Manitoba Hansard — 15 April 1992 (Sitting 47, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-47

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Sess ion -T hirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No. 47 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1992 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thir ty-Fifth Legislatur e Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

2245 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, Aprll 15 , 19 92 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Sharon Evens, Maxine Gudnason, Marilyn Budzan and others requesting the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial likelihood of further family violence. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth: THAT of the 53 aboriginal languages in Canada, it has been predicted that only three will survive beyond the year 2,01 0 unless action is taken now; and The Abinochi- Zhawayndakozihwin Ojibwa nursery program which began in 1985 has taught children between the ages of three and five the Ojibwa language, culture and history; and The Abinochi preschool language program seeks to promote and strengthen aboriginal languages and has been praised as a model by groups across Canada who have requested its curriculum; and The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry stated that maintaining aboriginal languages is vital to rebuilding the culture lost through years of colonization; and The provincial minister's working group studying the school recommended that long-term funding be found for the school; and The provincial government recognized the importance of the school in 1991 when it committed $64,000 to the school that year; and The provincial government has chosen in 1992 to not commit any funds to the program this year, threatening the future of the school, while it is increasing funding to private elite schools by 9 percent after giving them an increase last year of 11 percent.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba consider funding the Abinochi Preschool Program at a level which will ensure that the school continues to operate. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and

2246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 1992 complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Human Resource Opportunity Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the unemployed and people re-entering the labour force; and

WHEREAS during the past ten years alone over 1 ,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and training; and

WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the Training Centre recent graduates have found employment; and

WHEREAS without consultation the program was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and

WHEREAS there is a growing need for this program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of Selkirk, the Selkirk local of the Manitoba Metis Federation as well as many other local organizations and individuals. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services to consider a one-year moratorium on the program. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal people; and The AJJ delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self-government and the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system; and The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many others, also recommend both aboriginal seH-government and a separate and parallel justice system; and On January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and Despite the All-Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self-government, the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to ab origi nal self-government by considering reversing its position on the AJ I by supporting the recommend ations within its jurisdiction and implementing a separate and parallel justice system. • (1 335) MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hon. James McCrae (Minister responsible for ConstHutlonal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to provide the House with a brief report on the status of the current series of multilateral meetings on the Constitution. As honourable members know, federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal delegations met yesterday in Ottawa to complete a meeting that began in Halifax on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. The next multilateral meeting of ministers and aboriginal representatives will be held in Edmonton in two weeks. The following week, the same group will convene in Saint John, New Brunswick, and there will probably be weekly meetings thereafter until the end of May.

While there was extensive discussion on many of the issues that are part of this Canada round, no final decisions have been made on any major issue. There has been some clarification of the issues, and certain matters, such as changes to the mandate of the Bank of Canada, have been set aside. There has been a general recognition that because so many of the issues are interrelated, it would be inappropriate to sign off on individual components

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2247 until there is a reasonably clear sense of the nature and scope of the overall package. Members of this House are well aware of the complexity of these issues. Our task force took many months to reflect on many of the same issues that are the sub jec t of these meetings. Nevertheless, some encouraging progress is being made. For example, our task force report urged our fellow Canadians to adopt an inclusive Canada clause. The federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal representatives are now working on such a statement.

We supported reform of the Senate, and most participants now agree that the Senate must be reformed. Again, it is recognized that all of the components must be considered together as a Senate reform package. "Elected• is a given, but the method of election is to be worked out. "Effective• is agreed in the sense that no delegation wants to create a Senate with no powers. We all want the Senate to have enough power to make the House of Commons think seriously about the effects of its policies on provinces and regions but not so much power that it can bring the whole apparatus of the federal government to a halt.

"Equal" is still very much on the table as well, and discussions continue. We believe it is critical, during this Canada round, that all of the provinces in Canada be made equal partners in Confederation. I am also pleased to advise that the Manitoba task force position on abori ginal rights, namely recognition of the inherent right to self-government within the Canadian Constitution with a process to define, is now the central basis for multilateral discussion.

There is still a lot of work to do, as details of self-government have not been the subject over the years of the same kind of intensive analysis as Senate reform. I am, however, confident that the good will exists to work out the practical problems. The work on the division of powers has progressed more slowly. In large measure, this is because of the way Canada has evolved over the last 125 years. It is very, very difficult to unscramble an omelette. In this area in particular, the absence of Quebec from the table has hampered the process.

This item was placed on the agenda primarily to respond to Quebec's objectives, but no one from the Quebec government has appeared to clarify its position. While some of the larger provinces are seeking more responsi bilities, I beli eve mo st of the participating governments are more concerned with ensuring that the federal government lives up to its obligations in the fields of equalization, Established Programs Financing, the Canada Assistance Plan and support for aboriginal services than they are with redistributing power.

In this connection, honourable members will be inte rested to know that one of the major accomplishments of yesterday's meeting was a strong agreement among most provinces that the current equalization provision in the Constitution needs to be strengthened. That agreement Is consistent with our task force's recommendation and is of major importance to Manitoba. This issue will be discussed again at our next meeting in Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, we are one month into this process.

We have made some progress, and although a great deal of work still has to be done, a substantial consensus on a practical set of amendments may well be achievable by the end of May. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to provide regular updates to the House following each of the multilateral meetings. Thank you. • (1 340) Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement in the Chamber here this afternoon. The memb ers on this side remain pledged to the all-party report and the all-party process that we have established in Manitoba.

We believe that Manitobans should be speaking with one voice on this very important constitutional round. We believe that we should be speaking with one voice consistent with the report and the recommendations in the report that basically came from the hundreds of Manitobans who presented their views to the all-party task force in 1991 , which was contained in the report made public in October of last year. We note some of the areas of progress that the ministers have made.

We noted last week that there was some optimism from the discussions dealing with aboriginal self-government and the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people by the ministers at the table and from the aboriginal leadership, Mr.Speaker. We join with the thousands and millions of Canadians who feel this is long overdue to have recognition of the inherent

2248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 1992 right of aboriginal people to self-government, and we are thankful that there was some progress in articulating that principle at the ministers' meeting last week. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker-t hose of us in this Chamber who know very well about the issues of aboriginal people remember that at the Meech Lake proceedings, various provincial delegations were at the conference centre and aboriginal leaders were left across the street at the hotel waiting to hear about their destiny.

I think it is much more appropriate that their destiny is determined in joint partnership at an equal level at the table. When we are talking about participation in the process, the mi nister has noted the lack of participation of Quebec, and I noticed the minister from British Columbia yesterday was very vocal. Minister Sihota was very vocal about the lack of participation with the Province of Quebec. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest very strongly that the ministers of Canada keep the invitation open to Quebec to attend those meetings, but I see absolutely no reason to discuss items that are allegedly on the Quebec agenda for discussions to be discussed without the Province of Quebec there. In other words, I do not believe there should be any incentive for Quebec to stay away from the table with any kind of implicit negotiations going on, on the massive division of powers that the Quebec government has asked for in this round.

I think, not only would that be wrong in terms of the process, but it would also be wrong in terms of what Manitoba believes. As the minister has articulated, we believe in a strong federal government with the ability to redistribute wealth to individuals and to regions. That is in direct contradiction to the position paper of the Allaire Report in Quebec, the Belanger Campeau Commission in that province as well, and we remain united with the government in dealing with that issue. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the government has not mentioned the very important issue of the amending formula.

I think it is important to be very specific that Manitoba remains comm itted to an amending formula that has 7-50 as the basis for decision making and not to agree to some proposal for vetoes that are presently being proposed by some provinces dealing with some issues, or the Victoria formula which would remove power from Manitoba in the existing amending formula. Mr. Speaker, we would note that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) a couple of weeks ago said that he would make available his legal opinions to all members of this Cham ber. I raised that qu estion in the Premier's Estimates.

