Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 27A (33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-27a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 13 April, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Pres enting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pre senting Reports by Stand ing and Special Comm ittees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMEN TS AND TABLING OF RE PORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , I'm pl eased to table the 19 86 Annual Report of the Public Utilities Board. One of the chickens is flying out over there, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker . It's my pleasure to table the Report of the External Review into Matters Related to the System of Deal ing with Child Abuse in Winnipeg, along with the 1iff SS releases. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . . ORAL QUESTIONS MTS - Mi nister involved in negotiations • MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Is there an echo in here, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker , my question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.

We have news on the weekend of evidence before the Public Utilities Board indicating that MTS settled the accounts of MTX; and settled them for $9 million mor e than they were legally obliged to. My qu estion to the Minister respo nsible is: Was he involved in the negotiations on these settlements of the accounts? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister respo nsible for MTS. HON. G. DOER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The settlement with MTX, the departments, suppliers, emplo yees, have not been completed, Madam Speaker.

There was speculation at the Public Utility Board that 888 if MTX proclaimed bankrup tcy that there could be X number of dollars saved. Ma dam Speaker , Coopers and Lybrand recommended an orderly wind-down of MTX. Coopers and Lybrand, and Mr. Curtis, the Deputy Minister of Finance, have been providing us with very good advice all along, advice which I respect, and the advice has been to proceed with an orderly wind-down because the potential cost for an alternative option would be much more potentially costful to the ratepayers of Manitoba. So this is the advice we've been following, Madam Speak er.

I think we've been utilizing Mr. McKenzie, Coopers and Lybrand, and Mr. Curtis in providing excellent advice to us in terms of how to proceed with the MTX situation. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , is the Minister indicating that he approved of that process by which MTS paid out $9 million more than it was legally obliged to in set tling MTX's accou nts? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker , the Leader of the Opposition uses the term "legally obliged." All the assessments in terms of how to proceed in the most appropria te way have been dealt with both in a financial and legal aspect.

Many of those legal opinions, Madam Speak er, have been utilized by Mr. McKenzie at Coopers and Lybrand, and Mr. Curtis, in terms of the most appropriate and most respo nsible way of winding down the whole MTX issue. Madam Speaker , there is nothing legal that says a subsidiary of a Crown corporation cannot decla �e bankru ptcy, but it's also not predictable in terms of the liabil ities that (

a) MTX will have; and (

b) what the corporate Crown MTS would have. Madam Speaker , in evaluating the decisions and options, and certai nly bankrup tcy was an option, put forward in terms of dealing with MTX, it was recommended to us by Mr . Curtis and by Coopers and Lybrand, including Mr. McKenzie, that a negotiated settlement in the most appropriate way was more appropriate to Manitobans and to the MTX affair, a negotiated settlement in the hand was much better than a number of potential legal lawsuits in the bush. We followed that advice from those individuals and I respect the advice from Mr. Curtis; I respect the advice from Mr .

McK enzie; and I did follow their recommendations because I think they're competent people and were acting in the best interests of the best way to deal with the MTX issue. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , given that the Manitoba Telephone System has acknowledged that they paid $9 million more than they were obl iged to in order to settle those outstanding liabilities; and given that the Telephone System had the very obvious strong lever of bankruptcy to offer to those creditors, why did they not use that as a lever to negotiate a better settlement and not pay the $9 million more?

Monday, 13 Aprii, 1987 HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, the Lead er of the Opposition has said he'd negotiate the settlement. The settlements have not been reached and one of th e major disadvantage s, of cours e, that the Teleph one System wou ld have at a public forum before the Pub lic Utilities Board, an appropr iate dilem m a is th e information that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Curti s had in terms of some of the legal potential that som e of the contracts and agreements contained in terms of what potentially could happen in terms of the costs to the Telephone System , in terms of the MTX .

Madam Speaker , the legal advisors, Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Curtis looked at the whole concept of liability, when discussing the option of bankruptcy . They looked at the concept of the corporate veil between the subsidiary and the actual corporation itself . They looked at the deep rock theory in the United States in terms of legal kinds of precedents of the United States with some of those contracts in the United States. Madam Speaker, the figures articulated at the Public Utilities Board hearing were figures that were from March 31, 1986, as opposed to November 21, 1986 .

Some of the money that the member opposite is talking about had already been committed in contracts . Liabilities, Madam Speaker, are there. To reveal all the liabilities at a time of sensitive negotiations would be very, very imprudent. On November 21, Madam Speaker, the government released all the information and , if Madam Speaker recalls and the members opposite recall, Coopers and Lybrand at that time, with all the information , recommended an orderly wind-down of MTX ; it did not recommend bankruptcy .

Members opposite did not recommend bankruptcy at the public hearings and we followed the advice that we had, the best professional advice we had. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , given that the Telephone System itself has acknowledged at the Public Utilities Committee that it did indeed spend $9 million more than it had to in settling those accounts , will the Minister indicate whether or not MTS will be guaranteeing all the outstanding debts and liabilities of MTX? HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker, the presumption would be that no employee, no supplier, no partner would have any liability , in terms of any of the agreements anywhere in terms of the MTX and MTS . Madam Speaker, we had professional advice from Coopers and Lybrand and Mr. Curtis who basically told us that a negotiated settlement of those outstanding agreements, employee, supplier and partners was a much more prudent way to go in terms of the potential cost for liabilities. Madam Speaker, the advice we received is the advice I respected.

Madam Speaker, we believe that the presentations before the Public Utilities Board on this issue , both ways have been very valid and I think the interventions have been very, very appropriate. Madam Speaker , in all the action we've taken we 've tried to take the most prudent action to deal with a 889 very, very severe problem and at the same time maintain the lowest rates in Cana da, which I thin k we can do through the Public Utilities Boar d . MR. G. FILMON: It' s eviden t th at MTS obviou sly is guarant eeing all of thos e out standing liabilities . Canada Packers layoffs - alternate employment MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , my further question is to the Minister of Labour . Given that 450 employe es at Canada Packers had their jobs terminated last Frid ay, I wonder if the Minister can indicate how many have found alternate employment. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , as to the prec ise number of workers who, through their own efforts or the efforts of the committee that is in being, have found alternative employment , I would have to take that as notice and give as much detail to the numbers as I can.

I would like to advise the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and congratulate him , by the way, for his success over the weekend , to advise him that a committee has been established that is representative of the Federal Government, the Provincial Government , Canada Packers itself and the workers , and there have been a number of meet ings held of that committee to determine how best to assist in the worker adjustment program that is provided under the federal legislation.

We have requested both the Federal Government and Canada Packers to do their utmost to provide greater flexibility in their programs in order to accommodate the needs of the workers. I made personal representation to the Honourable Mr. Bouchard , the Minister of Labour in Ottawa , in respect to having greater flexibility in respect to the programs which the Federal Government main tains in order that the workers at Canad a Packers could be accommodated in some of those training or retraining programs. MR. G.

FILMON : Madam Speaker , I regret that the committee is not reporting to the Minister, to let us know how many peopl e have found alternate employment - alternate circumstances satisfactory to their needs . Sugar beet industry - gov't assistance re job search MR. G.

FILMON: My further question to the Min ister is: Given that there are between that plant at Can ada Packers and their closure , and the Manitoba Sugar Refinery over 1,000 jobs in agriculture support that will be lost to this province over these two closure s, will he make a commitment as well to the worker s a t Manitoba Sugar to ensure that they will be given the assistance of the committe e in finding alt ern ate employment?

Monday, 13 April, 1987 HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , in respect to the la tter part of th e Honour able Leader of the Opposition's question, I'm still hopeful that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will be able, through their influence on their cousins and brothers and sisters in Ottawa, to establish the equity which is due to this industry that we've been arguing for.

The fact, Madam Speaker , that for 25 years Fede ral Governments, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, ha ve maintai ned this industry and now their being negl ected by th e Mulr oney Go vernment is an embarrassment, I hope, to the members opposite as well. Madam Speak er, in respect to any activity by way of commit tee establishment, we will certa inly be looking at that to determine what assistance can be given to those workers, but we're still hopeful that the political decision that ought to be made, support from the Conser vatives in Ottawa, will be forthc oming.

Sugar beet industry - inadequate government support MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Now that the sugar beet industry is on the verge of collapse because farmers can't afford to plant their crops without a tripartite agreement signed by this Minister, and the 90-day layoff notices have been given for plant closure by July 10, and everybody in Manitoba knows, Madam Speaker , that the reason for these problems is the lack of action of this government to sign a tripartite agreement, will the Minister tell this House whether he has a meaningful proposal to give to the growers or to the Federal Government or to both in terms of how to set up the tripartite agreement?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nour abl e Minister of Agricultur e. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , in reading today's paper , I find it repugnant that there would be the suggestion that there may have been collusion on behalf of the farmers and the sugar beet company , Manitoba Sug ar, in terms of saying to add pressure on the government we will now announce layoffs of workers to put pressure on the Manitoba Government. Madam Speaker , the Province of Manitoba has an agreement with the Federal Government after having two un ila teral decisions ma de by the Federal Government with no consultation with Manitoba.

They basically offloaded mill ions of dolla rs of support that they historically paid to the sugar beet industry in this province on to Manitobans. Madam Speaker , there has also been a suggestion that how come Alberta has signed the agreement and Manitoba hasn 't. Madam Speaker, the Premier of Alberta told Mr. Mu lroney that they were no better than the Liberals in terms of dealing with the West. Madam Speaker , the Federal Government capitula ted and gave the oil industry in excess of $300 million to assist that industry ... - (Interjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. 890 HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Spea ker, if the rights to Manitobans, the right that I ventur e to say that Manitoba would be mor e cooperative with the Federal Government. Sugar beet industry - counter-proposal re tripartite agreement MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The Minister talks about lack of input. If he or his members of his department . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FINDLAY: . . . had attended meetings, he would have a chance to then put his input in, Madam Speaker .

The question is to the Minister: Given that Alberta is going to sign the tripartite agreement on Thursd ay, April 16 , and after that is signed, the opportunity for any counterproposal from this government will be lost because the details would be cast in stone. Is the Minister prepared to bring a counterproposal to the table before Thursday? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , after rec eiving a firm agreement from the Federal Government that there would be no further funding required to support the sugar beet industry after the 1985 crop, after seeing billions of dollars of support for the oil industry in Alberta and banks in Alb erta bail out, and the recent bail out of $350 million, one can understand why Alberta would be ready to sign a tripartite agreement had they received the same kind of agreement that Manitobans have had.

Notwithstanding that, the Federal Government is now supporting other commodit ies under the same Stabi lization Act, and tripartite is not at issue because it is ludicrous, it is wrong and it is false to suggest that tripartite is the only issue on the table, Madam Speaker. The fairness to farmers is what is on the table, Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER: Could I please ask the cooperation of members on both sides of the House to keep answers and questions brief. The Honour able Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker . For the last time, this is a very serious issue.

