LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
May 19, 1992
����� ��
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker:� I have reviewed the petition of the honourable� member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).� It complies with the privileges� and the practices of the House and complies
with the rules (by� leave).� Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
����� The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
����� Domestic abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of� our society, but
nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
����� Violence against women and children in the
domestic setting� is on the increase; and
����� Often it is desirable for the victims of
domestic abuse to� leave the scene of the
abuse and seek shelter elsewhere; and
����� It is the policy of the current government
to limit refuge to� victims of domestic
abuse to a 10‑day stay in shelters;
����� WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature� of the
* * *
����� I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for� Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), and it complies with the�
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the� rules.�
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
����� The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
����� The
����� The citizens of
����� The
����� The administration of the hospital has
been forced to take� drastic measures
including the elimination of the Palliative Care� Unit and gynecological wards, along with the
layoff of over 30� staff, mainly licensed
practical nurses, to cope with a funding�
shortfall of over $1.3 million; and
����� WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature� of the
����� �
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY� STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments):� I beg to present the Second Report of the
Standing� Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant):� Your Standing Committee
on Law� Amendments presents the following
as its Second Report.
����� Your committee met on Thursday, May 14,
1992, at 10 a.m. in� Room 255 of the
����� Your committee has considered:
����� Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi� sur les
denturologistes;
����� Bill 38, The Manitoba Evidence Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant� la Loi sur la preuve
au
����� Bill 48, The Personal Propoerty Security
Amendment Act; Loi� modifiant la Loi sur
les suretes relatives aux biens personnels;
����� Bill 68, The Public Trustee Amendment,
Trustee Amendment and� Child and Family
Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur� le curateur public, la Loi sur les
fiduciaires et la Loi sur les� services a
l'enfant et a la famille;
����� ��and has agreed to report same without
amendment.
����� All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mrs. Dacquay:� I move, seconded by the honourable member for
La� Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the
report of the committee be� received.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier):� I have a statement to make with� copies for members opposite.
����� Last week's Western Premiers' Conference
in
����� The meeting began with a strong
reaffirmation of the value of� co‑operation
among the western provinces and the territories�
which are now full participants in western Premiers'� conferences.�
We concluded with a firm and clear statement on� western and territorial constitutional
priorities, stressing that� the concerns
of the west and the North must not take a back seat� to those of other provinces and regions in
the current round of� constitutional
discussions.
����� Communique No. 1 outlines the Premiers'
commitment to a� co‑operative and
co‑ordinated approach to economic�
diversification, the delivery of public services and national� policy issues of significance to western and
northern
* (1335)
����� Communique No. 2, headed Better
Government, deals with the� need for
improved financial management and more effective� delivery of public services.� It draws attention once again to� the problems of federal offloading and of
overlap and duplication� between federal
and provincial services.� The western
Finance� ministers are being asked to
resume their work on these concerns� and
to prepare a report by the middle of August.�
Joint work will� also be
undertaken on improving the quality of service to the� public.
����� Communique No. 3, on economic co‑operation,
sets out several� key priorities for
developing and diversifying the western�
Canadian economy.� Improved
electrical interconnections, a�
longstanding priority for our province, are at the top of the� list.�
Major initiatives and advanced technology are also� identified, and I am pleased to note that the
Premiers supported� our efforts to
reactivate the Churchill rocket range.
����� This communique also calls for an early announcement
of� federal plans for the national
highways program.� It notes that a� positive start‑up decision this month
would ensure additional� construction
activity and employment this summer.� The
communique� also notes the progress which
has been made by the four western�
provinces in reducing trade barriers in recent years and commits� all governments to expand those efforts.� It also reaffirms� support for a possible agreement on the
elimination of� destructive competition
for investment.
����� We had hoped for greater progress on these
issues, but they� are difficult
ones.� I believe there is a good chance
for� significant progress in the coming
months.
����� Communique No. 4, on international trade,
deals with several� current concerns,
including the importance of formalizing the�
provinces' role in international treaty making and implementation� where areas of provincial constitutional
responsibility are� involved.� Reference is also made to the possibility of
a joint� western Premiers' trade mission
to the Asia‑Pacific region in the�
next year.
����� Communique No. 5, on agriculture,
establishes a comprehensive� work program
for western Agriculture ministers on such issues as� GATT, farm income and farm financing and
grain transportation.� This communique
also contains a strong statement of support by�
the western Premiers for the
����� Communique No. 6, on rural and urban
communities, commits the� western
provinces and territories to working together to deal� with the problems of rural and urban
development.
����� Communique No. 7, on health care reform,
summarizes one of� our most important and
strongest areas of agreement.� We
intend� to work very closely with the
other western provinces and� territories
to reform health care delivery.� I have
advised my� colleague the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) that his strategy� paper on
Quality Health for Manitobans attracted considerable� interest at the conference and has been
referred to the Health� ministers for
discussion.
����� Communique No. 8, on training and
education, calls for joint� work on
improved training strategies and on education reform.� Much of this work is to be completed this
summer for review at� the annual
Premiers' conference in
����� Finally, Communique No. 9, on
constitutional matters,� emphasizes,
quote:� ". . . that this round of
negotiations must� be truly 'the
����� The communique identifies several major
western priorities,� including
fundamental Senate reform, such as Triple‑E, and has� strengthened equalization provision and
protection against� unilateral federal
changes in transfers for health, education and�
social services.
* (1340)
����� The discussions in
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): �I would like to� respond to the statement of the Premier today
in the House.� We� are absolutely delighted with the changed
tone in the statement� produced by the
Premier today in this Chamber, of co‑operation,� consensus, working together, economic
renewal, revitalization and� all the
words, Mr. Speaker, that we asked the Premier to take to� the table last week in the area of economic
development for� western
����� Last week, of course, the Premier
responded in a very� partisan way,
talking about how terrible it was in New Democratic� provinces to the west of us‑‑[interjection]
Well, there he goes� again, Mr.
Speaker.� The sentence after he talks
about being� nonpartisan, he just has to
chirp up in his usual partisan way.
����� Mr. Speaker, we asked this Premier to go
to that western� Premiers' meeting
because we have a very serious situation in�
western
����� We have a modest increase in Alberta‑‑very,
very modest.� We� have declines that have taken place in the
last four years in�
����� That is why, Mr. Speaker, we ask this
Premier to truly go to� those meetings in
a co‑operative consensus way, rather than the� comments we had from the Premier last week on
page 3268:� ". . .� we do not need any advice from New Democratic
governments who are� destroying provinces
right across this country."
����� So the Premier, I am pleased he has come
back with a much� more positive response
because, as the Premier has noted, we must�
rely on each other in western
����� So the real villain in
����� Dealing with the specifics, as I say, we
asked the government� to take a co‑operative
approach.� We are pleased that they
are� going to take one.� We think that there has to be more� co‑ordinated approach to offloading
from the federal government.� It is much
better for all of us to talk when the federal budget� is announced in a co‑ordinated way.
����� We would note in the last federal budget,
the Premier of�
����� We are absolutely pleased that the
government is looking at a� number of co‑operative
efforts that will be important for us in�
western
����� We are also pleased that we are working
together on the� Churchill rocket
range.� My colleagues and I were in
Churchill� last week, and indeed we are
competing with
* (1345)
����� Dealing with some of the other
communiques, Mr. Speaker, we� note the
government has dealt with international trade.�
I would� say that there is a
fundamental difference of opinion between�
this Premier and the Premiers of other western Canadian� provinces.�
The Premier of
����� Mr. Speaker, we applaud the government's
effort to work on a� comprehensive
approach on agriculture.� It is again
another prime� example where the federal
government, in competing with the�
American treasury and, unfortunately, the European treasury, has� got into a situation where the federal
government has been� allowed with their
tripartite programs to offload onto the�
western Canadian taxpayers and onto the western Canadian� treasuries.�
We believe strongly that all western provinces� should work together to have a national
agricultural support� program, because we
believe international trade and its national�
ramifications should be dealt with by the national government,� not again offloaded onto the
����� In terms of the
����� Dealing with health care reform, Mr.
Speaker, we certainly� would like the
western provinces to work together in a close�
way.� It is absolutely essential
that we not have two conflicting� agendas
all under the same rubric.� It is
important that we do� have a reform
agenda, a true reform agenda for health care.�
Western Canadians have been well served by the fact that�
����� It is important that we reform the system,
and we will work� with the
government.� Any change in health care‑‑just
as in the� early '80s when we reduced
health care beds by 100, we made sure�
that there was outpatient surgery and day surgery to replace� those beds.�
We will ask questions from this government to ensure� that there is real reform and not real
rhetoric in terms of� health care and our
quality of health care in this province.
����� In conclusion, Mr. Speaker‑‑this
is a long� communique‑‑education
and training, we would ask the government�
to return the $10 million they cut out of the post‑secondary� colleges.�
They have returned $1 million to it.�
They cannot sign� communiques in
the morning and cut $9 million out of�
post‑secondary training and education in this province and
have� any credibility with any members in
this Chamber.
����� Finally, Mr. Speaker, we would applaud the
provincial� Premiers in working together
on a constitutional resolution, and� I
would again remind the Premier that the No. 1 issue in all the� public hearings in
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): �Mr.� Speaker, I am delighted that the Premier was
able to report to� us, but less delighted
to see that he is limping a little bit�
more.� I think we have to keep him
out of
����� Mr. Speaker, much of what the Premier has
stated in his� communique today is very
positive.� I think that there are a� number of initiatives, which have been
announced, which will bode� well not only
for Manitobans, but indeed all western Canadians.� I would like to begin specifically with the
Communique No. 2� headed Better
Government.� I want to raise a concern,
and that is� that what we are debating at
the present time at the� constitutional
table seems to be the distribution of powers.�
In� this particular communique,
the First Ministers of the four� western
provinces seem to be referring to the offloading and� indeed the overlapping of services, and yet
their report is not� to come in until
August.
����� It would seem to me that while we are
debating powers is the� time when it is
most important for us to have this report,�
because if we are going to talk about a change of powers, we as� one of those western provinces, should have
the data at our� fingertips so that we
know what would be in our best interest; to�
work co‑operatively and taking a power potentially from the� federal government, or in fact giving a power
back to the federal� government, if that
could end the duplication and the overlapping�
which everybody talks about but nobody wants to document.
* (1350)
����� Well, I am glad to see that it is being
documented, but I am� concerned that the
documentation is going to occur perhaps after�
we have dealt some of those powers away.�
So I would urge caution� on the
part of our First Minister and other First Ministers to� make sure that that timing does not occur as
it would appear in� his communique.� Obviously, we welcome the possibility of
an� early announcement of federal plans
for a national highways� program and
would hope very much that those potential jobs would� be available this summer and into the early
fall.� It may indeed� be a wish on the part of the Premiers but may
not turn into a� reality, since the
federal government seems less than willing at�
this point to promote their national highways program in a fast� track position.
����� As to communication No. 4 on International
Trade, they have� dealt very specifically
with the importance of formalizing the�
province's role in international treaty making.� As the Premier� (Mr. Filmon) has indicated over and over
again in this House, the� provinces could
be opposed to any international trade agreement,� and indeed all 10 provinces and two
territories could be opposed� to any
international trade agreement.
����� That would not prevent, except in a moral
suasion type of� way, the federal
government from signing such an international�
treaty, because the bottom line is that treaties are within the� purview, constitutionally, of the federal
government.� I think� that if the Premiers are looking at some type
of mechanization� whereby some, at least,
majority provincial participation and�
acceptance might be necessary, I think this may bode well before� we get into a future down‑the‑road
impact.
����� I refer specifically to the sections
having to deal with free� trade
agreements which are in the purview of the provinces, and� that is consistently the retraining portions,
the employability� portions, which we
know have been adversely affected by the�
U.S.‑Canada Free Trade Agreement and will be even more
adversely� affected by the North American
free trade agreement with
����� If the Premiers are looking towards some
form of provincial� participation to a
greater degree in the input of these treaties�
or decisions with regard to negating those treaties, I see that� as a positive move.
����� The fifth communique deals with the
����� Finally, I would like to comment
specifically on the health� care
reform.� It is delightful to see that
there is a positive� message coming from
the Premiers about the need for the reform of�
the health care delivery system.�
We saw in the announcement of� our
Health ministry on Thursday, a positive move in that� direction.�
I was interested in seeing a full‑page ad taken by� the B.C. government advertising for a number
of community‑based� facilities and
community‑based staffing which are going to be� required in order to meet that reformed
health care system.
����� We looked with interest, and to some
dismay, at some� decisions made in
provinces like
* (1355)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker:� Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention� of all honourable members to
the gallery, where we have with us� this
afternoon, from the
����� Also this afternoon, we have twenty‑five
journalism students� from the
����� On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you all here� this afternoon.
����� ��
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Department
of Government Services
Director
of Leasing Dismissal
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): �Mr. Speaker, in early� March the RCMP raided one of the Government
Services offices, and� they seized a
number of contracts, invoices, tendering material,� construction reports, audit reports, lease
agreements, et cetera,� of two
buildings:�
����� Mr. Speaker, we have been raising a number
of questions on� this issue for the last
number of months.� We are very
concerned� about this investigation and
the impact this will have on the� people
of
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services):� First
of� all, it is true the director of
leasing was dismissed last week� at the
advice of Civil Service Commission.� It
was not as a� result of the RCMP
investigation, because that is still being�
carried out.
����� As the member opposite is aware, part of
the process and the� process in place is
the Civil Service Commission makes a�
recommendation.� That
recommendation has been carried out by my�
staff.
Leasing
Branch
Report
Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): �Mr. Speaker, the� government now has two reports:� one from the Civil Service� Commission and one an internal audit from
their own Government� Services
Department.� The government has not yet released
or made� public any of the reasons for
the internal audit or the special�
investigation by the Civil Service Commission.
����� In that most of the issues related to the
government leasing� impact upon the
Treasury Department of government in terms of the� authority that these people allegedly had or
did not have, I� would like to ask the
minister whether he will make public both�
the Civil Service report and the Internal Audit report because� they do pertain to the public trust.� They do pertain to a� relationship between this person and the
Treasury Board which� authorized the 280
Broadway decision last year.� Mr.
Speaker,� will the government release
those reports so that we will not� have
to continue to ferret out this information, but will know it� in a full and public way as the public should
have?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services):� Mr.� Speaker, finally, the member from across the
way realizes that it� was an
employee.� There was no landlord involved
in this� particular issue.� The employee was carrying on the same� authorization policy that was by the previous
administration.� The employee, according
to Civil Service Commission, violated�
that.
����� We are still waiting for the RCMP report,
and as we receive� those reports, I will
be going through those with my�
administration.
Mr. Doer:� Mr. Speaker, the government will acknowledge
that this� person was reporting directly
to Treasury Board.� In fact, last� year in Hansard, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was
quoted on a number� of occasions as
citing the director of Government Leasing as the� rationale for taking certain decisions in
government.
����� The minister has indicated that they are
also investigating� another hundred
leases that were conducted by this individual,�
the director of leasing.� Mr.
Speaker, who is investigating the�
relationship between the Treasury Board and the director of� leasing who has been dismissed by government?
Mr. Ducharme: �First of all, Mr. Speaker, the person involved
was� reporting directly to the minister
and to the deputy minister in� regard to
these leases.� We found no further
indications of any� other leases so far.� We have 120 leases almost every year as� done by my staff.
����� In this particular case, unfortunately,
the member violated� his role and his
position, and that is what I stressed a month�
and a half ago when it was first brought up in this House.� I�
answered those questions to the member of the opposition.� At�
that time, he insisted the landlord was involved.� We insisted,�
no.� It was an employee who was
involved, who violated his� position, as
the rule and at the recommendation, I repeat, by� Civil Service Commission, was let go by our
department last week.
* (1400)
Pornography
Government
Policy
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): �Mr. Speaker, my question is to the� Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
����� There is a great deal of uncertainty
respecting the� application of the law
relating to pornography.� We now have
the� Supreme Court ruling, but we have no
provincial policy with� respect to the
law against pornography.
����� When will this government reveal its
policy on pornography so� the public will
have some protection and the police will have�
something to work with regarding this kind of material?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): �Mr. Speaker, I remind the member for� Kildonan that it was this government that
took this matter to the� Court of Appeal
to ensure that we could indeed prosecute porn and� video shop owners under legislation and that
it was as a result� of that that the
obscenity laws were upheld, because this�
province took that appeal to try and ensure that this kind of� reprehensible material was not available in
this province.� With� respect to the remainder of this question, I
will take that as� notice on behalf of
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
Mr. Chomiak: �My supplementary to the Premier:� Why is it taking� so long since the Supreme Court ruling, since
it was reported in� early March that the
Crown Attorneys were meeting for two weeks�
in order to outline and determine this policy?� It is now May 18,� and we still have no policy.
Mr. Filmon: �Mr. Speaker, I know that the critic for
the� opposition wants to be sure that
whatever guidelines that are put� in
place are enforceable so that we do not run into a situation,� as has happened in other jurisdictions, where
the laws were� overturned or thrown out
by the courts because of insufficient�
guidelines.� That is the reason
that adequate time is being taken� to
ensure that they will be legally enforceable and understood by� those who have to make those decisions.
Mr. Chomiak:� Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to
the� Premier:� Will the Premier commit to a time line to
specifically� outline when the policy
will be in place so that the police can�
have something to work on, since they have indicated in the media� that they are not prepared to act, they are
not able to act until� they hear what the
provincial policy is?� Will the Premier
commit� to a time line, say the end of the
week?
Mr. Filmon:� Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on� behalf of the Justice
minister.
Health
Care System Reform
Monitor's
Mandate
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): �Mr.� Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of
Health.
����� Last week the minister released his plan
for reform of�
����� Today we would like to make a further
suggestion.� The� minister has joined many experts in
acknowledging that health is� more than
sickness care; that it also is a reflection of life� style, of education, of socioeconomic status,
of the environment� and one's awareness
of how to stay healthy.
����� My question to the minister is the
following:� Will he expand� the mandate of the body, which will monitor
the progress and� impact of the reforms
to include all departments and activities�
of government in order to make proposals on how they, too, can be� brought in line with health reform goals?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): �Mr. Speaker, as� discussed on Thursday of last week in terms
of the suggestion on� the evaluation
component and how it might serve the purpose of�
the Legislature, I have taken very seriously under advisement.
����� This suggestion, Mr. Speaker, really
embodies the Population� Health:� Major Determinants graph on page 9 of the
strategy paper� and is preceded by the
establishment of the Healthy Public Policy�
committee of government at the deputy minister's level.� The�
activities of the Healthy Public Policy committee are basically� to attempt to bring together government
through varying� departments to assure
that our separate activities are�
interconnected in that we develop the policies knowing full well� the impact on Education may well spin back on
Health.� Certainly� the impact of Industry, Trade and Tourism, in
terms of the� economic environment, spin
directly back on health, because I� think
it is clear in here that income directly relates to higher� health status.
����� So, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the
next number of� months, I would
anticipate that there will be a number of�
opportunities in which interrelated policy initiatives of� government, stimulated by Healthy Public
Policy considerations �across
departmental jurisdictions, will be the order of the day.
����� In terms of the specific suggestion of
lining those two� together, that may have
value, although I want to assure my�
honourable friend that the analysis by the expert group to� determine health outcome and maintenance of
health status is� clinically related to
the changes in the health care system�
itself and not involving other departments and may not have a� natural fit, Sir.
Mrs. Carstairs: �Mr. Speaker, what we are maintaining is that
it� must have a natural fit.� I would like to give the minister two� very specific examples.
����� We have a minister responsible for the
Liquor Control� Commission who could be
doing far more in the way of preventing�
fetal alcohol syndrome, which is a health disorder, but it is� related to the consumption of alcohol.� If the minister� responsible for the Liquor Control Commission
would in fact do� some public policy and
public education and put signs up in�
liquor stores, we would in fact go some way to preventing this� dreadful affliction.
����� In addition, we have the Minister of
Family Services (Mr.� Gilleshammer) who
is now negotiating with the City of
����� Can the minister tell us why he does not
believe that it is� not a perfect fit, a
marriage, if you will, made in heaven of�
merging these things together in order to ensure that health care� becomes a dominant policy in all departments?
Mr. Orchard:� Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing with the
proposition� that those departmental
initiatives and many more have a direct�
impact on health status and cost in the health care system.� I do�
not want to argue about that at all.�
What I am saying to my� honourable
friend is that we intend, as outlined, I believe, on� page 31 of the strategy document, to
establish a very close� monitoring system
to assure maintenance and hopefully improvement�
of health status as we change the focus of where we deliver� needed health services, away from high‑cost
institution to more� community‑based
care.
