negatively impacted.
* (1510)
We have said that all net savings in that
process must accrue back to the farmer, not to the rail company, not to the
federal government, not to the Wheat Board but back to the farmer. So you cannot determine if there is negative
impact until you have an actual application for abandonment. You go through the appropriate process. You address it from the point of view of the
principles I just gave you, and then a decision is made if there is a lesser
cost alternative to handling grain.
Those who are negatively impacted, there is a compensation in place.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said that his department made a
response to that discussion paper. Is it
possible to get a copy of that response as it was submitted to the committee?
Mr. Findlay: As I said earlier, the response we put
forward came under the penmanship of the advisory council, certainly with staff
input in terms of doing some research.
Whether the advisory council is prepared to release it, I will ask them. I do not imagine there is any trouble, but I
think it is only reasonable, since we asked them to take a high level of
responsibility here, that if anything gets released that they have done, they
be given the courtesy of a request.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would appreciate it if that is
available. I am sure that if this
advisory council is working in the best interest of farmers and the community,
then there should not be any problem getting it. Following those discussions, we had the
transportation meetings which were held last winter, and there was lots of
controversy about those meetings.
I want to just ask them, what role did
this discussion paper play? Was it the
groundwork then for the package that went to the transportation meetings, the work
that we started out with, with the first report that I just spoke about, the
Western Grain Transportation efficiency discussion paper and then there were
reports made on that and then we had the transportation meetings held last
year? Were the submissions that were
made in response to this discussion paper the basis for the documents and the
information that went to those transportation hearings?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, there has been a lot of activity
on transportation over the course of the last few years. I will take the member back to one other
event prior to the efficiency study, the federal paper that she talked about.
In 1990, there was a transportation
committee that went across the country chaired by George Leith. It was a federal‑provincial industry
committee. They put together their
information, along with the efficiency paper which you referred to earlier from
1991, together with information from, what we call a federal‑provincial
transportation committee. Those three
sources of information were used to put together the document on transportation
talks that were around western
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, getting back to these meetings,
the advice, the recommendation from the majority of the people that attended
those meetings, as we deal with the method of payment, was that they did not
want the method of payment changed. That
feeling is still there. The farm
organizations, the majority of farmers are saying they do not want the method
of payment changed. They want it
retained with the railway because they feel that if the method of payment
changes, we will see an acceleration of branchline abandonment and a
deterioration of the transportation system.
Yet, as we raise this issue with the
minister, he will not take a position on it.
I ask the minister, in light of the fact that farmers across the country
are saying that they do not want the method of payment changed, will he make
his position known? Will he ensure that he will do whatever he can to have the
method of payment retained to the railway as it is to ensure that farmers have
the best service?
I think we have to take into consideration
that farmers are speaking out quite strongly on this. The majority, as I say, have said that they
do not want to change. So I ask the
minister, is he prepared now to stand with farmers on this issue and have the
method of payment stay as is?
Mr. Findlay: I guess when you sit in opposition, it is very
easy to see everything as black and white, but when you are in the process of
having to work with an industry that is in a process of change, whether you
like it or not, it is not that easy to be black and white.
* (1520)
In the course of those meetings that were
held across western
She said:
Why do you not take a position?
The position I have taken started back in '89 when we formed the
advisory council with the Minister of Agriculture and asked him to take
responsibility for trying to address the complexity of the transportation
issue. That advisory council has broad
membership with producers from KAP, Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Manitoba
Pool,
The member must recognize that in the game
of exporting grain, we are furthest from salt water of any exporting part of
the world. Therefore, it is obvious that
we will have transportation costs higher than anybody else, which maybe limits
our access to those markets economically, but we should not be
disadvantaged. In
We have got to have all the information we
can possibly muster to counter those arguments.
The advisory council did four different studies over the course of time
which identified very clearly that pooling on the
The position I have taken is to analyze
everything in an ongoing way. It is not
a black‑or‑white issue. As I
said, you look at the system. Costs have
gone up and up and up beyond the farm gate, and the value of the commodity
inside the farm gate has gone down. That
cannot continue. In the process, the
broader question‑‑it is much broader than just transportation. It
is, the whole grain‑handling system needs to be challenged to keep us in
the business of producing grain without the government and the taxpayer having
to underwrite the whole industry.
So my position is to maximize the ability
of
The interests of the producer are
constantly on my mind. The question is
much broader than yes or no on MOP. The
question is, how can we reduce the costs from the farm gate on or keep them
under control where farmers can get enough return at the farm gate from these
commodities to continue to produce them for export? I guess I would like to think of a future
down the road where we export less and less raw commodities and more and more
value‑added highly processed commodities.
That is a direction I think that is profitable for the economy of the
province and, I would think, for producers, too.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, going back to the
transportation meetings, the minister said that votes were not taken. Well, in fact, those meetings that I
attended, although it was not the intent of the meeting to take a vote, votes
were taken. Farmers did pass
resolutions, and there were votes, and farmers expressed quite strongly what
their position was. If that was not
reported, then that was, I believe, in error of those people who were reporting
the meeting, because farmers said they wanted to vote and they did vote.
The minister says his goal is to improve
the price at the farm gate. I want
farmers getting a fairer return for what they produce, but I do not see how
this is going to get a fairer price at the farm gate. Who is going to gain? If the rail lines are abandoned and elevators
closed down, how does the minister propose that this is going to improve a
better return for the farmers? Farmers
are going to have additional costs, and nowhere in any of these studies is
there any indication that by abandoning these lines and reducing the services
to the farmers that farmers are going to be better off. The railway is going to be better off; the
elevator companies are going to be better off, but not the farmer. The farmer, in the end, is going to end up
paying more money to get his product to market.
The minister talks about feeding more of
the grain. We are not going to start
putting all of our grain through cattle.
That is not realistic. It just
cannot happen. So I do not see where the
farmers are going to gain in this.
I ask the minister, will it not be the
railways and the elevator companies that are going to gain and the farmers who
are going to pay more costs?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member is worried
about abandonment in the future and higher costs for the producer. That is what
she is worried about. Will she not just
reflect on the past? We have had massive
abandonment in the last 20 years. We have had massive elevator closures. Do you want that to continue? I do not want it to continue.
The process that has been going on for a
number of years is abandonment, closure of elevators and, obviously, higher
cost to the producer. I just gave you
the various categories of where costs have gone up in the system that she wants
to hang onto: cleaning costs, elevation costs, produce shipper's share of
transportation costs, Lakehead costs, Lakehead shipping costs. Those costs have
all basically doubled, and she wants to protect a system that allows that to
happen, while the producer's value of the grain at the farm gate has gone to
about half.
I do not want that to continue. It cannot go on in the next 12 years like it
has in the last 12 years or we are going to go broke as farmers. We have to bring some greater efficiencies to
the system. The member is condoning
abandonment, closure of elevators and higher cost to the farmers because she
says she wants to leave the status quo as it exists. The status quo has led to all those things
happening.
I say, the producer is not getting a fair
share of the commodity he is producing and everybody from the farm gate on is
doing quite well, thank you very much.
We cannot allow those costs to double again in the next 10 or 12 years
and the producers value of the commodity to go in half again. We will not survive as producers exporting
grain. You are saying, hang on to
something that has not been as efficient as need be for producers to survive.
I cannot understand why it is so difficult
for the member to look at what has really happened. The system we have in
We will end up shipping something. I would sooner ship canola oil than
canola. I would sooner ship wheat flour
than wheat. I would sooner ship malt or
beer than barley. Do that processing
here and sell to a market with a higher value of product.
* (1530)
We have faced abandonment and the elevator
companies would like to see more abandonment but, I assure you, they have
elevators they are not upgrading, for obvious reasons. They do not want to continue those elevators. They are building great big elevators which
obviously can take the place of many existing elevators so people in the system
are pushing for a more concentrated system.