We have not received those legal opinions yet, and it is very important for all of us who are going to be working together that we have the legal opinions. The Premier said on national television that the social charter wording could affect the enforceability of

Section 36 of the Constitution. We have been told that may not be true, but if the Premier has legal opinions in that regard, we would like to see those opinions as comm itted by the government some four weeks ago in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, there are some other issues that we are very interested in-the Bank of Canada recommendation, basically a monetarist policy in the Constitution we are opposed to, and I believe Manitobans are opposed to, and I believe this government should be opposed to it.

You cannot talk about the high interest rates in this country and then entrench in the Constitution a monetarist policy. Similarly, I would remind the government that many women's groups in this province, many envir onm ental groups in this province, many aboriginal groups in this province, are very much opposed to the Cons er vative prop osal for entrenching in the Charter of Rights a

section on property rights. That is again contrary to the Ma ni toba all-par ty task force report that recommends against any change in the Charter of Rights. I would remind the government of that point because I know that is also a matter on the table. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are glad the tone of the discussions are positive.

We are glad that there are lots of discussions going on between all provinces except Quebec and the aboriginal people, and I would suggest and urge the government to continue in making sure that Manitoba's priorities are very much indeed part of this Canadian round of this very important Canada process. Thank you very much. * (1 345) Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second OpposHion): I welcome the repor t from the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs (Mr.

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2249 McCrae) in the province of Manitoba to this House this afternoon to keep us informed as best he can of the process and procedures that are going on. My concern remains the same concern that I have had from the very beginning because, as the minister says, progress has been made in a number of areas. No progress has been made, I would suggest, if in fact we do not know where Quebec stands on any of those issues.

It is fine for us to talk about the recognition of the inherent right to self-government, but if Quebec is not prepared to recognize that inherent right to self-government, does that mean that the entire deal that is presently being drafted and constructed by First Ministers and constitutional ministers then all falls apart? I share the same concern about the inclusiveness of the Canadian clause or Canada clause and I commend the minister for keeping that at the top of the agenda.

I want to ensure that a Charter protection is part of that inclusive clause because it is certainly part of our inclusive clause here in the provinc e of Manitoba, that the rights of all Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada, have to be gu aranteed. This is particularly significant this week. On Friday, we will celebrate the 1Oth anniversary of the Charter in Canada and all of the accomplishments of that document as part and parcel of our Constitution and the inherent equality of Canadians-male, female and of all the colours and religions of the rainbow.

My concern also is that there were discussions yesterday with regard to the Senate, and there seemed to be, not from this minister-and I want to say that very clearly-but there seemed to be from others the sense of trade·-off, that you could trade off effectiveness with equality. They are not trade-off positions. There is no point in having, quite frankly, a reformed Senate that is not also equal and effective. To say that you are going to sacrifice equality for effe ctiveness or you are going to sacrifice effectiveness for equality is not the name of the game here.

If we are to have a Senate for which we are going to spend multimillions of dollars, then that Senate has to be effective. That Senate also must be equal. Finally, in terms of the debate and the discussion of the division of powers, it is imperative that Quebec be at the table because it does not really matter what the rest of the provinces come up with.

In the final analysis, if Quebec is not prepared to negotiate along the lines of a document that seems to be well into the preparatory stages, seems to be getting the consensus of a number of governments behind it, there is one government that can quite frankly throw a wet blanket on this entire process, and that is the government of Quebec. Yet we continue to proceed along with these negotiations as if, again, the strategy is that all the rest of us will present a package to Quebec, and it is not that way. There are 10 provinces in this country.

There are 10 governments, and each government has as much at stake in this Confederation as the province of Quebec. I commend the minister for the progress. I also, again, give the warning signals which I know he is well aware of, and I again urge all of them to do everything they possibly can to get the province of Quebec at the table so that we are not left with what we think, and this certainly happened at Meech Lake with what we thought was a package that was acceptable to everybody, only to be told yet once again it was totally unacceptable to the province of Quebec.

The spinning of our wheels is not a progressive spin if indeed one of those wheels absolutely essential to making the operation run smoothly is not there. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable memb ers to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afte rnoon ei ght visi tors. They include two Japanese exchange students, namely, Katuski Yamaki and Ali (

I) Mu rase from the Dakota Collegiate. They are under the direction of Mr. Wayne Ruff, the principal. These are guests of the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). On behalf of all honourable memb ers, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon, from th� Garden City Collegiate we have twenty-five Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mrs. Carolyn McCormack. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable memb er for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). On behalf of all honourable mem bers, I welcome you here this afternoon.

2250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 1992 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Employability Enhancement Programs Funding Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington}: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government, in its Estimates, states that there will be 27,000 Manitobans accessing social assistance in this fiscal year. Eighty percent of the increase in the funding for the Family Services departmen t is taken up by social assistance programs. The cost of social assistance benefits, not staffing and not administration, but pure benefits to each of those 27,000 Manitobans is $12,500 per year.

There are also Employability Enhancement Programs that this government has in its Family Services budget which are targeted solely to social assistance recipients. The cost for those programs are $4,200 per client per year. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why he has red uc ed expendi tur es for the Employability Enhancement Programs element to Family Services by $500,000 this year, which will service 95 fewer clients than last year. * (1 350) Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services}: These are issues that we are currently discussing in our Estimates process.

We have a number of programs that are provided for social allowance recipients whereby they can access training and education to enable them to get back into the work force. Later this week we are announcing a new program, the Partners with Youth program, which in par t is going to provide som e additi onal programming for unemployed youth in Manitoba. We also are lookin g at the Employabi lity Enhancement projects and have maintained many of the ones that have been successful and are looking at other ways by which we can provide training for individuals in the province who are unempl oyed.

Two of our most successfu l programs that we have maintained are the Single Parent Job Access and the Gateway program. We feel these are programs that have had a greater success rate, and we will be maintaining those and training people as best we can to put them back into the work force. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about unem ployed youth; we are talking about social assistance recipients. The cost for the Employability Enhancement Programs are one-third the cost of providing basic social assistance services for the people of Manitoba.

Why has this government chosen to reduce by 12 percent the amount of money put into those Employability Enhancement Programs and reduce by 9 percent the number of social assistance clients who can access those programs, instead of putting that $500,000 decrease into the two programs that the minister says are functioning well? Why has he chosen to elim ina te cost-effective programs, instead of putting the money into additional programs? lltt". Gllleshammer; Mr.

Speaker, lw ould pointout to the member that overall we have increased the Family Services budget by almost 9 percent in a year when other departments with tremendous demands have been unable to increase their budgets. Government, not only in Manitoba but across this country, is under tremendous pressure to provide funding for health care programs, educ ation programs, as well as the social programs. In addition to that, we have tremendous demands in rural Manitoba in Agriculture and other departments where we have to find funding.

Even given these difficult times, we have been able to increase our budget by some 9 percent, maintain programs, and this year we are also providing a new program called Partners with Youth. Some of the individuals who will be accessing that program are social allowance recipients. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the increase in the Family Services department was not by choice; it was because they are mandated to because it is social assis tance . What the department has done is it has chosen to take away $500,000 from programs that had a 70 percent success rate by the government's own admission.

Why has this government chosen to decrease the funding for successful job creation Employability Enhancement Programs that were helping 500 social assistance clients every year get off social assistance into jobs and into training? Why are they doing that? Mr. Gllleshammer: I would mention to the member that the addition of some $10 million for other programs within Family Services is not a small amount. We have evaluated the programs, and we

April15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2251 are supporting the programs that have been very, very successful. We are putting money into new programs to provide em ployment, not only for unemployed youth but also for social assistance recipients, and from time to time, we have to evaluate the programming and make some changes and keep the ones that are successful. • (1 355) Youth Unemplo yment Government Strategy Mr. Leonar d Evans (Br andon Ea st): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Family Services, who I unders tand this afternoon or later this week will be making an announcement about a youth partnership program which, when we consider that we have youth unem ployment at 18 .6 percent in this province, will be a drop in the bucket. Looking back at the programs for youth before this government took office, we had a STEP program with 900 people working in it; today it is down to 300. We had a northern youth job program with 87 4 young people working in it; today it does not exist.