����� That, Sir, is a specific delegated mandate
because, as my� honourable friend so
correctly pointed out, the change in the�
health care system, as announced in the action plan, can become a� political football.� Assurance by experts as to how the
change� from physician‑driven,
institutional‑based care to� community‑based
care is a very important component of achieving�
reform that, I think, for 20 years has been discussed, talked� about but never implemented.� That is where we need the expert� opinion, to assure Manitobans that a
perchance speculation about� the outcome
of change in the health care system may be�
inappropriate, in fact outright wrong, and hence move the system� closer to a more kind and caring system,
providing care closer to� home.
����� That, Sir, is a separate function narrowed
to the reform� process in health care.
* (1410)
Mrs. Carstairs: �Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we feel
that� there is a need for broader
monitoring.� We know that because� this can be such a political football that
any issue can be� raised and said that
"the system is not working because of," "the� system is not working because of," and
we want to ensure that in� fact this
reform process does work, and does work to the best� interest of Manitobans.
����� The other issue that concerns us that we
would like to see� also in a broader
monitoring aspect is the health care�
professionals who will be moved from their current jobs, and many� will indeed lose their jobs.� Will the minister add to the� mandate of the health reform monitor the
responsibility to act as� a watchdog over
the shifts in personnel requirements, to make�
recommendations for retraining, if necessary, of any displaced� professionals so that the talents and
dedication of all of them� are retrained
in this new structure of health care in the�
province of Manitoba?
Mr. Orchard: �Mr. Speaker, when we announced the reform of
the� mental health system in January of
this year, one of the very� first
initiatives that took place was a bringing together of� individuals representing workers,
representing professional �disciplines,
unions, to discuss the needs of caregivers in the� changing environment of reform mental health
system, i.e., to� look for opportunities
for redeployment of those same individuals�
and indeed to suggest to government ways and means of improving,� retraining opportunities for those who may be
displaced within� the reform of the
mental health system.
����� Mr. Speaker, the same process is
envisioned to be fully part� of the next
two years within the reform of the acute care side of� the health care system, where unions,
professional groups, will� work with
government in efforts of redeployment, retraining and� other necessary efforts to preserve the
integrity of quality� caregivers and
their contribution towards a reformed health care� system.
Health
Advisory Network
Report
Release
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
����� The details are a mystery, Mr.
Speaker.� Many of the details� are buried on the minister's desk because he
continues to sit on� reports that he has
received in final format from his Health�
Advisory Network, which contained hundreds of detailed� recommendations.
����� My question to the Minister of Health
is:� Will he, in the� interests of partnership that he talks about
in this document,� release the five final
reports from the Health Advisory Network?�
Those reports are on home care, the elderly and prevention, the� elderly and promotion, health information
systems, and our rural� health
systems.� Would he release those reports
and tell us his� action plans for those
reports?
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� The question has been put.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health):� Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis:� Mr. Speaker, that is the answer we have
been� hearing for months and months and
months‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� Put your question, please.
Home Care
Program
Recommendations
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): �Mr. Speaker, in
part,� the response to that report was
reflected in a significant� budgetary
increase to the Continuing Care Program, wherein it� went from $55 million last year to a budgeted
expenditure of $62� million this year, a
very significant increase, part of which�
will help us to meet some of the recommendations that were made� in the report referred to.
Home Care
Program
Funding
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns):� Mr. Speaker, would the� minister tell us why, even with this kind of
promised increase,� he is not increasing
assessors and co‑ordinators in the Home Care� Program, causing an incredible burden and
possible devastating� impact on this very
serious community‑based program to the point� where, as this reports says, severe
understaffing of the Home� Care Program
has been caused by increased demands without�
resources, resulting in high demand, high pressure and high� potential for staff burnout within the
program?� How is he� addressing that situation?� What is his‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): �Mr. Speaker, if
one� were to close one's eyes and go back
for at least a period of� time in the
last four years, one would have heard the same kind� of comments made by my honourable
friend.� The fact of the matter� is that the Continuing Care Program has
managed within the� personnel and
staffing resources to continue ever‑increasing care� delivery in a system much more effectively
than any other� continuing care program
probably in the nation of Canada, a�
record we all should be very, very, very proud of, Sir.
����� �
Western
Premiers' Conference
Agricultural
Issues
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin):� Mr. Speaker, on several occasions,� we have asked the government where they
really stand on orderly� marketing and
supply management, because we have every reason to� be suspicious of this government's
position.� Their actions speak� louder than their words.� For example, at a recent meeting of� Agriculture ministers, the minister refused
to sign the� declaration supporting
marketing boards at the GATT talks, and�
the government has also supported the removal of oats, which� severely weakened the Wheat Board, removal of
the domestic price� for wheat, which
weakens the Wheat Board, and lately by being�
silent while the federal government refuses to enforce the� requirement for export licences for grains
being trucked to the� U.S.
����� I want to ask the First Minister, since he
said agriculture� was very high on the
agenda at the Premiers' meeting:� Can
the� First Minister indicate whether he
still believes, like his� Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that marketing boards will� have to be sacrificed in order to achieve a
settlement at GATT� and the NAFTA?� Is this still part of what this Premier calls
the� balanced approach that is referenced
in his communique?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): �Mr. Speaker, that has never been the� position of this government or the Minister
of Agriculture.
Mr. Plohman: �If the Premier is so supportive‑‑[interjection]� Yes, I do have a question.� The minister has also referenced many� other agriculture issues in this communique.
����� I want to ask him, since he is the
Agriculture expert here� today:� Will the Premier now admit, because he referenced
the� financial difficulties of provinces
in terms of the agricultural� load, that
his government and his Minister of Agriculture got� taken to the cleaners in the negotiations
with the federal� government by following
the Grant Devine election agenda last�
year?
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� The question has been put.
Mr. Filmon: �No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Plohman:� The usual enlightening‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Question, please.� Order, please.
Mr. Plohman:� Will the Premier reject his minister's
proposal� that was made with regard to
the fragmentation of the Crow� benefit
that was discussed at the ministers' meetings as well as� the First Ministers' meetings?� Was it rejected?� Will he now�
categorically reject this proposal which will serve to undermine� the Crow benefit, which is historic in this
country, and will� ensure that it is in
shambles before a very reasonable period of�
time?
Mr. Filmon: �Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the
preamble� of the member for Dauphin, I
will take that question as notice on�
behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay).
Replacement
Facility
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): �Mr. Speaker, my question is for� the Minister of Health.
����� The health reform document released last
week talked about� mental health
reform.� About five months ago, there was
an� announcement of a consultation
process for mental health reform� in the
Western region.� Mr. Speaker, real
changes are needed now.
����� Can the Minister of Health tell us when
the construction for� the new building
for the Brandon Mental Health Centre will be�
given a priority and when the new facility will meet the new� agenda for health care reform in the Western
region of Manitoba?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): �Mr. Speaker, I
cannot� give my honourable friend such
specifics, but I indicate to my�
honourable friend that the Western region of the province of� Manitoba is much more advanced from the
Regional Mental Health� Council
discussions around the reform paper of January of '92 in� that the Parkland region, the Westman region
in Brandon and� Western‑Central
region will hopefully be presenting an action�
plan for consideration, implementation, approval and� mid‑subsequent implementation by
government in co‑operation with�
those professionals and citizens around the mental health� councils by June of this year with hopeful
implementation of a� number of features
before the end of this calendar year.
* (1420)
Mr. Cheema:� Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how many beds� will be reduced from the existing facility
when the new facility� will be provided
along the side of
Mr. Orchard: �Mr. Speaker, two elements are part of what
we� believe will be the suggested plan of
action by the Westman� councils, namely
acute facility‑‑acute psychiatric requirements� being met in affiliation with the Brandon
General Hospital.� How� that fits and the reason why I cannot answer
my honourable friend� in terms of
construction, et cetera, is that is being worked� within the general redevelopment of the
����� Secondly, a fairly complete patient
profile has been� accomplished at the
Brandon Mental Health Centre, and a number of�
individuals who are long‑term residents at Brandon Mental
Health� Centre are indeed long‑term
care candidates.� The numbers, I do� not have naturally in front of me, in terms
of specifics, but the� accommodation of
those individuals will certainly be subject to�
suggestions and further discussions by the ministry, once the�
Mr. Cheema: �Mr. Speaker, health care reform needs the
review� process.� This morning, like everyone else, we also
heard the� story of this patient out of
����� Can the minister, in view of these
reports, make sure that he� will and he
should establish a system to make sure the people� will not fall in the cracks?
Mr. Orchard:� Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my honourable
friend� brought up the circumstances that
were subject to a discussion on� the
radio media earlier today.
����� Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to my
honourable friend that the� circumstances
experienced unfortunately by that family were in no� way anything to do with health care reform.
����� According to the
����� It had, Sir, nothing to do with reform of
the health care� system, but everything
to do with staff, because of�
circumstances, phoning in sick.�
They were unable to be there;�
hence three of the 12 beds were unavailable for service on� Saturday.
Cormorant Population
Control
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
����� We have drastic figures in this province
of people living� below the poverty
line.� Some of these people are the
fishermen� at
����� I want to ask the minister why this plan
was able to make it� through all
departments, why he is stopping it and why he has� broken his promise to the fishermen on
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): �Mr.
Speaker, I� am pleased to advise the
honourable member that we are currently�
having further discussions with the Fisherman's association at�
Ms. Wowchuk: �I want to ask the minister:� Is he going to go� ahead with the plan this year, or is it just
going to be another� promise during the
winter and a broken promise in the spring?�
They need that‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� The question has been put.
Mr. Enns: �Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that I
understand� what it is the honourable
member for
Ms. Wowchuk: �Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister
that� I would like him to keep his
promise and work along with the�
fishermen‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� Does the honourable member have a� question?
Ms. Wowchuk:� You promised.�
I did not.� You are the minister.
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Wowchuk: �Working relationships between Natural
Resources� staff and fishermen are at an all‑time
low.
����� What plans does this minister have to
improve working� relationships between
fishermen and Natural Resources staff, so�
these people can continue to make a living on the lake?
Mr. Enns:� Mr. Speaker, I can report to all members of the
House� with some satisfaction that
fishing returns on
Scholarship
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): �Four years of this government, Mr.� Speaker, it has worked every year to poison
relations with the� labour movement and
the working people that the labour movement�
represents.� It not only brought
in a legislative agenda that is� dictated
by the Chamber of Commerce, it has cut Labour Education� Centre funding, Unemployed Help Centre
funding, Workplace� Innovation Centre
funding and now a $4,000 scholarship for the�
Labour College of Canada that has been provided since 1963.
����� My question is to the Premier, very
simply:� Will the Premier� overrule his Minister of Labour in cutting
back this scholarship� that has been in
place since 1963 and have it reinstated so that�
working people can go to the
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour):� Mr. Speaker, I
think� the member for Thompson would
agree that it is important for� working
people to have access to health care.�
All of us in� government in the
last number of years, because of the financial�
situation, if one looks at the amount of dollars that this� Legislature has to vote each year to service
the accumulated debt� of this province,
one will realize the pressure that has been on�
every department to find resources that are available to fund the� departments that are a priority.� Obviously, health care is one� of those priorities.
����� The member for
Mr. Ashton:� Perhaps the minister can take it out of
his� $7‑million training allowance
for corporations.
Unemployed
Help Centre
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson):� I have a follow‑up
question, Mr.� Speaker, and it is in
regard to the Unemployed Help Centre.
����� Will the government now reinstate funding
for the Unemployed� Help Centre in light
of a study that showed that many Manitobans�
on UIC are being shortchanged and that, through the help of� organizations such as the Unemployed Help
Centre, many have been� able to get
increased benefits, they are entitled to Unemployment� Insurance, something this government has not
helped by cutting� its‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� The question has been put.
* (1430)
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour):� Mr. Speaker, I am� totally amazed at the contradictory
statements we have from� members opposite
day after day.� They would think that
members of� the media, members of the
public, other members of this�
Legislature do not listen to him.
����� On one hand they talk about the need to
retrain; they need to� provide investment
retraining.� When this government
provides an� opportunity to see some of
the dollars that are contributed� through
payroll tax going into training in industry, the member� opposes it.�
I would point out to the member with respect to the� decision that was made some years ago in the
Unemployed Help� Centre that that
particular institution is an area of federal�
responsibility and the area there is owned by the federal� government.
Mr. Ashton:� I presume the answer was no, once again, Mr.
Speaker.
Health
Care System
Essential
Services Agreement
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): �My final question to the minister� is:�
Why has this government requested a review of the current� Essential Services Agreement in the health care
sector in light� of the fact that it is
working well?� It is being supported
by� many institutions.� Why is this government now opening up
the� whole issue of the Essential
Services Agreement in the health� care
sector?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour):� Mr. Speaker, I wish� the member for Thompson who always tries to
give the impression� that he is very close
to the labour movement would get his�
information correct.� Following
the strike with the hospitals,� the
Manitoba Nurses'
����� There was some issue that arose as to
whether or not there� was a way of
strengthening the dispute settlement mechanism.�
We� called together the subcommittee
of the Labour Management Review�
Committee which has examined that, and unofficially I have been� told that there is no recommendation coming
for change.
����� I think it would be irresponsible for all
of the players not� to review that
agreement.� That does not mean
necessarily that it� is being changed.
Economic
Growth
Private
Sector Capital Investment
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne):� I have a question for the Premier.
����� Last week the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) shared with� us his belief that
if you forced wages down in this province and�
forced more people into poverty, this would create a competitive� climate within which people would invest more
capital, and that� we would see‑‑and
he quoted statistics that suggested private�
sector capital investment in this province was going to improve.
����� Can the Premier tell us why private sector
capital investment� in this province last
year was nearly half a billion dollars less�
than it would have been if we had just maintained our same� position that we had in '88, and why it is
projected at some $373� million less than
it would be if we had just maintained '88�
levels?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier):� Just to remind the member for� Osborne that this province is expected to
have the largest� increase in capital
investment, both public and private, of any�
province in the country in 1992 and also the largest increase of� manufacturing capital investment of any
province in the country� in 1992.
Mr. Alcock:� Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada seems to
vary.� Public sector capital investment
is projected to go down, not up,� and
private sector capital investment is still some $373 million� below.
����� Perhaps the Premier can explain why we are
doing so poorly at� attracting private
sector capital when the Finance minister's�
plan seems to be working to his satisfaction.
Mr. Filmon:� Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has indicated
that we� are expected to have the largest
increase in capital investment� of any
province in the country in 1992, both public and private� capital, and the largest increase in
manufacturing capital� investment.� Both of those are good news.� I would hope that the� member for Osborne would be happy about that.
Mr. Alcock:� We will have the lowest level of capital
sector� investment in this province‑‑
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� The honourable member for Osborne,� kindly put your question now, please.
Mr. Alcock:� Perhaps I could ask the Premier this.� Why is our�
level falling?
Mr. Filmon:� Mr. Speaker, I repeat, Statistics Canada says
that� we are expected to have the largest
increase of capital� investment of any
province in the country this year, both public�
and private investment, and in addition to that, the largest� increase of manufacturing capital investment
of any province in� the country.
Abinochi
Preschool Program
Minister
of Native Affairs Meeting
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas):� My question is to the First� Minister.
����� The Royal Commission on aboriginal peoples
that is travelling� this province has
heaped praise on the innovative native language�
program, the Abinochi program, and also that indigenous language� is a necessary part of the definition of the
inherent right to� self‑government.
����� I would like to ask the First Minister if
he has instructed� his Minister of Native
Affairs (Mr. Downey) to meet with the�
Abinochi preschool board like he has promised to do, yet has not� fulfilled that promise.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier):� Mr. Speaker, I am sure
that if the� Minister of Native Affairs
has made that promise, he will keep it.
Mr. Hickes:� Then my second question is:� If the minister does� not keep this promise, will the First
Minister remove that� minister from the
responsibility that he is stepping aside from?
Mr. Filmon: �That is a hypothetical question.
Urban
Aboriginal Strategy
Release
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas):� Also to the First
Minister,� the Native Affairs minister
has been promising this House for the�
last two years an urban aboriginal strategy which he has yet to� deliver.
����� Will the First Minister talk to his
Minister of Urban Affairs� (Mr. Ernst) to
ensure that he brings to this House the urban�
aboriginal strategy that the aboriginal people have been waiting� such a long time for?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier):� Mr. Speaker, the commitment that has� been made by the Minister of Native Affairs
(Mr. Downey) is a� commitment that we
will keep.
Mr. Speaker:� Time for Oral Questions has expired.
����� ��
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): �Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have� leave to revert back to reading and receiving
petitions. [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker:� I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable� member, and it complies with
the privileges and the practices of� the
House and complies with the rules (by leave).�
Is it the will� the House to have
the petition read?
����� The petition of Seven Oaks General
Hospital praying for the� passing of an
act to amend the Seven Oaks General Hospital�
Incorporation Act.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (
����� Mr. Speaker, on April 30, I rose in this
House to wish the� team members of the
1992
����� On Sunday morning, May 17, after several
setbacks which� included inclement
weather and an avalanche, the 12
����� At the peak, a canister was buried which
contained a picture� of the late Free
Press columnist, Elizabeth Parker, who�
co‑founded the Alpine Club of Canada.� We can also take pride in� knowing that our flag of
����� To accomplish such an extraordinary feat,
as the first ascent� of a mountain, takes
painstaking planning, great dedication and�
commitment and perseverance to overcome and conquer all obstacles� and challenges encountered.
����� Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Manitobans
and the members of� this Legislature, I
would like to congratulate the members of the�
members of the
* * *
Mr. Speaker:� Does the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): �Mr. Speaker, I would like� to draw on the support of all members in this
House to� acknowledge and congratulate
the organizers of the fourth annual�
candlelight vigil held this past Sunday, organized for all of us� to remember those who are dying or who have
died from AIDS.
����� This candlelight vigil was unprecedented
in terms of numbers� who came out to
support and remember.� This vigil was
supported� by all members in this House,
and I know that there were candles�
burning in the windows of members and representatives of all� political parties who could not be present at
the vigil.� We were� a small community joining hands with some
other 200 communities,� 35 countries
around the world.� It was an event of
great� significance for many of us.
����� In this past week leading up to the vigil,
it is apparent� that three Manitobans
died from AIDS.� One of those
individuals� was a long‑serving
president of the Body Positive Coalition, Rick�
Koebel, who passed away the Saturday on the eve of the Sunday� vigil.
* (1440)
����� Mr. Speaker, the work of Rick Koebel was
not unlike the work� many are doing in
and outside of this Legislature to fight to�
help people living with HIV and dying from AIDS.� We remember�
Rick and all others who fight and work and struggle to improve� the quality of life in our communities and to
rid our society of� this deathly illness
and disease.
����� So on behalf of all members in this House,
I would like to� again congratulate the
organizers of
* (1450)
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): �Mr.� Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of� Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), 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 Health, and the Department of Rural� Development; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
HEALTH
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau):� Order, please.� 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� Health.
����� When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item� 1.(a) Minister's Salary
on page 82 of the Estimates book.�
Shall� the item pass?
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples):� Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I just� want to make some comments
regarding the health care reform� package
which we received the other day.� I am sure
everyone has� had a look at this package by
now.
����� The package has received very positive
reviews from across� the community; when
I say community, from the health care�
professionals, from many organizations, many patient groups and� above all, the public at large is willing to
listen, that there� is a need for change
and they want to give a chance for reform to�
function.
����� Today, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) made his
statement in the� House, and we have read
this May 15, 1992,
����� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would go back to
my statement, and� that was two years ago
when the health policy analysis centre was�
set up.� We said at that time that
things will move and I want to� reinforce
that, that we had faith that time, and we still have� faith in the process.� We want to see that the system could� continue to function. [interjection]
* (1500)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Order, please.� Could I ask the members� who want to have a conversation to do so
quietly along the wall� so that the
honourable member from The Maples can continue.
Mr. Cheema:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I really appreciate
the� member for
����� It is a very important document and has to
be looked at.� I� was saying, if we go back to the statement
two years ago about� the health policy
analysis centre when it was set up, I think at�
that time many people did not realize in this province that such� a major thing was being done.� When we made the statement, it� looked politically very immature, that it was
not a very positive� step and was
applauding the government without knowing, but we� had an idea then that this group would lead
us to a better health� care system.