I tell you, the farmer is going to end up paying the cost in this system
as he has paid it in the past. It is
difficult to see us surviving in the future doing the same thing we did in the
last 20 years with the ongoing increases in cost from the farm gate on passed
back to the producer. We have a problem.
The member wants to focus it right down
to, pay the producer or pay the railways.
It just is not that simple. It is
not that small. That is maybe 5 percent
of the whole pie that we are talking about, but I think it is important for the
ability of farmers to survive. As long
as the bigger interests in the grain industry can keep us focused and the farm
community fighting over that issue, meanwhile they are beating the heck out of
us on all these other issues that we are forced to pay. Then they say, well, the farmer is not getting
enough so government has to step in.
Governments are going broke.
I mean, where is Saskatchewan going to be
10 years from now?‑‑tremendous dependence on grain, tremendous
dependence on export, the federal government, who is as close to broke as you want
to be, and a Saskatchewan government that is terribly indebted and not able to
fund the safety nets of the future to offset this high cost beyond the farm
gate.
I am not saying there is a magic answer
but, if we are going to continue to fight over 5 percent of the pie‑‑maybe
it is 10 percent, maybe it is 15, I do not know, it is a small part‑‑we
are going to lose the war. I guarantee
you. The advisory council has come
considerably to focus on that, trying to identify what we need to have in the
future if we are going to survive. I
gave you the list of criteria with regard to abandonment. I think they are very reasonable and they
respect the farmer. The bottom line is,
all efficiencies, all money saved in the efficiency process go back to the
farmer at the farm gate, not go to somebody else in the system.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, the minister says that
It is not the farmers who have caused all
this problem, but the people at the bottom, and the farmers are some of those
people, are being asked to pick up the majority of the costs. We are trying to improve the system so that
grain companies are happy and the railways are happy, but we are not thinking
about the people in the community that are trying to make a living.
The minister says that lines will be
abandoned, elevators will shut down. I
do not expect every elevator to stay open.
I do not. It is unrealistic. Just like all small towns, we have a changing
pattern in small towns, but we have to do what we can to provide some of those
services so that all of the railways are not abandoned in other areas and we
just have one line along the main line where everybody has to transport their
product to.
To say that I am saying that the system
does not have to change, I think the changes have taken place, but what the
minister is promoting here is catering to the railways and catering to the
grain companies and not providing service for the producers. I think that is where he has to look.
If we believe in the farming community, we
do not have to cave in to all of these ideas that we have to become more
efficient because that is what the grain companies want. We have to look at also service and providing
people to have the ability to make a living, and, yes, we have to look at
getting a better price for farmers at the farm gate. But decreasing their service and abandoning
railways and encouraging these big elevators are not going to help all farmers.
I think that the minister is wrong in what
he is saying, that what I am promoting is less return for the farmers. What is being proposed here by these
efficiencies in railway lines is what is going to cause a poorer return for
farmers.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, it is getting rather
frustrating because the member completely sees this whole process backwards. I
can assure the member that the railways and the elevator companies do not like
what I am saying because I am advocating constantly that the producers have to
be the net benefactor.
Now, for the fourth time today, I will
tell you that I constantly have been advocating that, in the process of finding
efficiencies, the value of that does not go to anybody but the farmer. Nobody has ever said that. You think the elevator companies like me for
saying that? Not a chance.
If the member thinks we can operate in the
future without more efficiency, she is wrong.
The efficiencies have to come from beyond the farm gate because
efficiencies have not happened beyond the farm gate anywhere near to the extent
they have inside the farm gate. The
farmers have increased efficiency, produced more, taken less, worked harder,
taken more risk. What does he get for
it? Less value for the commodity at the
end of the day.
That is not acceptable, not to me, and
that has been why I have been on this agenda for four or five years. The farmers got the short end of the stick
for far too long in this province and western
The member says some things are going to
change, some elevators are going to close, and I am promoting large
elevators. I am saying exactly the
opposite. We have the advisory council
that has a system of principles that we are dealing with abandonment in the
future.
One issue that the member has not raised
which I thought she might ask about is, why do we not use the existing lines
more efficiently? Why do we not keep the
elevators open on the lines? You want
the answer? The grain companies say that
they cannot keep them open. There are
too many, it costs too much. The railways say it is too expensive to run down
there. I say, okay, let us have road
railers run. Let farmer cooperatives
have the elevators, maybe show the system how they can operate.
Fisher Branch is an example of an off‑track
elevator where they truck it to a main line.
Those kinds of systems, let us find out if they are more efficient. I almost guarantee you that they will be.
The elevator companies and the railways
want to hang on to the system. They do
not want to be challenged. They do not
like talk of seeing these road railers come in.
I think those road railers would show them a greater sense of
efficiency. That way, if you had that,
you could keep more of these so‑called inefficient lines and inefficient
elevators open.
We have a system that she is promoting
that says, no, we do not want to do any of that study. The elevators and the railways do not want to
see that analysis done. They do not want
to see competition being created that way.
I think it will be good for farmers if we
do, because I want farmers to be able to haul to the closest possible
point. If we have already got the lines
there, and there is a more efficient way to use those lines with off‑track
road railers and elevators operated in a different fashion, I think they should
be promoted‑‑short‑line railroads. I think they should be promoted, but, boy, is
there resistance in the system to seeing that happen. The system, if it was really wanting to
promote an efficient system, would be bringing those things forward, say, we
could do better if we contracted out the hauling of these cars off a certain
line to a main line. But, no, they will
not bring that forward. I wonder why.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said that we had too regulated a
system. Is the minister proposing that
everything be deregulated? Too regulated
in what respect? Where have we got too
much regulation, in the minister's opinion?
Mr. Findlay: What I am getting at in too regulated a system
is we have a system that is regulated under WGTA on a cost‑plus
basis. In other words, you are in the
system, you work up your costs, you take them forward, you get cost‑plus. Cost‑plus. Now would I not like to farm like that? But they can run a system like that.
We cannot go on like that. That cost‑plus system has caused these
rate increases that I am railing constantly that people do not like to hear me
talking about. I wish the member would
look more carefully at the overall issue.
Can we allow an existing system to go on for another 10 or 15 years and
still stay in the business of farming and producing grains for export in the
raw form?
* (1540)
I wish she would really look at the
figures and see where we are headed. Now
we have always said there will be drought somewhere in the world, and that will
bail us out. That is not a good enough
answer because it will not happen. It
will not happen.
The price of grain will not double and
triple because of that. It will not
happen, but our system, our regulated system is cost‑plus‑‑cost
plus a decent return, cost plus whatever. Farmers cannot operate with that, I
do not think, in the future, because governments, et cetera, cannot come in and
stabilize the system with safety nets in the future like they have in the past.
You know that in farming costs go up;
costs come down. Incomes go up; incomes come down. But you look at the system in terms of
whether it is elevation costs, freight costs, or Lakehead costs, constantly up,
constantly up, constantly up. The farmer
is forced to pay it, and he cannot do it.
I almost guarantee you that he cannot do it in the next 10 years the way
he has in the last 10. It is going to
break us. But, no, the member wants to
skirmish over here on 10 or 15 percent or 5 percent of the overall issue,
whether we can survive in producing and exporting raw grains.
I am saying, I want to talk about the
bigger issue. How do we get our costs
under control? How do we make sure that
all the increases in efficiency accrue to the farmer in the future? We have got to have efficiency. The rails should be the most efficient way to
get grain off. If we can have a rail
system with off‑track short‑line railroads and elevators as
dispersed as they are today, I think that is a good system. But the system the member advocates is a cost
reduction in branchlines, a cost reduction in elevators, more cost to the
farmer and more distances to travel.
That is the status quo she wants to advocate. I say, that is not good enough. We have got to have a more open mind, a
broader thinking process to give farmers a decent opportunity to survive in the
future.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, the minister has not
understood very much of what I am saying, that my goal‑‑the goal is
to offer farmers the ability to move their grain to the elevator at a very
efficient cost and get a better return at the farm gate.