Four to five hundr ed jobs are on the line, Madam Speaker , and a $90 million industry. Is this Minister prepared to let that all fall by the wayside because of a political decision on his part? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , it is precisely that the Federal Government is atte mpting to play hardball politics with Manit oba producers whil e allowing produc ers in other parts of the country to receive stabilization payments.

Madam Speak er, I gave honourable members the option to either support farmers and the government on this side against their colleagues in Ottawa or ask their colleagues in Ottawa, Charlie Mayer and Jake Epp, to resign.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 Minister of Agriculture - request for resignation MADAM SPEA KER: The Honour abl e Membe r for Virden with a final supplemeniary . MR. G. FINDLAY : A final supplementary , Madam Speaker. We've asked this Ministe r for a counterproposal. If he cannot present it, is he, as Minister of Agriculture , prepared to resign - eat his own words ? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speak er, it is this side of the House th at has shown the compassion and the concern for the ind ustry and th e will ingn ess to provid e alternatives .

Madam Speaker , I ask honourable memb ers opposite A MEMBER: You're supposed to answer the question , not ask it. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I will advise honourable members opposite that when an agreement was signed that there be a n ational sugar sweetener policy in this country by the end of 1985; and, No. 2, that there would be no further funding required from the Manitoba Government for the sugar sweetener industry, how does that show an unwillingness? Not only that, Madam Speaker, we have committed ourselves to putting in an excess of $3 million into that industry over the next 10 years .

That was rejected, Madam Speaker. Even the Honourable Member for Rhineland makes the point; he's saying t hat the Provincial Government has a point in terms of the Federal Government not treating farmers fair. Premier's Office - lay off staff and help sugar beet industry MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo r Lakeside . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , I direct a question to the First Minister. Surely, Madam Speaker , the First Minister can understand the seriousness of 200 jobs being lost .

I ask the First Minister to show some compassion and lay off seven of his public relations people in his office because that, Madam Speaker , is what we 're talking about . Seven people laid off , apple polishers laid off in his office would save 200 jobs. Will the First Minister consider that? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , the issue is not Dalton Camp . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: .. . or any other communicators . 891 The issu e, Madam Speak er, is fairn ess to the farm ers of th e Province of Manitob a.

The issue is whether or not the Fede ral Government is prep ared to trea t the Province of Man itob a and its farmer s, par ticul arly those in the sugar beet indu stry, in a prop er, in a fair man ner. The issue is whether , Mad am Spe aker, the Federal Government' s prepared to ab ide by the co mmitme nt it gave to this government , this Min ister of Agricultur e, in 1985, when it indicated that there would be no further assistanc e requir ed because they were going to proceed to a national sweeten er polic y which we have not seen , Madam Speaker. That is the issue. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker, I know the Rules of the House. I know that it 's our privileg e to ask question s. They do not have to answer , a nd obviously the First Minister chose not to answe r. MPIC - reinsuranc e losses - public inquiry MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speak er, I have another question to the First Minister.

I would hope that the First Minister will immediately establish a public inquiry to review the entir e question of the reinsurance business th at MPIC , the Man itob a Public Insurance Corporation, has con ducted since its inception, including of cour se the years that I had the privilege of being responsib le for that org anization. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, the legislat ive committe e , I understand , is still continuing it s proceedings . A MEMBER: No, no. HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes, it is, I gather.

That is th e appropriate body for questions to be persued , including any questions the Honourable Member for Lakesid e might wish to offer. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I thought perhaps the First Minister would show me the same court esy th at he showed another colle ague in the House , th e Ministe r of Energy and Mines , when his conduct of public aff airs was being questioned or talk ed about in a news way.

I would also hope , a nd I would ask the First Mini ster a full and compl ete and public inquiry may in fact eve~ discover to the Mini ster now responsible for Auto pac, to his horror , the missing files, other than ju st findi ng the selective pieces of inform ation of files dating back from my years, some seven or eight years ago, at will , when it suits the government's purpose . HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I'm not sur e whether the Member for Lakeside - I don't believe he was in the House the other day when the Mini ster responsible for the Public Insurance Co rpo rati on indicated that the Provincial Auditor had been requested to look at the entire question of reinsuranc e, how w e come to be involved in the reinsurance marke t, including the years 1978-84 , including the period of tim e which the honourable member is interested in. I look forw ard , Madam Speaker, as I know all honour able memb ers look forward, to receiving the report of the Provinci al Auditor.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 Child Abuse - risk assessment improvement in MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for-St. Norbe rt. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Community Services with respect to the review report which she's tabled in the House today. Although I haven't had an opportunity to read the full report, the introduction to the report does indicate that, as I've indicated previously to the Minister , there is no agreement within the system on the means of measuring risk to the children.

Their ana lysis of child deaths reveals the need for not only a reliable risk assessment tool, but also standards to which the agencies are accountable, and unwillingness to review all child abuse deaths in a fashion that permits the system to learn from its mistakes. Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister when the public of Manitoba can expect this situation to be improved. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I think the tool for risk assessment that is in the report is one that will find the acceptance of both the medical and the Child and Family Service workers, and I will expedite its use . I think it will meet the need. With regard io st andards , we have a draft form that is now circulating the agencies, and we hope, by very early fall , that it will become official. I think that the report has many recommendations, 55 in total, to build the system. Again I think, during Estimates or whatever, I'll be happy to go into greater detail.

I think it 's going to be a very useful blueprint for developing our child abuse system. Child and Family Services - improvement in standards of service MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, the introduction also indicates that, under the Minister 's reorganization of Child and Family Services, there is an almost complete absence of those centralized functions one wou ld normally expect from government. There are in practice virtua lly no standards of service, a management information system is non -existent, most records are kept in an archaic fashion and the planning system is rudimentary .

Madam Speaker, I ask the Minist er when the public of Manitoba can expect an improvement in that area. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speake r, it is true that the department staff have been reacting very much to specific cases and to the volume of child abuse, and not playing as full a role as I think is required to build the st ru cture of the system. In fact , the report recommends that we decentralize more responsibility for child abuse committees and appeal committees to the individual agencies , and have the directorate play more of a role in monitoring .

The standards issue, in fact, there were general guidelines and protocols. The more detailed standards 892 as I've already indicated , have been developed and are being reviewed by the agencies at present. With regard to the management information system, we have said all along that the manually kept cumbersome system is not adequate, and we 're three quarters of the way through a complete computerization of systems that are available to the agencies and also will perm it the coordinat ion and management from the centre and , therefor e, permit a more rational planning system.

Child Abuse - increase in police protection MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speake r, a supp lementary question to the Attorney-General. As one of the recommendations of the report, they recommend that eight additional police officers be assigned to the Child Abuse Unit and three investigators be available on a 24-hour basis. I wonder if the Attorney General would undertake to the House to rev iew and discuss this recommendation with the chief of the City of Winnipeg police force in order to hopefully have this implemented as soon as possible. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. That's a good suggestion, and I would certainly do that. In fact , coincidentally enough , just last week I had a discussion with the chief and his officers on a number of problems, one of which was their present staff level s. As you know, they have had authorization to increase the size of the local force, the Winnipeg Police Department, by some 80. They're presently recruiting and training, but I'm advised by the chief that it may be a matter of some a year to 18 months before they are able, through recruiting and training, to come up to the level they would like to be at.

But in tha t context , I'll take that suggestion and pass it on . It's a good suggestion. Springhill Farms Employees Union - government answer re review committee MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Labour. The Springhill Farms Employees' Union is expecting a res ponse from the Minister today to their request for a review committee to examine the evidence that they used in their application for certification . Is the Minister prepared to share that answer with the Legislature today?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , I understand that the honourable member and one other honourable member attended meetings in Neepawa and took

part in discussions where the workers apparently were in meeting trying to determine a course of action.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 As I've indicated in this House more than once, it' s incumbent on members of th is House to show some leadership in respect to recognizing that the law is there , the provisions of the law are there, and that memb ers of this House should not interfere in the processes that are available to the

part ies in respect to labour relations . I think there was some singular instruction given to the Honourable Member for Brandon West by the Brandon newspaper that he should butt out of worker s trying to get together to resolve their disputes . MR. G. CUMMINGS: It would appear the Ministe r is unwilling to answer that question, is unwilling to share the information with the public.

I wonder if he would advise this Legisl ature if his reluctance has something to do with the fact that the UFCW is losing $100,000 worth of union dues from the closing of the plants in Winnipeg, and are they trying to recover that and funds from the NDP out of Springhill? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member care to rephrase his question? The Honourable Member for Ste . Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker , it seemed to me that the question revolves around the principle of what has the Minister got to hide . Who was he protecting?

Why will he not share that information with us? MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please . The honourable member should not make personal charges against a Minister. May I also remind the honourable member of Beauchesne 363(2) in that, " An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon." Springhill Farms - request for gov't intervention MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste . Rose with a question . MR. G. CUMMINGS : Thank you , Madam Speaker . I'll try and rephrase my question in such a way that it will be acceptable in the Legislature .

The question, as close as we can get it to being answered in this House , is will the Mini ster share the response to the request from those people ; or secondly, if he will not answer that question, will he now give the workers a vote? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I think the honourable member and some of his colleagues should reflect on history the establishment of labour relations acts, the rationale for having tribunals that are arm's length from government to determine the rights and the obligations of parties in respect to the labour relations field generally. For honourable members to 893 be trying to interfere in that process is offensive, Madam Speaker . The question as to how workers exercise their rights are provided for under The Labo ur Relations Act and there are the courts.

The honourable members are interfer ing with the rights of workers themselves by taking place, trying to get involv ed, in taking sides between one party and another . The honourable members should reflect upon the fact that our legislation, similar to legislation elsewhere , is designed to prevent the interferenc e with workers ' rights that the honourable members are not trying to do. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Universities - long-term plans re funding of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Memb er for Brandon West. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question then is directed to the Minist er of Education or whoever answers for him - ther e he is. Madam Speaker, every department and facult y at Brandon University except one faces cuts this year between 3 per cent and 7 percent, I believe . Tuition fees are up for the students at Brandon University by 10 percent. The grant from the Univ ersities Grants Commission to the university is up only 3.9 percent from last year which is less than the rate of inflation. Dr.

Bill Paton, a fawning follower and supporter of the New Democratic Party , maintains that the No . 1 priority at the university is the maintenance of academic programs. He said there's no way that can be done with less money . What long-term plan does the Ministe r have to protect and enhance university education as they promised to do just a year ago in the election camp aign? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I can assure the Membe r for Brand on West th at we will have more than ample op portuni ty to discu ss the details of the funding suppo rt packag e during the Estimates debate . I can tell the Member for Brandon West that the University of Brandon received a 5.2 percent increase in funding this year, which is amongst the universities the highest percentage of increase. Madam Speaker , I can also indicate that the $20 million Manitoba Universities Development Fund , which was announced in the Budget , will also have its portion of benefit to the University of Brandon .

Madam Speaker, the Univer sity of Brandon, like every other post-second ary institution in the province, has to come to grips with the tremendous rate of increase that has been occurring at our institutions. The 5.2 percent that was offered by the Province of Manitob a is substantially more than the 3 percent cut that 's occurring in Alberta .