����� The work which has been compiled in this
book has been taken� from scientific
studies.� They have not been able to pull
from� any of the news releases of any of
the three political parties.� They may
have taken some of the ideas, but the statistics are� based on the health care which Manitobans
have received for the� last 20 years,
from 1971 to 1992.� The reports have been
there� and they are compiled.
����� In fairness to the whole report, I would
say that this is a� very positive report,
and we will continue to watch, to make sure�
that the stated principles outlined in this report are� implemented.�
I think that is the issue for the next six months� to one year‑‑how the report is
going to be implemented and� whether it
will achieve what it was supposed to, and I think then� we can make a judgment call.
����� In our view, there are four phases.� The first was the� identification of the problem between 1988
and 1990.� Then the� second phase was to come to the conclusion in
terms of achieving� a role, so to speak,
developing a plan that would meet the needs,�
and I think that was the second phase.�
The third phase was to� achieve
this report.� The fourth phase is going
to be� implementation of the report.� I think the fifth phase will be� again the judgment from the people.� I mean, we cannot really� tell how each and every individual will react
to this health care� reform in the long
run, but I am sure the voters will tell us.�
I� think the fifth phase is very
crucial but that will all be open,� and
that is why we have never aligned ourselves against this� proposal.
����� I want to make it very clear the reasons
why we did that.� You identify the
problem.� You try to come up with
some� conclusion, and then you try to
help the system to get into some� of the
implementation.� I think that is where we
will watch for a� two‑year period
how things are implemented.
����� For us, one thing is very important, the
monitoring of the� system.� One can name it the way you want to.� We have to have� somebody monitoring the system.� There are three reasons.� I will�
tell the minister very frankly.�
First of all, how can we get�
reassurance that there is not going to be any change in the� ministry?�
If tomorrow a new minister comes, are they going to� follow up this same proposal?� Second is, if there is a change in� the government‑‑anything can
happen.� There is a two‑member� majority.�
Things can happen and how will the system continue to� function?�
I think the third thing is, if there is any new� minister, whether they will be able to build
credibility and� understanding of the
system.� I think that is the issue, but
that� is up to the government to
decide.� Those are the very important� issues that people have to know, that there
is a continuity of� care.
����� That is why we said when the health care
ministers are put� into place for six
months to one year, that is the most�
irresponsible thing any government can ever do.� That is why a�
four‑year period, six‑year period, eight‑year period
of Health� ministers are very, very
essential, especially when we are having�
the health care reform package.�
So those are the general�
comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
����� I want to add a few things in terms of the
things we have� been asking.� We said from 1988 that we should be
spending� smarter, and I think this
report meets that statement.� The� second was shift of care resources to the
community, and this� report again
satisfies our intentions.� The third was
setting up� of alternative services in
the form of community care, dealing� with
day surgery, home care‑‑[interjection] That was day surgery,� outpatient surgical procedures and expansion
of home care.� That� is why, if you were to review Hansard, our
one question was to� review the home care
policy.� I think this report satisfies us
to� some extent, but some more expansion
is required.
����� I think the other issue, we asked for a
well elderly centre,� and I think this
report goes in that direction to some extent.�
Then we asked for a birthing facility.�
That was one of our� election
promises, that we wanted to set up a system where a� birthing facility could be provided.�
����� The other thing was the major emphasis on
education,� prevention and promotion, and
the broader statement has been made� in
this report but more detailed information is required.� I�
think as time goes by, we may get some of the answers.� I think�
the minister should be very careful on that issue, on education,� not only about health and wellness, but
education about the tax� dollars we
spend.� We want to emphasize again,
patient education� in the system is most
crucial, not only for the protection of�
health care but also for the success of this health care reform,� very essential.
����� Some of the provinces, as Mrs. Carstairs
was saying today,� even British Columbia
is having ads in the papers because they�
know that something has to be done, but I do not believe in� isolated approaches, just having one article
here and one article� over there and one
plan here, and the other part of the plan does�
not know what the first one is doing.�
So we would like to have� more
patient education done.
����� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we want to see in
terms of one of the� major issues in this
report the fee reform policy which is very,�
very fundamental to our health care system.� In terms of the� open‑ended system that we have today,
the major structural� changes, how the
physicians are paid, how the services are being�
delivered, that answer has to be developed because without that,� I do not think anything will be successful.
����� We understand that this report was not
able to address� because I think we are
in the process negotiating and putting the�
process in place.� A very complex
issue, but at least the policy� statement
has been made.� It needs more redefining,
and retuning� of this policy area must be
done because people want to know how� the
physicians and other health care providers are going to get� paid in the long run.
����� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we strongly
believe that to implement� all these
major principles, there has to be a co‑ordinated� approach within the Department of
Health.� The graph on page 31� which tells the patient in the middle‑‑everything,
environment,� economy, and all those
factors surrounding that patient.� We
made� that statement even before this
package came.� That was about six� weeks ago and even during our budget speech,
I made those� comments.
* (1510)
����� After reading from many various reports,
we felt that was a� very important issue,
because people only relate to health care�
only of illness.� But as you said,
the patient's mental and� physical well‑being
will be only helped if we meet the definition�
of the World Health Organization.�
That says very clearly that�
illness it is not only the absence of disease, but also to meet� the physical and mental well‑being of
the patient.
����� To do that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a
healthy economy is very� important
because without jobs, without good environment, nothing� can be achieved.� Also to pay for the services we all
talked� about, there has to be some
resources, there has to be money� coming
in.� Also, the other responsibility which
is very, very� important is to be
accountable to the taxpayers.
����� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, nobody wants to
talk about this� issue, but I think it is
very crucial that the $1.8 billion‑‑how� it is spent and how we are going to continue
to spend it in the� future, if we have to
borrow money from banks and other�
institutions to fund our health care system‑‑I think we have
to� think about that.� If you take money from one area, you are
going� to suffer from the other; so in
that regard, I would like to see� a more
economic diversity.� I would like to see
people get� involved.� I would like to see many positive things,
many� creative things, many innovative
things that will help a person� as a
whole, so that we can achieve the best quality health care� for all people.
����� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted to
sum up by saying� that there are many,
many positive things.� There are
certain� things which need redefining or
a fine tuning.� If anybody thinks� that is not the case, then I think everyone
is lying to� themselves.� I think the minister also knows there may be
some� changes that have to required from
time to time.� That is why the� rigidity or the other way, the flexibility, I
would say,� flexibility in the health
care reform and the openness in the�
health care reform, and the frankness in the health care reform,� must be one of the major focuses, so that the
patient can be� involved, the health care
providers can be involved.�
Government� should not be afraid
to take bold steps and admit their mistakes�
when they are being made.� When
they are doing a positive thing,� they
should tell people.� They should not be
afraid of the� opposition parties when
things are derailed for a while.
����� Some people will do it, but for the last
four days we have� watched all the news
media‑‑the print news media, the electronic� news media, and above all, the public opinion
in the health care� sector.� It is amazing that people are so willing to
listen and� so positive.� I have never seen this in four or five
years.� It� is amazing that their main goal seems to be,
as the goal of this� government and the
goal of all people, is to save the health care�
system.
����� I will end my comments by saying that the
minister has to� succeed, because we have
put all our faith on the five basic�
principles of the medicare system in this minister's hands and he� is the head of the House here in terms of
implementing some of� the policies.� So I would rather challenge him not to disappoint� any one of us because it is not only his
credibility, but the� credibility of a
lot of individuals, a lot of professionals, a�
lot of decent people who have worked very hard for the last 21� years starting from 1971 to come up with so
many new things.� At� least we have all reached a stage and the
minister should not be� afraid of taking
decisions.
����� I would say again that some are still
afraid the system will� not only fail,
but they are afraid the system will succeed and to� defeat those forces, we have to make that
system work for the� better of people.
����� Thank you.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): �Mr. Deputy� Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend for
his comments.� My� honourable friend and the critic for the New
Democratic Party� have offered comments
indicating that they want to see this�
reform process move ahead.� I
simply indicate that it will not� move
ahead if it becomes a political football, if that is the� appropriate language.� My honourable friend puts a lot of onus on� me personally and I accept that, but there
are a tremendous� number of people in the
system as professionals, as managers and�
as trustees, who understand the need for change and that
����� I want to close by indicating to both my
critics that on� Sunday night on CKY
television there was a program on about ten�
o'clock.� For the life of me, I
cannot tell you what the name of� the
program was.
An Honourable Member:� W5.
Mr. Orchard:� W5.� I
believe that is correct.
����� One of the individuals featured in the
interview was a chap� by the name of Ken
Fyke.� Ken Fyke was a deputy minister
for� Health in Saskatchewan, subsequently
moved to British Columbia� about three or
four years ago, five years ago maybe, and became� part of the British Columbia ministry of
Health, and over the� last couple of
years has taken over administration of one of the� senior hospitals in Victoria, if not both of
them‑‑joint�
administration.� I do not know the
exact details.� I met Mr. Fyke� earlier this year at the symposium that I was
at in
����� You know, we are going to see some pretty
remarkable changes� over the next couple
of years across
����� I appreciate both my critics for past
contributions, and I� want to thank them
in advance for future contributions for making�
that system of change work well.
����� Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary� $20,600‑‑pass.
����� Resolution 65:� RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty� a sum not exceeding $13,933,600
for Health, Administration and� Finance,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March� 1993‑‑pass.
����� This completes the Estimates of the
Department of Health.� The next set of
Estimates that will be considered by this section� of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates
for Rural� Development.
����� Shall we briefly recess to allow the
minister and the critics� the opportunity
to prepare for the commencement of the next set�
of Estimates?
An Honourable Member:� But not too long.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Okay, we will recess five minutes.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 3:17 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 3:27 p.m.
����� �
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Order, please.� We are now commencing� consideration of the Estimates for Rural
Development.� Does the� minister responsible have an opening
statement?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development):� Thank
you� very much, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.� First of all, may I say I
am� pleased to introduce my department's
Estimates for review.� I� look forward to the discussions, the linkages
between the dollar� commitments and the
services to our diverse client groups.
����� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
take this opportunity� to acknowledge the
efforts that have been put forward by the�
municipal officials, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the� Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities,
and the Manitoba� Municipal
Administrators' Association.� I would
like to commend� them and their executive
and membership for their ongoing�
dedication to the citizens whom they represent.
����� I have had the pleasure of meeting with
these groups, Mr.� Deputy Chairperson, on
several occasions, and I found their input�
to be very valuable to our department in terms of the advice that� they have been able to provide.� I would also like to recognize� the efforts of the regional development
agencies whose work� fosters economic
development at local levels, and conservation�
districts whose work on behalf of the environment will be� witnessed by future generations.� The people who dedicated their� time to these organizations are valuable
partners, who are� essential to the
progress we are making in rural
����� The strongest message that we are
receiving from rural� Manitobans is that
people are willing to work hard to develop new�
economic initiatives in their communities.�
����� This request for partnerships underscores
the new directions� we are taking as a
government.� I know many people in many
other� departments are working with the
people to make changes and adapt� to a
rapidly changing world.� Our government
believes that� supporting locally
generated initiatives, building upon�
traditional and nontraditional strengths, and focusing on new� opportunities can help rural
����� In short, the people of
����� This commitment forms the foundation upon
which Rural� Development's programs are
based and funding directed.� We are� striving to meet the challenge of economic
growth through job� creation, industry
development and diversification.� We
are� introducing several measures to
achieve this goal.
* (1530)
����� In particular, we are implementing new,
innovative programs� to help rural
Manitobans achieve their goals.� The most
recent of� these is the Rural Economic
Development Initiative.� The REDI� program gives communities the tools they need
to build on� economic strategies.� REDI is based on the conviction that by� building up traditional strengths and
focusing on new� opportunities, rural
����� As many of you are aware, the REDI program
will be funded� with revenues generated
by Video Lottery Terminals in rural�
����� The four program options are available to
urban and rural� municipalities outside
of
����� REDI has several thrusts.� Its infrastructure development� component is designed to ensure rural
communities have the� capacity to improve
or develop the infrastructure needed to�
attract new businesses and allow for the expansion of existing� industry.�
REDI's feasibility studies component administered by� my colleague in Manitoba Industry, Trade and
Tourism is designed� to help rural
business people hire independent consultants to�
prepare financial market or engineering analysis.
����� Through REDI's MBA student consulting
portion of the program,� business people
can capitalize on the
����� A development support component provides a
one‑time� contribution to fund
innovative proposals in nontraditional areas�
to create business development opportunities.� This program is� developed to address the need to be
innovative in order to remain�
competitive in the changing world economy and marketplace.
����� Partners with Youth is one component of
REDI to which I feel� particularly
committed.� Creating opportunities for
our youth,� educating and training them
for jobs and opening up employment in�
our home towns can result in stability for them and a secure� future for our communities.
����� The REDI program has immense potential for
rural Manitobans,� especially when it is
used in conjunction with some of the other�
programs we have established to help rural Manitobans help� themselves.
����� Last year, our government introduced the
Community Choices� program which
encourages community groups to meet in round‑table� settings to examine their communities from
environmental, social� and economic
perspectives and develop realistic plans for action.
����� I am pleased to announce that by mid‑April,
30 round tables� involving 57
municipalities have been established.� We
expect� this program will continue to
expand and take on a different� focus as
community development plans reach implementation phases.
����� This implementation process must be
tackled from the grass� roots
upwards.� We believe that rural
Manitobans should have the� opportunity
not only to set directions for the future but to� invest in it directly to strengthen local
economies and create� jobs.
����� The Grow Bond program we introduced last
year is designed to� do just that.� This program is lottery funded, and it is
proving� to be a great success.� I know many of the members are familiar� with this program, but what you may not be
aware of is its� successes and impact on
rural
����� I am delighted to inform you that rural
Manitobans have� demonstrated their
confidence in their communities and are ready�
to invest in their own future.�
Morden's residents were the first�
to sell bonds and were very successful.�
The Alco Rural Bond� Corporation
met and surpassed its minimum sales requirements in� record time.�
Their success means Morden will soon have up to 16� new jobs and an expanded industrial base.
����� Four other bond proposals are undergoing
the internal review� process.� Three proposals are in planned preparation
stages while� preliminary proposals have
been received by two community� groups.� In addition, I might say, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, that� later this evening we
will once again be making a fairly�
significant announcement in Teulon in terms of their bond� corporation as well.
����� In addition, consulting services are being
extended to 22� interested entrepreneurs
to examine the viability of proposed�
projects.� The people of
����� While we are providing the tools for the
people of
����� We are currently in the process of
remodeling the department� to adapt to
changing requirements in our province.�
This� restructuring process
includes the creation of a new division to�
make our department more responsive to the economic development� needs and demands of rural
����� This new rural economic development
division has been created� to serve as a
lead provincial agent in rural
����� The local government's services division
will maintain the� major function
performed by the former Department of Municipal�
Affairs.� This includes the
delivery of services such as� assessments
for local governments and advisory services to�
municipal councillors and administrators in the areas of finance� and administration.
����� We will soon announce the appointment of a
new full‑time� deputy minister, and
I might say that I can do that now.� As
a� matter of fact, Mr. Winston Hodgins,
who is the new deputy� minister of Rural
Development, officially started in the office�
this morning.
����� Because he is so new, we have Mr.
Tomasson, the acting deputy� minister for
Rural Development, whose term ended today, will be� assisting us with the Estimates this time.
����� The restructuring of the department will
enable us to respond� more effectively to
changing economic dynamics, but we also�
recognize the need to make changes in legislation.� This includes�
the review of The Municipal Act as well as conservation and� planning legislation.� This is something that has been called
for� by municipalities for a long time.
����� Finally, I think we are at a stage where
we can begin the� process of looking at
how we can better address some of the�
issues that are addressed in The Municipal Act and also the� conservation and planning act.
����� ��(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in
the Chair)
����� We have also recently begun a review of
our provincial land� use policies adopted
in 1980 under The Planning Act.� Given
that� they were adopted more than 10
years ago, it is appropriate that� they
be reviewed to ensure that they reflect
����� Proposed revisions have recently been
forwarded to our local� municipalities,
the districts' associations, and other interest�
groups for comments and suggestions.�
After a review of the�
submissions, we intend to bring the policies forward for� adoption.�
Related to this review of legislation is a revision of� The Municipal Assessment Act.� We are continuing in our efforts� to improve the assessment system.
����� I would like to emphasize that both Bill
20 and the long‑term� portioning
strategy announced by my predecessor last September� will have a positive impact on the assessment
and taxation system� in this
province.� Our government's strategy is
aimed at� continuing to improve how
property is assessed and taxed.� It
is� important to remember that our
government‑‑for that matter, the�
Weir committee never set out to resolve overnight the inequities� that have been built up over the last 25
years.
����� With the introduction of market value
assessment in 1990, we� took a major step
forward on the assessment side of the�
equation.� The adjustments to
portions will now take us another� step
by improving the level of equity in the taxes paid by� various property classes.� As part of this portioning strategy,� our government also announced its intention
to delay the next� reassessment which is
to take place for 1993 to the 1994 tax year.
����� There are several benefits to this
delay.� With one more� year, we are able to reach the portion
targets for those classes� containing the
majority of ratepayers such as residential 1 and� commercial properties.� In this way, ratepayers can more easily� distinguish between policy driven changes to
their taxes and� reassessment or market
driven changes.
����� This is in keeping with one of the
original objectives of� assessment
reform:� to make the system more
understandable.� The� delay also allows changes associated with the
July 1992� implementation of the new
Education Finance Formula to stabilize�
before the assessment base is altered across the province.
����� As you are aware, assessment is a
fundamental element in the� education tax
system.� I will stress again to the
members� opposite that Bill 20 does not
affect the rights of farmers to� appeal
their assessments, nor does it propose changes that would� restrict appeal rights in any way.
����� In summary, I would like to reiterate that
the changes made� to the portions as well
as Bill 20 are in keeping with the�
department's ongoing commitment to improve the property� assessment and taxation system in this
province.
����� Our department has also introduced
property taxes related to� equipment in
sand and gravel pits.� On January 1,
1992, the� province approved and adopted
a regulation to set maximum levels� for
fees which municipalities may now charge for the extraction� and transportation of sand and gravel.� The proposals for this� regulation were put forward by a committee of
municipal and� industrial officials.
* (1540)
����� The regulations derived from the proposals
have enabled us to� resolve the long‑standing
dissatisfaction with a system of�
municipal taxation of equipment used to extract sand and gravel.� The new fees will replace the existing
property taxes on� equipment in the pits
with a more direct and equitable way of�
covering municipal road maintenance costs.
����� I am confident that we will soon adjust to
these new systems,� and the benefits are
already being realized in rural
����� We are setting up a working group to
discuss the entire issue� at the present
time, and we contemplate that within the next few� short days or next week, we will have a
committee in place which� will then begin
the process of addressing the issues that were�
set forth in the report that was forwarded by Charlie Hill and� was tabled in January.� We are hopeful that by September we will� be able to have a resolution to this
outstanding issue.
����� Our government is also involved in
partnerships with various� levels of
government through cost‑sharing programs.�
As members� are aware, I recently
announced that
����� We are also using cost‑sharing
programs to improve the� infrastructures
in rural communities.� I am
referring� specifically to the southern
development initiative which is�
officially known as the Canada‑Manitoba Partnership Agreement
on� Municipal Water Infrastructure or, in
short, PAMWI.� Under the� PAMWI agreement, the governments of
����� The PAMWI agreement is an important tool
in our overall game� plan to improve the
equity and the quality of life in rural�
����� Enhancing our rural communities through
projects like the� ones I have outlined
here today is an important part of our�
commitment to rural
����� But our decentralization initiative does
more than bring� services closer to the
people who use them.� It also brings
new� faces and job opportunities to rural
����� In examining our Estimates, members will
note that‑‑
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): �Is it the will of
the� committee to let the minister finish
his opening statement?� Go� ahead.
Mr. Derkach:� In examining our Estimates, members will note
that� the grants to municipalities,
regional development agencies and�
conservation districts represent a major portion of our budget‑‑
An Honourable Member:� Hansard is not recording it.
Mr. Derkach:� So there is no sense in reading it‑‑[interjection]� We will wait.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose):� Bureaucracy
triumphs.� A formal vote has been
requested in the Chamber and the committee�
recess.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 3:47 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 4:50 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Order, please.� This section of the� Committee of Supply will come to order.� Before the recess, this� section had been considering Rural
Development.� We will now� conclude with the minister's opening
statement.