I want to ask the minister then, does he
believe that changing the method of payment will improve the farm gate price
for grain producers? What will be the
benefit? What does the minister feel
will be the benefit of changing the method of payment to the producer?
Mr. Findlay: I can guarantee the member that if that
happens it is not a panacea. It does not
solve all the problems I have talked about.
It does not make a more efficient system automatically. It does not reduce the elevated costs in the
system. It is not by itself a panacea.
You take a pot of money that now goes to
railroads and you start paying it to the farmer. The farmer in the existing process will have
the same costs. So in balance, if
everything works right, the farmer has the money in his hand now to pay the
railroad instead of the railroad getting it directly from the government. So it is not a panacea to the overall
problems. If it brings in road railers,
increases efficiency to the system, maybe it creates more competition, that
would probably help to keep costs under control. But by itself it is not a solution toward
survival of the next‑‑it does not answer all these questions that I
have been trying to get the member to understand.
Ms. Wowchuk: We know now that the federal government in
their last budget said that the transportation assistance is going to be
reduced and continue to be reduced unless the farmers accept the change in the
method of payment to pay the producer.
Has the minister done any studies, or has he had meetings with his
counterparts in other provinces? What is
his proposal, his suggestion, about how this money should be distributed? Is there a plan of action on what is going to
happen? Does the minister propose that
all provinces should have the same plan of action, or should each province make
their own decisions about how the money should be distributed? If that is the case, how does he propose that
the money should be distributed in
Mr. Findlay: As I mentioned to the member earlier, the
advisory council was struck in 1989. A
number of a studies have been done to position ourselves in case this day
came. So I think we have done a lot of
work; we kind of know what the parameters are that are of importance to us, to
be sure that
The member talks about dividing money by
province. I am not in favour of that; in
fact, I am opposed to dividing it by province, because then you create
individual trade barriers, you create an unlevel playing field. If you are going to allocate‑‑I
say that, if you are going to allocate money to the producer, every producer in
western
Now the advisory council is looking
at: What is the definition of that? How do you be sure that every producer is
treated equally? You should not be
treated differently in
If we do not, we will lose out, because we
will be forced to take the higher‑cost system to the east, and it is
going to be higher costs in the future.
The
Farmers should have access to that, and
the allocation of money, if that is going to be the way it is, should be done
with giving
Now you could well appreciate
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, the minister said earlier
that the method of payment was only part of the picture, that there is much
more going on. But to
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I took a position in
1989. I struck the advisory council as
the Minister of Agriculture. I took the
responsibility to deal with this issue on an ongoing basis. A lot has changed along the way, a lot has
changed.
The most recent federal budget is one of
the biggest changes of all. The
minibudget last December started the process of reducing the amount of money
available to us. The last federal budget
of April started the process of taking away some more. We have got to stop that. Now, if they are saying the only way to stop
it is to deal with changing, then we have done a lot of work through the
advisory council over course the time as to how to address that issue, and the
work is not done. The process of, if
there was an allocation to be made, there is not a united position at this
time.
* (1550)
There are a number of different things
being looked at by the council as they continue to meet. I dare say they have had over 20 meetings,
and numerous studies have been done.
They have met with various committees, commissions and interested
parties that have visited the province on an ongoing basis, advising me how to
position myself when the various issues come up, the various challenges, the
various decision points as we move along.
The member may say she does not want to
see anything happen. She has dire fear of something happening, but what if
It just is not as black and white as the
member would like. What the actual end result is going to be, I cannot
predict. You cannot predict what is
going to change along the way. I mean,
six months ago, who would have predicted what the federal budget did‑‑the
minibudget? Nobody would have predicted
that. It did happen, and it looks like
it is going to continue to happen.
We have advocated the $726 million should
be retained for the benefit of western
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said that he took a position a
few years ago, but we never knew what that position was. He never said whether he was in favour of
retaining the system, whether he was talking about paying the producer. He never did lobby the federal government, as
I understand it, to keep the system the way it is. I do not recall hearing him say that he did
not want the changes.
Mr. Findlay: I cannot believe that the member now says she
wants to keep everything the way it was after we just talked about all these
cost increases we have faced. I am not
going to take a position, yes or no, on anything until we have seen all the
elements of the argument.
My constant position is to work towards
improving the ability of
We do not want to have decisions made like
The farmer has done his share over the
course of time and has been very responsible saying, yes, I will bite the
bullet, and I will take less. It cannot
go on like that. That is the position I
took in '89. That is why I put together
an advisory council, because I could see it was a complex series of issues
unfolding. They have become much more complex in the last four years than they
were in '89. It does not make the thing
any easier. The GATT process does not
look like it is going to resolve in a fast enough or positive enough process to
give us that price increase in grain we thought would bail us out of this. We are going to have to find other methods in
the system to improve our ability to survive.
I do not think there is a magic wand. We may not be able to do it well enough. That is the process I have been working on for
a long time.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, the minister said he has
taken a position. Many times I have
asked in Question Period for the minister to tell us whether or not he
advocated changing the system to pay the producer or to pay the railways. That was what I was getting at.
I believe, yes, farmers and the provinces
are backed into a corner now where they have no choice but to accept changing
the payment to the farmer because of the actions that the federal government
has taken. It has to come. The minister did not take a position prior to
that. We are being forced into it.
The next question I was getting at
is: When will farmers know what the
proposal is on how the money should be distributed? Does the minister propose to hold meetings with
farmers so they can have input? He says
there are many different proposals that are being looked at. Will the farmers have the opportunity to have
some input into that, or is it just going to be handed down? What is the plan, and when can we expect a
decision? As the minister has said, the
last two budgets by the federal government are putting a lot of pressure on
changing the method of payment. When can
farmers get some answers on how this is going to happen?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, as I have been saying all
afternoon, the advisory council is the process that we are using. It has broad representation on it. Manitoba Pool, UGG, Union of Manitoba
Municipalities, KAP and the
We are evolving. They have not come to a conclusion as to how
it could be done, a distribution equally to all producers across western
Another meeting is scheduled in the next
few weeks. I will be getting
recommendations from them, in other words, from the leaders of numerous farm
organizations. I will be getting a recommendation
in the course of June leading to the July ministers' meeting.
The process to be used to communicate with
producers, I will be asking for input from the leaders of these various farm
organizations, how to evolve producers.
They all have lots of resolutions on their books over the course of
time. As the members say, the earth has
moved somewhat here in terms of dealing with a different scenario than we were
a year ago, a much different scenario.
I am working through the advisory council
with the leaders of all the major farm organizations and their umbrella
groups. That discussion is ongoing. The minister will be working with the
advisory council, which is made up of the leaders of a large number of farm
organizations which I think represent all farmers across
Ms. Wowchuk: Does the minister expect that a decision will
be made at that June meeting, and we will see some plans put forward as to how
the funds will be distributed, or does he anticipate that the system will stay
as is for some time until negotiations or plans are put in place on what is
going to happen? What time frame are we
looking at here?
Mr. Findlay: The kind of guideline that we are working
under is the federal government's statement of August 1, '94. Decisions have got to be made, otherwise the
fund reductions carry on.
I cannot predict what the result of the
advisory councils current discussions will be and what they will recommend or
what process they will recommend or the outcome of the July meeting with all
ministers as to what process we would recommend for western
* (1600)
Ms. Wowchuk: The other issue that is causing a lot of concern
within the farming community is the Carter report and move towards a
continental market on barley sales. The
majority of farmers and farm organizations have said they are not in agreement
with the Carter report. The majority of
farmers feel that the Canadian Wheat Board is serving them very well, and they do
not want to move towards a continental market.
Again when we raise this issue with the
minister he continues to say that there are a lot of studies that have to be
done on it or are being done, just on that.