Monday, 13 April, 1987 Brandon University - operating grant MR. J. McCRAE: A new question for the Minister of Education, Madam Speaker . The operating grants to Brandon University, the operating grant increased by 3.9 percent for this fiscal year, not 5.2 percent as the Minister has suggested in his answer. The Minister announced on February 20, 19 87, Madam Speaker, a 4.7 percent increase excluding targeted funds in operating grants for universities in Manitoba. Brandon is getting 3.9 percent in operating grants. Madam Speaker , where is the rest of the money going? HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speaker , the university is in possession of the exact amount of money and the same percentage, as I indicated, they would be in possession of. The fact is that the university for its own reasons has excluded some funding which is targeted, which is in our view operating dol lars, which is clearly operating dollars. The increase to Brandon University is 5.2 percent in total. Universities - special funding re increased utility rates MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker , will the government be bringing in special gr ants to cover the hyd ro increases, the sales tax increases and the payroll tax increases announced by the Minister of Finance? HON. J. STOR IE: The Member for Brandon West should consult with the Member for River Heights who asked that question almo st a month ago and I indicated that, yes, we would be looking at some additional support to the universities. Sugar beet industry - tripartite ag reement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speak er.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. All weekend long we've been filled with media reports, not about the Conservative Party, but about the loss of the sugar beet industry in this province. It would appear that the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to let the sugar beet industry die because he's in a blue funk with the Federal Minister of Agriculture. In simple language and without histrionics, would the Minister of Agriculture tell the House why he is unwilling to sign the tripartite agreement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agriculture. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speak er, I will, for my honourable friend for River Heights, try to be as brief as possible. Madam Spe aker, I wish to indicate to my honourable friend that for 25 years the Federal Government, including the Trudeau Government during those terms, supported the sugar beet industry in this country under 894 the Agricultur al Stabili zation Act. Mul roney's Cons ervatives cut off that support, Madam Speaker, in 19 85, and attempted to offload, and did successfully offload its expenditures under that act onto provinces.

During those negotiations, in 1985, there were two agreem ents tha t we signed wit h the Federal Govern ment: No. 1, that there will be a national sugar sweetener policy in the year 1985, which has yet to be met; and No. 2, that there will be no further funding required from the Provincial Government to that industry beyond the 19 85 crop.

Madam Speaker , those two issues have not been met by the Federal Government and unilaterally the Federal Government not only did they cut off support to the sugar beet industry unilaterally , again, they attempted to offload by a move to say that tripartite is the only issue on the table. Madam Speaker , that is not true and we continue to stand by the agreement tha t we have with the Federal Go vernment, notwithstanding the pressure of some Con servative members. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementary question to the same Minister.

If I unde rstand the Minister, what he is saying is because of the Federal Government reneging on its responsibilities, the Provincial Government is also going to let this industry down. Is that the truth of the matter? HON. B. URUSKI: Ma dam Speaker , I wish the honourable member would have heard what I said, and I am talking ... - (inaudible)- provided $3 million of support to the sugar beet industry.

After the Federal Government reneged, Madam Speak er, in a response to the Federal Government's intransigent way, this government is prepared to commit an additional $3 million to the industry over the next 10 years. If that is not being considerate of the industry , Madam Spe aker , and being sensitive to the needs of workers in the plant in Winnipeg, I don't know what is. Sugar beet industry - inadequate government support MRS. S. CARS TAIRS: Madam Speaker , with a final supplementary to the same Minister.

Can the Minister explain why the farmers of this province do not regard this generous contribution by the government as being adequate to allow them to plant this spring? MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member care to rephr ase her question so it does not seek an opinion? The Honour able Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CAR STAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Has the Minister sought the reasons from farmers who normally would plant sugar beets as to why they are unwilling to plant them this spring, considering the generosity of this government? HON. B.

URUSKI: Ma da m Sp eaker, part of the agreement that we had with the Federal Government was that there would be no further funding required by the Province of Manitoba to support that industry.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 Madam Speaker, what the farmers have been waiting for and what this government has been waiting for is for the Federal Government to bring in a national sugar sweetener policy that would not require any further taxpayers ' money to be put into the industry. Right now, the Federal Government is offloading 66 percent of their support for that industry and they 're trying to put it on the heads of farmers and the Province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, they have been given no choice by the Federal Government. It's like having a gun pointed to your head, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. HANSARD CLARIFICATION MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance with a point of order? HON. E. KOSTYRA: A Hansard correction . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes, a correction in Hansard, page 783. It states that I said, "I can't confirm that the policy that was put in place," when it should read, "I can confirm that the policy that was put in place ." MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Rhineland, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance ; that being the intention of the Manitoba Government not to sign a tripartite stabilization agreement for sugar beets , a decision that will result in the termination of the sugar beet industry in Manitoba. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden, according to our Rule 27.(2), has five minutes to state his case for urgency of debate on this matter . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

In my five minutes, I want to highlight the urgency to you , Madam Speaker, by first talking about the value of the industry very briefly; talk about the time constraints that we're facing in terms of the industry and the farmers; and then, third ly, what has to be done in this House in order to meet the problems that lie ahead of us. Madam Speaker , we are talking about a $90 million industry.

An industry which, in terms of importance to this government, means an income through various kinds of taxation - payroll tax, income tax , sales tax, 895 fuel tax; an income to this province of around $12 million to $15 million ; an income directly to its tax coffers. Madam Speaker , this industry suppli es diversification to agriculture. Diversification is one of the ways in which Manitoba agriculture can be kept strong and healthy for the future , a nd sugar beets is one of the real important players in this field of agricultural diversification.

Madam Speaker , this is an indu str y where the processing occurs in Manitoba, where it creates an activity for 400 farmers. It creates jobs , 93 full-time jobs, at the sugar beet plant. It creates at least 150 part-time jobs at the plant , Madam Speaker. It create s jobs in the trucking indus try, maybe as many of 50 jobs in terms of hauling th e beets to the plant and hauling the processed product away from the plant, plus the by-products from the plant.

Madam Speaker, it's jobs for many people who work for companies that supply goods and services not only to the sugar beet plant, but goods and services to the farmers in the industry . It supplies goods and services to the trucking company that hauls those beets to the plant. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government, consistent with the 1985 amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act, has offered to the Province of Manitoba and to the Province of Alberta a tripartite agreement. This agreement has been agreed to by the growers oi Manitoba through their assoc iation.

It has been agreed to by the growers of Alberta through their associat ion. It's been agreed to by the Province of Alberta through their government, and the Government of Alberta and the growers of Alberta are prepared to sign that agreement on April 16, Thursday of this week , Madam Speaker . Four out of five participants in signing this complete agreement are prepared to sign . Only the Manitoba Government is not prepared to sign. Farmers, Madam Speaker , must plant their sugar beets within two to three weeks.

They must know whether they are going to have sufficient income from this crop in order to afford to plant the crop, Madam Speaker . They need to know right away. The reason they need to plant in two or th ree weeks is to take maximum advantage of the climatic conditions that exist at that time. If you don't plant sugar beets at the right time, the crop is going to suffer , Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, 73 workers at the sugar beet plant, as of last week or last Friday , received their layoff notices . It means that their jobs will terminate by July 10, Madam Speaker .

Once that plant shuts down, not only do 73 permanent jobs disappear , but all those part-time jobs and indirect jobs will no longer be available, because you know and I know and every member in this House knows that if that plant closes because no crop is grown this year - and , Madam Speaker, they need 20,000 acres planted or there isn 't enough product to run the plant - everybody knows if that plant closes, if it closes for one year, it closes forever. The industry is gone from this province forever, Madam Speaker. That's why we have urgency to this situation, Madam Speaker.

The time frame is even more tight than that , Madam Speaker . The Federal Government recesses the Parliament on Thursday of this week for a 10-day or 11-day Easter recess. The Province of Alberta has already committed that they 'll sign the agreement by

Monday, 13 April, 1987 Thursday of this week, Madam Speaker , meaning that if this government is prepared to bring forward any counterproposal, it will be impossible after Thursday of this week because the agreement will already be signed by all other participants in the agreement. They've got to bring the alternate proposals forward right away, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , the question is: is this the earlie st possible opportunity to bring this forward?

I say yes, Madam Speaker, this is the earliest possible opportunity because we debated this issue for five hours a week ago today in Estima tes and the Minister has not acted yet. He has not acted to respond to a letter that the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board sent to him on March 30. The growers want to know his response to this letter, Madam Speaker , and we've got two days to hear the response. Two days, Madam Speaker , if he's going to come forward with any alternate proposal.

He has given us no indication that he's going to act in a respo nsible way in terms of supporting the growers and the jobs in this province, Madam Speaker . We are asking this government, this Minister, to im mediately do one of two things: sign the agreement as prepared; or , secondly , Ma dam Speak er, bring forward a concrete, meaningful, alternate proposal that the growers of this province and the Federal Government can look at and analyze.

Madam Speaker , this must be done before Thursd ay, and in order to expedite the process, we believe the Minister must announce his alternate proposal today or tomorrow, at the absolute latest, so that other participants in that agreement can then step forward and discuss it. Madam Speaker , the urgency is for the farmers of this province and the jobs in the sugar beet industry in Manitoba; and, foremost, it is for the whole industry of this province that we urgently get at discussion of why this Minister will not respond to our request as has been put on this table. Thank you, Madam Speaker .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader has five minu tes. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: The Member for Lakeside, Madam Speaker , sings from his seat, "Let Billie answer it, let the Minister of Agriculture answer it." I'm certain that when we go into Estima tes in a few moments, they will get all the answers they need or require on this issue, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , the member in putting forward the motion has spoken to the urgency of the situation.

In fact we know that, notwithstanding whether or not the situation is urgent, the real question, according to Beauchesne and the rules which guide us in our review of whether or not to have these debates, is whether or not there are not other ordi nary oppor tunitie s provided by the rules of the House that would permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and the public interest de mands a discussion take pla ce immedi ately. 896 Madam Speaker, there are, in fact, other opportunities for this matter to be brought forward.

I'm somewhat surprised that the member would bring forward a suggestion for a de bate on a matter of public imp ortance on an agricultural issue, when we are right in the midst of the Estima tes of the Department of Agricultur e. He himself indicated, Madam Speaker, that they'd already spent five hours during the general discussion debating this particular issue and, if they need another five hours to be educated to figure out what the specific problem is with Ottawa, I know the Minister of Agriculture will be prepared to spend that time during his Estimates educating them.

The member has also suggested that the matter is, in fact, an urgent matter because the planting has to take place in a number of weeks. Well, I'd just like to -(Interjection)- well, he points out two weeks.

I'd just like to read to the member opposite a quote from today's paper from an unidentified executive of the Manitoba Sugar Beet Producers Association, which says: "Let's just say the timing of the layoff notices had a specific purpose." He goes on to say: "We don't have to plant our crop until the first or second week of May so the government has time to strike a deal." So even the association is saying that ther e is not the ur gency that he would have us believe in the House debating this issue.