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
indicate to� the members that I will
provide for them, if that has not already�
happened, copies of the opening statement so that they may peruse� it in preparation for their questions which
will follow.
����� Just in conclusion, I would just like to
say that in the� examination of our
Estimates, members will note that the grants�
to municipalities, regional development agencies and conservation� districts represent a major portion of our
budget.� Something� like about 56 percent of the total budget is
devoted to support� to those agencies.� Add to the Rural Development's 17.7
percent� contribution through capital
assets and infrastructure support� and
just under 75 percent of our total budget, or over $52� million, is earmarked for rural
����� This certainly represents a major
commitment to rural�
����� Certainly, I would like to put on the
record that Mr.� Tomasson has done an
outstanding job as the Acting Deputy�
Minister for the Department of Rural Development.� Under his�
stewardship we were able to implement several major initiatives,� I believe, in rural
����� In addition, I would like to also
acknowledge the efforts of� the many
staff whom I have in the department, the directors.� The�
department as you know is still without several positions in it.� We are advertising for several directors and
ADMs within the� department.� Even in times of being shorthanded as we are,
we� have been able to do a tremendous
amount of work.� Certainly, I� would like to acknowledge the efforts of all
of the staff within� the department who
have done a tremendous amount of work over the�
last few months to introduce some fairly major initiatives to� help to revitalize the rural population of
our province.� With� that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
conclude my opening� remarks.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:�� We thank the honourable minister for� those remarks.� Does the critic from the official
opposition� party, the honourable member
for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
����� I would like to begin, first of all, by
congratulating the� minister on his
appointment.� The first comments that
were made� when he was appointed to this
department was that he was a� country boy
and a rural person, and I hope that he is sincere� about a commitment to rural Manitoba.� I suspect that he is,� because most of us who live in the rural
community in small towns� want to see
growth in our community.� I look forward
to seeing� what he is going to do
throughout the rural part of the province�
to have economic growth.
����� I know that the comments were that taking
a position in Rural� Development was a
demotion.� In fact, I feel that rural� development is a very high priority.� When we look at what� happens in rural
����� I was very concerned when Rural
Development and Northern� Affairs were
combined together under one minister, and I felt� that rural development was not getting a fair
share of� attention.� In fact, when the name of the department was
changed� to Rural Development rather than
Municipal Affairs, there was an�
expectation that we were going to see a lot more happening in� rural
����� I also want to congratulate the new deputy
minister.� I am� sure that he‑‑he has been in
government for some time‑‑will bring� some good leadership to the department.
����� The concern that I have is that we had an
announcement at the� municipal convention
that two assistant deputy ministers were�
going to be hired, and the department was going to be split.� This was received very positively by
councillors.� I am concerned� with the lack of movement.� The minister has just indicated that� there has been advertising going on.� Hopefully, both these ADMs� will be filled very soon, and we can see some
development because� it is of some
concern when you see the number of vacancies in the� department.�
So we look forward to what is going to happen with� the restructuring of the department.
����� As I said, as a rural person, my greatest
concern right now� is that there is not
any real growth in rural
����� There was an interesting article in one of
the rural� newspapers just the other
day.� I do not have it with me but I
am� sure that the minister may have seen
it, and that is, an article� indicating
that if we do not have growth in our rural community,� if we do not have opportunities for our young
people, they are� not going to come back.
����� At this point, I can sincerely say that,
as I look at the� part of the province
that I am from, I cannot see very much for�
our young people to come back to.�
It is a problem that we all� have
to address.� We have to look at what we
can do to have� economic growth in the
rural community.� I guess some of
the� things that I am anxious to hear are
what the minister has to� say, what his
position is, where he is taking the department on� things that will attract growth to our rural
community.
����� When I was at the rural convention at the
Union of Manitoba� Municipalities, the
previous minister had indicated that he was�
still moving forward with getting natural gas to other parts of� the province.�
It is not something that I have raised with the� minister yet, but I hope that through this
Estimates process, we� can talk about
where we are going with natural gas to other parts� of the province that want to have the same
economic growth that� we see in the
southern part of the province.
����� We have to have diversification, ways to
sustain, ways to use� our natural
resources, rather than shipping them out in the raw� state as many of them are going right now.� We have to have� diversification for our agriculture
community.� How can we� process some of those products that we are
producing and then� have growth?� An example that comes to mind is
ethanol.� There� has been lots of discussion of that.� The farming community is� very interested in that kind of thing.
����� But I do not believe it is enough to say,
yes, it is up to� you in the rural
community to look at ideas for diversification,�
to look at ways.� The rural people
cannot do it on their own.� There has to
be leadership from government.� There
have to be� initiatives taken that will
support the rural community.� As good� as the Grow Bond initiative is, there has to
be government� support behind it to help
those communities come up with those�
initiatives.
����� I would like to know, through the
Department of Rural� Development, how
this minister feels about sustainable�
development of our forestry industry.�
Is there anything being� looked at
as to how we can keep more of the secondary jobs from� our forestry industry here in our province?
����� We need, as I said, services to attract
these businesses to� the rural community,
and I use my community, the major centre in�
my constituency of
����� What we have to have is a government that
is sincere about� rural development that
will take the initiatives to attract�
industry‑‑
�Mr.
Deputy Chairperson:� Order,
please.� The time is now 5 p.m.,� and time for private members' hour.� I am interrupting the� proceedings of the committee.� The Committee of Supply will� resume considerations at 8 p.m.
* (1700)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
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
Education and Training.� We are on 5.(b)
Program� Analysis, Co‑ordination
and Support.
����� Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
����� 5.(b) Program Analysis, Co‑ordination
and Support:� (1)� Salaries $904,100.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): �Madam Chairperson, I think at the� end of last time I was trying to find some
relationship between� the courses which
have been cut at the community colleges over�
the last two years and the labour market requirements in
����� I have been doing this from a document
called High Demand� Occupations in
Manitoba, September '91, which I think is the most� recent document we have, and also,
unfortunately, in the absence� of a
labour market strategy that this department has not yet� provided.
����� So I wanted to continue with that and see
what the issues� were in some of the
other college programs that were cut.�
I� think we were looking at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training):� The� honourable member seems to raise some
concerns that people� wishing to study in
the North will have to leave their home,�
where they are living, to study.�
I would certainly say that it� is
not a policy of this government to make that be a reason for� people to leave home.� However, we do have an issue of supply
and� demand.� We do have courses available where there is a
demand and� also where there are the
resources to provide those courses.
����� I would like to speak for a moment about
distance education� as a viable
alternative and to remind her that we do have a�
Distance Education task force which will also be looking at� issues relating to universities and
colleges.� It is a viable� alternative where we cannot be site‑specific
in some of the� courses offered.� I would remind her that other provinces,� including
Ms. Friesen:� What I was asking about was correspondence
schools,� not distance education.� There is a considerable difference, and� I assumed that the minister understood that.
* (1450)
����� What I am indicating is that in the
document which she tabled� or which her
department tabled, when it is looking at alternate� programs for those courses which have been
cut in our community� colleges, that on
seven occasions on the list that is�
proposed‑‑it is a list perhaps of about 20 odd courses‑‑that
at� least on seven or eight occasions,
the alternative proposed is a�
correspondence school in Montreal, a private correspondence� school.
����� I am asking:� Is that still government policy, that we
cut� programs at community colleges and
advise students to register in� the
Mrs. Vodrey:� Madam Chairperson, yes, I certainly
understood the� question and wish to
provide the member with some information I�
did not believe that she had.
����� However, I would like to say again that
there are times when� we have to look at
other kinds of alternatives.� The courses
are� useful courses.� They are viable courses.� They provide an� education.�
However, most of those same programs also are� available at one of the two other community
colleges.� So the� correspondence simply offers a choice for
those individuals in an� area where they
would like to study.� In the area of� pre‑employment courses, where they have
been eliminated, there is� still access
to the trades through the apprenticeship programs.
Ms. Friesen:� Madam Chairperson, on at least three of those
seven� items there is no alternative
listed other than the international�
correspondence schools.� So I am
not quite sure what the minister� means
that there are alternatives proposed.
����� I think at the end of last time I was
asking her, is the� alternative she is
proposing for northerners to come to Red River�
or to go to Brandon or a correspondence school?
����� I think the second part I would like to
address is, the� minister advises us that
she is sure that these are good�
alternatives.� Could she indicate
also who in her department� evaluates
these correspondence courses for the purposes of� advising Manitobans that these are viable
alternatives, and what� kind of
certificates, what kind of certification is available at� the end of the correspondence courses that is
acceptable in�
Mrs. Vodrey:� Madam Chairperson, I would encourage the
honourable� member to look at the entire
list of programming.� She is really� painting a slanted picture by picking a very
few number of� courses.
����� I would like to remind her again that the
reductions have� been replaced by what
are considered to be more beneficial�
programming in the North.� Those
programs which have been� reduced, I will
remind her again, are available through other�
community colleges or through correspondence.� So there is, in� fact, still access to those programs.� Yes, there will be a point� when all students cannot get, locally,
exactly what they require,� and therefore
we have put into place this series of alternatives.
����� Now, on the issue of evaluations, these
programs are� evaluated by other
jurisdictions.� We are responsible for
the� evaluation of vocational programs
within
Point of
Order
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin):� Madam Chairperson, on a point of� order, I have noted that the minister is
taking a great deal of� time of this
House writing down notes while her staff is raising� points with her, rather than answering the
questions that are put� to her in a
timely way.� This is an incredible
approach by this� minister.� We have not seen this kind of thing in the
Estimates� before.� I talked to my colleague over the last week
or so and� found that, in fact, this has
been a habit that has taken place,� and
it is killing an awful lot of Estimates time.
����� I do not know if this is a deliberate
tactic on the part of� this minister and
this government, but I do not think that we in�
the opposition should have to tolerate this.� Surely the minister� can be briefed on these issues and come in
here ready to speak on� the issues that
are being asked of her in this House.
����� If this does not stop, Madam Chairperson,
on a point of� order, we are going to
have to move that the Estimates time that�
is being taken while she is taking notes be deducted from the� total hours that are allotted for this
department for Estimates.� I will not
make that motion at this time, but I hope that the� minister will indeed attempt to change her
procedure in this� regard because it is
not a normal approach by a minister in this�
House.� I take it she is a new
minister, but this is intolerable.
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): �Madam Chairperson, I am� quite amazed to hear what I have just heard
come from the member� for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).� I find that the activities of
the� minister are quite appropriate.� Her answers are adequate and� sufficient.�
That is the issue, is the answer that is given.� I�
think it is quite appropriate for the minister to carry out the� kind of activity in answering, making sure it
is complete and to� the satisfaction of
this Chamber.� The method‑‑I
can go back for� years as to the delays
of the member for Dauphin and there are�
different styles among different ministers, and it is not, I� believe, the purpose of this committee to in
any way determine� how the answers are
derived at.� It is the quality and
the� quantity of the answers that are
important.
* (1500)
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
�I appreciate what the Deputy Premier� (Mr. Downey) said, although I think had he
been witnessing what� has been going on
in this committee, he might share the same�
concerns.� The member for Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was� here the
last time this committee met.� He
commented that in 23� years he has never
seen a minister take this kind of time to�
prepare for questions and deliberately use up the time available� to the committee.
����� It is not being moved at this point, but
the suggestion that� has been made is, if
the minister requires this kind of time and�
she is a new minister and perhaps has not had the time to be� briefed, that we simply deduct that
preparation time from the� clock that is
running on Estimates.� Otherwise we are
forced into� the position of using the
concurrence motion to try to get the�
answers to the questions that we are failing to get on a� department that the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
himself has designated� as a
priority.� The government certainly is
not acting as though� this is a priority
of this government, neither is the minister.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Second
Opposition House Leader): �On the same� point of order, Madam Chairperson, I would
point to the key point� to which the
member for Dauphin is pointing is the significant� loss of time to members of this House and
particularly opposition� members.� Given the fact that we have only a limited
time period,� 240 hours, we are concerned
that it is a deliberate tactic, as we�
are seeing in the other section of Estimates where we have the� government filibustering its own Health
Estimates, thereby� running out the clock
and preventing us from asking questions in�
other important departments, and we are seeing it in this� particular area.
����� I realize that we have a new minister
here, but I think the� minister should
have some responsibility to be briefed on these�
matters and should not rely on staff at the expense of committee� time, because in the period of time I have
sat in here we often� end up out of every
five minutes there is perhaps one minute in�
which the minister is actually putting something on the record� and four minutes in which the minister is
consulting.� It is the� degree to which the minister is not using the
time of Estimates,� is using it to
consult with her staff which she can do at any�
time, that is of concern here.
����� I would, on the point of order, ask that
the time that is� taken off from the
limited amount of time we have for Estimates,�
only 240 hours, not include the time during which the minister is� consulting with her staff, and I believe it
is only reasonable.� I believe there is
an element of having the staff here for�
detailed questions, but on broad policy questions the minister� should not be consulting with the staff in
the first place.� The� minister should be responding directly to
questions based on her� knowledge, her
understanding of the department, her policies and� the policies of her government.� This is unprecedented, the� degree to which we have seen this time wasted
in Estimates.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader):� Yes,
Madam Chairperson, I have listened to the member for Thompson (Mr.� Ashton).�
The member for Thompson tries to make a point of order� on how the minister answers questions.� I am sure that the� members opposite agree‑‑or the
member for Dauphin has raised the� point
of order.� I would imagine that members
opposite want to� ensure that the
minister provides as accurate information as is�
available to them as possible.�
Now, if the members are trying to�
make a quick political point in this committee room, that is� unacceptable.
����� Madam Chairperson, ministers have a right
to consult.� It is� a time‑honoured tradition in this
Assembly which they as� ministers, I am
sure, did when they were ministers in the same�
predicament in Estimates.� A
minister has a right to consult with� the
staff who are here to ensure that members opposite get an� accurate answer, as accurate as possible, to
the questions that� they ask.� If a minister chooses to make some notes
while the� question is being asked, I do
not think that there is a minister� who
has gone through committee ever who has not done that.
����� All I can conclude, and I would submit to
your ruling that� first of all the point
of order is out of order, but I would�
suggest as well that members opposite are only trying to make� some quick political point rather than have
any real interest in� the Department of
Education.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� I have listened with interest� to the comments of all honourable members,
and I would remind all� honourable
members that a point of order is used to bring to the� attention of the Chair a breach of the rules
or a digression from� practices of the
committee.� The honourable member may
have a� complaint but does not have a
point of order.
����� Secondly, I would like to remind all
honourable members of� this committee
that indeed we do have a new minister.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon):� Madam Chairperson, you very� carefully read the rules to the House and one
of the rules is if� there is a breach of
practice.� What has been pointed out by
a� number of my colleagues, including
both opposition parties, that� what is
occurring here is a breach of practice.�
This minister,� rightly or wrongly
for whatever her motivation, is abusing the�
time of Estimates.
����� Madam Chairperson, I and a number of other
people have been� ministers, and there
have been ministers on that side who have�
gone through the Estimates process year after year without taking� the kind of time that this minister is taking
to answer� questions.� We are not arguing that the minister should
be giving� us inaccurate or incorrect
information.� What we are asking the� minister to do is to take her briefings
outside of Estimates� hours as has been
the normal practice in this house over many,�
many years.
����� We are seeing the minister answer a very
few number of� questions every hour in
this Chamber, and it would be much more�
efficient and much more effective if the minister would follow� the practice of this House and answer
questions more directly,� take her
briefing time outside of the Chamber so that we can get� on with the business in this Chamber during
the Estimates process.
Madam Chairperson:� The honourable member for Flin Flon does
not� have a new point of order.� He has reiterated the previous point� of order raised.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey:� Well, in response to the two opposition
parties, my� suggestion is then that they
realize that we are discussing the�
Estimates of 1992‑93.� Their
questions have focused on Estimates� that
are several years past.
����� I have also made every effort to remind
the other side that� the line of
questioning that they are pursuing is best pursued� under Red River Community College, Appropriation
6.(5)(c),� Keewatin Community College,
Appropriation 6.(5)(e), and� Assiniboine
Community College, 6.(5)(d).� So the
members have� been directed to put their
questions in the appropriate Estimates�
line and they have said they did not wish to do that.� They�
argued that point.� Therefore,
Madam Chairperson, I am delighted� to
answer the questions, and I will be answering them as fully� and as completely as I possibly can in this
Chamber.
Ms. Friesen:� I do not know if the minister is speaking on
a� point of order there or not, but I
have responded and I will� continue to
respond that we are discussing the overall policy and� programming of community colleges.
����� It is quite legitimate since this
government maintains that� it has
expanded the community college programs this year.� It is�
extremely important that we continue to underline to the� government and to the public that in fact
they cut $10 million� from community
colleges, that they cut over 30 programs.�
In� cutting those programs, what they
were doing was advising people� to go to
correspondence courses based in
����� I was asking the minister a very specific
question.� Is it� still the policy of this government to
recommend correspondence� courses based at
ICS in
����� I do not believe in her last answer that
the minister� answered those questions,
so I am prepared to state them again.
* (1510)
Mrs. Vodrey:� I will repeat the answer to the question,
and� perhaps the member will decide to
listen to the answer this time.
����� The programs are regulated by other
jurisdictions.� We take �care of those vocational programs and those
correspondence� programs here in
Ms. Friesen:� I really regret having to stay on this line,
but my� question is specifically related
to ICS, the International� Correspondence
Schools, which the minister lists or this ministry� listed on the piece of paper that it tabled.
����� International Correspondence Schools are
located in
����� Who is evaluating those programs?� What kind of certificate� is acquired at the end of those
programs?� Who in
Mrs. Vodrey:� Madam Chairperson, again, private
vocational� schools are evaluated by
those individual provinces where the�
schools are residing.� ICS is part
of a national association of� career
colleges.� There is no external
evaluation by provinces,� and the only
evaluation by an external province, by
Ms. Friesen:� Madam Chairperson, then could we get back
to� department policy?� If there is no evaluation in
����� I am referring, in fact, to about 11 of
the 30 courses that� were cut.� The alternatives in 11 of those were
recommended as� being, amongst others,
the International Correspondence Schools.
Mrs. Vodrey:� Madam Chairperson, in terms of the schools
existing� in other provinces, they exist
in other provinces, they are� licensed in
other provinces.� These programs then
obviously meet� the standards within
those provinces and within that particular�
province's evaluation.
����� Secondly, within
Ms. Friesen:� It seems to me that then the department is
waiting� for employers to say that this
is inadequate before any new� policy is
developed.� It seems to me a very odd
way, in a policy� and planning branch, to
develop policy because you have no�
alternatives in some of these programs.�
Employers who want to� hire
people, according to this list, will only be able to employ� them from correspondence schools if we were
to go on the evidence� that the minister
is suggesting.� It seems to me a very
bizarre� way of making policy.
����� Overall, what we are looking at in the
community colleges is� a cut or reduction
two years ago of more than 35 courses.�
I� think we have talked about this
in Estimates and in Question� Period a
number of times, particularly when the government wants� to trumpet its "extra" $2.5 million
to the community colleges� because in
fact we are limiting community colleges.�
It seems to� me that we are
reducing their role in the post‑secondary field in�
����� I want to ask the minister about something
that I have asked� her in Question
Period, but now that she has her staff here,�
perhaps we could get some more specific answers, and that is the� waiting lists at community colleges and in
particular the waiting� list at Red River
Community College, which I believe have�
resulted from the program and policy developments in this� government.
����� There are, from my understanding, about 25
courses at
Mrs. Vodrey:� We do recognize that there are waiting lists
in� some courses at
Ms. Friesen:� Madam Chairperson, how does the college, how
does� this Policy and Planning Branch in
fact evaluate the demand from� a student
perspective?
Mrs. Vodrey:� Madam Chairperson, the primary way is
the� medium‑term demand within the
marketplace, and then we add to� that the
student demand.� So it is labour market
demand and� student demand.� We certainly look to see that the student
demand� would lead to employability.
* (1520)
Ms. Friesen:� We seem to be moving in circles.� Labour market�
demand in a department which has no labour market strategy yet,� in fact, which started from scratch in recent
months to� development; student demand in
an area where the government now� claims
that it cannot even count student demand because students,� they argue, register for many courses‑‑I
do not understand how in� fact the
department is developing any kind of planning framework� for the community colleges which it is now
sending off to govern� themselves.� You do not know the student demand.� You do not know� the labour market strategy.� Where is the planning coming from?