Has the minister or his staff done an analysis of the various reports,
and do we know what the position of this government now is with respect to
moving towards a continental market versus continuing with the system that we
have now?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, there are several studies
that have been done. There is the Carter
study, there is one that was done by the Wheat Board and one that was done by
Schmitz for the prairie Pools.
Staff have looked at them, I have looked
at them and certainly, you know, when any of these studies‑‑the
world of economics sometimes is not as precise as we would like it to be.
Assumptions are made, predictions are made, conclusions are drawn. There is a lot of "if" in both the
assumptions and the conclusions. As we
look at all these various reports and studies, it is difficult to have total
confidence in any one of them. That is
really the bottom line that we come to.
I have said that it is important that we
access all the markets we can and, certainly, the
There is a certain level of uncertainty in
my mind as to whether we are maximizing our access, getting the best price,
whether any other system would do a better job.
So I certainly was proactive and wrote to the Wheat Board and really
asked them a number of questions so it would jump out of the Carter report.
I will just read the questions to the
member. The first: Is the barley producer receiving the best
possible price for his product in the American market in terms of net value
back at his farm gate? With the spread
between malt barley and feed barley narrowing over the past few years, what
confidence can Manitoba producers have that every available market is being
sourced at the highest available price?
Is the Wheat Board maximizing its volume of sales to the
The last comment I make to the Wheat Board
is, I would like to be assured that the Wheat Board is and can continue to sell
barley to the best possible advantage of
The Wheat Board responded with a letter to
me. It is a fairly lengthy letter but to
some degree gave me some confidence in terms of the answers to many of my
questions. The bottom line that they use
is that the Wheat Board does and will continue to sell barley to the best
possible advantage of
Another comment they make is that a
narrowing spread between malt and feed barley in
So what they do is they demonstrate, yes,
there has been a shrinking premium for malt barley and they give the reasons
why. It is because of GATT rulings on
All the studies, I would say, if the
assumption were black and the conclusions white, I would be able to believe
them, but I do not have full confidence in any one of them. I have asked the Wheat Board for a response,
and they have given me a response that gives me some sense of comfort that they
are aware of some of the shortcomings and trying to address them.
Do not forget that of the barley produced
in western
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, the minister is referring
to a letter that he wrote to the Wheat Board, and a response. I wonder if the minister might share a copy
of that letter with us, or table it.
Mr. Findlay: I have no problem in giving you a copy of my
letter, but since the Wheat Board wrote it to me, I would have to ask them if
they would concur with releasing their letter.
As you know, the way the Wheat Board operates, they might have said some
things here they would just as soon were not public, but I will ask them.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would appreciate it if the minister would
get that from the Wheat Board. I am sure
that in the best interest of farmers, they will not have any difficulty
releasing it, but I would appreciate having a copy of that letter.
I guess, just continuing on with this
issue, the minister has said he is doing studies. He says 10 percent of our grain goes to the
I believe very strongly in the Wheat
Board. I believe that the Wheat Board
has done a very good job and has always had the best interest of farmers and is
the best possible way for farmers to get a fair return. Then why would we even consider moving to a
continental market if there is the ability to sell right now into the
* (1610)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member asked why is
somebody interested in accessing the
Two‑thirds of all the malt plants in
the
Now the Wheat Board has used the Pool
system. It has worked well for the
farmers and is broadly supported in western
The Carter report and the other report
sort of open up the thinking. Maybe we
need to change some of the ways we do business to access the market more, to
return more value of the end product to the farmer at the farm gate‑‑the
same theme I have been on in previous discussions, the same theme I have been
on for four or five years. I am here to
look out for the good of the producer to be sure he is getting the maximum
return possible, and in terms of exporting grains, the Wheat Board has been the
system and they have accessed more and more markets in the U.S., whether it is
durum, whether it is wheat in the last few years.
Presently the projection going into the
States, last year total Canadian barley exports to the
I would add, too, that the Wheat Board has
changed a lot of the way it does business.
It used to just operate on the quota system, and whatever grain showed
up in the quota system they would sell.
They are doing more contracting of certain varieties of grain in order
to have an idea of what volume they can then go out and market to those markets,
specialty markets, niche markets, in the world.
Glenlea is a really good example, expanding opportunities to a crop that
was once in the dustbin sort of thing, had no future, and they found a market
for it, particularly in the U.S., and they are contracting for its production.
I think it is fair to say that it is
possible maybe in the selected barley markets to contract the production and
move it directly to those markets in the most cost‑efficient way
possible.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said that they had looked at all
the studies. He has written to the Wheat
Board and clarified some things with the Wheat Board, but the minister still
has not said what his position is or what the policy of his government is with
respect to moving towards a continental market.
Is it the position of this government that
the system should be retained the way it is or is it the policy of this
government to move towards a continental market on barley? What is your position?
Mr. Findlay: My position has been to look at the studies
to try to have some comfort in the assumptions and the conclusions. I do not have comfort in any of the studies
totally. I have written the federal
minister and said, be careful in the process of analyzing to look at all the
studies. I would like to see the Wheat
Board get more aggressive in the
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
I intend to have further discussion with
the Wheat Board based on their letter, which gives me some sense of comfort,
because they show there is more complexity to the issue than first appears on
the surface, particularly with regard to the spread between malt and feed
barley. We wanted to see that spread
maintained, but they are saying for GATT reasons they have had to shrink the
spread.
Ms. Wowchuk: Since the minister has indicated that he has
not made up his mind on this issue and he has written to the federal government
on it, I want to ask him whether he has encouraged a federal minister not to
make any hasty decisions on this. It is
a very important issue. It is one that
farmers have very strong feelings on. We
are well into the crop year now. People
are busy seeding. They do not have time
to participate. I think the move when
the announcement was made when the Carter report came out was a very bad timing
as far as farmers went. They just did
not have time to get very involved because they were getting ready to put their
crop in.
* (1620)
Has the minister, and if he has not, will
he encourage the federal Minister of Agriculture not to take any action on this
until the farmers have had time to have input, until farmers have had time to
review these reports as well, because it is a busy time? The system has worked for many years, and I
do not think there is any reason whatsoever to make a hasty decision on this.
Can the minister give us his assurance that that is the position he will take,
that he will discourage the federal minister from taking any action on the
whole issue of a continental market in this crop year?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have communicated
precisely that kind of message to him.
The studies are not as conclusive as the writers would like them to be. We have some concerns about some of the
assumptions and what might happen in the future and that caution be used in the
process of analyzing them, but look at them all and not be too hasty in making
moves.
I have asked in the past‑‑you
maybe noticed the headline in the paper.
I asked for a strong response from the Wheat Board, and I hope that we
do see a strong response, that they give producers in western
I know many farmers in
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I take some
encouragement in that because that is a beginning of what the farmers want. One
of the issues that farmers are very concerned about is the fact that they
believe, as do most farm organizations, that the end result of opening up the
border is going to be a lower price for barley.
The minister talked about, his concern is to get the best return for
farmers, the best farm gate price for them.
That is what I want, and of course, that is what farmers want. They want a fairer return for what they
produce.
Farmers are concerned that they are going
to get a lower price. Also, there is the
concern from an article that was in the Free Press last Thursday regarding the
concern that American farmers are now raising, that if we open up this border,
their prices are also going to be lowered as well.
Does the minister believe that by opening
up the border, the price of barley is going to be driven down, there will be no
benefit for the majority of farmers, and that as a result, if we start to flood
the market into the
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not think the
member needs to worry about us flooding the
The member talks about an open
border. Well, we are not talking about
opening the border. The border is
already open. We are already moving barley down there. The Wheat Board is selling it. Agents operating for the Wheat Board are
selling to the
The member was quite‑‑her
former critic over there was quite exercised when the border was open to wheat,
when the subsidies were relatively equal in
Right now it is not likely that
The issue is not about border
opening. The border is already open to
the
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I guess I used the
wrong term when I said flood the market.