Even the association says: ". . . the government has time to strike a de al." Let's speak for just one moment to what that deal should be, Madam Speaker , because the issue is not whether or not we have to discuss this tod ay. The issue is one of fairness to Manitoba farmers on the part of Ottawa.

That is a point that we have tried to make in every answer and, I'm certai n, during the five hours that this issue was add ressed during the Estimates process to members opposite, that this is a matter of Ottawa being unfair, not only to the Provincial Government because we've grown used to that sort of unfair ness and callousn ess from the Federal Government, but more imp ortantly to the sugar beet producers, the growers, the assoc iation, the company and the workers, Madam Spea ker.

If they wanted to use their time productiv ely, if they wanted to put their time to use in a more urgent way, I would sugge st that they take a few minutes aside - and we'd be prepared to adjourn the House temporarily to allow them to do that - to call their cousins in Ottawa and tell them to go back to the original agreement which they have reneged on, and to make certain that Manitoba farmers, all farmers, are treated fairly and with compassion by a Federal Government which pays lip service to that sort of treatment but, in reality , does everyt hing it can to im pose an unfair system on Manitoba sugar beet growers and the government as a Provincial Government, Madam Speak er.

If they want to use their time effect ively, let them get on the phone right now and start to make those phone calls, so we can have the right policy come out from Ottawa. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. There are two conditions to be satisfied for this matter to proceed. The first condition has been met in that I received the proper notice from the honourable

- Monday, 13 April, 1987 member of this motion. The second condition is that deba te on the matter is urgent, and that there is no other reaso nable opportunity to raise the matter . The Estima tes of the Department of Agr.j{?ulture are now before the House. There is, ther efore, immediate and ample opportunity to debate this matter . I rule that the motion is out of ord er. MR. F. JOHNS TON: Ya ys and Nays, please. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. HON. J. COWAN: I do not belie ve that we have a question before us.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Madam Spea ker, with all due respect, I must challenge the ruling. I said it the first �� tim e� - MADAM SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Order please. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Yeas and nays, Madam Spe aker. MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members.

A ST ANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follo ws: YEAS Baker , Bucklaschuk, Cowan, Des jardins, Doer, Dolin, Evans, Harapiak (Swan River), Harapiak (The Pas), Harper , Hemphill, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mackling, Mal oway, Para siuk, Pawley, Penner , Santos, Schroeder , Scott, Smith (Ellice), Smith (Osborne), Storie, Uruski, Walding, Wasylyc ia-Leis. NAYS Birt, Blake, Brown, Carstairs, Conn ery, Cummings, Downey, Driedg er, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findl ay, Hammond, Johnston, Kovnats, Mc Crae, Mercier , Mitchelso n, Nordman, Ole son, Orchard, Pankr atz, Rocan, Roch. MR. CLERK, W.

Remnant: Ye as 27; Nays 25. MADAM SPEAKER: The motion of the Chair has been sustained. COMMITTEE CHANGE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I have committee changes. I move, seconded by the Member for Ellic e, that the Public Util ities and Natural Resou rces be amende d as foll ows: J. Mal oway replacing M. Dolin. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLA Y: Madam Speaker , I would like, at this opportun ity, to use my ... - (Interject ion)- MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: I move, Madam Speaker , seconded by the Minister of Health, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commi ttee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to use my grie vance for this Session because of the actions of this government, or inactions of this government, in terms of policies they seem to be bringing forward of turning their back on the agricultural industry.

Madam Speaker , this is a very serious matter. Not only are we talking about a problem in the sugar beet industry, we are talking about a philosophy of how this government looks at agriculture in the broad sense. Madam Speaker , this province in the agricultural industry has benefited very much over the years from diversification; diversification, in terms of growing crops other than cereal grains, which are in surplus supply on the world market and are year after year.

Madam Speaker , this province grows sunflowers, grows corn, grows sugar beets, grows peas, grows lentils, grows potatoes, grows vegetables, and it grows beans of various types. Madam Speaker , we have the clima te to grow this.

We have the technical and management capability in our farmers to grow these crops, Madam Sp eak er, and if Manitoba is to continue to be ec onomical ly, at the agricultural level, one of the stronger of the thr ee prairie provinces, we need to continue to do this. 897 It's a very serious situa tion when we ha ve a government, a provincial government in this province where all these options and these advantages are ours, that is taking an attitude that the decisions we make about this industry shall be political. They shall not be in the best interest of the industry.

They shall not consider the opportunities, the advantages, the natural advantages that we have here in climate and farmer management abil ity. Madam Speak er, our climate is one to be envied by all growing areas of Manitoba. We have the frost-free

Monday, 13 April, 1987 days that allow us to grow sugar beets, we have the soil quality that allows us to grow this crop and all th ese other diversified crops, Madam Speaker . Why do we want to turn down the industry, Madam Speaker? That's why we feel there's an urg ency. That's why I belie ve there's an ur gen cy, th at we ma ke this government come forward with a decision that's in the interest of the gr owers, of the workers, of all the taxpayers of this province, Madam Speaker .

Madam Speaker , in the Estimates period I identified to the Minister and he agreed that if we look at agriculture in the future we're going to be strong because of diversification, we're going to be strong because we have value-added industries. We have processing in this province, Madam Speak er, that supplies hundreds and hundr eds and hundr eds of jobs and th is Minister , now, tod ay, votes agains t an opportunity to deba te the issue as to whether that principle is in fact some thing he espous es or is something he says "no" to.

He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, if he is both against a motion of this nature, and turns down an industry of this nature. (Mr . Deputy Speaker , C. Santos in the Chair.) Mr. Deputy Speaker , our value-added industries are many and varied. The sugar beet plant is only one of those industries. The meat-pa cking industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker , is also one of those industries that Manitoba benefits from because the growers produce the product here and it's processed here in this province. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we have a gasohol plant in Minnedosa, thanks to the Lyon Government.

They got behind it; they put it in place. Also in Minnedosa, and you have to give the good people of Minnedosa and the Member for Minnedosa credit, because they have an alfalfa processing plant in Minnedosa. How many jobs in that town, because of those two value-added industries, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Yet this Minister, this government says, "No, we don't need those. We can just turn our back on them, that's okay and somehow it will happen because we made a political decision that they shall not be in place." Mr. Deputy Speaker , I can go on further and I think I will.

Crushing plants in this province, CSP Foods at Altona established many years ago has a very excellent track record as to how you can develop a plant from the gr ass roots and it processed the product here in this province. And they expanded to Harr owby a few years ago and I give them all kinds of credit for doing that. That puts a value-added industry in my part of the province. But not too long ago, Mr. Deputy Speak er, in fact just a few months ago, the Rock Lake crush er, which has been on the works for two, thr ee, four years, eventually came to the conclusion that it cannot be built.

This Minister hasn't acted to help it get in place, he hasn't said anything about it, yet he turns his back on value-added industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker . The Portage pickling plant that was in place; it was a good idea. A member on this side was very prominent in establishing it but it ran into trouble because of currency exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker . This province needs those value-added industries. It desperately ne eds them . It needs the prima ry pr oducers to supply the product to keep these plants going, the jobs that they create directly and indirect ly. 898 Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I'm sure this Minister has no real idea of what he is doing when he turns down an industry of this size. Mr. Deputy Speaker , in the meat-pack ing industry, just as recently as last Friday, 450 people left the plant for the last time, 450 people who have to find an alternative type of employment in a clima te where jobs are not all that plentiful. There are another 450 jobs in that plant that will eventually be lost - 900 jobs right there. Add in the 100 permanent jobs at the sugar beet plant and even the Minister of Agriculture can do that arithmetic to see where the 1, 000 comes from. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , even people who they support very strongly , the union people have to be asking questions, about what is this government doing in terms of supporting them? The UFCW , a union that I'm sure this government backs is probably losing around $10 0- $112 thousand in union dues just from the 450 workers that left Canada Packers for the last time. And that is going to hur t their ability to survive as a union. It's going to hurt their ability to speak out for their members. The UFCW has also, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , written to the Minister as recently as September , asking him on behalf of the workers of the sugar beet plant, that the province sign a tripa rtite agreement so that the growers can carry on producing beets so that the workers of the plant have some thing to work with. He hasn't acted on their request. He has turned his back on them again. Mr . D eputy Speaker , Burns at Brandon has announced a fairly active expansion program but now the y'r e reconsiderin g it. The y'r e reconsidering it because there isn't enough finished animals produced in this province, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

One of the reasons? Because this province, this government, this Minister has not brought forward a stablization plan for the feedlot operator. We've asked him several times, we've debated the res olution. He doesn't act. I know he's drafted up a proposal and taken it to Cabinet but what has been the result? Nothing. Just nothing. He just shrugs his shoulders. Every major province in this countr y has a stabilization plan for its feedlot operators. But not this province and he's losing the packing industry because of that decision. Is he happy that the packing industry is prepared to leave?

Burns tell me they have to get 75 percent of their cattle to keep their Brandon plant going, 75 percent of them have to come from Saskatchewan. Mr. Deputy Speak er, does not this Minister wonder why is that the case? Why cannot beef be produced in Manitoba? Why doesn't he come forward with a meaningful proposal to keep the feed ing industry healthy in this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It's lack of action. It's because he makes political decisions on industry-related problems. All we ask is think of the ind ustry first and the politics second but no, no. As recently as last Thursda y, Mr .

Deputy Speaker , this Minister told me very clearly he always makes the political decision, always. And that, I find deplorable. Mr. Deputy Speaker , there's no doubt in my mind that this Minister has a policy of abandoning agriculture, abandoning agriculture in its eleventh hour . Mr. Deputy Speaker , this Minister should be working cooperatively with the growers in this period of difficult time, all growers, all agricultural producers, and he should work cooperatively with the Federal Government. I remember in the 1981 election, the Premier , the then as it turned out to be Premier unfortu nately , said

Monday, 13 April, 1987 we must work cooperatively with all level s of government. What do they do? Ever since I've been in this Legislature, Mr. Deputy Speaker, last Sessi on, this Session , all we hear is fedbashing . Where is this attitude of working cooperatil'tely? It's not there any more . It was a buzz word that they used to win the election - now confrontation , fed bash . Mr. Deputy Speaker, there 's no doubt that this Provincial Government and this Minister, by taking the political route every time, have made a clear decision . We're already fighting the next provincial election.

We shall call up before the federal election , and we will fed bash from now until that time. They are going to run the next election on the backs of the farmers who are already in a depressed state of affairs. We'll mak e the political decision right on their backs, fed bash, use every avenue we can. That is where we're at, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That's why I'm up here today. HON. B. URUSKI: Even Don Getty had more sense than you guys. MR. G. FINDLAY: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture has something to say to this House, I would ask him to rise to his feet after I have spoken and put his grievance on the table. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have in front of me the National Agricultural Strategy signed by this Minister of Agriculture. He has never tabled this in the House . He's never said anything about it. He dragged his feet for two or three days in terms of signing it. Eight of the ten Agriculture Ministers signed it down in Eastern Canada. He dragged his feet until the First Ministers were meeting in Vancouver , and then he signed it. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, for the record, I want to take this opportunity to read into the record what this Minister signed. In respect to what he's doing now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think, when I'm finished reading this , he may well want to resign as Minister of Agriculture . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will read first from the news release, from Mr. John Wise: "At the recent First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver ... "- this is on the 20th and 21st of November, 1986 - " . .. my provincial colleagues and I tabled a National Agricultural Strategy, a copy of which is enclosed .