Mrs. Vodrey:� Well, I have discussed with the honourable
member� that at the moment we do not have
a formal strategy.� That is� true.�
We are in the process of developing that strategy.� We are�
also in the process of preparing to sign the Canada‑Manitoba� Labour Force Development Agreement, but we do
have access to� statistics on demand, and
I think we have discussed that already�
within these Estimates.
Madam Chairperson:� Item 5.(b)(1) Salaries $904,100.� Shall the�
item pass?
Ms. Friesen:� Madam Chairperson, I move, seconded by the
member� for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that
the committee condemn the� government for
its lack of planning and support for community�
colleges, its failure to respond to the needs of the thousands of� unemployed in
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): �Just for� clarification, do we have to debate this
motion before us, or is� it nondebatable?
Madam Chairperson:� The motion is in order, and the motion
indeed� is debatable.� I will now read the motion.
����� It has been moved by the honourable member
for Wolseley (Ms.� Friesen) that the
committee condemn the government for its lack�
of planning and support for community colleges, its failure to� respond to the needs of the thousands of
unemployed in Manitoba� and to the
immediate needs of the hundreds of students waiting� for training in this province.
Mrs. Vodrey:� Madam Chairperson, I am extremely pleased to
speak� to this motion, because I believe
that it will give an� opportunity to
discuss our government's commitment to training in� this province and also to the community
college system within� this province.
����� I would like to start by saying that
choice is a very� important principle
guiding my department as outlined in the�
Strategic Plan.� We believe that
Manitobans want to be able to� choose
alternatives to education and training which include both� public institutions funded by government
within the resources� available to us and
private training providers paid for primarily�
by the individuals making those choices.
����� I would like to address, specifically, the
policies of the� former New Democratic
government to see if in fact our approach�
differs significantly.� The
honourable member has criticized this�
government for taking the necessary steps to eliminate certain� college programs as part of last year's
Estimates based on the� criteria that I
outlined previously:� labour market
demand,� student success, post‑graduation
employment, program costs, and� the
availability of alternative delivery approaches.
����� I have indicated to the honourable member
that we have, in� fact, added new or
expanded programs last year and again this�
year in those areas which, we believe, will most significantly� contribute to the well‑being of the
provincial economy.� What I� now wish to remind the member is of certain
decisions made by the� former
government.� I refer to the statements
from Hansard made� by the former
minister, Maureen Hemphill, on May 22, 1984.�
During that year's Estimates, the NDP government also cut a� number of college programs, but it failed to introduce
new� programs to replace those which had
been eliminated.� The former� NDP minister clearly indicated that her
government had considered� the
availability of similar programs at private vocational� schools, other colleges or secondary
vocational schools as part� of its
decision‑making process.
����� I would like to quote Ms. Hemphill's
response:� "If the� program can be delivered by another
institution, and I give you� an example
where we have some of the same programs being�
delivered through our vocational schools as are being delivered� through the colleges, and if we can say this
program is being� delivered through other
institutions, then we do not have to keep�
delivering it, do not have to duplicate.�
That is another of the�
criteria."
����� The NDP minister went on to say:� "An example, . . . is the� fact that various of the trade schools, like
Success, are able to� train an adequate
number of people in that area successfully and�
it is not necessary for us to duplicate that program."
����� So we see now that the program
eliminations and reductions� are not
something new to the community colleges.�
What is new,� however, which I have
stressed on several earlier occasions, is�
the restructuring which we have undertaken as indicated by the� large number of new and expanded programs
which this government� has introduced at
the colleges, both last year and this year.
����� As part of the government's ongoing
activities of� strengthening the
����� The review resulted in a redirection of
programming from the� less effective
programs to ones which would be more effective in� addressing labour market mismatches.� College programs were� evaluated based on enrollment levels,
graduation rates, job� placements,
projected demands for graduates as well as program� costs and effectiveness.� Although some programs were eliminated,� for example, the recreational vehicle technology,
and� hairstylist, and clerical
bookkeeping, which we did spend a great�
deal of time on in Estimates‑‑and I spoke on that one
very� specifically when we spoke of the
accountancy and the� requirements for a
greater technological ability on behalf of the�
graduates.� Many were added,
including technology and business�
management programs, computer‑related programs, programming� related to our aerospace industry and
expanded programming within� rural and
northern
����� In 1992‑93 we are proposing a
further expansion of $2.5� million to
college programming in areas which will contribute to� the economic development of our
province.� As I have said to the� member previously, this training will result
in an additional 640� students in 1992‑93.
����� I would like to read into the record again
some of the� additional programs which
are available at our community�
colleges.� At Red River Community
College:� the post‑diploma in� geographical information systems, that is a
new program; the� post‑diploma in
biomedical engineering, a new program;�
manufacturing assessment services, an expanded program;� development of learning technologies, a
modified program;� post‑diploma in
technology management, a new program;�
post‑diploma in electrical and electronic technology, an
expanded� program; telecommunications
technology, an expanded program;�
developmental services, an expanded program; civil engineering� technology, both a modified and an expanded
program; motor� vehicle mechanic, a
modified and an expanded program; business�
administration, an expanded program; technology preparation, a� new program; advertising art, a modified
program; business� accountancy, an
expanded program; applied sciences, a new program.
* (1530)
����� At Assiniboine Community College:� agribusiness, rural� enterprise, a new program; heavy duty
equipment electronics� technology, a new
program; business administration year one, an�
expanded and a modified program; media production technology, a� new program; sustainable shelter specialist,
a new program.
����� At
����� So this government has recognized the
urgent need for the� community colleges
to have greater flexibility and greater�
responsiveness and great accountability in order to meet the� rapidly changing demands of a highly
competitive information and� technology‑based
economy.� As it stands today, the
colleges are� the direct arms of the
government and this structure does not�
provide them with the flexibility they need to meet the future� challenges.
����� After consultations with the private
sector the government� decided that the
colleges must move to a system of board�
governance which would on one hand provide flexibility while on� the other accountability of public funds.
����� Since The Colleges Act was passed in July
1991 an� implementation plan has been
prepared and is currently being� reviewed
by the government, and $250,000 has been provided in the� 1992‑93 Estimates in support of the
activities associated with� this
transition including funds for staff development and� training so that the college staff can assume
their new� responsibilities under board
governance.� Incorporation of the� three colleges under separate boards is
expected to take place on� April 1, 1993,
and The Colleges Act allows for the continuation� of existing pension plans for college
employees.
����� So, Madam Chairperson, I hope that I have
underlined again� this government's
commitment for training and training through�
the community colleges, but the issue of restructuring the� community colleges was an important one, and
it was very� important for us to look at
the employability of graduates and� also
the number of young people or adults who started the� programs and then who were actually able to
finish and graduate� from those programs.
����� As a part, as I have said, of making sure
that colleges are� able to provide the
programming that is the most flexible and the�
most important to their areas, we are moving to a system of� college governance and through that system of
college governance� we fully expect
colleges then to be able to look at labour market� needs within their area, to utilize the
labour market strategy� developed by this
government and to provide the kind of� programming
that will be the most responsive to their specific� area.
����� Having visited the community colleges and
having visited in� the North, we can see
that this is a very important move.�
The� member has spoken about the
colleges in the North, and she has�
spoken about the need for employment in the North, and she has� spoken about concern for people in northern
����� So as I said to her much earlier and for
several days, day� after day, it has been
very important for us to make sure that�
people who are studying in these programs or in programs which� lead for them to a personal satisfaction as
well as an� employability and that the
programs are in sync with the current�
labour market needs in Manitoba.
����� Then again, I will remind her that when
she speaks of the� private vocational
schools, that it was also her government in�
the government of the NDP in 1984 who said, and I will just read� again into the record, Ms. Hemphill's
response:� If the program� can be delivered by another institution, and
I will give you an� example where we have
some of those programs being delivered�
through our vocational schools, the area being delivered through� the colleges, and if we can say this program
is being delivered� through other
institutions then we do not have to keep delivering� it, we do not have to duplicate it.
An Honourable Member:� Who said that?
Mrs. Vodrey:� That was said by Maureen Hemphill who was
the� Minister of Education in 1984.
Point of
Order
Ms. Friesen:� Madam Chairperson, I think the member is
reading a� set speech and I think perhaps
she has not adapted it to the� situation
because, in fact, we have not talked about vocational� schools yet.�
I asked about one correspondence school.�
We have� not mentioned any other
vocational schools.� I think the
minister� had a prepared speech that she
came in with that she has not�
adapted.� But we would be happy to
give her the time to adapt it.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The honourable member for� Wolseley does not have a point of order.� It is a dispute over� the facts.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey:� I know if the member goes back and
references� Hansard, she will find her
own reference to vocational schools� and
private vocational schools.� She did
raise this issue this� afternoon.� I think it is very important to get on the
record all� of the information that will
be important to a motion such as� this.
����� In terms of our labour market strategy and
our labour force� strategy in
Point of
Order
Mr. Ashton:� Our rules are fairly clear that speeches, apart
from� very isolated occasions, should not
be read from a written copy,� and I do
believe the minister is doing that.� If
she wishes to� table a copy of her
speech, I am sure we will all read it, Madam�
Chairperson.� But our rules are
very clear that speeches apart� from some
very specific designated occasions‑‑and in the case of� Estimates about the only exception is when
ministers make� introductory comments and
that is standard practice.� But in� debate on motions, it is highly irregular for
members to be� reading from speeches and
I would ask that you bring the Minister�
of Education to order and ask her address the motion rather than� read a written speech into the record.� That is a point of order.
Mr. Enns:� On the same point of order, I would have to
agree with� my colleague, the member for
Thompson, official opposition House�
leader.� That indeed was the
tradition in the rule of this� Chamber
some time, but long ago abandoned.� If,
in fact, that� were to be applied now,
you would have to rule out the Question�
Period pretty well, because most questions are read onto the� record.
����� Furthermore, there has always been, as
long as I have been in� this Chamber,
substantial leeway given to ministers during the� Estimates period to read from particular
documents because of the� nature, because
of the specific questions that are being asked.�
I think it is a rule that I, quite frankly, support, that members� should desist from reading from papers in
their contribution to� the Chamber, but
there are exceptions to the rule, and certainly�
the minister when engaged in her Estimates is one of them.
* (1540)
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The honourable member for� Thompson does not have a point of order.� I am referring� explicitly to Rule 29.� "A member addressing the House shall
not� read from a written previously
prepared speech except in the case� of a
Minister of the Crown making a statement of policy."
Mr. Ashton:� Madam Chairperson, are you saying that at any
time� that a minister is speaking‑‑I
just want to get the clarity on� the
ruling‑‑that they are entitled by your interpretation of that� rule to speak.� My understanding of that is to do with� ministerial statements.� It is also to do with opening comments,� but in debate it has never been the policy of
ministers,� particularly on motions.
����� I would just like to ask for clarity on
your ruling.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� My interpretation of Rule 29� is indeed as I have previously stated, that a
minister shall not� read from a written
previously prepared speech except in the case�
of a minister of the Crown making a statement of policy.� It is�
my interpretation that the minister is indeed stating� departmental policy in response to the
concerns expressed in the� motion by the
honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Mr. Ashton:� Madam Chairperson, with all due respect, I
challenge� your ruling.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The ruling of the Chair� having been challenged, the question before
the committee is,� shall the ruling of
the Chair be sustained?� All those in
favour� of sustaining the ruling of the
Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:� Yea.
Madam Chairperson:� All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:� Nay.
Madam Chairperson:� In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton:� Madam Chairperson, I request a formal vote.
Madam Chairperson:� A formal vote has been requested.� Call in�
the members.
* * *
The
committee took recess at 3:44 p.m.
After
Recess
The
committee resumed at 4:39 p.m.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� In the section of Committee� of Supply meeting in the Chamber to consider
the Estimates of the� Department of
Education and Training, the honourable member for� Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rose on a point of
order alleging that the� honourable
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) was in breach of� the rules by reading from a prepared text.
����� The Chair ruled that the honourable member
did not have a� point of order and that
the honourable minister had complied with�
Rule 29(a).� The honourable member
for Thompson challenged the� ruling which
was sustained on a voice vote.� The
honourable� member then requested a
formal vote.
����� Therefore, the question before the
committee is:� shall the� ruling of the Chair be sustained?
* (1640)
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:� Yeas 24,� Nays 25.
Madam Chairperson:� The ruling of the Chair has not been� sustained, therefore I must request the
honourable minister not� to read from a
previously prepared text.
* * *
����� Order, please.� Will the Committee of Supply please come
to� order.� This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with� the Estimates of the
Department of Education and Training.
����� Order, please.� We will continue to consider the
Estimates� for the Department of
Education.� Question?
Mr. Praznik: �Pardon me, Madam Chairperson.� Which question did� you call?
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� I have called the Estimates� of the Department of Education and Training
back to order, and� when the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rose on a�
point of order and then subsequently challenged the Chair, there� was a motion on the floor, and the honourable
Minister of� Education and Training (Mrs.
Vodrey) was debating that motion.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader):� Would you read� the motion, Madam Chairperson?� I think a number of us may want� to speak on this particular motion.
Madam Chairperson:� Moved by the honourable member for
Wolseley� (Ms. Friesen), that the
committee condemn the government for its�
lack of planning and support for community colleges‑‑
Some Honourable Members:� Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The Chair had not concluded� reading the motion:� its failure to respond to the needs of
the� thousands of unemployed in
Mr. Downey: �Madam Chairperson, I am rising to speak on
the� motion that was brought forward by
the member for‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Alcock: �This is a friendly point of order.� I believe the�
minister was speaking and has not finished her remarks.� Has she�
concluded her remarks?
An Honourable Member:� No, she was just being ruled out of order.
Mr. Ashton:� Yes, if I might be of assistance.� Also, in a�
friendly manner to the government since it is having some� difficulty here, I also believe if we are now
back in the section� of the Estimates,
the staff should be invited back in.�
The� minister should come down.� We are ready for the question, but we� should proceed normally with the committee,
Madam Chairperson.
* * *
Madam Chairperson:� Would the minister's staff please enter
the� Chamber?
Mrs. Vodrey:� I am pleased to continue the speech that I
was� delivering before the point of order
was raised, the speech in� which I have
delivered those points many times when I visited� around in this province and when I have also
spoken in this House.
����� I have spoken very frequently about this
government's� commitment to the community
college system and to the training of�
Manitobans.� I have spoken about
that commitment first of all in� terms of
the movement towards college governance.�
As I have said� in this House
before, the community colleges are in fact, at this� point, an arm of government, and it has been
determined, through� a bill passed in
this House, that those community colleges will�
move into college governance so that those community colleges� will be able to be much more responsive to
the citizens of their� area.
����� By way of example, I spoke of the citizens
in northern�
����� This government has made every effort to
attempt to manage� this province in a
more responsible way, dealing with the�
left‑over debt of the NDP government.
����� In terms of the management, we have looked
very carefully at� the budgeting in this
province, and we have also looked at what�
Manitobans can afford.� In looking
at what Manitobans can afford,� we have
also looked at the structure that would best suit the� people of
* (1650)
����� We certainly are aware that the issue of
management is a� major issue that is
simply pouring money in, which, as the NDP�
answer, has not answered anything and in fact has led us deeper� into debt and has been what has led us to the
need for� restructuring in this
province.� We do have a commitment to
the� community college system.� We do have a commitment to training� within this province.� We have also looked into the development� of new college programming to programming
which is responsive to� the needs of the
labour market.
����� There has been an opportunity to discuss
with employers what� it is that employers
are looking for, what is the technological�
need for employers, what is the greatest amount of employability� for Manitobans so that in fact they will be
successful when they� have spent that
time within the community college system.
����� Madam Chairperson, I think it is very
important that those� people studying
within the community college system also develop� a sense of internal satisfaction as well as
the belief that they� will be able to
look ahead, and that they will be able to look�
for employability.� I respond to
the honourable member by saying� not only
have we moved toward college governance, but I will� remind her again that we have put more money
into community� colleges and that we have
been looking at developing programs�
which are very responsive and will lead to the issues of� employment.
����� Going along with this, Madam Chairperson,
I have also spoken� in this House over
the past several weeks about the development�
of a provincial labour force strategy for
����� In addition, we also look forward to
signing a� Canada‑Manitoba Labour
Force Development Agreement and within�
that, we will also be looking to the partnerships within the� community.�
We will be looking at how we can co‑operate in terms� of training with not only what the labour
market demands but with� what students
demand as well.
����� This government through its development of
a labour market� strategy, this
government through its move to a community college� governance, this government with its
development of courses that� are very
much more updated than previously has put thought into� this.�
The NDP has said that if you just pour more money in and� run up the debt, keep the programs, keep the
status quo, do not� do any restructuring,
do not do any further development, that�
everything will be fine.
����� That has been the message that the NDP has
delivered in this� House during the
Estimates process, and this government has said�
that we will, in fact, provide a strategy and the strategy is one� that is in the process of being developed
now.� It is a strategy� that will assist Manitobans; it is a strategy
that does not just� talk about
maintaining the status quo for Manitobans.�
As I said� in the Estimates
process, those Manitobans in many cases were not� able to complete the programs, were not able
to find jobs at the� end of the programs,
so we looked at some of those programs that�
were, in fact, reduced and the restructuring of the programs.
����� We looked at those programs, and we said
the employability is� low and we found
that there was an attrition rate as well.�
We� are now looking to develop
programs within the community colleges�
that are more responsive to Manitobans and also to employers.� I� put
forward to you again that we are looking at the issue of� management.�
In addition to management, we are also looking at� responsiveness for Manitobans and assisting
Manitobans to stay in� their programming
and also to help bring them a sense of�
satisfaction.
����� We also have to acknowledge, in the
planning of a labour� force, in the
planning of training and the planning for community� colleges, that
����� So we have developed these new
programs.� I know that we will� be speaking about them in detail when we go
line by line looking� at the community
colleges, looking at the planning of the�
community colleges, looking at the staffing of the community� colleges.�
All of those issues, Madam Chairperson, will be very� important when we look at college governance.
����� As I have acknowledged in this Chamber
already, the move to� college governance
requires a trained staff.� It requires
a� trained administration and that
administration is in the process� of
receiving the training that it needs, both the administrative� training and the financial training, and that
staff also� continues to need that kind
of training.
����� We want to make sure also at our community
colleges that our� instructors are as up
to date as possible, that they have had the�
opportunity to experience professional development and through� that professional development, to offer the
highest quality of� training for the
students within Manitoba.� We certainly
support� that issue, and we want our
students to graduate in a way that is� in
sync with labour and business and industry that they will be� moving into as well as the technology that we
can be providing� through the community
colleges.
����� So we certainly have focused a great deal
of attention, as I� have explained in the
process of discussing the college�
governance implementation team, that we have an interdepartmental� team which is looking at all the issues that
relate to movement� to college
governance.� There is a plan that is a
well laid out� plan, and we are looking
at issues as they relate to instructors�
and their agreements with the college.�
We are also looking at� the
courses, and we are looking at property.�
We are looking at� all the issues
to assist the community colleges within the�
college governance structure.
����� So I think it is very important that this
government has a� plan and this
government has worked according to this plan.�
We� developed the plan.� We have moved according to the plan, and I� think that it is a plan that Manitobans can
then begin to look at� and say, this is a
government that has provided a plan.� The� other government had no strategy.� The other government did not� have any way to be responsive, but this
government has developed� a plan.� This government is being responsive to the
needs of� Manitobans.
����� Through the community colleges, that is
one way in which we� are proving our
particular interest in both the instructors and�
also the students who will be studying.�
We want to make the� community
colleges attractive places.� As I have
said in the last� several weeks of
Estimates, we are working with communities to�
make the course content that is offered at community colleges,� very important to the areas in which people
are studying and that� the community
colleges will become a very attractive option both� to students and to parents.
����� We are working with high school guidance
counsellors, so that� high school
guidance counsellors can assist students in the�
transition and that community colleges become a very viable� option.�
I think that is a very important thing, because the� colleges during the '80s were left with very
little.� They were� left with nothing.� They were not a priority of the NDP� government, and this government has begun to
make them a priority.
����� So I think that motion is absolutely
unfounded because this� government has
shown that it is‑‑
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The hour being 5 p.m. and� time for private members' hour, I am
interrupting the proceedings.
����� Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker:� Order, please.� The hour being 5 p.m., time for� Private Members' Business.