The American farmers, barley growers, are concerned. In fact, the American farmers are wanting the
Canadian Wheat Board to stay. That
sounds really strange when they used to be against the Wheat Board. Now they are defending it. They say they would rather have the Wheat
Board monopoly retained rather than go to a continental market to opening
things up. They are saying that there
could be a tremendous increase, and in the end all farmers will be losers, that
the price of barley will be driven down.
The American price will go down, and the Canadian price will go
down. They suggest that they will be
lobbying the U.S. Congress to impose trade restrictions. There is a concern.
The minister did not answer the question
when I asked him about whether he believes that opening up this border‑‑or
changing to a continental market will drive the price of barley down.
Mr. Findlay: Truthfully, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not
see how it can. I do not see how it can,
because we are a very small player. The
amount of barley we moved in there or ever could move in there is really a drop
in the bucket to the total feed grains produced in the
The member must remember that we have
heard a lot of anti‑Canadian rhetoric from
They have been working against us on
durum. They presently have 3‑3‑2
investigations going on peas and lentils and beef, I believe it is. They do not want to see our product moving
into their market. That is the bottom
line. They will do whatever they can,
whatever rhetoric they can produce to keep us out of the market and every
commodity, because they know we have superior quality and we can guarantee that
quality load after load. The more we
ship down there to a willing buyer, the more the buyers understand, hey, there
is some great quality product coming out of
* (1630)
The way they like to compete with us is to
keep us out, whatever rhetoric to try to keep us out of there. It is a good paying market for us. The Americans believe in free trade, but that
means they can sell wherever in the world, but nobody can sell in their back
yard. They do not like competition that
we create.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 6‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: Getting back to, the minister feels the price
is not going to be driven down. The
farmers believe that it will. Farmers believe that they have a good system
right now with the Canadian Wheat Board because the Canadian Wheat Board does
not work for making profit for themselves.
They work for making profit for the farmers. They pay their expenses, but then the balance
goes to the farmer.
If we go to another system and open things
up, we are going to lose the pooling system where all farmers are treated
equally, and there will be a fair distribution.
By moving to this system, I believe that we are weakening the Wheat
Board, and we are moving away from equality for people where the profits are
not pooled, where we do not have a fair system.
Does the minister believe that by moving
to a continental market, we will weaken the Wheat Board to the extent that it
will not be able to meet the needs of farmers and provide the service that it
has to this point for farmers?
Mr. Findlay: If you look at any of the proposals about a
domestic market, it does not say anything about getting rid of the Wheat
Board. It does not say that the Wheat
Board should not continue to sell in the
I would like to read some quotes that were
made in western
The Acting Premier of Saskatchewan, Roy
Romanow: The proposal would drastically
weaken the principle of orderly marketing and, in the long run, will lead to a
destruction of the Wheat Board. It will
eliminate the domestic price stability of Canadian Wheat Board.
The answer is, obviously, those fears did
not materialize over the last 20 years when the Domestic Feed Grains Policy was
brought in. Pool directors from
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the minister continues
to talk about the tremendous marketing in the
We have to look at other markets as well,
and I do not believe we should be changing everything in this country to fit in
just to the
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think what is
driving the changing marketplace for our grains globally is pure economics. If
the member looks back over say 30‑40 years ago we were very dependent on
Well then, you know, shifts then took
place in
The
The member says we should not concentrate
on it. Well, we sell to about 60 countries
in the world, but because of the export subsidy program, EEP, it has changed
the dynamics. Why go out and sell to
country X in the world, where you can get $2 a bushel return to the farm gate;
because of an EEP subsidy, you can go into the
The member says we should not tie
ourselves there. I wonder why. If they can pay cash, pay the highest return
for the farmer at the farm gate, I think it is important we work on that
market. We have been very successful in
the last few years, and the world is all about change. We have the highest cost of getting to
saltwater of any exporting part of the world, so we should be looking. If there is economic advantage of north‑south
trade, let us work on it.
If you are afraid the
But the important thing is they can pay
cash, so the Canadian taxpayer does not have to guarantee or subsidize the
sales, and we get the highest return to the farm gate‑‑that has to
be critical. Right now, if you look at
the estimated Pool returns that the Wheat Board information has put out this
year‑‑it is the first time ever‑‑shows that in wheat,
there is roughly a dollar a bushel to come in either interim payments or final
payments.
The member says that you may say that is
surprising, and it is. I think to a
large extent that is due to the higher value they are getting in the
* (1640)
So we should be shopping around the world
for all markets we can penetrate, absolutely.
But do not sell to a market and return less at the farm gate; sell to a
market that returns more to the farm gate, because farmers cannot live on
ideology. They have to have cash at the
farm gate.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister keeps coming back to the
"return to the farm gate," and that is what we want. But there is no guarantee that going to a continental
market on barley that there is going to be a better return at the farm
gate. The fear is by farmers‑‑and
the majority of farm groups‑‑that farmers will be growing more
grain, more barley, they will be selling more barley, but there will be no increase
in price.
So he is going to be growing more, but
there will be no advantage. So if that
is what is going to happen, if the price is going to stay down, I see no
advantage for growing more for the same low price, or a lower price, and that
is the real concern in this.
If there was any assurance that we would
be getting a better price, farmers would feel more comfortable about this‑‑maybe.
But at this point, there is no assurance and all they are getting out of it is
the risk of the Wheat Board losing their monopoly on barley sales. The Wheat Board has served these people very
well, and that is the risk and that is the concern that farmers have, because
going into that market at a lower price is of no advantage to farmers.
The minister referred to
What is the minister's position or what
has happened? Is the minister aware of
any sales to
Mr. Findlay: I will use my old cliche. The Wheat Board must make sales to maximize
the return to farm gate. They operate on
that principle. I have talked to them
about using Churchill, and they say it is a tough battle to be able to move it
through Churchill and maximize return at the farm gate.
Now the
Now the people from
There were statements that they were
prepared to buy a certain volume of grain to go through Churchill, and that is
very positive news. I have to believe
until I am told otherwise that that discussion is ongoing and that they may be
in the process of moving towards concluding an agreement that moves grain
through there.
Now, when that information became public
here in
With all kinds of government ministries,
everyone ignored the fact that all of the others existed. Each thought they were independently in
charge of everything. We even met with
Export Kleep [phonetic] who still thought that they were in charge of all the
buying and selling for
I also met with feed mills who said‑‑I
asked them, how are you buying grain, importing grain. Well, Export Kleep, we are not using; we are
going to deal direct because we can offer a better price that way and actually
save our buyers some money at the same time.
So you have internal problems over
there. Each group thinks that they are
in charge, and really, they are not in charge.
So what Export Kleep said about the
The fact that the
They told me when we were over there, they
said, we have got icebreakers that will keep that thing open six months of the
year, and that is interesting. I have to
believe that they could well have that kind of technology because
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister mentioned Caribou Ventures, and I
believe that is the Russians' consulting company.
The minister talked about the
Is there anybody representing the
Department of Agriculture in this agreement?
I, T and T is represented there and other departments, but is there
anybody from the minister's staff or a consultant working for the minister who
is working to promote the sale of grain and promoting the
Mr. Findlay: We work with other departments of government
in terms of being sure that the appropriate information is there for whoever
needs it on whatever issue related to Agriculture. To say, you know, the Minister of Agriculture
and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) were there to
initiate the Murmansk initiative, and we will do whatever we can, but it really
comes down to Caribou Ventures will do us business with the Wheat Board and
grain and with whatever other company in western Canada or Manitoba that they
want to import to. But we will
facilitate, as we have in the past, wherever and whatever we need to do, but
generally the facilitation will be a joint venture of numerous departments.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said Caribou Ventures will
negotiate with the Canadian Wheat Board but there are many other aspects
involved. Surely, the government must
have a consultant that is hired to work as well. If the Russian side has a consultant, there
must be a consultant who is working here to negotiate.