We had a Manitoba jobs and training program, a multimillion-dollar program, most of which went to the young people, that does not exist today. We had a CareerStar. of $8.5 million with 6,000 jobs, and they are down to $3.5 mi llion. We had departmental budgets drop before funding. Mr. Speaker, why will this minister, why will this government not go back and look at the record, take a lesson from the past and set up some real, significant programs for young people and restore real opportunities for our youth, a real partnership for youth? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, one of the inhibiting factors in cr eating new progra ms by this government is the tremendous debt that was left by the memb er across the way in his term in government. It has reduced the flexibil ity, a flexibility that all governments are looking for to create new progra ms. We are paying that tremendous debt, that interest on the debt that was run up by the previous government. I do not know why the member would criticize a program that we are about to announce, Partners with Youth, a program that has met with a lot of support from municipal level governments.

They are looking forward to this program, and I do not understand why the membe r for Brandon East would be critical of it. Social Assist ance Employment Creation Strategy Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I make no apology in spending money for jobs for young people to allow them to work. There is real goods and services. Would this minister have his senior staff meet with the administration of the City of Winnipeg welfare department, which has prepared a series of seven major work projects for welfare recipients? These are the unem ployed, employable welfare recipients, the bulk of whom are young people.

Would he have them meet with the department of welfare in the city and explore a joint co-operative effort with the City of Winnipeg and hope fully with the federal government to get people to work? We have a record number of unem ployed people in Winnipeg- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the memb er says he makes no apology for the tremendous debt that was run up in the mid-1 980s. He makes no apology for the expenditures of the 1980s that we are inhibited by today.

I hear his fel low traveller s in Saskatchewan saying that they cannot do anything and that they are bringing in health care user fees because of previous debts. These are the same problems that we have in this province because of the debts that were run up in the 1980s when the actual income by government was much higher than it is today. We meet on a regular basis with officials from the social allowance department of the City of Winnipeg to look at programs.

I know that they will be very interested in the Partners with Youth program to see what funding they can access to do some of the works projects, and we would be more than willing to meet with them. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, we left this government with a surplus of money, not a deficit, a surplus, and you put it in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Will this minister have his deputy minister today call up the administrator of the City of Winnipeg social services department and explore specifically the ways and means of getting people to work with

2252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 1992 these seven major projects: newspaper recycling, forestry programs, nursery sod project, riverbank stabilization, large compost facility, noxious weed er adicatio n and residential was te stream proposition study? Will you get your senior staff- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. • (1 400) Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I know that not only the City of Winnipeg but all municipalities will be interested in the program that we will be announcing, and we will work with them.

We have recently attended the MAUM provincial meeting and talked to UMM representatives as well as the City of Winnipeg, and there is a tremendous interest in working with government to promote some job creation. Youth Unemployment Government Strategy Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, I take a certain amount of pride in bringing correct information into this House, but I have to suggest that yesterday when I stood up and I said there were 2,952 jobs that had been cut, I did not provide the most accurate information, because when we went into the Estimates process, I found out that there were another 530 jobs which had been cut between 1990-91 and the present time as far as employment programs for young people are concerned, and the correct figure is now 3,482 jobs which have been cut in the last two years.

Can the minister tell this House on what basis and on what philosophical background-because one likes to think they make it on the basis of some kind of party philosophy-has this government decided that young people are not worth investing in? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I hate to make an attack on the memb er's pride, but some of the information she brings today is not accurate. One of the key factors that she is looking at is the Manitoba Youth Job Centre Program, which simply registers unem ployed youth and youth looking for work.

There are going to be again 44 centres throughout the province to register any youth who are unem ployed and seeking work. In 1985-86, for instance, there were just over 8,000 people who registered. These were not jobs that were created. These are simply people looking for work. Later on in the 1980s, there were some 12 ,000 children registered looking for work. This year, we are estimating that there may be 9,000. Now, that estimate may be low. There may be 10,000 or 12,000. These are simply offices where people seeking short-term summer employment register.

So let not the memb er leave on the record that these are job cuts. These are individuals who are looking for work. The government provides these offices where the individuals can register. We are basing that on the figures from the previous year, but there may be in fact more than 9,000 people registering for employment. Employability Enhancement Programs Funding Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, I have never known the Estimates of any government department under any administration not to give the best possible news to their numbers, and the best possible news to their numbers are down, down, down. At the same time that they are cutting these kinds of job opportunities, they are cutting out other programs. Mr.

Speaker, in light with the same kind of philosophical rationale, can the minister tell the House today why, un der Employabi lity Enhancement, a program called Job Access for Young Adults-these are young people who find thems el ves on so cial ass istance wanting desperately to get off-t hat program has been scrapped in its entirety? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): The mem ber is asking the same question that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) asked. We have retained the programs that have been most successful, the Single Parent Job Access, and the Gateway program.

We feel that by creating some new programs that are more receptive and more in keeping with job searches and employment for the 1990s, we will be serving those individuals. In addition to the figures that the memb er is putting on the record, we might also mention the Environmental Youth Corps which employs a number of young people and also brings forth

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2253 thousands of volunteers across the province. This is part of new programming that was introduced last year. As well, the senior level of government is proceeding with the CHALLENGE program for 1992 and wil l be providing somewhere over 2, 000 positions in the work force for young people. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, nobody likes it, this government nor opposition, but the increase expected for those who will have to look to social assistance is 34 percent in the province of Manitoba, 34 percent.

Can this minister explain why, to this House, there is not going to be one single person from that new group, those 34 percent new recipients, not one single placement in an Employability Enhancement Program which will allow them to get off welfare and to get into the workplace? Is this Tory philosophy, people on welfare and social assistance and do not get them back to work? Mr. Gllleshammer: We have maintained the majority of our programming which puts people back to work. I have mentioned the Single Parent Job Access, the Gateway program, the HROCs that we have across the province.

These are the ones that have been successful. We have maintained those programs and are confident a number of these individuals will be finding their way into the work force. Single-Indus try Towns Equity Insurance Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the government an opportunity to do something it often says it would like to do, and that is to accept positive solution from memb ers opposite. Last year, I wrote to the Minister of Energy and Mines and asked him to begin to investigate the concept of equity insurance for homeowners and small business people in northern Manitoba.

The then Minister of Energy and Mines refused to accept that suggestion. On March 24 of this year I asked the new Minister of Energy and Mines whether he would consider that concept, and he refused to respond. Yesterday, at the MAUM convention, a resolution introduced by the town of Snow Lake and supported by many, if not most, of the people at the MAUM convention, recomm ended that the government undertake that kind of investigation. Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is: Will he today indicate whether he will appoint a task force to begin to look at the possibility of establishing an equ ity insurance program, a tripartite, a multiparty equity insurance program to protect the investment and encourage investment in our northern single-industry towns? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.

Speaker, let me respond by saying that what we have attempted to do is to try and change the attitude of the international mining industry, particularly the Canadian mining industry, as to its attitude towards this province. We had the worsttax regime of any province in this country as it related to the development of mines and the continuation of building new mines. It is our belief, through the mining tax incentive program and through the mineral tax incentive program, the new mine tax holiday, Mr.

Speaker, that we will do more to encourage the long-term existence of those commun ities by new mine developm ents and by new mineral explo ration activities than other programmings that would bring in insurance such as the member is talking about. If that fails, Mr. Speaker, if we fail to find new resources and new job opportunities through mineral extraction, that is another option, but first of all, we had to change the draconian tax policies that were in place under the NDP government. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister an opportunity to be positive. Mr.