House
Business
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): �Yes, Mr. Speaker,
we� are quite prepared to waive private
members' hour to go back into� Committee
of Supply if the government is agreeable.
Mr. Speaker:� Is it the will of the House to waive
private� members' hour?
An Honourable Member:� Yes.
Mr. Speaker:� Yes.�
That is agreed.� We will waive
private� members' hour.� We are back into Supply.� Madam Deputy Speaker,� take the chair please.
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Order, please.� The Committee of Supply� will now resume the consideration of the
Department of Rural� Development.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* (1710)
����� The other area of concern that we will be
raising in� Estimates is the changes to
the amendments to the assessment act,�
Bill 20.� The minister has
indicated that this is not going to�
affect a farmer's right to appeal, but there are many farmers out� there, farm organizations, who have expressed
concern with this.� The questions are
asked as to, if this is not going to affect the�
farmer's right to appeal, why are the changes even being made?
����� The other issue is the delay in
reassessment, and we cannot� agree with
the minister that it is necessary to have a delay in� reassessment.�
We feel that there was a commitment made when Bill� 79 was being presented that never again would
there be a delay in� assessment.� It would always happen in three‑year
periods, and I� think that people
expected that to happen and we should go�
forward with it.� There are many
people that are concerned, many� people
who want the assessment to go forward and cannot� understand why this government has chosen to
delay that� reassessment.� So we will be raising those issues.
����� Also, we have to have some discussion on
the portioning and� what is happening
with portioning and shifting of taxes‑‑the� decrease in apportioning and the different
percentage of decrease� for some classes
versus other classes.� Farmers are having
to� pick up additional education costs,
and I know that the minister� will say
that is the local levy that is causing the extra� taxation on farmers, but I think we have to
look at a way� that‑‑how can
this be addressed?
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
����� The intention of the legislation was that
the taxation for� education would go on
farm buildings, on homes as it does in the�
town, and that seems to make sense.�
But, as is happening right� now,
there is an additional tax being put on farmland, and we� have to look at how this can be addressed so
that farmers will� pay their fair share
of educational tax but not a�
disproportionate amount of tax, which, I feel, is happening right� now.
����� Another area that I would like‑‑there
is a concern with� taxation on Crown
lands or lack of ability that municipalities�
have to collect taxes on Crown land.�
I would like to raise that� issue
with the minister and see whether there is any way that we� can resolve that problem because
municipalities, although they� are
providing services to people who are living on Crown lands,� do not have the ability‑‑now this
may not fall under Rural�
Development.� It may fall under
Crown lands, but I would like to� talk
this through with the minister and see how we might be able� to come to some resolve on this particular
problem.
����� One of the initiatives that this
government has taken, as the� minister
outlined in comments, was the REDI program and the� allocation of lottery funds that will support
the rural� community.� I attended the Hotel Association
meeting.� It seemed� to be very positive from the people within
the Hotel� Association.� It is helping their business and that is
good.� I�
have said earlier that I have difficulty with raising money only� from lotteries.� I have some problem with that.� There have to be� other initiatives, but if that is being done
by all� governments‑‑and I
think that is something we just have to accept�
that it is going to be a way of raising money.
����� I want to know, how much money is being
raised and what� percentage of the money
that is raised is going back into the�
rural communities?� We need some
clarification of where the money� is
going to be spent.� How is the money
going to be allocated� back to the
communities?� Is it going back to the
communities� that raised the money, or is
it being distributed right across� the
province?� If it is only going back into
those communities� that have the video
lottery terminals, what about the rest of the�
province?� So we need some
clarification on what is happening and�
what the benefit is to those communities.
����� I guess I want to know whether the
government will consider� matching that
money.� I do not believe that everything
that� happened in the rural community
should happen from funds only� raised in
the rural community.� There has to be, as
I have said� earlier, a commitment from
government to also stand up for rural�
areas and, again, all of rural
An Honourable Member:� Or Portage la Prairie.
Ms. Wowchuk:� It does not end at
����� We hear about the water and sewer program,
the Southern� Development Initiative,
that this government continues to praise�
and that is good.� That is good
for southern
����� If you want to call us the northern part
of the province,� then I am not sure the
����� The decentralization program and Community
Futures are also a� few areas of
concern.� The minister talked about
Community� Futures and the round table
program.� I guess I am anxious to� know what the next step is with the round
table and whether the� process on round
tables has changed at all.� Is the
funding the� same as it was before for
round tables?� Is there a change in� funding?�
What happens when the communities put a proposal on� this round table?� Is that the end?� Is the government taking any� initiative to go farther, because it is not
enough to say, well,� yes, we have had a
round table meeting and this community has put�
together a proposal and there has been money spent on it, but if� the ideas do not go farther, then that is not
helping communities.
����� The minister talked about decentralization
and how positive� it has been.� I cannot completely agree with some of
his� numbers.� I do not know whether we are going to talk
about� decentralization at this time or
whether we are going to talk� about it
under the decentralization budget.�
Estimates, we will� not have very
much time at that time I do not think, as we will� not have very much time in this area.� I guess what I would like� to know is, what has happened with
decentralization in this�
department?� How many jobs are really
moving out of Rural� Development and
where are we going with decentralization?
����� I think there are only a couple of other
areas that I have� concerns with.� I think that one of them is the minister's
power� as it relates to LGDs versus
municipalities, and who has the� final
say and what is happening in those areas.�
I mentioned this� briefly to the
minister at some point during the Estimates.�
I� would just like some
clarification.
����� As I said, our major concern is Bill 20
and the reasoning� behind bringing in
those amendments at this time and the concerns�
that people are raising with us.�
I think with that I will close�
and let my colleague for the third opposition make his comments,� and then perhaps we can get into more detail
in specific areas.
����� Thank you very much.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
* (1720)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� I thank the honourable member for those� comments.�
Does the critic for the second opposition party, the� honourable member for St. Boniface, have an opening
statement?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface):� Firstly, I would like to� congratulate the minister on being promoted
to Rural� Development.� I say promoted because I think Rural
Development� has just as much importance
as any other department here in the�
Legislature.� I also would like to
congratulate the appointment� of our new
deputy minister and say thank you for the work that� Dave Tomasson has done for the Department of
Rural Development.� I am sure he will be
missed, but I am sure he will be available�
for his help when required.
����� Also, I am pleased to have been given the
chance to be the� critic of Rural
Development.� Having come from a rural
area� myself, you always have your roots
in the rural area.� The� minister will know that because I have
visited his constituency� and have
enjoyed doing that.� I have worked with
him� co‑operatively, I think, and I
appreciate his efforts in helping� me out
when I met those people.
����� I have visited many rural areas since I
was given the� portfolio of critic for
Rural Development, and I will continue�
after the session to visit the rural area, because it is always� pleasant to go out to the rural communities,
and you are always� welcome.� You are always well received.
����� I will be very brief, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, because I know� we have
several Estimates to go through yet, and I think all the� Estimates that we have to go through are just
as important as any� of the other
Estimates that are left to be dealt with.�
I know we� have just so many hours
to deal with.
����� I think we want to raise the issues that
have been raised by� the member for
����� Again, like I said, I would be brief, and
I want to go into� the details of the
Estimates.� I will end my comments at
this� time and look forward with positive
criticism‑‑[interjection]�
Well, I think that is what we need, positive criticism for the� rural areas, because like the member for Swan
River (Ms. Wowchuk)� has mentioned, it
does not stop at the Perimeter Highway.�
I� think our interests are for all
Manitobans, and I think the� interest of
all legislators here in this House should be for all� Manitobans, and I look forward to dealing in
the Estimates with� the minister.
����� Thank you very much.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� We thank the honourable member for St.� Boniface for his opening comments.� Under
����� At this time, we invite the minister's
staff to join us at� the table, and we
will ask the minister to introduce the staff�
members present.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development):� Thank
you� very much, Mr. Deputy Chairperson
and members of the committee.� I would
like to introduce to you our Acting Deputy Minister, Mr.� David Tomasson.� As I said, David is the Acting Deputy
Minister� who will be moving on to
Northern and Native Affairs.� Also
with� us is Brian Johnston who is our
Chief of Financial Services for� the
Department of Rural Development.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� At this time we will be dealing with� Item 1.(b) Executive Support:� (1) Salaries $368,600.� Shall the�
item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: �I do not want to spend very much time on
this� section.� I just want to ask briefly on the increase of
staff.� You have had an increase of 2.25‑‑am
I on the right line?� I am� just wondering, is that the proposed
assistant deputy minister?� What are the
increases in staff there?
Mr. Derkach:� As the member knows, this department formerly
was� administered by a minister who had
joint responsibility for� Northern and
Native Affairs and for Rural Development.
����� When the responsibilities were separated,
it meant that there� would be some
additional staff because of a separate ministry for� such things as your special executive
assistant and also some of� your clerical
support.
Ms. Wowchuk: �I am sorry, I just did not quite
understand.� You� are saying that your special assistant then
comes with the� ministry.� This does not include the new assistant
deputy� minister that will be hired at
some point, and if it does not� include
that, I am just wondering where that will show up in the� lines?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this includes the
special� executive support to the
minister, but it does not include the�
deputy minister's component, or ADM's.
Ms. Wowchuk: �My question then is, where in the budget will
we� see the allocation of funds for the
new ADMs?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the ADMs show up in
two� separate sections, one under 5.(a),
and that is the ADM for the� Local
Government Services Division.� Then in
section 6.(a), the� other ADM is found
for the Rural Economic Development Division.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item 1.(b) Executive Support:� (1)�
Salaries $368,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $94,400.
Mr. Gaudry: �There is an increase in Other Expenditures of
some� $13,000.� What does that consist of?
Mr. Derkach:�
Mr. Gaudry: �You say it is going to be held in
Mr. Derkach:� Well, the agenda has not been finalized, I
guess,� but it is a ministerial
conference.� Whether or not we will make� available for the opposition the social
evening, I do not know.� I do not even
know if one is planned.� This is
something that is� planned as a joint
effort between provinces across the country.
����� It is not usually done for the public or
members of� opposition parties.� It is usually confined to ministers only
and� some support staff whom the minister
may choose to have there.
Ms. Wowchuk:� Gee, I am disappointed, I cannot go to
that� conference.� Just on the conference, I wanted to ask
the� minister, is this a new
function?� Has this happened with
Rural� Development, or is this a new
initiative that has been taken with�
other provinces, and which provinces will be invited?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my understanding is
this is� an annual event, that each year
some province in
����� Last year, it was in
Mr. Gaudry:� Yes, maybe since we are not available to join
the� ministers, maybe you could arrange
for golfing for the opposition.
* (1730)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item (b)(2) Other Expenditures� $94,400‑‑pass.
����� Item (c) Brandon Office:� (1) Salaries $100,600.
Ms. Wowchuk: �Just on the Brandon Office, every time we do
these� Estimates we get into the issue of
the value of that office.� Again we see
the expenses, the cost of that going up.�
I want to� ask the minister his
feeling on that office, if he feels it is a�
worthwhile investment, and in particular, has he considered� moving that office into the government
building?
����� There is space in the provincial
building.� It would be a� saving rather than an increase in cost.� Just on that, has the� minister considered that type of move?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I certainly have
not� considered moving the office into a
different location.� At the� present time it is located on
����� Western Manitoba finds that it is a long
distance away from�
����� Now, from time to time ministers use the
office as well in� meeting with groups,
in meeting with different organizations.�
I� intend to use the office much
more than I have in the past,� because I
only had an opportunity to use it as Minister of� Education and Training, at which time I did
use it on several� occasions.
����� It was a good place for us to meet with
superintendents,� school board members
who were not from
����� As of this time we have two positions
there, as you can see� by the Estimate
line in front of you.� Indeed, I think it
is a� very worthwhile use of space.� Just to give you an idea of some� of the groups that have used it, I would like
to just list a� few:� the Manitoba Telephone System, Native
Affairs, MPIC,� Lotteries Foundation,
Natural Resources, the Justice Department,�
Manitoba Mediation Board, McKenzie Seeds, Manitoba Government� Employees Association, Brandon District
Labour Council, the UMM,� Manitoba
Pharmaceutical Association, the Assiniboine Community� College, Brandon University, Brandon Economic
Development Board,� Westman Multicultural
Council, Brandon Mental Health Centre,�
Brandon General Hospital, Downtown Brandon Business Improvement� Area, Prairie Forum on Rural Education,
Westman Recycling� Council, as well as
the City of Brandon.
����� So, as you can see, there is a wide range
of communities and� organizations who
have accessed the office, and I am hopeful that�
we will continue to promote that office as, if you like, a seat� of government or an office of government
outside of this� Legislature.
Ms. Wowchuk: �I just do not quite understand spending that
kind� of money.� I can see that the office is used, but I
think that� those needs could be met
through a provincial building, through�
the provincial office because there are staff there that deal� with all of those departments.� But since the minister feels that� this is such a good investment and it is
being so well utilized,� is he giving any
consideration to setting up an office similar to� this in other parts of the province?� If he considers it such a� good investment, is it something that is
being considered in� other parts of the
province?
Mr. Derkach:� Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess when
you are� looking at the kind of financial
constraints that we as a� province have,
you have to try and maximize the resources that�
you have.� Given that attitude, we
have determined that the two� offices
that we have presently are probably as much as we can do� at the present time.
����� The member for
����� We feel that with the two offices that we
have presently, we� can reach out to a
large population of the province, maybe not�
ideal, but certainly better than we have been able to in the� past.�
In the future, if the demand is there and if the resources� are there, I am sure that we certainly could
look at the� possibility of doing that.
����� My interest, of course, is to ensure that
we have a presence� in rural
����� So, in that vein, I am interested in
proposals and in� suggestions, if they
come from opposition or whoever, in terms of�
trying to maximize our presence out there.
Mr. Gaudry: �How long have you had this office in
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would have to
research� that and get back to the
member, but I know it is at least two�
years that we have had the cabinet office in
Mr. Gaudry: �Do you feel, for those years that you have had
the� office in
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess I would say
that we� can always do more.� Certainly, it is up to ministers of the� government to ensure that when they are
travelling in rural�
����� When the House is not sitting, I have to
tell you that it� makes it much more easy
for us to access those offices and to use�
them and to meet groups there.�
One of the constraints, of�
course, is when the Legislature is sitting for a long period of� time it does not allow for us to be as
accessible to those� offices as we would
like to be.
����� Personally, I have been in both offices,
in the Thompson� office and in the
Mr. Gaudry:� What rent do you pay for the building that you
are� in now on 18th Street, if you have
space available in another� building like
the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) was saying?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as you know, that is
paid� through Government Services, and I
will get that figure for you� from
Government Services.
����� In terms of the kind of space it is:� what we have is one� boardroom; we have two offices, and a
reception area.� It is not� a big, elaborate office.� It is one that is functional and one� that is accessible to the public because
there is a large amount� of traffic on
* (1740)
Mr. Gaudry:� No, I expressed concern like the member for
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is certainly
something� that I will take under
advisement.� But let me just say that
when� you have a cabinet office, per se,
you certainly want to locate� it in an
area where it is fairly accessible to the public, not� that it cannot be in a provincial
building.� There are� certainly‑‑the Thompson one is in
that building, but the office� was
located where it is before I became the minister.� Nevertheless, it is a government office.� It is a cabinet� office.�
If you drive by that office you find that it catches� your eye fairly quickly.� It has the
����� Indeed, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will
take the comments of� the Liberal critic
under advisement, and we will leave it at that.
����� I have the information, while I am
speaking, about the� cabinet office.� It has been in
Mr. Edward Connery
(Portage la Prairie): �Just for the� edification of the two opposition members and
especially the� member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk), the NDP government used to�
have, in the government building in Thompson, a cabinet office in� there also, but they also provided free space
for the member for� Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
and free secretarial space for the member�
for Thompson which was not kosher by the rules.� So just for your� edification, to understand and [interjection]
Pardon?� Well, the� member for Thompson had an office in the
cabinet group of offices� and had his own
space there, which is not kosher by the rules�
where MLAs should have office space outside of government� buildings.�
But in the case of the NDP during their reign the� member for Thompson had free office space and
free secretarial� space in the government
offices.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item (c) Brandon Office:� (1) Salaries�
$100,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures, $30,000‑‑pass.
����� Item (d) Human Resource Management:� (1) Salaries $156,000.
Ms. Wowchuk:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just one question on
the� Activity Identification.� The statement says, new and ongoing� initiatives such as development of a Policy
and Procedure Manual,� and an Affirmative
Action Program, among other things.� I
want to� ask the minister:� What direction is the government going?� This�
Policy and Procedure Manual‑‑basically that is a staff
manual I� take it, but on the affirmative
action, what is happening with�
affirmative action in the Department of Rural Development?� Is�
there a plan in place?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Activity� Identification it spells out that the ongoing
initiatives such as� development of
Policy and Procedure Manual, a Performance Review� and Development Program‑‑this is
done in conjunction with the� Civil
Service Commission, and we are constantly, I guess,� revising and reviewing the policies that we
have with regard to� employees, the
workplace, affirmative action.� We are
an� affirmative action employer, and we
do not do it in isolation.� We do it in
conjunction with the Civil Service Commission to� ensure that any policies and procedures that
we have in place are� going to conform
with the overall policies of The Civil Service�
Act, and also that we are not different from what procedures and� policies are in place in other departments.
Ms. Wowchuk: �Just for clarification, there is not a
specific� affirmative action policy that
applies to the Department of Rural�
Development.� It is a general
policy that applies, that is� carried
through, because I see it here as an affirmative action� program, but you are saying that it is not a
specific program� related to Rural
Development.
Mr. Derkach:� No, it is not Rural Development affirmative
action� policy.� It is one that is generic, if you like, for
all of� government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item 1.(d) Human Resource Management:� (1) Salaries $156,000‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $11,400‑‑pass.
����� (e) Financial and Administrative
Services:� (1) Salaries� $305,800‑‑pass.
����� (2) Other Expenditures $184,500.� Shall the item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk:� The Deputy Chairperson is going so fast that we
may� end up missing one of these lines
here at that rate.
����� Just on Other Expenditures we end up
seeing a slight� reduction of roughly
$5,000 which is not a great reduction, but�
there seems to be a shift of money from one area to the other.� You see a shift from Communication, down by
$20,000.� We see a� shift in Operating Grants, up $20,000.� Can the minister give us� some idea the amount of money is being spent?� What is the�
shift?� Is there a change in the
structure of the department?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the shift that the
member� refers to is the cost related to
putting on our annual UMM and� MAUM
conventions.� As members know, the
convention shifts from�
Ms. Wowchuk: �Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that will account for,
as I� understand it, the reduction of
$20,000 because of a different� location,
but is that money then allocated to other operations?� Is that right?� Do you just shift it back and forth from year
to� year?�
You are saying the municipal convention costs less.� It� has
gone down, but it has gone up in another area, so I do not� quite understand what the money is then spent
for.� If you have� saved it on a municipal convention, what have
you spent the money� on?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not one big
item� that is causing the shift.� It is such things, as I indicated, as� the differential cost of hosting the banquets
for the UMM and� MAUM conventions.� There are some insurance costs that we as
a� department have to pick up.� There has been some shifting, or as� you can see, some changes in terms of the
capital as you can see� and that is for
computer software and computer hardware that has� been purchased.� So those are the kinds of shifts that you
can� see.�
They are not any one big item that is causing that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item 1.(e)(2) Other Expenditures,� $184,500‑‑pass.
����� 2. Municipal Board, Reviews and renders
decisions on� municipal borrowing,
assessment, planning and other matters as�
required by statute.� (a) Salaries
$346,200.
Ms. Wowchuk:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the department deals
with� municipal borrowing.� I am asking for clarification here, is
this� where municipalities then get their
approvals for spending?� I am� not quite sure what the municipal borrowing means.
* (1750)
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is the
Municipal� Board.� Its responsibilities, if you like, are quasi
judicial.� They are mandated to sit to
hear applications or appeals and�
referrals pursuant to the variety of statutes that we have in the� province.
����� We have 22 members who are appointed by
the province to this� board.� Once again, their responsibility is to try
and deal with� such appeals as may come
in from time to time from individuals�
and groups regarding the statutes of the Legislature.� More�
specifically, I guess, with The Municipal Act or The Municipal� Assessment Act and the other acts that we may
have under the� jurisdiction of this
department.