Can the minister tell us who is working on
behalf of the
Mr. Findlay: Well, the member over the course of the
afternoon is advocating the Wheat Board is the best sales agents we have got
for western Canadian grain or
* (1650)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I guess the reason I
was asking about a consultant is, surely we are looking at other products as
well. The minister talked about the wide
variety of products. We talked about
selling wheat. We talk about processing
products and surely there is a market there.
The Wheat Board cannot handle all of those things.
If this agreement is going to work and the
other side has a consultant promoting Russian products, then there must be
somebody that‑‑I would hope that we are looking at all agricultural
products, not just wheat. That is what I
am wanting to know is, who is representing
The minister has indicated this is a big
market. It is a growing market. Who is representing us there?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, certainly the
The member thinks we should have a
consultant involved and I think the expertise exists in the private sector to
do business, and wherever there is an opportunity to do business, to turn a
buck, the private sector is usually pretty aggressive. I know that the private sector is very
definitely involved in
In the mission when we went over there,
there were several people on the mission that were private sector people
looking to do business over there. Many
people are already doing business over there.
Certainly, existing staff of numerous
government departments are working with the private sector to try to create
opportunities, be sure that opportunities that do exist are acted upon. I, T and T is certainly a lead ministry in
this process because the opportunities of economic activity there are much
broader than just agriculture, broader than just export of grain.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to correct the record on something
the minister said. The minister said
that I said there should be a consultant.
I did not say there should be a consultant. I said, is there a consultant working with
government, whether with the Department of Agriculture or with Industry, Trade
and Tourism, who is co‑ordinating this effort? The minister talks about the Churchill
advisory board and again, I say, if there is a consultant working on the
Russian side of it, I would have assumed that there would be a consultant working
on this side trying to co‑ordinate, and again, trying to get the best
possible markets for agriculture products.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think there is one
important difference between us and
I can understand why the Russian people
feel they want a consultant, but I do not think we need one. Their consultant will work with whomever they
want to do business with in
Ms. Wowchuk: Then I take it that I, T and T is taking the
lead role on behalf of government on the Arctic Bridge agreement and the
Department of Agriculture has no role in this agreement.
Mr. Findlay: As I said, when we were in
It is a broad process of working with
whomever is interested. Agriculture I
would not say has no role, it has a role.
Our role is to be able to export grain commodities to there and if there
is a bartering process or goods coming in, they will probably be going to
nonagricultural activities.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I guess we will be
following very closely what is happening with this agreement. I think that perhaps the Department of
Agriculture and the minister are missing something in here when he continues to
concentrate on wheat. All through the
Estimates when we talk about agriculture issues he talks about the value‑added
products. I think this is a tremendous
market and we have to look at how we can access that market with more products. I hope the minister will make an effort to
see whether there is room for other products to be going into that market
besides wheat and cereal grains, but a processed product as well.
* (1700)
Mr. Findlay: I can assure the member, once in a while you
use wheat, but you just use it as an example because it is the commodity of
largest volume and trade. There is a lot
of opportunity over there, and it is in every agriculture commodity you can
think of in terms of us doing business with them, in terms of technology
transfer, in terms of selling them equipment and expertise to make
equipment. Some of the people who were
on the mission with us were associated with feed mills, were looking at setting
up feed mills over there, looking at grain bins, grain‑‑
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
The hour is now 5 p.m. I am
interrupting the proceedings for private members' hour. The committee will return at 8 p.m. this
evening.
IN SESSION
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 24‑Ayerst
Expansion
Mr. Bob Rose (
WHEREAS Ayerst Organics Ltd. is a processing
plant for a widely used estrogen replacement product located in
WHEREAS Ayerst currently employs about 50
people in
WHEREAS Ayerst Organics Ltd. has announced
that it plans to invest a total of $123 million into an expansion of its
WHEREAS this expansion includes work to
the existing plant, construction of a second facility at the same site, and an
upgrade of the
WHEREAS this investment in
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the expansion of Ayerst will
provide benefits to the local economy, it also has the potential for other
benefits to the agriculture industry and for the environment; and
WHEREAS the partnership between private
industry and government has fostered a positive economic climate for investors
such as Ayerst.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba welcome the announcement of Ayerst Organics
Ltd. to expand its plant in
Motion presented.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand
today and propose this resolution to the Assembly.
I am pleased to say that my connection
with Ayerst in
Just as an aside on the way by, I would
point out that Ayerst is the only company in the world that is producing a
natural estrogen from PMU. I would think
this would be of great interest and would draw a good deal of support from all
members of this House that this is a natural product.
I think back to those days. Strangely enough, at the time when the
proposal was first made, it came to the local ag rep or the principal of the ag
school in
Upon his return, full of enthusiasm for
the possibilities that existed, he reported to Reg Forbes and Reg then wrote to
a number of individual farmers in the community that he knew might be
interested. He had to start out by
saying, now this is not a joke, gentlemen, but we do have an opportunity to
take something that you have been stepping around or stepping over for the last
number of years and turn it into a commodity that has some economic value.
So that was the beginning. He was able to interest a number of producers
in the process of collecting a product, as I say, that had no value whatsoever,
except perhaps for fertilizer up until that time, collecting pregnant mares'
urine, which is what PMU stands for. The
company, of course, had illustrated that this product was particularly high in
estrogen and could be processed into a commodity that would have an economic
value, not only in
So, from that modest beginning, the first
plant was established with a number of producers across
This provincial government will be
assisting the Ayerst Organics with this expansion. As we mentioned in the WHEREASes of the
resolution, we expect to create up to a thousand direct and indirect jobs.
Now in the plant itself the increase in
jobs is expected to be 35 to 40 positions in a plant that is currently
employing about 55, so almost doubling the current employment in that
plant. The other jobs, of course, will
come from the spin‑off from that kind of $120‑million investment
into rural Manitoba and not only in the investment itself but, of course, in
the investment that is required in livestock and in the corrals and collections
in the barns and all those things that go along with the production of the
product itself.
This activity is expected to create an
estimated $80 million in increased economic activity for the
It very much falls into the thrust of this
Department of Agriculture and our provincial government encouraging
diversification among the minor producers and also following the path of value‑added
product. As I said in my opening
remarks, the product was originally something that just simply fell to the
ground and was of no value whatsoever and is now being collected, and not only
collected, but processed into a product that has considerable value.
* (1710)
The diversification aspect is particularly
fitting for rural
Not only does the Province of Manitoba, of
course, support this initiative in many different ways, but one specific way,
and I would certainly like to emphasize this inasmuch as there has been
substantial comment in the last year or so about the REDI program and the
revenues from the VLTs and much indication from the opposition members that
none of this money is flowing back into rural Manitoba. I am sure they will want to make note of the
fact that $1 million over the next three years will flow to this expansion from
the REDI program. It is an indication of
exactly what the REDI program sets out to do and that is to create economic
development in rural
Now some might think that because the
plant is simply located in Brandon that the full benefit of that $1 million
from the REDI program would go just to the city of Brandon, but that in fact is
not the case of course, because we talked before about the wide influence in
the spillover of the economic activity throughout all of Manitoba, not just the
southwest portion.
Also, the Ayerst company will qualify for
about $7 million worth of income tax credits under the manufacturers investment
tax credit program, again an indication of how government programs may be used
to generate considerable extra investment into our province, because we are
talking in terms of investments of $120 million with a $7‑million
incentive through income tax credits. As
we mentioned before, the expansion will not only increase jobs in
Now, the product that is being produced in
the Ayerst plant is Premarin, and it is an estrogen medication that is produced
from pregnant mares' urine. The sales
from this product have skyrocketed in the last few years, Mr. Speaker, to $700
million worldwide and will continue to skyrocket as the world's population ages
because, as you know, the product estrogen is used to help control osteoporosis. As our population ages and our bones become
more and more brittle, the demand for this kind of product is certainly going
to grow. Again, as I mentioned earlier, Ayerst
is the only company in all of the world that is producing a natural estrogen
from PMU and this plant is located right here in
At its full capacity after the expansion
takes place, Mr. Speaker, the company expects to pay out approximately $80
million a year to producers and more than half of this will go to
It is a pleasure to report. Very often governments make these
announcements and sometimes nothing happens for a year or two down the
road. The development does not actually
take place for a year or two as different situations develop, but it is
certainly a pleasure to report on this announcement that was made just a year
ago, that the renovation of the existing facility in Brandon has already been
completed, and the construction of the new adjacent facility, which is intended
to almost double the production, is well underway. It is anticipated that this expansion of the
second facility will be completed this year.