Speaker, maybe the Minister of Energy and Mines can explain then why the Conservative government, in 1989, placed a 1.5 percent surtax on that supposedly impossible tax regime and has not lifted it to this day. Can the minister explain as well why yesterday at MAUM he was nominally supportive in face of some 450 delegates from municipalities across the province and today he has all of a sudden turned his back on his commitment of yesterday? Will he now agree to support this resolution, which is supported by- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. *( 1410) Mr. Downey: Mr.

Speaker, I have not turned my back on the people of northern Manitoba. The recommen dation that the member has brought forward is worthy of taking a look at to see how it may in fact work and help. The bottom line, though, for the people of northern Manitoba is through meaningful resource development and creating the

2254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April15, 1992 policies to create the employment opportunities and add wealth to this province so we can pay for the social services that the people have come to expect. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we have today with us, in the gallery, representatives of Leaf Rapids Town Council .

They can tell this mi nis ter that commu nities throughout northern Manitoba, but certainly single-industry towns, are doing without investment, that homeowners are not investing in their commu nity, that small businesses are limited to the extent they are investing in our communities because of a lack of securities. Mr. Speaker, the minister did accept the premise that this concept may work.

Will he today announce the creation of a task force to begin the work immediately of exploring the concept and seeing whether in fact we can develop an equity insurance program that is not taxpayer supported, which will protect the investment of northerners now and into the future? Mr. Downey: This government has put in place a Northern Development Commission which will look at all options and opportunities for northern policy.

I would recommend that the member, I would recommend that the communities take before the Northern Development Comm ission the very ideas that he has talked about so that it can have the full and complete review of people who are fully knowledgeable and qualified. We do not need an additional commission; we do not need an additional task force. There is a mechanism there, Mr. Speaker, for this idea and this proposal to be reviewed under. Furnace Inspections Mandatory Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Mr.

Speaker, nearly a month ago the Canadian Gas Association issued a warning concerning the Flame-Master furnaces. About one week later, the Minister of Labour was persuaded to put out a press release stating that Aame-Master furnace owners should have their furnaces checked immediately and that carbon monoxide could cause headaches, nausea and even death. Now, Mr. Speaker, since then the gas company has been swamped with calls, as many as 850 alone on Monday. Is the minister now prepared to follow the lead of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, all of which have mandatory inspections?

We would like to know what is holding him back on this matter, because he has had a month. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): First of all, in the

preamble of the memb er's question, he makes it sound as if someone had to twist this minister's arm to issue a release. I have to tell him that as soon as I was notified by my staff, we issued the release. In fact, I think the time might have been five minutes from the time it was provided to me to give the okay to issue the release. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of mandatory furnace testing, we in the Department of Labour are always interested in assessing what in fact is causing the problem, what the risks are and what is the best way to minimize those risks.

We are always prepared to entertain a discussion as to the proper way to ensure that risks are reduced, but I caution the member, in this particular case, we still have a fair bit of information to gather, and just the idea of jum ping into mandatory inspection is not necessarily the answer. Condemning Authority Mr .Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I would like to know if the minister will require the gas company to have sign-off authority before a furnace is condemned so that perfectly safe units are not replaced, as was the widespread case last year. Hon.

Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): I am not quite certain I appreciate fully the mem ber's ques tion with respect to sign off. Under our appropriate legislation and regulation, the gas company has responsibility to ensure that before they are providing gas, there is a safe installation. If the installation is not safe, they have the provision to cut that off in order to ensure that gas is not going into an unsafe mechanism. Perhaps the member could expound in a subsequent question. Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, perhaps I could repeat the question to the minister.

We are quite clear that the gas company has authority on new installations. What the question was today, and was the other day, was: What about furnaces that are being condemned? Currently, installers can condemn furnaces and have new ones put in without the gas company even knowing about it. We want the gas company to have the final authority before an old furnace is thrown out and a new one is put in.

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2255 Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, I see a somewhat inconsistent comment with the gas company having final authority. I think yesterday we were in an exchange where the gist of the mem ber's questions was whether the authority ultimately lies with the Department of Labour and not with the gas company. Mr. Speaker, before a new furnace would be put into place, the gas company, of course, would have to be assured that the furnace is sufficient.

I think the memb er's concern is that an installer may condemn a furnace or a repair person may think that a furnace is not safe and condemn that furnace. I believe what the member is asking for is a second opinion on that particular decision, and I would be prepared to have some discussions with him as to the proper process. Always in those cases, if it is an independent installer or contractor, I think some of the difficulties that took place a few years ago or a year ago in installation are worth a second opinion. Mr. Maloway: Perhaps we ought to put the minister in a room with a Flame-Master to see how- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Question, please? Minister of Labour Meeting Request Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my final supplem entary to the same minister is: Considering that aggrieved parties are quite angry ove r the lack of action on the part of this government, will the minister agree to meet with a group of homeowners to discuss this issue and perhaps have a better appreciation of the problem? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to meet with a group of homeowners if the member would like to arrange that.

I just say to the member, he talks about lack of action, the greatest complaint that I have detected, of course, is those people who are faced with the cost of repairing or replacing their furnace or purchasing the replacement parts. In the news coverage I read of the honourable member, he even acknowledged that government cannot have responsibility to cover the costs of replacing that equipment in all cases. Mr. Speaker, obviously we are trying to work with as many people as possible, the people who are affected, to resolve the situation. I admit it is not an easy situation.

Most of the difficulty, from the information that has been brought to me, has to do with those people who are having difficulty in finding the resources to do the necessary repairs, and there are programs available from the Department of Housing and others for those who are low income. Canada Health Act Tray-Fee Regulation Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The Canada Health Act does not allow extra billing or user fees, but this government, like the previous NDP government, continues to allow this practice in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, certain services like tray fees, which are billed to the patients to cover the cost of providing the necessary medical supplies for a required procedure in a doctor's office as opposed to the hospital, they are not insured in Manitoba. It is costing as much as $18 per person. Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House, as some other provincial jurisdictions recognize that is in total violation of the Canada Health Act, why we are allowing such services in Manitoba? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I missed the specific name of the clinic my honourable friend brought on the-(interjection] oh, okay. Ther e have been, since we came in to government, I think about four or five, possibly, clinics that provide out-patient services, the most notable one being for cataract surgery. In those facilities, we pay part of the physician costs, but additional costs are paid by the individual accessing the service that, in many ways, is similar to a number of Manitobans who, for reasons of choice, have accessed, for instance, a clinic for cataract surgery in Calgary and paid the entire costs themselves. Mr.

Speaker, those issues have been subject to discussion, the conclusion being that they would not be a violation of the Canada Health Act, and subsequently there has been no imposition of any negative penalty under the Canada Health Act. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I will explain the question again. I am not asking about those five clinics. We are asking about a simple question of a tray fee which is being charged in some doctors' offices for minor procedures, and those services are

2256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15 , 1992 not covered in the doctor's office. If the patient were to go to a hospital, those services are covered. The simple question is: Why do people have to pay in the doctors' offices when those services are simply covered under the Canada Health Act and we are paying in the hospital for these services? *

(1420) Mr. Orchard: Mr . Speaker, I rec ogn ize my honourable friend's concerns with the tray fees . There are other areas which have been brought to our attention in the past in which physicians are asking for a contribution which has not contravened the Canada HeaHh Act, and my answer persists. We have not had this issue found to contravene the Canada Health Act and have not taken action in that regard, Sir. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not get a legal opinion, as some provinces say, that charging such a fee is in total violation of the Canada Health Act?

Why can we not have a simple legal opinion, and then we can make a final decision in Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am troubled as to what purpose the legal opinion would serve because this practice has been in effect probably for a decade and is not a secretive practice, if I can put it that way, Sir, and has not been found in contravention of the Canada Health Act.

That being the case, I do not know why I would want to seek a legal opinion when the Canada He alth Act, throu gh actions of the fed eral government-they have not found this practice to be subject to their clawback, if you will, of such tray fees. Pharmacare Clarythromycln Exclusion Ms. Ju dy Wasylyc la-Lels (St. Johns ): Mr. Speaker, on two occasions the Minister of Health told this House that clarythromycin, an anti-infectant drug important for people with AIDS, was being provided free of charge and, therefore, that was the explanation for the fact that many people were being hit with exorbitant drug bills.