Ms. Wowchuk:� I am referring to the main Estimates where it
says,� "Reviews and renders
decisions on municipal borrowing . . . ."�
Again, I am wondering which borrowing does this board have� jurisdiction over?
Mr. Derkach:� Once again, from time to time municipalities
may� require capital.� Under the statutes it is this board that they� would apply.�
That is why I indicated in my comments in the� beginning that the board does sit to hear
applications, appeals� and so forth from
individuals or municipalities as they relate�
under The Municipal Act, the assessment act or any of the other� legislation that is the responsibility of
this department.
Ms. Wowchuk:� On this borrowing, is this the board that when
a� municipality wants to borrow a
substantial amount of money they� have to
give approval before they can borrow for capital� investment, or who gives the approval?� Is this where the� decision is made?
Mr. Derkach:� The Municipal Board would be dealing
with� borrowings, large borrowings if you
like, by municipalities for� capital
purposes.
Ms. Wowchuk: �If a municipality is borrowing money, does
this� mean borrowing money against their
reserves or does it mean� borrowing money
from a bank?� If they are borrowing
against their� reserves, is this also the
board that gives them approval to� borrow
against their‑‑?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I understand it,
with� regard to the reserves, that is not
handled by the Municipal� Board.� Municipal Board would authorize, or if you
like, hear� application for capital
borrowings which could be debenture, for�
that matter.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Item 2. (a) Salaries $346,200‑‑pass;
(b)� Other Expenditures $64,700‑‑pass.
����� Resolution 115:� RESOLVED that there be granted to Her� Majesty a sum not exceeding $410,900 for
Rural Development,� Municipal Board for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,�
1993‑‑pass.
����� Item 3. Surface Rights Board.� Provides for the resolution of �disputes in accordance with the Surface Rights
Act.� (a) Salaries� $71,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $28,000‑‑pass.
����� Resolution 116:� RESOLVED that there be granted to Her� Majesty a sum not exceeding $99,000 for Rural
Development,� Surface Rights Board for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of�
March, 1993‑‑pass.
����� Item 4. Provincial Planning.� Provides technical and� administrative support to the
Interdepartmental Planning Board� and the
Provincial Land Use Committee of Cabinet, as well as� administering the subdivision approval
process, (a) Salaries� $362,900.� Shall the item pass?
Ms. Wowchuk: �There are several questions under this area
that I� would like to ask the
minister.� The first one is dealing with� the provincial land use policy. �I understand there has been a� draft policy put in place, and it has been
sent out to� municipalities for approval
or for comment on it.� I would like� to ask the minister, what is he proposing for
changes to� provincial land use?
Mr. Derkach:� Before I begin the response, I would like
to� introduce Mr. Ed Sawatzky who is the
acting manager for the� branch.
����� Let me say with regard to the question
asked that we have� sent the policies out
to the various stakeholders, if you like,�
for response.� It is not a fait
accompli.� We will certainly be� waiting for a response to the policies that
were sent out.
����� The reason that the changes were made was
that they were put� in place to reflect
or to ensure that the policies are more�
positive towards development in our province, that they perhaps� become less regulatory in character, and that
they can be more� easily understood by
the people who use these policies, because�
one of the complaints we have had over the last number of years� is that sometimes as governments we lay
policies down which are� difficult to
understand, cumbersome to use, and require sometimes� a lawyer to interpret.
����� So we want to ensure that people, when
they have these� policies before them,
are going to be able to understand them,�
understand their intent, and we want to ensure that the whole� concept of sustainable development will be
incorporated into the� entire document.� It is for that reason that we have tried
to� come up with a draft that is going to
allow people to do some �thinking about
whether or not this is what we as a province�
should be doing in terms of our land use policies, and it gives� them an opportunity to respond to those
policies.� Later in the� year we will be getting together in regions
with the various� stakeholders and
formally addressing the whole issue of land use�
policies and where we should be moving.
Ms. Wowchuk:� The minister indicated that this would be
less� regulatory and would encourage more
development.� Are there plans� in place, with this land use policy, in this
proposal that will� protect agriculture
land?� Is it a move to get more
development?� We all want development in
a rural area, but we also want to have�
that land based for agriculture.�
Is part of it to protect the�
agriculture land base?
Mr. Derkach:� From reading the policy it indeed has a
fairly� significant emphasis on the
importance of protecting and� enhancing
the agricultural land that we have in this province.� It is still one of the greatest resources
that this province has,� and I think
developing a land use policy without paying�
extraordinary attention to agricultural land would be foolhardy.
����� It is for that reason that we want to
ensure that� municipalities and other
stakeholder groups and individuals can�
respond to the draft policies that have been circulated, and� perhaps we have left something out or perhaps
we have overlooked� something that needs
to be incorporated.� It is for that
reason� that we want to hear the
responses.� Yes, we have put in
place� the importance of agricultural
land in protecting it, but if� there is
something else that needs to be added to it we are open� to those suggestions.
* (1800)
Ms. Wowchuk: �Where did the direction come from to change
this� land use policy then?� It is a rural land base that we are� looking at, change of land use:� Who was that was not happy with� the present land use policy?� Was it municipalities that were� wanting to change?� What initiated this new policy?
Mr. Derkach:� Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as the member knows,
the� existing policy has been in place
now for some time.� I believe� 1980 was the last revision to it.
����� Since that time, many things have changed,
in terms of our� agriculture, in terms of
our renewable resources, in terms of our�
use of water and our attitude towards the protection of our land� and water.�
There has been a tremendous amount of changing done� to the landscape in terms of refacing it, if
you like, in some� instances, and
development.� It is for that reason that
we want� to ensure that we upgrade and
reflect the changes that have been� made
and also the new social and economic and, if you like,� environmental and sustainable development
objectives that it� seems everyone is
subscribing to.
����� It is really an upgrade, an update, of existing
policies.� We� set them out for people to comment on because
we want to make� sure that we have hit
the mark, if you like, and that if there is�
comment with regard to certain areas, we are going to be� listening to the people.� It is a partnership approach rather� than a single‑focused sort of upper‑hand
approach by government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Order, please.� The time is now 6 p.m.� I am interrupting the proceedings of the
committee.� The� Committee of Supply will resume consideration
at 8 p.m.
Mr. Connery:� Could I ask a question before?� Just a question on� procedure for tonight.
����� I have been asked by the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to present the� Order of the
Some Honourable Members:� Sure.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson:� Is it agreed by the committee that we� will revert back if the honourable member is
not here? [Agreed]
����� The time is now 6 p.m.� I am interrupting the proceedings of� the committee.� The Committee of Supply will resume
consideration �at 8 p.m.� Thank you.
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Madam Chairperson:� 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 Education and Training.�
Would� the minister's staff please
enter the Chamber.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): �Madam�
Chairperson‑‑
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� Does the honourable Minister� of Energy and Mines have leave to speak from
that chair, given� the minister has been
sitting in his chair?
Mr. Downey: �I will use my own.
Madam Chairperson:� Okay.�
I have recognized the honourable�
Minister of Energy and Mines.
Point of
Order
�����
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): �On a point of
order,� Madam Chairperson, we just had a
speaker from the Conservative� Party
speak, and we would like the opposition to have the same� right to speak.
Mr. Downey: �On the same point of order, Madam Chairperson,
when� the opposition get recognized, they
will have the same� opportunity.� I believe I have been recognized.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader):� Madam� Chairperson, the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) was clearly� standing up to be
recognized.� The Deputy Premier was not
in his� chair.� The government had just finished answering a
question� that was put forward from
another member.
����� The opposition would like to continue
asking questions, and� it is a debatable
motion in which the government in fact has put�
up a speaker and the opposition would like to put up a speaker.
Mr. Downey:� Madam Chairperson, on a point of order, I have
no� objection to you recognizing the
member opposite, but I would� think that
what we are seeing here today is a demonstration of a� lot of nonsensical petty politics and not
really wanting to get� on with the issue
of the event.
����� I would invite the opposition to be
recognized so that they� can deal with
the issue in hand.� I am prepared to
speak, not� have the question put, but I
want to speak to this motion.
Madam Chairperson:� On the honourable member for Thompson's
(Mr.� Ashton) point of order, I was
determining initially whether there� was
leave to recognize the honourable Minister of Energy and� Mines (Mr. Downey), given that the minister
was seated in his� chair and has been
seated in that chair consistently throughout�
Estimates, but I am now of the understanding that the honourable� Minister of Energy and Mines has relinquished
his recognition of� speaking to the
honourable member for Thompson to speak to the �motion.
* * *
Mr. Ashton:� I want to indicate first of all to the
member� opposite that this is not a
question of petty politics.� We are� talking about the community college system of
this province that� this government has
starved, has cut back.� We are talking
about� the fact that this government has
demonstrated today, by its own�
incompetence, the fact that it views the government process� obviously as a drop‑in centre, a
voluntary process; they drop by� when
they feel like it.
����� I think the member opposite, the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey),� might wish to talk
to some of his colleagues about that because�
we are facing serious problems in this province, and we do not� need a part‑time drop‑in
government to deal with them.
����� I want to say to the Deputy Premier that
he has to understand� what this
government has been doing in terms of training, and he� of all people should understand that because
if he had any input,� which he obviously
has not, around the cabinet table, if he had�
any input at all within this government beyond the fine‑sounding� titles he has been given, I wonder if we
would be seeing the kind� of cuts we have
seen in terms of the North, in terms of what has� happened with KCC.� We have seen the complete and absolute� dismantling of the training that was put in
place in terms of the� trades.� It was completely wiped out last year by
this� government.� They talk about market‑driven
training.� I want to� talk about what my constituents in northern
����� They have been asking, when there is still
need for trades� people in each and every
community in the North, why they cut�
back on trades.� They have been
asking with the future needs in� terms of
whatever major developments will take place in the� North, whether it be hydro or forestry, why
this government is� cutting back in terms
of trades and training and instead has not�
put anything in place in terms of substitutes.� Those are serious� questions.�
That relates to the North.
* (1710)
����� Let us deal with
����� There is only one level of government that
is responsible for� our community college
system.� It is the provincial
government.� It is run directly through
grants to that.� As much as they are� trying to change that now with the structure
they have put in� place in terms of
governance, the bottom line is this is one area�
that has always been a priority, a concern of the provincial� government, Madam Chairperson.� I say to you that this government� has been failing and failing seriously in
terms of dealing with� this.
����� I found it interesting, by the way, that
the Minister of� Education in debate
prior to the vote that took place on the�
point of order, went back to 1984 to trot out comments made eight� years ago in defence of what her government
is doing.� This is� the same minister whom we had been critical
of in terms of not� having information,
in terms of what her government is doing now,�
in terms of delays that have taken place in getting those� answers.�
This minister all of a sudden trots out 1984, eight� years ago.
����� I must say, Madam Chairperson, we have
seen this government� stretch over a
little bit far backwards the last number of days� and weeks in trying to say that somehow all
the problems of the� province could be
blamed on the previous government.� Let
us not� forget one thing.� They are the previous government.� They were�
elected in 1990.� They were
elected in 1988.� They have had four� years.
����� We have seen their policies in four years
in terms of� education.� We have seen their policies in terms of
community� colleges.� Let them not blame previous governments for
their� conscious decision to cut out
money from the community college� system
last year.� That was their decision.� Let them not blame� previous governments for their deliberate
policy of privatizing� our college
system, our training system.� That is not
the fault� of a previous government.� That is their responsibility, their� responsibility alone.
����� So this government and this minister in
particular should be� very careful with
the kind of statements that are put on the�
record.� I say to the minister who
one minute before had been� professing
the need to talk to staff to get detailed information� about decisions made in 1992, but had Hansard
in detail from� 1984:� Perhaps she should stop reading the Hansard
of 1984 and� start dealing with 1992, the
province of Manitoba today.
����� To this government that seems totally in
chaos, inept,� incompetent, I cannot
believe this, Madam Chairperson.� I
have� never in the years I have been in
the House seen a government� lose a vote
such as the one they have lost today, be in the�
position where they are attempting to stall any further votes,� because I know that is what is taking
place.� I do not know what� is going on with that government.
����� We have the worst economic circumstances
in the last 60� years.� You have to go back to the Great Depression
to find� similar circumstances.� We have seen a government that has been� fiddling while
An Honourable Member:� Nero.
Mr. Ashton:� Nero, indeed.�
Well, as the member for Broadway (Mr.�
����� I mean, what happened to this
government?� Madam Chairperson,� they applauded greatly for the minister's
speech, but when it� came to voting,
where were they?� Where were the members
of the� government, those brave
supporters of this Minister of Education,�
or have we seen in this one afternoon the government itself, by� its feet, vote to say no to the policies of
this Minister of� Education?� Because if it is not important enough for
government� members to be in the House to
support their Minister of� Education, we
will know in the opposition exactly when other�
members who are here applaud the Minister of Education, how much �that means.�
I say this to the minister‑‑we have heard much of� how she is a new minister‑‑I
would say she should be very careful�
about her back after today, because I wonder what kind of support� she really has in terms of her government
when they are not even� here to support
her in Estimates‑‑not even here.
����� The first time, and I look to the dean of
the House, the� member for
����� Indeed, in fact, the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr.�
����� The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says they
were only voting on� supporting the
Chair.� I guess they do not have any
confidence in� the Chair either, which is
for the second time.
����� But I digress, Madam Chairperson.� I digress, because I know� the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
is trying to draw� me off track.� He will have to explain later whom the government� has lost faith in, because if they cannot
bring in their members� for important
discussions dealing with the Department of�
Education, the second largest department in government, the� second largest department, if that department
cannot bring its� members here, there is
a serious problem.� There is
something� rotten in the state of the
Conservative caucus, rotten to the� core,
indeed.
����� The bottom line is this government is
rapidly losing the� confidence of this
province.� It is losing the confidence of
this� Legislature, when it cannot even
support its Minister of� Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), and it is rapidly losing the confidence� of the people of the province.� That is why this motion is very� clear‑‑no ifs, no ands, no
buts.� We are condemning the� government for its policies in terms of
community colleges.
����� I know that is something that is supported
by both opposition� parties, because I
know the Liberal Party has raised this issue�
in Question Period, indeed, as we have.�
There are fewer spots;� there is
fewer money; there are fewer students at a time of� record unemployment amongst young people,
upwards of 18 percent� unemployment
amongst young people.� This government
has cut back� on the opportunities, and
this shell game has to stop.
����� The bottom line is this government has to
accept� responsibility for matters within
its competence.� There may be� some question in terms of whether it has any
areas in terms of� competence, but in
terms of administrative competence, a term�
that is often referred to in this House.
����� The bottom line is it has to accept
responsibility for the� community college
system.� It has let this province
down.� It has� let the young people down, in particular, who
rely on community� colleges in the North,
in the south and in the city for�
opportunities for advancement.� It
is letting the province down,� because we
cannot be competitive if we cut back in terms of such� things as I mentioned earlier, the trades
training, some of the� kinds of things.
����� Let the minister not put on the record,
let the minister not� say to this House,
that they are simply adjusting according to�
the market.� The bottom line is
the amount of resources that this�
government has put in for community colleges has been cut $10� million.�
It was cut the previous year.
����� It is not a question of cutting out one
program and adding� another one
here.� The minister obviously does not
understand.� The bottom line is there are
fewer opportunities.� There are� fewer of the kinds of courses we need,
because this government� has cut back in
terms of the resources available.� That
is why we� have used this motion to put
forward our clear condemnation of� this
government.� This motion deals with it
without doing what we� can only do as an
opposition.� We cannot add to
expenditures, we� can only reduce, if we
move a motion in terms of other line items.
����� It sends a very clear signal to this
government, Madam� Chairperson, that
their policies in education, particularly in�
the area of community college education, are a complete and� absolute failure.� I wonder if perhaps the fact that this� minister has been abandoned this afternoon has
something to do� with the fact that maybe
there are some open minds, some clear�
consciences over on the other‑‑
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.
* (1720)
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs):� Madam Chairperson,� the member for Thompson has stood in his
place and indicated on� four or five
occasions‑‑I have not exactly kept count‑‑somehow� suggesting the government has abandoned the
Minister of Education� (Mrs.
Vodrey).� There has been no vote on the
competence or� anything else related to
the Minister of Education.� There was
a� vote on a point of order challenged to
the Chair, and that is all.
Madam Chairperson:� The honourable minister does not have a
point� of order.� It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Ashton:� Madam Chairperson, let there be no doubt‑‑and
I am� not referring to any specific
vote.� It is very clear to anybody� watching today, the complete chaos on the
behalf of that� government and their
complete lack of support for the Minister of�
Education.� That is absolutely
clear.
Some Honourable Members:� Oh, oh.
Mr. Ashton:� I hear members in the Conservative benches howling.� Indeed, they should howl at the incompetence
of a government that� does not support
its Minister of Education, that does not support� its Deputy Chairperson.� This is a government whose days are� ticking away.
Point of
Order
Mr. Ernst: �Again I would like you to call to order the
member� for Thompson.� He is talking again about the support or the
lack� thereof of the Minister of Education.
Madam Chairperson:� The honourable Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr.� Ernst) does not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Ashton:� Madam Chairperson, we know, in the
opposition, the� complete chaos in the
government ranks, and this is very clear on�
this matter.� In fact, we believe
that we should now give the� members of
this House the opportunity to put very clearly�
then‑‑if the Minister of Urban Affairs has any comments he
wishes� to make, he can stand now.� But, even better than that, we are� quite prepared to put this matter to a vote
and to see how the� members of the
Legislature will vote.� We will see where
they� stand on the Minister of Education.
Mr. Downey:� Madam Chairperson, I rise to speak today on
the� resolution brought forward by the
member for Wolseley (Ms.� Friesen).
����� As has been indicated, through a point of
order, as to� whether there is confidence
in the Minister of Education (Mrs.�
Vodrey) or whether there is not, has not been put to this� Chamber.�
The question that was put was to whether or not we� would support the Speaker's Ruling as to
whether or not a read� text or any form
of a read text could be used in responding to�
questions.
����� Madam Chairperson, I call that a
nonsubstantive matter.� I� call it playing petty politics, when the
public of
����� I say shame on them, shame on them.� I say particularly shame� for the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen),
and I am not going to� do a personal
attack on any individual, but I say shame on her as� an elected member to try and play politics
with an educational� institution known as
the community college when she sits in the�
comfortable pew at the University of Manitoba, and has never� raised a question dealing with the activities
that are taking� place in that
jurisdiction.
����� I think that she is very selective in her
criticism.
Point of
Order
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): �The honourable member, in the guise� of not making a personal attack, has
personally attacked me on� the grounds of
not having asked questions about the
Madam Chairperson:� The honourable member for Wolseley does
not� have a point of order.� It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Downey:� Madam Chairperson, if the member took it as
a� personal attack, I apologize.� It was not meant to be a personal� attack.
����� What I said was:� I would expect the same kind of scrutiny
of� the
Ms. Friesen:� That is not what you said.
Mr. Downey:� Okay, I apologize if she took out of context
what I� said previously.
����� What I am saying is, I would expect‑‑will
she bring the same� kind of a resolution
forward dealing with the University of�
Manitoba?� Is this a selective
approach by the opposition party� to
bring forward an attack on what I consider very credible,� well‑dedicated people who are running
our community college� system?
����� Madam Chairperson, I take an offence to
the approach from the� member for
Wolseley on those well‑meaning people that are out� there running our community colleges and that
are bringing� forward, in consultation
with the minister, policies to equip our�
young people to face the kinds of challenges that this society� demands of them and will demand of them.
����� I believe that there are responsible
activities being carried� out, and there
is full confidence in this minister and the staff� of people who are working at our community
colleges.� I believe� that they are really coming into the
responsible areas that is� being demanded
of them through the college governance system that� is being introduced.� There is a crying need out there, Madam� Chairperson, for change.
Point of
Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (
����� It points the finger of responsibility at
the Minister of� Education‑‑
Some Honourable Members:� Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The honourable government� House leader on the same point of order.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader):� If you were� listening carefully, Madam Chairperson, like
I know you were, as� I was, to the point
of order, the member says we were not casting�
aspersion on those delivering educational services.
����� What she suggested in that statement was
that really where� she was casting
aspersion was on the Minister of Education (Mrs.� Vodrey), and that is totally against the
rules, Madam� Chairperson.� The very essence of the motion is casting� aspersion, and I would ask you to call the
member to attention.� That is against the
rules of the House.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.� The honourable member for�
* * *
Mr. Downey:� Well, again, the members of the opposition
cannot� have it both ways.� They cannot have it both ways, and that� appears to be what they are doing.