It is a very timely opportunity, I think,
for the members of the Legislature to congratulate Ayerst on their expansion
and to recognize the contribution that both levels of government have made to
this most positive approach to development in
I want to talk just for a moment about the
environment, because so often when we talk about any kind of economic
development in our province immediately concerns are raised about what effect
this will have on the environment. I
need only point out the proposed diversion of the Assiniboine as an example of
the kind of debate that emerges when we talk about things that may have
economic development, or as the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was asking,
when are we going to develop some of the wood industry in her constituency and
immediately, of course, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) indicates some
concern at the fact that we might be cutting down trees.
It is interesting to remark on this
particular economic development that it is extremely environmentally
friendly. In fact, most of the land that
will be required to support the herds of horses that will produce the products,
that will produce the Premarin that will save the aging bones of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), most of this feed will be raised on marginal
lands throughout the province that are not necessarily that valuable for
production of other commodities.
That certainly encourages local producers
to leave that land in natural pasture or else to use some of the other land to
produce the much needed forages that are required to feed the stock. We all know, of course, the production of
forages is not only environmentally friendly and not only friendly to the
environment, but it is also very friendly to our land, the very basis of the
production of agricultural products in
It is extremely important, as this
government has illustrated time and time again, that we be aware of the value and
the need to maintain the value of our land base in the province. So any kind of an industry that keeps or
gives the opportunity to provide a valuable crop through a forage crop is most
environmentally friendly and most welcomed.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure,
as I said earlier, to propose this resolution.
I have no doubt at all in my mind that it will pass very quickly, and I
appreciate the opportunity to bring it before the Assembly. Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Certainly it is a way of diversifying the
economy. When we look where we are in
the grain industry, we do have to find alternate products, crops that can be
grown, and certainly when we have a product that is a waste product that we can
find a use for it is a benefit to the farm community. Certainly the city of
But as the member for
* (1720)
There are a few points I want to
address. As I said, it certainly has
helped the economy of rural
The member talked about the REDI program
and the fact that $1 million has gone into this company. Although I think the company is creating a
lot of employment, I have difficulty with the fact that the government found it
necessary to give REDI money to a company that sells, as the member said, $700
million worth of product, and they chose to give a $1 million loan to
them. Why would this company need a
loan? But I believe it was a lot of
political posturing here. By giving this
they could get on the platform with the representatives of Ayerst and make
grand announcements.
It is unfortunate that it is not as easy
for other people, small business in particular, who are applying for REDI
funding. They cannot get it as easily as Ayerst has. In fact, they have to go through many hoops
and loops to get funding. Ayerst got
theirs very quickly, but I guess there is a two‑tier. Depending on where you are and what kind of
political gain you can make by making this announcement, then those things will
be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the product
that is being produced here, the product is an estrogen‑replacement
product and the member for
The member for
The other member also talked about this
being an environmental project. Indeed,
there are, as he said, we have horses on pasture lands, that lands are not
being broken up, then in that sense it is environmentally friendly. There are a lot of groups that have expressed
concern about the amount of water that is used in this project. This facility is very close to the
The member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans) says no, it is not having an impact.
Well, I hope that it is not because there are people all the way down
the stream that have to use the water.
Government has the responsibility of assuring the public that the
quality of the water is being maintained.
Government has a responsibility to monitor that water, to see that the
quality is not deteriorating to any degree.
I want to assure the member that I am not
saying that the plant is. I am saying
that government has a responsibility to ensure that the quality of water is
being maintained and that there is not an over amount of pollutants going into
the water. Those are the things that government has to be responsible for.
Now, the member across the way continues
to insist that this is a natural product.
There are many products that are natural products, but when they are of
a high concentration, they can cause some problems. Although I have said that this project is
good for rural
We have a responsibility to keep that
environment safe for future generations, whether it be the water, the soil, the
air. Those are the responsibilities, and it is a government responsibility.
The other concern that some groups tend to
raise is the safety of the animals and how animals are being treated. I want to tell the member for Turtle Mountain
(Mr. Rose) that I recently had the opportunity to tour a couple of these PMU
barns, and although I believe that may have been a concern when the business
first started some 20 years ago, there were some real horror stories about how
animals were being treated at that time.
I believe that farmers have come a long
way since that time, and I believe that animals are respected. Farmers realize that if they are going to
make a living, they have to have healthy animals, whether it be with cattle or
with horses or hogs, whatever. If you
are going to make a profit, you have to have healthy animals. So I feel that from what I have seen and from
people I have talked to, I do not have the concern that animals are not being
well treated.
* (1730)
However, as I said, I do believe that the
government does have a responsibility to provide the public with the
information that they need with respect to the environment. I do believe that government has the
responsibility of, where there is a concern with usage of drugs, that
government show leadership and deal with preventative health and also offer
alternatives.
Mr. Speaker, although I support this
resolution‑‑I think the plant has been an asset to the province‑‑I
am going to make an amendment, but the amendment I make is to enhance the
resolution rather than to destroy it. I
see the member across the way shaking his head or nodding on. I hope that he will take seriously the
amendments that I am making because I believe that it will give the assurance
to those Manitobans who have some concern about the industry.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make this amendment
to the resolution, and I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar),
that Resolution 24 be amended as follows:
By adding after the last WHEREAS, the
following:
WHEREAS there is a growing concern with
the effects of estrogen on the health of women; and
WHEREAS many people are concerned with the
environmental impacts of this processing plant on the
And by adding after the "THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED", the following:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this
government, through the Department of Health, encourage further research into
the effects of estrogen on women, and that this government provide information
on alternate treatment for women in menopause.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government
continue to monitor the waters of the
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department
of Environment table all reports they have dealing with the impacts this plant
will have on the quality of water on the
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's resolution is in
order.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I would like to speak to the amendment and
talk about the importance of the amendment that the member for
Similar to the
The other reason that this should have a
federal environment review is that there is federal money, and both of those
are legal, federal‑enacted reasons for closer consideration,
environmental consideration from the federal government. The fact that‑‑I do not know if
we have heard about the proposed assessment for this project, but when we ask
the government about it they have made it sound like, again, we are going to
have one of these old made‑in‑Manitoba assessments which we are
supposed to put our faith into.
I do not think that it is going to closely
look at the basin‑wide implications of putting more ammonia into the
One of the things that this government
does not seem to understand is, while they are allowing permits to have more
water diverted from the Assiniboine River they are also allowing more
industrial development, particularly this kind of chemical industry on the
river, which is increasing the toxicity of the water. So we are having a multiplied effect.
If on the one hand you are drawing off
more water and on the other hand you are putting in more toxic effluent into
the water, you are severely decreasing the water quality from both ends, and
this is one of the big concerns with the diversion, that it is not going to
look at all the effects on the river. We
continue to have these piecemeal environmental assessments which look at one
project and one part of a water body or water system irrespective of what is
going on in another part of a river in terms of the demands being put on that
water body.
There is another important aspect of this
project, and it has to do with the end product and with the increase in use in
that end product. When I first heard
about this project my initial response was to be conscious of the health
implications of that product on women and how there has been an increase and
some would even say an overprescription of Premarin and estrogen hormone
replacement therapy for women. My
concern again stems from an environmental impact on the area, and it would lead
one to look at the demand‑side management of this industry. If on the one hand we are encouraging through
marketing and prescription of this drug and we are creating an increase in
demand which is then going to have an increase in effluent and pollution
production at the industry, at the site on the river, that shows clearly the
connection between advertising and marketing and our approach to health and how
that is affecting our environment.