This document , which was unanimously endorsed by all Ministers of Agriculture , represents an important first step in addressing a number of serious challenges facing Canada's agriculture and food industry ." I turn over to the first page, and I see the signatures of all the Ministers of Agriculture, including one "Bill Uruski, Minister of Agriculture, Manitoba." Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will pick comments out of this as I work my way through it: "No. 1, a National Agricultural Strategy," and I quote, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "in working towards this strategy, we have arrived at consensus on a number of principles.

" Mr. Deputy Speaker , remember , this Minister signed this. He obviously believes in what is written in the document, No. 1, "Full recognition of the sharing of jurisd iction relating to

Section 95 of the Constitution ." Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would like to read that again. "Full recognition of the sharing of the jurisdiction relating to "Agriculture . Mr. Deputy Speaker , No. 2, "Government action that is equitable and sensitive to regional economies," and 899 regional economies means Manitoba. It means sugar beets, it means value-added industries . There are only two provinces still producing sugar beets, Manitoba and Alberta . No. 3, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, "Government action that is market oriented and promotes the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture , while ameliorating the full hardships facing Canadian farmers exposed to market distortions caused by foreign policies, " and the low sugar prices are clearly the result of foreign policies . They're due to dumping into this country of sugar from places like Cuba, South Africa and Australia. He likes to have sugar come from South Africa instead of southern Manitoba , Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , as I carry on under principles, "support the family farms in times of substantial need," and, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I guarantee you , we are at those times. No. 5, under principles, Mr. Deputy Speaker, " Full recognition of the importance of the private sector in developing government programs, " and therein lies the importance of the sugar beet plants and the jobs they provide in this province and the revenue they supply to this government. No. 6, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "effect ive cooperation among governments.

" That Minister signed this document which said that, and all he does is fed bash and try to dump responsibility. He's never responsible for anything , somebody else is to blame. What does he do in his time as Minister of Agriculture , Mr. Deputy Speaker? Based on these principles , Mr. Deputy Speaker , as I read, "We have worked together, focusing on the following key elements of the National Agricultural Strategy, and No. 1" - I will read only one from this area - "measures to improve farm financial security. " And that is tripartite , Mr. Deputy Speaker.

That 's what it's all about , and this Minister signed it. The second one I'd like to read in this area, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and it's a very significant statement and one that I believe very much in: "The challenges are considerable. We share the concerns of the Canadian agriculture and food industry over its future , and we have developed an action plan to deal with the priorities we have identified " - an action plan, Mr. Deputy Speaker. "As Ministers of Agriculture, we will work within our governments to identify the resources needed to put the plan into place.

This action plan reflects our acceptance of the mandate given to us by the industry and by the First Ministers." (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) Madam Speaker, glad to see you're back in the Chair. Madam Speaker, this Minister of Agriculture signed an agreement which his First Minister had authorized. In other words , by not acting on what principles are in here , he is turning against his First Minister .

I finish the quote, Madam Speaker: " As we implement this National Agricultural Strategy , we will meet the challenges placed before us." Madam Speaker , this Minister has a very significant challenge before him, and how does he meet it? He fedbashes. He doesn't cooperate; he fed bashes. Madam Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left?

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has 24 minu tes to go. MR. G. FIND LAY: Thank you. Madam Speaker , there are many other sect ions of this National Agricultur al Strategy I wanted to read into the record, but I've read the imp ortant ones in - coopera tion, participation in federal programs related to farm support like tripartite, supporting the family farm. I think that's sufficient. The message should be cl ear.

Madam Speaker , I would like to spend a few minutes going over the history of the sugar beet situation, which this government seems to want to - I won't say distort - maybe give it a little out of focus with the reality . Madam Speaker , the sugar beet industry, in talking with the growers, is one of prices are up and prices are do wn, al most like any other commodity in agriculture. We have the good days; we have the bad days. But in the sugar beet industr y, it tends to be high prices in about 2 years out of 10.

That's the basis over which the tripartite agreement was drawn up, that there shall be at least 2 years of reasonably high prices and 10 years of moderate to low prices. The tripartite plan is to stabilize the incomes of the growers from year to year, so there's a more average and uniform level of income. Madam Speaker , in 19 73, in 19 74, we had two years of very high income.

In 1975, the growers and the company , when it came time to sign the contra ct for 19 75, took very responsible action, and they agreed to keep the price down so the consumer would not be paying quite as much for sugar as they would be if they follo wed strictly the market forces and the prices in early 1975. The growers and the company have got to be congra tula ted for sa ving the consu mers of Manitoba some money in terms of purchasing sugar that year. As it turned out, as 19 75 went by, the world price, the market price, did decline somewhat and, by 19 86, it was down substantially from '73 and '74.

It's been down until'79, and we had two high years again in'79 and'80. The growers have been surviving this over a period of time. In 19 85, they looked for a tripartite agreement or some degree of stabilization from government. A one-year ag reement was arrived at involving the Federa l-Pr ovincial Governments in Alb erta and Manitoba. Madam Speaker , this government makes much of a letter sent in the spring of 19 85 to this government saying that if you sign this tripartite agreement for this year, no more provincial money shall be needed in this agre ement.

Madam Speaker, they even said that statement so many times, I can't even count that high, and I can count fairly high, Madam Speaker . But, Madam Speak er, the reality of having that letter sent was because this government was acting then like it's acting now. It would not come forward and say yea or nay. It would not offer any counterproposal. It just sat there and dug in and said no, no, no to the sugar beet industry, Madam Speaker . It said no every time the growers came forward.

And what leverage did the Federal Government have but to say, for goodness' sake, we're desperate; sign 900 now and we'll let you off the hook. It was an ulti matum, the only ultim atum that was left, and finally they got them to agree; but, Madam Speaker , after that, the agricultural stabilization was amended by Bill C-25, which requir es that any future stabilization plans shall be of a joint relationship between Federal-Provincial Governments and the growers. Therein is the truth; that's where we'r e at. A MEMBER: Like apples. MR. G. FIND LAY: Apples. A MEMBER: Soybeans. MR. G. FINDLAY: Apples.

A MEMBER: Winter wheat. MR. G. FIND LAY: Ma dam Speaker , the member mentions apples. I would like to talk about apples, Madam Speaker . The apple situation was for payments in'83 and'8 4, prior to the amendments . . . A MEMBER: Did the sugar beet farmers get theirs? MR. G. FIND LAY: Madam Speaker , that's a very important question the member raises. Did the sugar beet growers get their money? Madam Speaker , for'83 and'84, yes, they got their mo ney. It was the money that was brought forward in 19 86 as a seed ing incentive because this government again would not sign an agreement for the long term.

That's where the money came from. The growers negotiated that because this government would not negotiate on their behalf. That's where the money came forward; it was used in 19 86 to keep the sugar beet industry alive in this province as well as Alberta. Madam Speaker , a news release of March 12 , 1986, saying that future programs will be of a tripartite nature, and for a whole year this Minister will not sit down and bring any counterproposal to the table.

Alberta was prepared to sign a tripartite agreement in 19 86, but this government would not get involved, would not participate in a meaningful way where all other parties were prepared to go. So the seed ing incentive idea came forward in '86. The'83-84 stabilization money that was to be paid to the growers, it came forward in that fashion. The Growers Association negotiated it. They're satisfied in '86. Here we are in '87, one year later, and, Madam Speaker , how has this Minister reacted in terms of carrying forward discussion of bringing something to the table?

A meeting held in 19 85, in Toronto, this Minister failed to go. He didn't send anybody. A meeting held in Winnipeg in early '86, he wouldn't even attend a meeting in his own province to deal with his sugar beet producers. The sugar beet growers go there, and where's our government? We don't know. They don't care about us, and that's still where we're at. They don't care. There are numerous communi cations come forward to this Minister from the growers: meetings with the gr owers, meetings with mem bers of the Federal

Monday, 13 April, 1987 Government. His staff is meeting, but do they bring anything meaningful to the table? Only one thing that I know of, Madam Speaker , that they brought forwa rd. In the meeting in Calgar y, to deal with tripartite, and he says he was n't in favour of it, but yet he brought Mr. Craig Lee, his Assistant Deputy Minister, and brought forth a type of counterproposal that, over 12 0 percent, the growers would partici pate in terms of pa ying a higher levy than the Federal -P rovincial Governments. They put something on the table then. It was accepted by all parties.

They said, fair enough, we'll alter the tripartite agreement to that extent if that seems to be what they wanted. That was all they brought forward at that time, and everybody went away happy, so the Provincial Government of Manitoba seems to be satisfied that what they brought forward was incorporated into the agreement; but when it came time to put it in on paper and ask for a signature, oh no, all of a sudden, we take the political route now. We don't want to cooperate, even though we signed a National Agricultur al Strategy which says we shall cooperate. What do we do? Hey, this is a political thing now!

We 've got to fedbash. We've got to ride on the backs of the farmers into the next provincial election. It's clear; the path is clear. Farmers shall suffer because this Minister wants one more term to try and totally destroy the industry. One more term to destroy the industry, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , in this agreement this Minister indicates a couple of concerns. When we had the debate last Monday, he identified two concerns. He said no more than $3 1 5,000 per year in terms of the provincial levy, fair enough, even though there's probably going to be needed somewhere between $240,000 and $570 ,000.00.

But, Ma dam Sp eak er, that's not a significant problem, I'm sure, in the Minister's mind. The major thing, he said, we shall have no deficit at the end of the plan. The Federal Government says all agreements are 50-50 in terms of responsibility for deficit at the end of the plan. Madam Speaker , has the Minister put any thing back in terms of counterproposal in terms of how to handle that deficit? No, he just keeps on fedba shing. We even identified this to him the other day. He didn't agree with us at all, but I will put it in front of him ag ain.

A comm ittee of six: somebody could be appointed by him, the Province of Alberta, two by the Federal Government, and two by the growers - one from Manitoba, one from Al berta; and it's their responsibility to adjust the levies to be paid each year and to determine the stabilization payout, the formula to be used, and I can easily see that they can be very clearly given the mandate to assure that this plan is actuarially sound over the course of 10 years.

And if 10 years is not long enough, why doesn't he propose that the agreement be 15 years or 20 years, or some period of time which he could be pretty well assured it could be made actuarially sound? Madam Speaker , the options are his, but does he respo nd? No. He came to this House in 19 82 with an actuarially sound beef plan. He should know what it's all about. He knew all the answers back in 19 82. I'm sure his track record will show how he knows all the answers.