I do not know if the minister had confused clarythromycin with another drug because our information is that the drug produced by Abbott Laboratories had never been provided free of char ge and that they had always charge d governments and patients for clarythromycin. I would like to ask the minister if he would now like to clarify that statement and correct the record. Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the pharmaceutical in qu estion is a pharmaceutical that has very narrowed applications for ill Manitobans or ill Canadians or ill individuals.

One of those narrowed applications, as indicated by the head of pharmacology at the Health Sciences Centre, has one or two applications in terms of people suffering from AIDS. Mr. Speaker, that pharmaceutical has not been granted an order of compliance-1 believe is the terminology-f rom the federal government and as such is not an included pharmaceutical in our Pharmacare program.

Now, because of-a nd I have explained this to my honourable friend time and time again-the new wave of pharmaceuticals coming up, the past practice has been, by manufacturers, that until they receive an order of compliance, they will provide the drugs free during the clinical trial period of time. There is an interim period of time in which the order of compliance from the federal government is made available. Most companies have tended, in the past, to provide those drugs free of charge. There have been exceptions. This is one of them.

This is something that all drug plans across Canada are coming to grips with because, if we allow the major pharmaceutical, multinational manufacturers to end-run the system and because of compassionate grounds force the costs on provinces before the orders of compliance, we open the floodgates for additional charges, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would correct the record, and if he would indicate how he is dealing with a serious problem for people living with AIDS in the province of Manitoba, because in fact clarythromycin, an important anti-infectant drug, was covered under Pharmacare. An 0/C by this government changed that policy. It is not the case that Abbott labs ever provided that drug free of charge. I would ask the minister to correct the record and change the policy. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, it is with difficulty that I can change the policy of government.

Although my honourable friend can make the most emotional case around this pharmaceutical, because it is dealing with individuals suffe ring unfortunately from AIDS, there is a plethora of new drugs on the

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2257 research agenda, at clinical trials, for which the precedent was tended to be set, that without order of compliance, the pharmaceutical manufacturers would begin to charge for those pharmaceuticals. This is not narrowed to this drug. This is a policy across the board, that we will not pay for those drugs until they are accepted on the Pharmacare Jist of accepted pharmaceuticals, after they have received federal order of compliance. To do anything less, Mr.

Speaker, is to signal clearly to the pharmaceutical multinationals that they can pillage the taxpayer of Manitoba's pockets, with the compassionate ground that my honourable friend brings forward. I have every sympathy for the individuals, but the principle has to be to have drug companies, who have the resources to provide those drugs free, do so until we include them in the Pharmacare plan. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: The issue involved is that we are dealing with a cost-cutting measure on the backs of people with AIDS. That is the issue, Mr.

Speaker. 1 would like the minister-! would like to give him one more opportunity-to clarify his statements, to change the record and to give some commitment to people living with AIDS, and he knows the implications of that, that they will at least have the bene fit of some coverage for an im portant anti-infectant drug, clarythromycin. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we have engaged discussions with Abbott, as the pharmaceutical supplier, to provide that pharmaceutical free of charge until the order of compliance has come in.

We will do that for every single new pharmaceutical that comes in because this government will not use precious taxpayer resources to line the pockets of multinational pharmaceutical companies prior to the order of compliance, neither, Sir, would the New Democrats if they were in government, but from the comfort of opposition, they are willing to bail out multinational pharmaceutical companies. I am sorry, Mr. Spea ker. The pol ic y is appropriate.

It is emu lated in many other provinces across Canada and, I suggest, will be emu lated by all of them because we cannot afford to pay for drugs before they are given an order of compliance in federai- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. CN Rail Producer Car Drop Off Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan Riv er) : Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is for the Minis ter of Highways. Recently I wrote to the minister on a very serious matter regarding the reductions of services to farmers on the CN subline.

The railway has discontinued dropping producer cars at points such as Slater, Renwer, Pine River and Garland even though the Grain Commission requests these cars. I want to ask the minister: What action has he taken to address this matter? What is he doing to represent producers on that line? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of High ways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the member that the problem-she raised it with me in the earlier stage already. I have been making inquiries about the problem that has existed out there.

The grain system is running pretty well at maximum right now, and I have had people from the area bring their concerns over to the Grain Transportation Agency. We are hoping to get it resolved. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the line is supposed to be protected until the year 2000, I want to ask the minister what action he is taking to see CN lives up to its responsibility of maintaining the Cowan subline and providing services, and I want to ask him if he is in support of producer cars being dropped off at these sites. *

(1430) Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, yes, I support it. I am trying to work to make sure that these cars get dropped off at those places. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that the com position of Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development be amended as follows:

2258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April15, 1992 the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the memb er for Stu rgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) ; and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. ORDE RS OF THE DAY House Busi ness Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to advise the House that as the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs completed its consideration of Bill 45 last night it will not be necessary for that comm ittee to meet this evening, so that will be cancelled. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call bills in the following order. If you could please call Bill 44, followed by Bill 12 , followed by Bill 43, Bill 53, Bill 64, Bill 70, Bill68, Bill 72, and then the remainder of the government bills on the Order Paper in the order in which they appear. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 44-The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act Mr.

Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur le controle du prix du lait, standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who has 29 minutes remaining. Committee Changes Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Dauphin, I wonder if the House would grant leave to allow the honourable member for Point Douglas to make comm ittee changes. It is agreed. Mr. Geor ge Hlck es (Point Dougla s) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk) for Thursday, Apri116, 1992, for 10 a.m. I also move, seconded by the member for Swan River, that the com position of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Flin Ron (Mr. Storie) for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Thursday, Apri116 , at 10 a.m. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. *** Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable member for Dauphin, who has 29 minutes remaining. Mr.John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on this bill on March 4, Bill 44 dealing with The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act.

At that time, I raised a numb er of concerns with the minister that I felt he should consider. I also indicated areas where we, in the opposition, felt there were some positive developments insofar as the actions being proposed by the minister, and I cited the issue of multiple component pricing as one which we felt was timely, particularly insofar as the fact that people tend at the present time to be consumers of milk where fat is not em phasized. In other words, the fat content is not the primary component that is of concern to the vast majority of consumers.

As a matter of fact, in my own family, most of our family drink skim milk. I probably should drink a lot more skim milk when we drink any milk at all. The others drink 1 percent milk, and we have moved off completely from whole milk and 2 percent milk. At one time, 2 percent milk was thought to be the milk that people would drink if they were on a diet, or if they wanted to drink something that is not fattening insofar as a dairy product, they would drink 2 percent milk.

That has changed completely in the present time, at least as far as our family Is concerned, and I believe when I watch consumers in the stores picking up their milk, the vast majority are moving to at least 2 percent, but in many cases to 1 percent and skim milk. Therefore, they are no longer requesting or demanding high fat content in any way, shape or form , insofar as milk is concerned. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) The only thing is it is really tough on the coffee cup because most people find that skim milk does not go that well with coffee.

I find that I just cannot drink coffee when I have 1 percent or skim milk. I guess on that side we still have to take whole milk

Apri115, 1992 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2259 or half and half, which then we are back on the fat side again, but the portion used is much smaller than you would if you were drinking a glass of milk or two or three or four in a day. Madam Deputy Speaker, obviously the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) does not know what the bill is about because he assumes that I am not dealing with the bill.

In fact, the minister would be well advised to review the comments that I made previously and that I started with in that we are dealing with multiple component pricing of milk as opposed to fat content being the criteria. I was elaborating for the minister's edification and for other members who might be interested that I believe consumer demand has moved away from heavy fat content into something that has less fat and in most cases skim milk or 1 percent has become somewhat of the norm for most people and their families.