* (1740)
It is a concern that on the one hand we
have the government talk about health reform, but we see that they are
encouraging through‑‑as the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk)‑‑corporate
welfare to an industry that has cornered the market, has a monopoly on this
product, pharmaceutical manufacturing as a growth industry by this kind of
government subsidy and that they are talking about health reform.
So my concern is, health reform is, as
again was mentioned, the alternative to this kind of medicated approach to a
natural life cycle in a woman's life, which is menopause, which is what the
drugs are prescribed for.
My concern is that we could show, through
an environmental impact assessment, that if we looked at the health issues
related to women taking this drug, that if there is an overprescription, if
there is an increase in prescription that is not valid‑‑because I
know that these drugs, hormone replacement therapy, are being prescribed to
women at an increased rate‑‑then through an assessment, we could
show that there could be a decrease in the production, which would have a
decrease in the pollution effluent.
That is, I think, a concept that a lot of
people do not yet understand, particularly when it is in an area like drug
manufacturing, that we can show that there is a connection in our economic
model between the kind of advertising that goes on which encourages people to
consume products, which encourages people to, I would say, overconsume products
which, in their mass production, have an adverse effect on the environment‑‑as
I said, in this case, if it can be shown that those products are not
particularly needed for populations that are using them and that, as was said,
the alternatives are more healthful and less costly.
So that is the concern that I have, that
this product and this industry does not fall in with the definition of
sustainable development that we would support, the definition that is being
promoted through the International Institute for Sustainable Development, that
we have to look at demand‑side management of all our industries. That includes, certainly, the pharmaceutical
industry which, through its effluent in production, has a negative effect on
our environment.
It raises some of the questions of what
kind of industry do we want to be encouraging in our province, especially
through tax dollar subsidies, government subsidy. Do we want to be encouraging industries that
are encouraging the kind of health reform that we say we are promoting through
our Department of Health, which is an emphasis on more preventative health, or
do we want to continue down the road of the old illness and sickness model of
health care?
I would say that this kind of industry is
not in keeping with what the government is saying about health reform. It is not in keeping with the trend to value
women, particularly elderly women and provide them with a variety of options
and the kind of information that is going to be in their interest.
I could go into more detail in that, but I
want to talk about another issue that was raised. That is the whole issue of the treatment of the
animals in this industry. I have had
calls to my office from a variety of people expressing concerns that some of
the mares that are involved in having their urine extracted for this industry
are forced to stay on their feet for long periods of time. They are kept pregnant on an ongoing basis.
They are fed in a very unnatural way, and there is concern about the kinds of
feed that they receive.
One of the largest concerns that all of
this has is the effect on the foals, and that many of the foals that are born
by the mares that are used to extract their urine are stillborn or are horribly
deformed.
An Honourable Member: We eat them.
Ms. Cerilli: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
claims that these foals are eaten. I am
not sure if the Minister of Natural Resources partakes in that practice.
I am just talking about some of the
concerns that have been raised. This
practice of basically milking the urine from pregnant mares has caused some
concern in terms of the treatment of the animals. I do not know what ends up happening with
foals that are born if they are deformed or still‑‑especially if
they are deformed. I would hope that
they are treated, after that, in a humane way.
The other thing I think it is important to
talk about is the economics of this industry and this particular plant in
One of the ways that this industry is
going ahead with this expansion is, it has been said that there already are
farmers in rural Manitoba that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on
expanding their barns and expanding their stock of horses. Again, my concern
would be related to the tactic of having that investment made before there are
the proper environmental tests and research and assessment that take place.
We have seen this with a number of
projects, most exemplified by Rafferty‑Alameda dam, of how a government
and their industries that are supported simply try to get enough momentum and
support in the industry for a particular development so that those of us who
are concerned about the environment are hard pressed to have any attempt to
slow down the developments going ahead with having a proper environmental
assessment, because there is always the charges, well, we have already put so
much investment in it. We do not want to
lose that.
I know that there is a need for
development in rural areas, and I certainly support diversified
agriculture. I think that is something
that we have to be looking toward, but I know that with the changes that are
happening and the way that environmental impact assessments are starting to
also look at the social implications, the long‑term economic implications
of development, that this is especially the kind of project that would be a
good example to have it tested in terms of that kind of sustainable analysis.
I think that about covers some of the
concerns that I have with respect to this project. I hope that it has been clear when I talk
about the connection between environment and health and looking at the demand‑side
management of our chemical industries, all of the chemical manufacturing
industries in our province, not just this one, and how if we continue to have
on the one hand a commercial side of our economy that promotes the
overconsumption of products that are toxic in their production to our
environment, then we are going to have a difficult time developing sustainability.
Thank you very much.
* (1750)
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of
pleasure to stand up and talk a little bit and get on the record regarding this
resolution that was brought forth by my colleague from Turtle Mountain (Mr.
Rose) which I was very pleased to second.
In fact, the original motion put forth was a motion of great substance
and meaning because of the fact that it was recognizing some of the efforts put
forth by a company having the strength and the ability to invest in
I should relate really to an extent of a
little article that was in the paper back on the weekend, because I think that
it was an article that sort of would strengthen the position that this
government has taken and the direction that the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has implemented with this government over the last five years in
regard to a bond rating that came out for this province in which it said‑‑and
I would like to just quote it, because I feel that it has a bit of a direct
impact on this resolution of people investing in Manitoba‑‑in which
it said that Manitoba has over the past five years been one of the most
fiscally responsible provinces in Canada.
Here we see a company here that has the strength, it has the fortitude
that it wants to come to
It also emphasized in the article that
This bond rating will now go into various
publications and various investment portfolios all throughout the world. Various companies that are looking at
possibly expanding and coming into various venues, like Ayerst, will come to
Manitoba with the strength of knowing that this is a strong province, a
province with a strong work ethic, a strong tax base that they are not afraid
to invest in, and the fact that they will enjoy the ability to make money. They will enjoy the ability to pay taxes, as
the people like to see the programs that this country and this province are
committed to in the social problems and in some of the education and the health
programs. It is all put forth by
industries, trade and the taxes that are generated.
In looking at Ayerst Organics in their
investment of almost $123 million‑‑$123 million, Mr. Speaker‑‑into
the Brandon facilities, we have to look at all those building materials, the
people who are going to be working, all the people who are going to be employed
in this expansion. It is a tremendous
opportunity, not only for
The great city of Brandon will have a
tremendous impact of growth during this time because of the fact that the
production of this product and the ponies with the PMU operation are going to
have a spin‑off effect as the rural farm activity will be able to
diversify and get into the PMU operations, because the company will need a
tremendous amount of supply of product.
In fact, it said that almost 1,000 jobs will be created through the
construction and the farm operations, just indirectly or directly related to
this.
Mr. Speaker, this is something that is
very important to the industry of
As is noted in
The fact that it is supplying a medication
which is produced for the world; in fact, it has been said that 58 percent of
the PMU operations are located here in
In bringing forth the amendment that the
member for
The original resolution is regarding jobs
and the creation of the Premarin and estrogen for the production of PMU, and
now we are talking about the monitoring the rivers, of the
Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of
Well, you see, I am glad that I receive
tremendous support with my caucus and my colleagues. They are with me on this resolution and the
fact that the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) and the resolution that I
was pleased to second, it will bring forth, in fact, here in the province
through the economic development‑‑REDI was even involved with this.
I am sure that Hansard is having a good
time, is trying to hear this report, so it is of the due diligence that this
House has. I would think, Mr. Speaker, a
lot of this is very relevant in the fact that it will be‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) will have six minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the
Chair with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 8 p.m. in
Committee of Supply.