It should be clear to the members, to all producers of Manitoba, that this Minister knows what actuarially sound means, Madam Speaker . 901 Madam Speaker , just as a little aside, he did find out what actuarially sound meant, that he meant that his department could not come up with some thing that was ac tuarilly sound, so they had to lower the support level and jack up the levies. He knows what that's all about. He's done it himself. He's done it unilaterally and without consultation - bang - contrary to the agreement signed. A MEMBER: Now, now, now, now. MR. G. FIN DLAY: Ye s, now, now, now.

He didn't make the choice, Madam Speaker; that's what he said. He's Minister of Agriculture, but he's not respon sible. Where have I heard that before? Where have I heard that before?

Madam Speaker, also within this tripartite agreement, there's a sum of some $2 million to $3 million that will come into the plan annually because of External Affairs permits on bringing sugar into Canada and subsequently exporting it to the United States, and there's a profit to be obtained from that transfer of sugar through Canada into the United States, and that $2 million to $3 million has been al located to the stabilization fund. Again, an option to reduce the liability of this government, the Federal Government and the growers, but yet he's prepared to turn this down.

If he turns this down, as the Province of Manitoba, and he continues to turn it down from now till Thursda y, that means that Alberta's going to sign. Alb erta will be the only province producing beets in this count ry. And I tell you, the Province of Alberta, the growers are sitting there just praying that Manitoba doesn't sign because they get all of that $2 million to $3 million then. Not half to Manitoba and half to Alb erta - all of it goes to Alberta. Madam Speaker , not only does Alberta want that mone y, they want Manitoba out of the industry so they can expand their acres.

They'd love the opportunity to produce a diversified crop, and they'r e hoping that this Minister does not sign so Al berta can then get two steps up on this province instead of one where they're at right now, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , this Minister makes much of the need of a national sugar sweetener policy. The Tariff Board is meeting and will make recommendations within a month on that issue. They were to have made reco mmendations by the end of Ma rch, Ma da m Speaker , but you know how government runs. This government drags its feet as well as anybody.

They have a hundr ed and five submissions to deal with. They've asked for extra time. They've been given approximately two more months to report. Madam Speaker , when that sugar sweetener policy is arrived at and the Tariff Board can only recommend then there has to be considerations by Cabinet and some legislation brought in, if they do come up with a national sugar sweetener policy, it can be incorporated into the tripartite agreement.

Any agreement at this time can be written such that is incorporated and, ii a floor price for sugar is part of that, it reduces everybody's liability at the end of the stabilization plan. Madam Speaker , it's so straightforward, it boggles my mind that this Minister cannot put this on the table as a counterproposal. He sits there, sits there, he let's

Monday, 13 April, 1987 time go by, let the industry go to Al berta, that's a good strat egy. Madam Speaker , it's a deplorable strategy. It's detrimental not only to gr owers of Manitoba, but it's very detrimental to jobs of Manitoba, and it's detrimental to this province in terms of government revenues to the tune of 12 million to 15 million. Madam Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left? MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has seven minu tes. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speak er. A MEMBER: Don't get mad. MR. G. FIND LAY: Madam Spe aker , I don't think this is a time to get mad.

I think it's a time to look at the realities, the seriousness of the situation that is in front of us. Madam Speak er, we're asking this government to look at the realities, to look at what they're doing, look at the amount of money they have to put forward relative to the amount of money they get back. Madam Speak er, we have a $90 million industry, total economic activity that's created. It's around 12 million to 15 million at the farm gate, but it goes to proce ssing. There's trucking involved, there are jobs involved.

It's a very valuable industry, Madam Speaker , and nobody has disputed that it's not $90 million of economic activity. It involves 400 farmers, Madam Speaker , being able to have a livelihood. It's family farms, Madam Speaker , family farms. In the National Agricultur al St rategy , it's what this Minister signed th at he supported. Madam Speaker , it involves 93 permanent jobs at the sugar beet plant. It involves at least 150 part-time jobs of various duration. But to the people who get those jobs, the revenue they get, I'm sure, is very imp ortant to them. Madam Spe aker, it involves a lot of trucking.

It involves a very large trucking company and a lot of jobs of driving the trucks, Madam Speaker . That's what will disappear if this government does not act. Madam Speaker , it involves a lot of jobs in the goods and services industr y, goods and services supplied to the sugar beet plant. They use laundry; they use hydro; they use water; they use bags. There are a numb er of different jobs related to supplying that plant with goods and services. There are goods and services to the gr owers, Madam Speaker .

They buy fertilizer; they buy chemicals; they buy fuel; they buy machinery; they go for repairs, Madam Speaker . This all stimula tes the economic activity of this province, Madam Speaker . That's what the Minister's turning his back on. The trucking industry, the people who drive trucks are paid salaries. The company buys the trucks from somebody , Madam Speaker . The trucks are made by somebody , Madam Speaker . They burn fuel which people make money off of selling. They use repairs, Madam Spe aker. They pay for licences, they pay fuel tax.

It's so obvious that we need to keep economic activity going in this province. Madam Speaker , I said it before and I want to say it again, this government, by turning this industry down - and I say they've got two days to show some level of respo nsibility or it is 902 on the road of decline with no opportunity returned, Madam Speaker . This government will lose 12 million to 15 milli on of direct income to them through the taxation route. Madam Speak er, there's sales tax, there's income tax, there's payroll tax, there's fuel tax, there's corporate tax, and all the other taxes they keep adding on.

They're paid to this government by law because of economic activity created by this industry, by these farmers, by these jobs, by the people who own companies, the people who build trucks, and on it goes, Madam Speaker . Madam Speak er, this Minister's cred ibility is on the line if he turns this industry down, because of what he signed in the National Agricultural Stategy.

He signed as a re sponsible Minister with cert ain pr incipl es involved, and now he turns his back on those very principles, turns his back, Madam Speaker , on the principles, on an industry because, he says, I have to make a political decision, not a respo nsible industry oriented decision, a political decision. Madam Speaker , if this plant closes, there are a lot of livestock feeders and livestock producers in this province who use beet pulp. Where are they going to get the beet pulp from if this plant closes, Madam Speaker?

It'll have to be trucked in from Al berta and, again, Alb erta wins and Manitoba loses. Maybe they're three steps up on us now instead of one a month ago, and two now and three a little later. Madam Speaker , has this Minister asked the growers how much money they have invested in specialized machinery for sugar beet production? Has he asked them what they will do with it when the ind ustry dies? Or does he care? Madam Speaker , does he care? How much mone y does each gr ower have tied up in specialized equipment. If this Minister says, oh we don't need the industry, so where do they sell their machinery?

Where do they sell it? Do they go to Alberta and try to peddle it off there at one-third of it's value or one quarter of it's value? What's it worth, Madam Speaker? Has he asked them? Has he add ressed the issue? Has he had his staff look into it? I doubt not! And if they have, I dare him to get up and tell us. Madam Speaker , just for his benefit, he might just be interested in knowing that, when Queb ec shut down the indust ry, they paid their growers compensation for the loss of outdated equipment.

Madam Speaker , is this Minister prepared to put that money forward for the growers of this province whose machinery will now be obsolete because there is no industry? I would like to hear him answer it, Madam Speak er. Madam Speaker , what I'm up here today to do is try to draw attention in the eleventh-and-a-half hour to this government's desire to make political decisions to turn their back on a very significant diversified indust ry, a very significant processing industry in this province. It's a natural for us. We should be expanding it, not contracting it to zero.

The logic of turning our back on this industry boggles my mind, Madam Speaker . I do not know what more to do than to draw it to his attention again and again until he comes forward with a statement to us in this House. Is he prepared, No. 1, to sign the agreement as presented? Is he prepared to? I want to hear his answer directly. Tell the producers, tell the members of this House, tell the press, tell everybody. Is he prepared to sign it, yes or no?

Monday, 13 April, 1987 If the answer is no, lets hear his counterproposal. If he really cares about produc ers' family farms, diversification, stabilization, if he cares about all those thi ngs, is he prepar ed to bring forward a counterproposal? He's had the letter from the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, March 30 letter in his hands for two weeks now, Madam Speaker . Has he yet come forward with an alterna te proposal? If he has an alternate proposal, I say put it on the table today, because the eleventh-and-a-half hour is here, Madam Speaker .

On Thursday of this week, the Alberta Government is going to sign that agre ement. The Federal Government has said very clearly , once Alberta has signed, there's no further option to negotiate the terms of the agreement, Madam Speaker, so that Minister has till Thurs day to convince the other parties that a coun terproposal should be considered, Ma dam Speak er. Also on Thurs day this week, Madam Speaker , the Federal House recesses for the Easter break for about II da ys. Therefore, that puts us into a stagnant period for II days.

If some thing new has to be brought back to Cabinet, they're not going to be there to do it. Madam Speaker , this Minister owes it to the growers of this province, the workers at the plant, the members of this House, the taxpayers of Manitoba, to bring a counterproposal to the table that is meaningful and is designed in the best interests of all the growers, all the jobs in this province and all the taxpayers of Manitoba. Madam Speaker , I give you the figures one last time. The levy each year is $300,000, $400,000, maybe up to $500,000 a year.

The balance against our revenue from the industry is 12 million to 15 million a year, Madam Speaker . MR. H. ENNS: Where's your logic? MR. G. FINDL AY: Where's the logic in what this government is doing, Madam Speaker? They're biting their nose to spite their face, and they're destroying a number of family farms in the process, a number of jobs, good jobs, well-paid jobs at the sugar beet plant. Also they're further destroying the UFCW union which has already lost a lot of due-paying members at Canada Packers, and they're now trying some very questionable tactics at Springhill to offset that, Madam Speaker .

I think the Minister should be responsible and keep this industry alive, keep the principle of diversification in agriculture in Manitoba alive and well, and look at what's good for the industry, not what's politically good for him and his government in the next provincial election. Madam Speaker , I ask for very responsible action on his part. Thank you.

QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Commit tee to consider of the Suppl y to be gr ante d to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Bu rrows in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture; and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Health. 903 CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Commit tee, come to order. The last time we were in Gerontology at the bottom of page 88. Who's got the first question? Mr. Orchard. MR. D. ORCHARD: I think there were some questions posed that the Minister was going to answer, Mr.

Chairman, I believe. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have them, Mr. Minister? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I was asked a question re the trav elling time for the provincial gerontologist. I think that you'd have to understand how this person was organ ized - I say this especially in her absence - but this person is so dedicated that she works weekends and even ings. That's pretty well all she does. She has a computer at home also to be able to work at home just as easily as at the office. She is very much in demand. She's pretty well world renowned in the field of gerontology and she does travel quite a bit.

There hasn't been a single instance where she's been out of the country, and at most of the meet ings also in the countr y, that the Provincial Government has had to pay for it. It's either herself on holidays - she's, as I say, dedicated to that - so she'll take a busman's holiday and go to another one of those meetings and so on, or she's brought in as a speaker . So every single one of her days are during her holida ys she took, her holida ys that she accumulated. So I think we're very fortunate. If she started charging us the hours that she works, the weekends and so on, it would be very costly.