We are gradually moving towards that, as I said, in our family where half of us are now on skim milk and half are not. We are moving eventually to skim milk hopefully, completely. It is, I think, important in today's society that more people are health conscious perhaps than previously, more aware of the harm that perhaps can be done to one's health because of overconsumption of animal fats and hydrogenated fats as well. We are living longer, and one of the reasons that we are living longer is because of medical breakthroughs, but also because of diet.

I believe that people are more conscious of the fact that there is such a thing as bad cholesterol and cholesterol levels that can in fact result in blockage of arteries and requirement of by-pass surgery. In many cases heart attacks result before remedial action is taken or dietary habits are changed. In many cases they are changed too late. For the people who have suffered fatal heart attacks there is not such a thing as a change for them, it contributed to their death, and they were not given a second chance. In many cases nowadays people do survive a first heart attack.

I know many neighbours and friends, and relatives even, who have suffered heart attacks at a very early age, and subsequent to that, survived the heart attack, and went into refit programs, cha nging their die t com pl ete ly- exer cis e programs-and are really quite fit now. One of the things they attempt to do is shop wisely to avoid heavy concentration of fats in their diet, whether it be in milk products, whether it be with cheese or cottage cheese or even sour cream. There are light versions of these products now.

The light versions are very often quite low in butterfat compared to the whole product, the original product, that many people consume. As well, people are more aware of the impact of saturated fats and unsaturated fats, the difference between the two and the impact it can have on their overall health over the longer term. I think this is somewhat overdue. It is perhaps something that should have been looked at in the past, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am pleased that the minister has seen fit to move forward so that people now will be buying a product I hope that will be labelled with other nutrients, that will indicate to the public and to the consumer the level of nutrients of such things as proteins, for example, in milk and other milk products. * (1 440) It is interesting. I saw an ad on television about grapefruit. The company that was advertising grapefruit was saying that if this was in the form of juice, it would have all the nutrients in it outlined, but because it is a natural product in the form of fruit, there is no labelling on it.

It does not tell what exactly is contained in that fruit that you might consume. I think we have to change that. We have to indicate in all of these products precisely the content of the important nutrients in milk and emphasize those, make them more household terminology for people, for consumers, so that they are aware of what they should be looking for when they are purchasing these food products, that they are aware that protein is a good nutrient and minerals are a good nutrient and fat is perhaps, in most cases, a harmful nutrient for them.

I also noticed that in processed foods people are becoming more aware of the difference between hydrogenated and nonhydrogenated oils and the difference that has insofar as cholesterol buildup and the cholesterol content of these foods, I think that there again we are moving in the right direction. We have a great deal of progress to be made, but we are moving in the right direction. I think we are following consumer demand and that is a healthy sign in more ways than one, healthy being a very loaded word and used in that context.

So insofar of that aspect of the bill, I indicated that we did not have any problems. Insofar as the issue of flexible milk pricing, at present I understand there

2260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April15, 1992 is a trigger mechanism that triggers at 2 percent a change in the cost of production. It would trigger a review that results in the increased cost being passed on to the consumer and perhaps an increase plus or minus. The minister notes that in some cases there may actually be a drop in the cost. If that was the case, then there would be a drop in the price of milk. He is proposing to change that mechanism.

I had indicated in my speech on March 4, and I think it is worthy of re-emphasizing, that in fact he may want to have a system that is triggered every six months, but also one that might be triggered by a small percentage variation, so that in fact if there is a change in a three-month period, which there could very well be with the world markets and the changes that are taking place, perhaps, hopefully not our supply-managed system, but where there is impact on the costs in a very short time, there could be a passing on of those costs, or a savings to the consumer even on a very short term, two months or three months or one month since the last review.

In other words, it is not an arbitrary time period. I felt that the minister might want to have both systems in place, an arbitrary review that would take place every six months, but another one that would be triggered by a change of say, 0.5 percent or 1 percent or so in between, if that happened, in between the six-month period. I think that flexibility would be something that the minister might want to consider, and perhaps he has looked over that point if he has reviewed some of the things I was talking about on March 4 in this House regarding this bill.

I think the issues that the minister related contained in the bill with regard to the financial report and the separate reporting mechanism to the Legislature of the Milk Prices Review Commission, those points that he was making are something he might want to consider, the comm ents that are made as well in that issue, because there is a need, I think, in terms of the public perception to have an arm's length comm ission to review the actions of the industry. Perhaps by am alg ama ting it with in the department, it is less apt to have that objectivity and be perceived as impartial and so on.

I think that is something that the Milk Prices Review Commission has resisted to a certain extent over a period of time, and the minister now feels that due to the savings that could accrue that he should embark on this change. It may be that, there again, there will be some loss of autonomy. I do not know. I guess it remains to be seen, and the mi nister has to take the responsibility of that as to whether that will be substantial, and whether, in fact, it will be justified in the longer term. It may very well not be justified, and it is perhaps just a perception.

It is something the minister has to be very sensitive to and aware of, I think, in the future as he watches the operations of the commis sion with some of the autonomy being removed. Those are the major points that we have raised with the bill, and I think it is important that the minister consider those. I reflect on another aspect of the arm's length operation of the board, and that is that the commission has made a review in various times in history of surveying the costs and monitoring the operations and so on amongst producers to ensure the cost-production formula adequately represented their costs.

It is possible there that, if the industry is in itself conducting these reviews, the consumer and public interest is not always put as one of the primary concerns. The objectivity is not there to the same extent. While the review comm ission was undertaking that, there was more objectivity there, and fairness ensured and the perception of fairness. That is one area where concern was expressed to me, insofar as the future tallying of costs and developing of the formula, and changes that might take place with the prices, based on the cost of production, ensuring that it is done fairly.

So with that, I want to indicate that we would like to see that this bill moves on to the committee stage. At that time, we can listen to views that might be put forward by members of the public, or by consumer groups perhaps, and by producer groups and producers as to their feelings on this. I do not anticipate that it will be particularly controversial, but certainly we will want to hear from them before making a conclusive decision on the exact and precise components of the bill in its entirety. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Nell Gaudry (St.

Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand to put a few comments on Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act. The dairy industry of Manitoba is undergoing a number of changes in response to adjustments in consumer demand and the market conditions for

April15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2261 dairy products. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) introduced this bill to the House, he indicated that the amendments he proposed could be classified into four categories. Today, I would like to comment on two of those categories, namely the first.and the third categories he referred to. In light of the changes in the dairy industry, I feel that the pricing of milk according to the value of its components is a very logical, if not to say positive, amendment.

It is a well-known fact that the consumers are paying more attention now to the number of proteins and calories a product contains. Consumers want less fat, and less fat is healthier for our society. The way consumers have gone about this is that they are being more conscious of the components of products such as milk. They, therefore, tend to buy the milk with less fat in it. Very seldom do we see a consumer purchasing whole milk nowadays. The pricing mechanism that promotes what consumers do not want and what is not as healthy for society should be changed.

This amendment seems to reflect the consumer's demand at this present time, and it is one that we are willing to support. As mentioned earlier, I would also like to comment on the third category the Minister of Agriculture referred to, that being the leading of the requirement for a separate account and annual report from the Milk Prices Review Commission. Madam Deputy Speaker, ending the requirement for a separate annual report audit is a positive step at ending waste in the government.

The same information will be available in the department's annual report, so the public will not be less informed, while fewer tax dollars are being spent and less paper is being used. *

(1450) I realize, however, that this will mean that the minister will not get the picture in print as often as he does now, but the public will be better served. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to know whether these proposed changes will affect the independence of the commission. Would it not be possible to try for a system where a separate account can be kept without the need for a separate annual report? The disaster of the Farm Lands Ownership Board annual report which was filled with 75-percent blank pages which the memb er for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) brought before the House in December, do you remember that? An Honourable Member: Yes, I do. Mr. Gaudry: It is an example of waste. Perhaps the minister can look at putting more of these relatively small annual reports in the department's annual report to save more money. I hope the minister will consider these-{interjectlon) I know he will. We get good compliments for the minister. I have been going around, and they seem to be satisfied with what the minister is doing. On this note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not spend any more time, but we would like to see this bill go to committee.

I thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 44. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. 811112-The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: Second reading of Bill 12 (The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'elevage), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe the member for Dauphin is going to speak on that bill. He has just stepped out for a minute. Is it possible to- Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there will to leave the bill standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin? [interjection) Yes, this is to resume debate on second reading of Bill 12 , standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin.

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted. 811143-The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 43 (The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les regimes d'assurance-revenu agricola),

2262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 1992 on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill43 is

an act short in terms of its printed content in length in this House, but certainly not short in terms of its impact in the issue that it raises and brings before this House, a rather significant issue that has received much debate with regard to the Gross Revenue Insurance Program. I, frankly, was expecting that the Minister of Agriculture was going to close debate on Bill 44 before it got passed, and I would have had a little more opportunity to get some of my information together that I intended to use in speaking to this bill.

I do not know, but from what I heard on the monitor in my caucus room, I believe the minister chose not to close debate on Bill44, which is traditional, and, un fortunately, caught me a bit by su rprise. [interjection] Well, I do have to. Yes, it is a very important issue. The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is aware that perhaps GRIP in itself is a very big and important issue that has profound ramifications for farmers and for federal-provincial relations and even for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), as we see in the bill that is before this House.

For that reason we have considered the impact of this bill and of the program over the last year and a haH, as I am sure the minister has, and there is a broad range of subjects that can be dealt with in relation to this issue. I think that they deserve a great deal of consideration by the Liberal Party in Manitoba as well as by the governing Conservatives as well as the New Democ ratic Party in opposition. I have raised many of those issues with the government over the past year.

Of course, there has been a review comm ittee reviewing crop insurance as well as GRIP in the province of Manitoba over the last number of months and over the last year, since the implementation of GRIP, to see that the program could be changed perhaps to make it more responsive, to make it more sensitive, to ensure that it is fairer in its application. Many of the concerns that were raised were raised by us in this House last year, and I was rather disappointed that the minister, at that time, Madam Deputy Speaker, felt that it had to be done right then in that way.

It was the producers, he said over and over again in this House, who designed the program which was, I think, at best an overstatement; and, because of that, it was the right program at the right time, and far be it from him to insist that the brakes be put on and that the program be revised and redesigned so that in fact it would reflect the needs of all the producers in Manitoba to the greatest extent possible. We found after that first year that in fact there were several concerns-we ll, a large number of concerns with regard to how the program has worked.

There were some changes that were put in place at the last minute in the first year, not to the extent that we hoped would be put in place, but that were put in place at the last minute or in the latter stages of development of the program-! should not say at the last minute-that were somewhat positive to meet some of the concerns that were being outlined by people. For example, in the southwest corner, people have been hard hit; farmers there had been hard hit by natural disasters over the last number of years. I guess you could call them disasters. A drought is a disaster.

Certainly droughts have brought down the productivity, the yield in many of those areas in the southwest, and many of the farmers there stood to lose a great deal because GRIP was being based on past crop insurance experience. In those areas the farmers felt that it was unfair, and I felt that their position was correct and that the minister was not being fair in his implementation in the province. I keep in mind that it was the federal government and it was a committee and there was a minister and ther e was a lot of parties invol ved in the implementation.

It is a cumbe rsome process, not necessarily that easy, but I ultimately have to say that the minister is responsible, as the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba (Mr. Findlay). He has to be responsible for the program that is brought in place and put in place in Manitoba. So when the farmers came forward with their concerns that they were being penalized even further, that those hardest hit by natural disasters were the ones being hurt the most in this program, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that is exactly true, and that should not be. That is unfair, that is wrong.

What should happen is that under GRIP it should have been ensu red that there was a minimum coverage per acre to meet what we call cost of production. Whatever figure was used, higher than what they were insured at, would have been positive

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2263 for those producers. Many of those producers were insured at $90, $95 an acre and they estimated their costs at least at $140 an acre. So they were falling way behind in terms of breaking even and with the offset provisions here in Manitoba where even if you produced more, you would be penalized. This would come off your insurance level of GRIP that at certain yield times the support price of $4.15 a bushel for wheat, for example, that if you produced above that, that was taken off the amount of money that you would have got for that amount of production.

You were not able to earn additional revenue until you were completely off the program in essence. So you would have to produce 70 or 80 bushels per acre before you could actually start earning additional money above the support price that you were insured at. * (1 500) That offset has been something that has been criticized and has hurt as well, because there was not an opportunity for those farmers to, in essence, earn their costs back. It was very little opportunity. It was almost impossible.

So there they were faced with an insurance level, a revenue insurance level, that was somewhere in the $90 to $1 00 range and they could not make it. In many cases, it would have been lower. I understand this year some of those farmers are going to be faced with $70 coverage if they stay in GRIP because this year the minister is removing the provision that I started to talk about, about five minutes ago, which was put in near the end of the development of the program, which would allow for one year only the area average to be used or the individual average under crop insurance, whichever was the better.

So in the case of the southwest farmers, most of them were able to take the area average which helped them, especially those who were hardest hit. I felt that the ones who are hardest hit should have been able to get some of the relief or their fair share of relief from this program, because indeed they were the ones most in trouble. If you look at the southwest corner of the province and you look at some of the municipal maps and the owner s of the proper ties in those areas , I understand a vast majority of them now have changed hands in recent years.

A large percentage have been in the hands of financial institutions. Many of those quarter sections, a high percentage, have been repossessed or turned back over to financial institutions because the farmers could not make a go of it. So here they were facing this kind of difficulty at this time, coming off years of drought and low prices and so on, and then they are asked to sign a program that will ensure that they continue to lose money at a level of some $90 to $1 00 even with the area average-some $9,200.

Now I am being told that the minister has not listened to those concerns, and the provision that was put in for one year is not being extended, so that those producers are being faced with some, in cases that have been brought to my attention, $20 per acre less coverage yet from that losing level in the first place, and they are still having to pay premiums, and the premiums are going to be higher this year. So, under those circumstances, the program is absolutely useless for them, and yet some of them were in the program because they felt that there was no alternative last year.

There were a lot of suggestions and rumours being made and bandied around that if you were not in the program, you were not going to receive any third line of defe nse, as it is called, relief or any additional support from governments, because you had to be in the program first or else you could not get that additional help. Many of them felt they were really thrown out to the wolves, that there was really no alternative for them, so they would have to join the program, even if it meant ensuring themselves at loss, paying premiums to lose money.

Those people had some level of security though, because the area average was allowed if they felt it was to their benefit. Now they find that with pr em iums increasing-because the federal 25 percent share is being lifted this year, their premiums are going up. They may be going up for other reasons as well, and the minister has still not relayed to the producers what their premium levels will be this year.

He probably knows as he sits at this particular time what they are going to be compared to last year, but the information has not gone out, as it should have been sent to the producers by March 15 of the year that is covered as contained in Clause 37 of the contract that farmers signed. I have pursued that with the minister in this House, asking him for legal information that would support his

2264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 15 , 1992 contention that in fact the contract has not been broken by the government. I believe that the contract has been broken by the government, and that the information for the other clauses has been sent out is all well and good, even though they missed the deadline there by a couple of days. The minister tried to say it was sent out by the 12th of March; in many cases the postmark was the 16th but the 15th was a Sunday, so I did not argue with the minister on that point.

Just as we know for income purposes, if the 30th of April falls on a Sunday, we are usually given one extra day without penalty to get our income tax returns in. In the same way, the minister was able to get that information out on the Monday. However, it did not contain all of the information. It did not deal with Clause 37. Therefore, farmers who are trying to make their plans about the coverage levels and support levels and premiums were not able to do that, and they are still to a certain extent not able to do that.