����� The real issue here is the petty politics
of the opposition� and how they have
dealt with today's activities in Estimates.�
They, first of all, have complained about the manner in which the� minister has responded.� I would have thought that if there was a� concern to how the answers were coming
forward or the content of� the answers,
it would have been something of substance.�
Really,� what we get down to is
one of operations of the committee, as to�
how the person responded.
����� Well, I remind the members opposite, and I
am sure if my� colleague from Lakeside
(Mr. Enns) was here, as many members of�
this House, when you impose the wish of this Legislature, either� party from opposition and/or from government,
you had better be� prepared to live with
the long‑term implications of that�
precedent that you have set or that request that you have put� forward to this committee.
����� That has been I think somewhat relaxed by
the government as� we have proceeded with
a lot of new members in this House, that�
if you were to go strictly to the rule book and to say that no� one shall read their questions or no one
shall read their� speeches or no one
should read whatever, we have been a little�
bit more lax as a House in that regard to help some of the new� members.�
But today we saw the opposition members for their own� little‑‑because I can tell you
why, Madam Chairperson.� I can� tell you why.
����� They have not been able to lay a glove on
this Minister of� Education, who is
demonstrating her competence, her full,�
complete answers on issues of anything that has been brought� forward.�
They have not been able to touch it.�
In fact, after� the minister
finished her comments at five o'clock today, I would� not be surprised if they will want to
introduce a motion that she� now has to
read from a prepared text after the lecture that she� has given them as to what she is doing in her
department or doing� in this government
or doing on behalf of the community colleges�
of this province and the young people of this province.� I would�
think tomorrow they will feel that something is wrong and they� will want her to go back to that.
����� I was here at the beginning of this, what
I would call, petty� political debate,
brought forward from whom?� None other
than the �member for Dauphin, Madam
Chairperson, who if one were to go�
through his record of asking and answering questions on his� performance in this House, one could not find
enough rules to� make him respond in a
responsible manner.� I do not want to
even� get into that, but it is important
that we point out the kind of� game
playing that we saw here today, not of substance, but of� petty politics.
����� As I said earlier and I want to re‑emphasize,
the public are� fed up with it.� They are fed up to the teeth with the kind
of� performance we saw from the
opposition party here today.� If� there is one thing‑‑yes, the
Liberal and the New Democratic� Party‑‑if
there is one thing I hear from the constituents that I� represent day after day after day is, why do
you not get on with� getting the
improvements of this province and why do you not put� the petty politics aside?
* (1730)
����� Well, the answer has to be pretty clear,
is that when they� cannot get at any
matter of substance to the minister, they�
cannot get into any matter of substance with the Department of� Education, they come forward and criticize
the minister because� she works from a
prepared answer.� Well, goodness sakes
alive,� what a terrible sin that we have
seen committed in this� Legislature when
we have tremendous difficulties out there�
dealing with keeping this country together, and we have a� minister away dealing with that, dealing with
issues.
����� I was in northern
����� I tell you, these are the kinds of things
that the members of� the New Democratic
Party will have to support and defend when�
they go to the by‑election, when the Liberals go to the� by‑election, and say our No. 1 plank in
our platform is that we� will not allow
the government members to read from a prepared�
text in the Legislature.� That is
our No. 1 plank; that is what� we
support.
����� Oh, that is really going to turn the
cranks of the� electorate.� The Liberal Party, that will be their plank
as� well.�
That is the kind of foolishness that people are fed up� with.�
That is exactly what we saw performed here in the� Legislature today, and I can tell you the
members of the� opposition will have to
explain it when they stand on their�
platform in their debates and say, our No. 1 issue is that we do� not want the Minister of Education reading
from a prepared text� when she is answering
a question in committee.� My
goodness� sakes.� My goodness sakes.
����� The point is that I believe, if I observed
correctly, that� the minister was not
reading from a prepared text of any way,�
shape or form.� I know what was
taking place, probably some notes� being
taken.� I have done it, I have seen
members opposite do it� when they were in
ministry, but the member for Thompson (Mr.�
Ashton) would never be involved in that because he never got that� far.�
Again, the point is, what I think the minister was doing� was making a note from what staff had told
her and then responded� to the
questions.� The point is the minister
quite often‑‑and it� has been
a normal practice in opening statements to work from� prepared text.� During the Estimates process, notes are
made,� comments are made from those
notes, and I can tell you I think we�
have an excellent Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
����� Anyone who is as prepared and thorough as
she is to make sure� that all issues and
subject matter are covered, I want to�
compliment.� I do not want to
stand in the Legislature and vote�
against that kind of performance.�
I believe what our education�
system needs is more of that kind of thoroughness and concern and� consideration and direction and leadership
from a responsible� person like
that.� I do not think they should be
condemned, and� that is what the
opposition condemned today is efficiency,�
thoroughness in the education system.�
I say, shame on them.
����� Now, let us deal a little bit more with
the community� colleges, because I really
have not heard, and I would appreciate�
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) really substantiating the� need for the resolution that she brought
forward.� I cannot for� the life of me see why she would condemn this
government in that� area when, in fact,
we have increased the program funding for the�
community colleges.
An Honourable Member:� No, you have not.
Mr. Downey:� Yes, we have.�
What we have done, we have increased�
the programming by over $300,000 and, yes, we have done something� that the member for Wolseley adamantly
opposes because she is� part of that
system, is the administrative side has been probably� streamlined a little bit, running a little
more efficiently.
����� You see, that is where the New Democrats
and the Liberals� fall apart from the
Conservative Party.� Conservative
Party� believe that the taxpayers should
not be taxed more to get more�
services.� What we believe is
streamlining and redirecting the� monies
towards programming.� That is what we have
done.� We have� demonstrated and can demonstrate many times
over the improved� efficiencies in the
system.� I again understand why the
member� for Wolseley is upset with that,
because when she joined the New�
Democratic Party‑‑I do not know how long she has been a
New� Democrat, but she did not do her
research very well as to some of� the
past practices of the New Democratic Party.
����� I do not know why she would sign up with a
government that� would fritter $27
million away in
����� I belong to the federal Tory party, yes I
do, certainly I do,� and I do not mind
admitting it. �I do not mind admitting I
belong� to the federal Tory party.
[interjection] Pardon me?
Mr. Ashton:� You have become an endangered species.� Some of your�
people have problems admitting to it, and some of them . . . .
Mr. Downey:� I believe, Madam Chairperson, that they are
trying� to get me off the subject matter
of which I am trying to debate� here.
����� The bottom line is that today's
performance truly� demonstrates how
really serious this opposition party really is,�
it really does.� They have not been
able to lay a glove on the� Department of
Education.� They have not had one line in
any� newspaper as to the Estimates
process.
����� In fact, I just want to speak about the
Estimates process for� a minute.� I believe the objective of the opposition has
now� arrived to the day where we are
going to burn up 240 hours,� regardless
of questions, just the objective now within this House� is to use up 240 hours.� It does not matter what questions we� ask.�
Oh, it matters how the minister responds.� We do not want� the minister working from notes.
����� The issue is, when are we going to get on
to something of� substance from the
members opposite?� The objectives,
Madam� Chairperson, have to get back to
matters of substance and not on� the
absolute use of 240 hours.
����� So I have a really difficult time with
what I saw here� today.� I will challenge the member for Wolseley as I
do the� other members of the opposition
party to pay more attention to� the
substance of the answers than how the answers are prepared� and responded to.� I hope that would be the issue that we
would� be dealing with.� I would hope they would deal with the whole� area of the questions which are developed and
whether they get� the answer or whether
they do not.� If they do not get the� answer, they have every right to object, but
if they get the� answer, I think is an
important point.
����� The absolute use of 240 hours for the
exercise of Estimates� is established by
an agreement of some time ago.� I think
that,� rather than just for the sake of
using up time and, again, what I� would
say to some degree, not using the taxpayers' money wisely� in this process, that should be reconsidered
by this House.� I� think that we could be well advised to look
at reviewing that.� It seems to me that
we get into situations like today, and we are�
dealing with procedure rather than what we are dealing with as� far as substance.� If we cannot deal with substance, then
we� really do not have anything to deal
with.
����� So let us get on and pass the
Estimates.� That is what we are� sent here for.� Again, I hate to go back to this point, but
if� you did a survey today as to what
they expect of government and�
opposition, the first thing they want us to do is to deal� responsibly with the issues that are out
there, not as to whether� or not a
minister responds from notes that happen to be taken� from her departmental response.� I think that the minister still� has every ability to do it one way or the
other and has performed� very well in all
roles as the Minister of Education.
* (1740)
����� Madam Chairperson, where do we go from
here in the Estimate� process?� Where do we go from here as members of the
Legislature� and members of this
committee?� Are the members of the
opposition� going to get the vote on this
particular resolution that we are�
dealing with?� Are they going to
want to vote against the� government,
saying that we have done a bad job?
����� Where is the evidence that supports the
resolution from the� member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen)?� She, as a partisan
member,� stood in her place and brought
forward this resolution.� It is a� resolution that was concocted by a partisan
political party.� Where is the evidence
coming from‑‑groups of students, from� teachers, from the industry out there who are
depending on these� young people who are
going to be educated to fulfill the needs of�
industry?
����� Where are those people whom she is
representing in the� resolution that she
has brought forward?� Does she have
any?� Does the New Democratic Party have
a list of people who support� the
resolution that she brought forward, or is she doing it and� the New Democratic Party doing it surely as a
partisan political� maneuver to try and
embarrass the government?� Is it not a
fair� question to ask of the member?� Is it solely based on her� political partisan approach or is it based on
substance?
����� It is not based on any substance.� Madam Chairperson, I� think, and I say this again, I do not believe
it is based on any� substance.� I believe it is based on political partisan
politics� of which the public have asked
us to quit playing in this House,� to get
on with the issues of substance and quit playing the� political games that we are seeing here
today.
����� The member has not laid any basis.� The member in debate� should lay a basis before she advances this
kind of a concept,� this kind of an
idea.� I, quite frankly, cannot see why
this� resolution is delaying, and has
been brought forward to delay,� the
debate of this House.� That is really
what it is doing.� It� is delaying getting on with it.� I would challenge her to get a� list of teachers in the system at ACC, and
give us evidence that� the system is not
working.� I challenge her to get a group
of� business people who are depending on
these people for the need to� fulfill
jobs for them, but that is not there.�
There is not� anything of any
substance there.� It is a game, political� partisanship, petty politics that is being
played by the member� for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen).� Of all members from this
House, she� is the last one that I would
have thought would have got caught� up in
this kind of games playing.
����� I thought probably as a member of an
educational� organization, as she is part
of, that she would have more� confidence
in the people involved in the community colleges, but� this is demonstrating, I believe, a lack in
the leadership at our� community colleges
and the teachers that are performing that�
activity.� That is really what I
think this is, a true reflection� on
those people who are involved in program delivery and� leadership of those facilities.
����� This is not what I would have expected
from the member for� Wolseley.� What I do have confidence in, though, is the
close� communication link that the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)� has,
that the department has, who are responsible for the� programs, that are‑‑[interjection]
����� Madam Chairperson, I cannot help but put
this on the record,� what the member for
����� Well, in that comment, she is actually
saying that this is� what it is all
about, that they were filibustering the Estimates� of the Department of Education.� That is really an admission of� what their purpose really is.
Point of
Order
Ms. Barrett:� What I stated, Madam Chairperson, to the
Minister� of Northern Affairs is that he
is filibustering now like his� government
filibustered in the Health Estimates, refusing to deal� with the issues.
Madam Chairperson:� The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Downey:� I am now more astonished than ever as to
the� admission of the New Democratic
Party as to what their strategy� was
today.� Again, the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen) to fall� into that trap of
her own party, to get caught up in a�
filibuster, to waste time on the Department of Education� Estimates, Madam Chairperson, for her to get
caught up in this, I� am astounded by
it.� I am disappointed in that kind of
an� approach.
����� I, Madam Chairperson, have not been known
to be one to� filibuster in this
House.� I want to make that absolutely
clear,� I want to make that absolutely
clear that I hope that the� contribution‑‑
An Honourable Member:� Perfectly clear.
Mr. Downey:� Well, if the members would sooner I make
it� perfectly clear, then I will take a
few minutes to do so.
����� Madam Chairperson, the point is that we
have been sent to� this Legislative
Assembly as members to deal responsibly with�
issues of the day.� We have
serious issues.� We had an� international recession.� We have a young group of people out in� our society who are looking for, not only
governments, but� opposition members as
well to come forward with constructive�
ideas.� I have not heard a lot of
them.
����� What I heard today was just a resolution
condemning the� government which did not
have any substantive backing to it but,�
again, brought forward on a partisan political approach from the� member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).� What we saw was a� gamesmanship by the House leader of the
opposition in saying that� the opposition
parties, both of them, were going to vote against� the member working from notes that were in
communication from her� staff to this
House, something that has been here from the�
beginning of the Legislature, I am sure. [interjection]
����� I am not reflecting on a ruling of the
House.� I am just� merely stating a matter of fact, and I am not
reflecting on the� decision.
����� I will complete my comments, Madam
Chairperson, by saying� that is what the
public is fed up with.� They are fed up
with it� to the teeth.� They are fed up by saying, you, as elected
people,� come and deal with the matters
of unemployment, deal with the� matters
of opportunity in this province, and get on with it; quit� your bickering.� That, today, was demonstrated as to how
serious� the opposition party is.
����� I invite them to go to the door when they
are going to the� by‑election and
saying, our big issue is, the Minister of�
Education worked from notes in the answering of questions.� We� did
not mind the answers, mind you.� The
answers were okay, but� we did not like
the fact that she was giving us a complete�
answer.� We wanted less than
complete information.� I cannot� understand, Madam Chairperson.� Maybe if they do not want to go� to the doors, we will give that message for
them.� I wonder if� that would be appropriate, if that is the
issue of which they� want us to deal
with.
����� Well, I am not going to make it any more
petty by continuing� to talk.� I think there is a message here for the
members� opposite.� What you have enforced today, be prepared to
live with� if you ever get to government,
but be prepared to have your� members,
when they are delivering something in this House, that� someday somebody may rise and question as to
whether they should� be working from a
prepared text.
����� I do not want it prepared, and my
colleague was not working� from a
prepared text; the context of which you brought it forward� is such.�
Be prepared to live with that if someday somebody wants� to enforce that on your members.� What you have asked for today,� you may well have to live with tomorrow, and
that is something� that one always has to
be regarded.
����� Madam Chairperson, I totally reject the
resolution from the� member for Wolseley,
who I thought would have not been involved�
in this kind of petty political playing.
����� Thank you.
* (1750)
Mr. Manness:� Madam Chairperson, it is a pleasure to stand
and� rise‑‑I do not know
whether 10 minutes will do justice to what I�
have heard over the last hour.� I
guess what is most apparent is� the
orchestration that is going on, when I look at the opposition� House leaders, when one realizes that they
feel like they have� something going.
����� It is the first time in almost a year when
these two members� talk and they are
happy and they are sitting with each other,�
because they have, they think, the government on the run.� You�
know, it happens once a session, and it happened today.� It is�
the first time this session.� They
are sitting together.� They� are smiling because they have the government
on the run.
����� What do they have the government on the
run on?� They have� the Minister of Education, they caught her
reading a text.� That� is what they have the government on the run
on.
����� There have been questions in this House
day in and day out on� economic matters
from the revitalized member for Osborne (Mr.�
Alcock) who finally has asked more questions in the last three� weeks than he has in five years in this
House.
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: �What we caught the government is once
again� demonstrating that they do not
have confidence in the person that� sits
in the Chair.
Madam Chairperson:� The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Manness: �I rise on a point of order.� No, I rise up on� speaking, because the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) did not� read from a
prepared text.
An Honourable Member:� You were not even here.
Mr. Manness: �No, but I listened to my colleagues.� You see, we�
are a united team and when my colleagues tell me that she did not� read from a prepared text, she did not read
from a prepared text,� and it is just
that simple.
����� It is not as simple as watching the House
leaders opposite� believing they have the
government on the run, so much so that�
the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) calls us drop‑in� membership, or the drop‑in government.
����� This government has been in place now for
four years and 11� days, and through that
period of time, through two years of�
minority and two years of majority, slightly, this government has� never lost a substantive motion.
An Honourable Member:� You just lost one.
Mr. Manness:� I said a substantive motion.� Yes, and there are� going to be those days where the Liberals and
the NDP come� together again and embrace
each other; it will not happen that� much
but it will happen, of course, on a Monday or a Tuesday.� It�
will happen, of course, on a day when the executive benches do� not appear to be that full and then they will
come together and� they will
embrace.� They will start approximately
1:30 in the� afternoon.� They will come together and they will say,
hey, this� is our chance.� Today is the day, let us embarrass the� government.�
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who has not� laid one glove on the Premier in four years,
he is going to sit� in his place and he
is going to smile and he is going to grin�
because he figures today he may be going to cash one in and today� is going to be the big day.
����� You know, Madam Chairperson, today was the
big day.� We lost� 24 to 25, and we lost because the members
opposite accused our� Minister of
Education of reading from a prepared text.�
For that� they want us to
resign.� For that they want us to go to
the� people.� For that they want to be able to say that we
cannot� govern.
����� I am interested to know, and I will be
watching how long this� new embrace
between the Liberals and the NDP will last.�
How� long?� Will it be gone by eight o'clock
tonight?� Maybe it will� not. �Maybe it will last till midnight, but like
Cinderella will� be home at midnight, I
can tell you this embrace, this new�
affection, will be over.� It will
be over before the end of this� week.
An Honourable Member:� When are we going to be allowed to vote
on� it?
Mr. Manness:� Well, the member says now, when are we going
to� allow a vote?� I think that this is such a stimulating
debate, we� may want to keep this
up.� We will have to caucus this, will
we� not?�
I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who has not� had a chance to debate an issue now for at
least three days,� would love to get into
this debate.
����� Madam Chairperson, more importantly than
that, the motion of� condemnation as to
the government's giving or caring towards�
community colleges, I have sat on Treasury Board through the� development of five budgets, and I can tell‑‑[interjection]
I� hear a member say, I am the one.� I do not know what he means by� that, but I can tell you we spend a
considerable time, not only� on all
educational matters, but certainly on the community� colleges.
����� I want to tell you what we inherited.� We inherited in the� community colleges at least a dozen if not 20
courses where the� number of enrollments
was either between a half dozen or a dozen�
for a whole session, necessitating still a full collection of� course instructors.� We inherited course instruction in areas� where there was not a demand, where the
market said‑‑and the� members
opposite said, we are in love with the free market.� No.� I
am certainly not in love with the free market.
����� I can tell you there were courses being
perpetuated in the� community colleges
that had been there for 30 years, and yet�
there were graduates who were leaving those courses today and out� of 10 or 20 of them, maybe two or three could
get jobs.
An Honourable Member:� A 90 percent success rate.
Mr. Manness:� Oh, the member says 90 percent.� Of course, he�
takes the global success rate, but we are talking specifically� now about a dozen courses, whereas the government
before us did� not have the courage
because, of course, all they did was go to�
the banker and ask for more money to perpetuate these courses.
����� Finally, a government came along and a
minister came along,� the former minister
and now our new minister said, times are�
changed.� There is tremendous
demand in aerospace, and we should� begin
to move our resources into some engineering courses, into� some management courses, some advanced
management courses.� We� asked the Minister of Education, and the
Treasury Board said,� well, what should
we do?� Should we just add on add on, add
on,� or should we do some evaluations?� Should we do some removal of� those courses that are no longer demanded by
the market?
����� You know what we did?� We took out some courses.� You know,�
Madam Chairperson, what we did?�
Yes, we pulled out a couple�
million dollars, and it was a tough year in '91‑92.� This year,�
'92‑93, we are reinstituting courses that the marketplace
wants,� and I say courses that society
needs if we are going to maintain� our
standard of living.� That is the decision
behind the� decisions made with respect
to community colleges.
����� Yet the members opposite sit there in glee
because they won� one 24 to 25, but what
did they win?� Do they care about
the� community colleges?� Do they care about restructuring?� Do they�
care about training for tomorrow for wealth creation?� They do�
not care one bit.
����� All they care about, as the Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr.�
Madam Chairperson:� Order, please.
����� The hour being 6 p.m., I am interrupting
the proceedings.� This committee will
reconvene at 8 p.m. this evening.
����� ��