As I say, we're lucky to have that type of person, and I think that we are ahead of most provinces, if not all of them, in our services to the seniors. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, maybe I missed the Minister's answer. How many days were involved in out-of-province travel? HON. L. DESJARDINS: In what? MR. D. ORCHARD: In out-of-province travel. HON. L. DESJARDINS: There were 30 days out of province, and they were all taken for her holidays. She had 39 days of holidays, something that had been accumulated that we agreed with. MR. D. ORCHARD: Just let me make sure I understand here.

You'r e saying that of 39 days of accu mula ted holidays, the director of Ger ontology used 30 of those out-of-province holidays for work in the department and didn't take any other time off? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There were 39 days entitlement of those that had been accumulated, and she took the rema ining nine days of holidays some in November and some in March. That is trav elling; Ottawa a few times - that might explain why - Washington, D.C., Montreal, Quebec City , New York, Chicago, Toronto, West Palm Beach.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure I understand the dedication here, because it sounds, as the Minister has already indicated, not only would they be above the call of duty, but well above the call of duty . HON. L. DESJARDINS: There's no doubt about that at all. MR. D. ORCHARD: Of the 39 days entitlement of vacat ion, the director has used 30 of those holiday entitlements in out-of-province commitments, and I would assume most of them in conjunction with her professional experience, and the balance of the time she is spending working for the department? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: She's still ... Let me give you some information. For instance, there were four days in New York which she paid for. Now that is some thing where she will meet with people. That was not any specific meeting or such. That was four days to get some information out there.

There were two days in Montreal, those which she was paying herself, and three days in Chicago, and then there was Health and Welfare Canada brought her in for a couple of days, Statistics Canada, American Association of Retired Persons, Canadian Association on Gerontology , United Nations in New York, Ontario Universities and Col leges, Statistics Canada again, Southmark Foundation on Gerontology , and Ontario Universities and Colleges. MR. D. ORCHARD: And those were pla ces she went HON. L. DESJARDINS: At no cost to the province and also during her holidays. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's what I wanted to make sure of.

Mr. Chairman, under Other Expenditures, there are grants which are presumably to go up by approximately $220,000 for round figures. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister provided us the other day with a list of Manitoba health grants, and I don't believe gerontology was part of that. Could the Minister explain the increase in grants? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I belie ve my honourable friend forgot that I answered that last year. This is the list. These are not grants to different associa tions, as usually is the case.

Remember I gave the list of those that we were helping with meals or attendance resou rce co ordina tor or com muni ty resource coordi nator . Those are the grants on that program of support services to the elde rly. This is what comes under Grants, and I gave you the Bethel Place, Columbus Ma nor, Nort hwest Winnipeg, and the different regions and so on, for a total of 19 86-87 projected of 590.2 thousand and pr ojected for 19 87-88 of $1, 12 6,400.00. That is what I had on the chart in my opening remarks also where I give you the different programs that we've had over the last few years. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, the adjusted vote, in total, the Minister indicated that of the $90 1, 000 in grants, 590.2, if I heard him correctly , were projected to be expended by year-end. 904 HON. L. DESJARDINS: That was the projected 19 86- 87, yes. For 19 87-88, it was $1, 12 6,400.00. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, what we in fact are asking to appr ove here then, in terms of actual expenditures year-over-year, is almost a doubling of the grants to various organizations. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's correct. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Are there new organizations to be funded under this and, if so, who are they, what is the application process by which ... This looks like a relatively easily access ible pool of money that senior citizens associations may well avail themselv es of, and I'd like to know some of the criterion under which the grant structures are arrived at. HON. l. DESJARDINS: There are two reasons for that.

Firstly , they represent in some instances, many instances, just part of the year, not a full year; and also, as far as the application, it would go to the inter agency committee, a special committ ee on the support services that make a reco mmendation, then it will come to the department and myself, and then through Treasury Board before it's approved, if it is approved. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ok ay. HON. l.

DESJARDINS: And the criteri a, this is some thing that would help the people stay in their own home, in their residence, instead of having to be hospitalized, and it is only to a non-profit - we'll receive applications and accept applications only from non profit groups. MR. D. ORCHARD: The Minister just shed a new light on the grant structure here. Let me use an example of an individual whose home is not wheelchair access ible. They need a lift or a ramp to get into their home. Is that a qualifying . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: This could be for meals, for helping with shopping, trans portat ion, in some instances.

Also staff has a tenant resource coordinator in the larger places like on Smith or a community resource coord inator and so on. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then am I correct in assuming that you fund senior citizens' organizations from which they then will hire staff to provide services? HON. L. DESJARDINS: To coordinate the service, instead of just providing the service. We coordinate the service. That's why, for instance, at 18 5 Smith, there's a tenant resource coor dinator and ther e are a lot of volunt eers in that area. That's on 185 Smith. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Then is it fair to assume that, out of the grants, a portion of that are grants to pay salaries? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ye s, but not to deliver the service as much as coordinate the volu nteers who will deliver the service.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: So that, Mr. Chairman, if I can be specific , is this another layer of staffing in addition to - because presumably, in Regional Services, you have people who are to coordinate the delivery of service. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, these would be new people , for example, a situation like I mentioned on Smith Street who would work with the tenants in a large senior citizens' housing or some of them. That's not all they do in there. Mostly, it's meals and so on.

It's a program that is supporting frail and at-risk seniors in the ir effort to maintain their independent community living outside of an institution and so on. These people are not our staff at all. They either work in Oakbank and Beausejour, Mr. Chairman, in those areas, but mostly in Foxwarren and - people apply for this service , and then we assist the community in assisting their seniors to live independently. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I'm somewhat confused at how organizations would go about getting this funding .

Can I pose the question - and I'll use one of my communities - in Morden or in Carman where there is a substantial senior citizens population and there is substantial senior citizens accommodation - apartments, Legion House, Boyne Towers , etc., etc., all run as non-profit housing - is money available here , for instance , for the Carman Housing Authority to make application to receive grant money whereby they would retain then a coordinator of services for some 75 to 150 apartments? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Exactly, that's senior housing you're talking about now, not a low-cost housing or MR. D.

ORCHARD: No, this is senior citizens ' housing . HON. L. DESJARDINS: The funds that we have , it's first come-first served, providing that they qualify, but that's exactly the type of thing we're look ing for. It could be meals in those areas also , especially for people 75, as you mentioned or something like this. It could be a few days or a meal a day or for five days or whatever to help them. They still pay for part of it. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, that clarifies that up. Now , Mr. Chairman, last year you budgeted some - let me get it here. In the Estimates Book last year, printed $1.066 million .

You expect expenditures to be $658,000, for a reduction in the Other Expenditure line of $407,000.00 . What programs went unfunded last year to achieve a reduction in expenditure of over $400,000 .00? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There was nothing that went unfunded. It was just that it was a phasing in, the money that we had at a certain time. It might be for so many months , and that's one of the reasons this is much higher this year. MR. D. ORCHARD: In terms of the photostat from last year's Estimates Book for the fiscal year ending March 31 , 1986, we had approved Estimate expenditures of 905 $681 ,000.00.

Last year, we had that moved up by 50 percent or better to the $1 .066 million . In reality , if I follow by the amount that was actually expended, your actual expenditure last year were less than, what you budgeted for two- years ago. Yet, you indicated that the reason for the non-expenditure last year was that you had a phas ing-in which didn 't occur . Now, Mr.

Chairman , it would appear as if there was no expansion last year, as was indicated in Gerontology, in terms of program support to senior citizens , because not knowing the flaw in my argument is not knowing what the actual expenditure is for fiscal year ending March 31 , 1986, but I repeat the number. We gave estimate approv al of $681,000 .00 . The actual expenditure, I believe - I don 't know what it would be - but we know tha t this year's actual expenditure is to be in the neighbourhood of $660,000 , which is less than what you budgeted a year 's previous. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: This year is one million-and something. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, the year ending , in '87. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You see, it was a three-year program and it was phased in at different times during the year. We went from 35 to 58 and we hope to go to 80. It's a fairly new program. It's a program that started in 1984-85 . MR. D. ORCHARD: What is 35, 58 and 80? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Those are the different programs that we have, projects that wer e formed . MR. D. ORCHARD: The number of projects, 35, 58 and 80, then were you over-budgeted each year then?

In other words, the $681 ,000, the Other Expenditures for fiscal year ending '86, was that budget never expended? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It is voluntary. We work with these people ; we give them the information. The application has to come from those sponsoring the project, the rest of the proj ect , and you'll have a certain sum. You don't know exactly how many applications you're going to have and we've tried to spend the money that we have.

This was something that was discussed in the Legislature now years ago under a different program that was pretty well approved and we were encouraged to go in that direction to keep people out of the institution. That has become a priority item, as far as our work with the senio rs is concerned. So we've anticipated a certain amount , then if we don 't get all the applications or for some reason or other we can't process them in time, but it's coming out quite well now with the numbers that I gave you . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Were any programs delayed or deferred or cancelled under Gerontology last year to achieve the $400 ,000 underexpenditure of last year's estimated? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, the answer is no. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, what is the marriage or what is the marrying of Continuing Care with this service under Grants?

Monday, 13 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: We have somebody on the committee from Continuing Care that'll advise the committee. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, that's presumably to give you the ability to decide which project to approve. Is there ongoing liaison with regional field staff and people delivering this program? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ye s, they certainly would have a part to play in that in the assessment and also in the re commendation. MR. D.

ORCHARD: So then is it fair to say that the programs set up voluntarily by various housing authorities, presuma bly, would be married quite highly in the delivery service with Continuing Care? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ye s, because that also is something that would be a supplement, and maybe a saving would take place in Continuing Care with some of these programs. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's all my questions for now, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Ye s, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask about transportation programs in the City of Winnipeg for senior citizens. I understand there was a joint commit tee of, I think it was Health, Transportation and Social Services - you may not have the information now, but perhaps you could provide it later - chaired by somebody from the Transportation Department, looking at the various transportation services for seniors: I think one run by the Kiwanis, another run by Age and Opportun ity, another run by Klinic, and I think one Hope Clinic was planning to start.

I'm wondering: Has a program of consistency or evaluation of these seniors transportation programs been worked out and, if so, what is the planning of this? The other concern I have is one of the problems, I think, with seniors is their mobil ity, especially during winters in Winnipeg, and keeping people in the community at much lower cost than putting them into institutional or quasi-institutional care which is very dependent on transportation.

So I'm wondering if the Minister could, if he doesn't have this information available now, provide some information on what the plans are and what's happening with this committee and what the program will be for Winnipeg. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I could give you some information, and I'm sure that the Minister of Community Services could probably add some of this information. It is not a program that is funded under this.

It is a program now that a social resources comm ittee, when it did function, was looking at with our depart ment, with Community Services, and it was initiated by Urban Affairs in their grants to the city when I was Minister 906 of Urban Affairs, but it got a little more interesting with Mr. Doer because there was a program that we kept . . . I think Muriel was . . . I think you financed some of those programs temporarily . No? Was it all Urban Affairs? There were two. There was one in Fort Garr y, I think, and there was the Klinic, and it was agreed that was a very worthwhile program.

It was agreed that there would be continued funding while we would look at the whole situation and talking about having it, if at all possible, universal as far as the city is concerned because that is some thing that is important. I don't think that work is finished. They probably will report to Planning and Priority now, of commit tee. I might say that I would agree that transportation is one of the most imp ortant things. When I was Minister previously , Minister of Health and Social Development, we started the day care for the elderly , and one of the conditions was that we did not pay.

We felt, well, let the volu nteers, and it didn't work. We realized that more and more that if you don't provide transportation, you can't count on volunteers because it is a fixed time, a certain day and a certain time, and that's always difficult. As I say, there is a study being made of how and could we have some kind of a program, maybe granted, maybe a limited program, but of transportation for the elderly all across Winnipeg. MR. M.

DOLIN: I've had some concern expressed about the funding that was promised, but I gather from what the Minister's saying, this is being coordinated out of Urban Affairs and it probably would be mo re appropriate to ask it under the Urban Affairs Estimates. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ye s, I would think so, but I can tell you this. When you say "the funding that was promis ed ," it was a pilot project. They were initiated as pilot projects and pilot projects don't last forever.

What we did, because we felt that there was an important service being rendered, it was funded, I think, for six months and then maybe for a year while this other program was being developed, but there was no commitment for perpetui ty. That could change, but that's the best of my reco llection. MR. M. DOLIN: The question I'm asking the Minister is I understand it was a pilot project. I unde rstan d, obviously, if you have a pilot project, somebody's going to review it to see how effective it was and what's the best method of delivering the services.

The people would have the resu lts of this study and some information on planning would be the Urban Affairs people since they are coordinating, so I will wait for their Estimates then. Thank you. HON. L. DESJARDINS: But it's not just the assessment of the program, because usually when you have a program, you offer it to everybody. It's not a pilot project, but it becomes universal, which we would prefer of course, but there are seniors in other sect ions, part of this thing. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River East.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a few questions on Gerontology and sort of go into Health Promotion, if I can do that, because it states . . . Well, obviously, we all know what Gerontoloty is and services for seniors, but under Health Promotion ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We try to cooperate. We agree for the first part. Now that's going to be difficult because you're talking about strictly a different department, different directors and so on, so it would be a little MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: What I wanted to get at then was what type of coordination or commun ication is there between Health Promotion and the program support for seniors. That's what I'm looking at under Health Promotion. I have a little difficulty under standing why, under Health Promotion, we have to have supp ort programs for seniors and then we have a department on Gerontol ogy. Could that not all be covered under the Gerontology Department? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It is support services to the seniors group, and there would be people in the different regions that would be doing the leg work and so on to promote the services to the seniors. There's also the differ ent, working through th e provincial gerontologist and the advisory committee that works both ways, but the advisory committee will advise and give their idea what seems to be needed in the rural areas, and they will also bring back the information across the province to the seniors and through that book that we have also that lists the services. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me - I'm having a little difficulty with this whole Department of Health and the services for seniors that are spread throughout the department. I'm just wondering if the Minister has looked in any way at bringing all of the services for seniors, whether it be Continuing Care, Geront ology , whatever, under Health Promotion, maybe even parts of MHSC that deal with nursing homes, under one department so there's some coordination.

It just seems to me, if it was looked at, or I'm wondering if the Minister has looked at it to see, it would make more sense to me and it would be more organ ized and it might be a cost-saving way of looking after our seniors. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We ll, that's an ongoing discussion taking pl ace. There have been some changes. I think the members of the committee heard me say that we are looking at a decision of maybe changing the commission and stopping dupl ication and maybe facilitate the repor ting and so on. So, yes, we are looking at that.

That has been changed at times to present it this way in trying to make it - I'm not saying it works, obviously it doesn't work with one 907 member at least, but to make it easier to discuss this committee and I find it at times confusing from year to year that we change, but we are definitely looking at the whole situation and we are also looking, I might say, with different departments, also, not necessarily the break that was made between health and social development, the time could be reviewed. We want to work fairly closely togeth er. There is also health and environmental health and some of those things.

So that is being looked at. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Maybe the Minister can tell me then, what studies are going on right at this moment? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There are internal studies, plus what I mentioned earli er. The Deeter report, that's dealing with the commission, and there are discussions taking place now between some of the Ministers, especially with Community Services and myself to bring in people quali fied to look at the overall dealing between the departments; in other words, involving more than one department. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Can the Minister indicate whether the Deeter report is ready for us? HON.

L. DESJARDINS: I did say that it's an internal report, but I did state at our last meeting that I'd have it ready for the members of this comm ittee. It will probably be while we're discussing the Commission or a few days before - give you a chance to look at it. It is not a lengthy report. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Can the Minister tell me what department is coord inating the studies that are going on? Who is respo nsible for that? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Obviously in this department, it is our department. The other one, we're working together . MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: No, but is it in Research and Planning or where does it fit in? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, we're looking at the whole thing. It is at the level of the senior admin istrator and the Ministers who are looking at that. The Deeter report was comm issioned by myself and it was initiated by myself. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: That's all right now. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: What do we start on now? Do we start at the top of the page? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Before we leave this, because of the interest of the members, I have kind of a chart to show the way we are reorg anizing, espec ially Community Services.

I have copies for everybody and later on sometime I'd like to try to explain which way we're going away from the institution and so on. I think that will be very valuable and I'm having copies made for everybo dy. It's just one page.

Monday, 13 April, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(fX1)- pass; 2.(f)(2)-pass. 2.(cX 1) Salaries - the Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We seem to have had, in Salaries, the addition of a new administrative support person for the Provincial Cervical Cancer Scre ening Regist ry. Can the Minister tell us exactly what is this regist ry, obviously it's a preventive program, but what are we looking at in terms of this registry? HON. L. DESJARDINS: It is a prevention program.

What we anticipated is something developed with the College of Physcians and the medical profession and other professions. There would be a staff who would educate and promote mostly the women to get the proper testing and so on. It is in prev ention. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: How many women are involved in this particular scre ening program? HON. L. DESJARDINS: In Manitoba, in 19 84, 360 women were diagnosed with this cancer. In 19 85-86, there were 2,081 hospital days for treatment of this disease, and approximately 200,000 Pap smears are done annually in Manitoba.

Without the coordinated provincial program, the utilization of Pap scre ening was unknown. That's one of the reasons why we established this position, a plan ned-for comprehensive program consisting of a scre ening regist ry, laboratory quality control and public promotional, which I was talking about, mostly public promotional and education has been proposed and will be reviewed. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: So the basic purpose of this then is the encouragement of Pap smear testing in order to prevent cervical cancer? HON.

L DESJARDINS: Ye s, and inform the women of the risk of cancer and the value of the benefits of regular Pap scre ening. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Is there any material made available to women when they have a Pap smear taken to give them information with regard to cervical cancer and the need and the encouragement of those women then to go back and have this done on an annual basis? HON. L. DESJARDINS: At regular intervals, yes. Of course, this would have to be passed, is going to senior management from the directorate for approval and, at that time, we will announce the exact programs. MRS. S.

CARS TAIRS: So there is not a program in place at the present time or there is a program in pla ce? I'm somewhat confused by the Minister's ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: There's no provincial program at this time. We would have to get the registry and the hardware to put equi pment in place to support the program. That is what is proposed, but there is no program at this time, no organized provincial program. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: In terms of the external agencies which get funding, planned parenthood, women's health 908 clinic, Clinic Serena, Youville, reproductiv e health grants, has there been any additional agency which was not funded in 19 86-87, that is anticipated to be funded in 19 87-88? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm sorry, I was getting the information. You would like to know what is proposed this year compared to last year, is that right? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I would like that as well, but that wasn't the question. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm giving you too mu ch information.

All the agencies from last year will be getting funding, but two of them, the Women's Health Clinic and the Klinic, for '87-88, the outreach worker positions at Klinic and Wome n's Health Clinic were increased a full staff year, and funding for these positions will be trans ferred to the Manitoba Health Services Commission. That's the staff. There was $2 1. 6 thousand for Klinic last year, and $13 .6 for Wome n's Health Clinic.

Now, as I say, the outreach worker position was increased a full staff year for both those pla ces and the funding for these positions will be trans ferred to the Manitoba Health Services Commission. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Ye s, just so I'm clear, that each of these are to get another staff year, but we will actually find the cost of that in the MHSC budget? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Ye s, this will be paid - this is the full staff year now - by the Commission. So it's transferred from our budget to the Commission to pay for that, and that's the 21. 6 and the 13.6. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Have the amounts , other than for cost of living increases, remained relatively the same for these organizations from last year? We had figures of 606 and 617 , which is basically not much more than a cost of living increase. Has that been across the board, that each agency has more or less received that, or are there some dramatic changes in any of the funding agencies? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Some have stayed the same. There's not that much of an increase. There's very little increase; it's approximately in all the same as last year. MRS. S.

CARS TAIRS: One of the issues that surprised me when I first moved to this province, quite frankly, was that a great deal of the immu nization of young children was, in fact, done by doctors, wherein the Province of Alb erta, where I came from, most of it was done in well-baby clinics. Those well-baby clinics are cer tainly a much more cost-effective method of immuni zing small children. Why have we moved to this system in Manitoba whereby they seem to be done by their pediatricians or by their general practitioners? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I cou ldn't agree more with the honourable member in some of the planning that we'r e looking at in either of these clinics or commun ity clinics. We certainly will be looking at this. As you know, this

Monday, 13 April, 1987 is a discussion between different professions and when it's been done in the past. But I certainly agree with that. It could be done and less costly, and make sure that we keep the proper records in certain instances and so on. So we're going to have a hard look at that. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: It's interesting how the medical profession can justify doing immuni zation, but I think the Minister might be interested in knowing that the reason given to me by my pediatrician in Alberta as to why he would not immun ize was because he did not think it was good for the doctor-patient relationship between the child and the doct or. He did not want to be known as the boogeyman or, i.e., the individual who was going to give the needle. Here their doctor didn't seem to be the slightest bit concerned about being the big bad boogeyman in giving the needle so often.

Perhaps the Minister can use that as a justification to move it into the clinics and out of the doctors' hands. What is the situation with regard to the funding from this department now for such organizations like Villa Rosa and Pregna ncy Distress, which, I under stand, were in fact at one point funded under this particular

section of the budget for pregnancy counse lling? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I don't know that information. This is fairly new, this dire ctorate, and I don't recall that we funded that through this. MRS. S. CARS TAIRS: That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'll double check it, but we have no reco llection. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, can the Minster give us the funding under the grant, presu mably under External Agencies funding, to Klinic last year, and when we voted $606.9 thousand compared to this year at 617 ? Do you have the two-year figures? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: These are the grants for last year, the actual last year: Plann ed Parenthood, Manitoba, 161. 7 thousand, Klinic 21 .6, Women's Health Clinic 13.6. Those two, Klinic - with a "K" - and Wom en'

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-27a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 27a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	555c4834b8479367e6474ca56d983000321754f8

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).