The coverage levels for wheat, using a revised I MAP, have resulted in higher coverage than would have been the case if the original design of the program of the index moving average had been used. Howeve r, the price is down from the previous year. They know that right now but they still do not know their coverage levels and their premium levels, I should say, for the coming year. Therefore, they do not know what the costs of the program are going to be for them for various commodities.

When I speak about the moving average, it is kind of ironic-and the minister will probably have a lot of stories or information to relate to this House about why it took so long to get the change made, what the discussions were around the minister's table and why some prov inc es-he was blam ing Saskatchewan for holding up the process, but the fact is it was this minister and his colleagues who realized they had made a serious mistake on the index-moving average and, therefore, they wanted to have it dickered with a little bit to result in a little bit higher coverage. We told them that this year.

We told the minister last year. We said if you use an index-moving average, you are dropping off the high years and you are adding a low year every year, you are going to have drop in price every year. He knows that. The minister knew that because he is a very intelligent man, he knows these things. He knew that the index-moving average was going result in lower support prices, but then he could not handle it politically this year so he wanted it changed a little bit so it would not be as big a drop. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): By the letter of the law. Mr.

Plohman: The minister says by the letter of the law, and he can explain those things. The fact is-the minister will have to explain what he meant. If one index-moving average was presented by the bureaucrats, and then it was rejected by the ministers, if that was the case, or by the comm ittee, it went back and developed another scenario which resulted in slightly higher coverage levels for No. 1 wheat, for example, from $3.84 to $4.08. There was maybe a difference in

interpretation about what the coverage should have been. We said to the minister in the first place, use a cost-of-production pricing mechanism and put in place the same kind of mechanism that is in place for other commodities. We just talked about the Milk Prices Review Comm ission, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act that is brought before this House, that there is a formula that is used. There are various variables that are plugged into that, and every six months, as proposed by the minister, there will be a change perhaps in the price of milk based on the cost of production.

So there is a cost-of-production formula and there is a margin so that these farmers who are producing these commodities can make a profit on it and earn a living. Therefore, there is a total price that has to be charged to the consumers. We wanted that same kind of thing to be done with regard to grain farmers with some caveats we had mentioned about capping so that it was not wide open, open ended, in terms of total dollars that could flow to an individual producer. We felt that this was a positive way to deal with the issue.

If they had used cost of production, he would not have run into this problem now, and he is going to run into it every year with this index-moving average. * (1 51 0) In fact, each year the price is going to be dropping unless we see a major change in the world price, export prices of these commodities, it is going to become an issue. The minister is going to be faced with the dilemma of having to announce $3.50 and $3 wheat. At one point the world price, and hopefully it will be soon with meat, that index-moving

April 15, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2265 average, would become academic and farmers would not be too concerned about the index-moving average perhaps because they are going to get more on the market. We hope that happens soon. In the meantime, we have a formula that is just rolling itself right out of existence in terms of support prices. I think that was very unfortunate because it does not recognize that there are increased costs faced by producers each year.

They only have to look at their fuel cost and their fertilizer cost and their chemical cost, and if we do not have any regulation for those-if we are not going to regulate, and we are going to allow greater patent protection, and we are going to allow more of this power into the hands of the mu ltinational corporations that are producing it, then we are going to have rising costs. They will charge whatever the market will bear, and the market is the farmer in that particular case, the consumer of those products that he needs in order to produce his crops.

Of course, we realize as well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are hearing more and more about the productivity of soil being eroded by the overuse of chemicals, and that is something that we hope will change and that there will be less reliance on that over a period of time. But I raise that because we know that costs are increasing, and even because of the policies of this minister and his government.

He has been part of a cabinet that has taken a mill off residential and forced mu nicipalities and school divisions to add additional costs on the local levy which has resulted in a shift, in many cases, for farmers of up to 10 percent or 12 percent increase on their farm land. The same government, Madam Deputy Speaker, says that they are going to take the tax off farm lands. The minister is just saying it, and they are adding it on. They are adding it on this year. An Honourable Member: We are not adding it on. Mr. Plohman: They are moving in the opposite direction, and they say they are not moving it on.

The minister says he is not moving it on, but the fact is, as a result of the actions of his colleague in government and his cabinet that he is a part of, we have in fact seen a shift, and the minister knows it. He must be hearing about it already. He is going to hear more about it. KAP even had it in their brief. There is a shift this year from residential to farm land again, and this government says that they do not believe in taxing farm land for education. That was the consequence, the result of their actions, and so farm costs are increasing each year.

That is why the index moving average was totally ridiculous in its application in the first place. It was again this year even though they were able to, as the minister says, ensure that it adhered to the letter of the Jaw. Whatever the case was, there needed to be some tinkering with that formula this year in its application in order that the price would not even drop below $4 to some $3.84 a bushel for wheat which, again, did not reflect the increased costs. It is going the opposite way of cost.

So we have said to the minister that what he should have done in the first place, and we say that again, is that he should have ensured, and he should have fought for, a cost-of-production type formula that could be used, that would ensure that the increased costs would be reflected in that formula each year in the support price rather than going down each year as it is through the mechanism that this minister adopted along with his colleagues at that time.

Now, I really believe that the GRIP as it is now constituted is going to be, and has been, limited help but basically overall a failure unless major changes are made to it. Basically a failure, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it did not ensure that farmers got the fair share out of the market for the new goods that they produce and the wealth that they create.

I think it is worthy for the minister to reflect that there was a movement and a term being used a great deal, I guess in Canada and the United States called "parity pricing" at one time that is not used to the same extent now, but it is certainly something that should be the subject of study and discussion by the ministers in terms of the kind of formula that should be used. Because farmers are creating new wealth in the country, if they are getting a fair return and their fair return would be one-seventh of the economy of the price of all goods produced in the Un ited States�me-seve nth.

I am not sure what that figure would be here in Canada, but if they are getting their fair share, that money goes back into the economy and generates multifold benefits over and over again in various facets of support industries to agriculture. It is money that is generated and created, wealth that is created as a result of the production of new goods. It is not borrowed money, it is not money on credit.

2266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15 , 1992 What we have now in the agriculture commu nity is record levels of borrowing and debt. That means that when support programs like GRIP and NISA are developed, albeit, as I said earlier, insufficient to meet the costs, but still for many people better than what they would have had with no program, it does not go into the communities and generate that spin-off benefit to the extent that it should.

In many cases, it just goes to pay interest and to make back interest payments, to pay back loans that have been incurred by these producers, as they have sunk further and further into debt and are just barely able to keep their noses above water so they can continue to breathe and exist. The money is going direct from governments into the banks to pay the interest, into the lending institutions. We are not getting that spin-off.

They are not getting that spending taking place in the commu nities that generates economic activity and therefore buoyancy in the economy and taxes being paid, and that is why we have the continued recession in this country. I think that the agriculture sector too, and the debt that is being held by the agriculture sector has contributed a great deal to the recession and the continuing stagnation of the economy. I think money spent in agriculture is well worth spending, and it is money that pays dividends back to the government and to the province many times over, if, in fact, it is done properly.

If support prices are such that they do meet the costs of producing the goods plus a margin, a profit for the producers, that money will go back into the economy and will generate a great deal of economic activity and wealth and job creation and taxes that will indeed assist in moving the economy out of the recession in a hurry. I do not think, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says, oh, what is it going to cost, we talked about cost of production, pricing, that he was considering the whole factor. Maybe he chose not to consider the whole picture when he said that.

He wanted to leave the impression that we in opposition just wanted more money poured out, and that we wanted a bigger deficit. That is what this government likes, to leave the impression that it is New Democrats who want to run up the deficits, even though they are running up higher deficits. Their colleague Grant Devine in Saskatchewan made one of the biggest messes of any province that we have seen anywhere in this country, right In Sas katc hewan.

But the fact is that the Conservatives in Manitoba have run huge deficits over the last number of years. * (1 520) Madam Deputy Speaker, you are only too painfully aware of that, I am sure. We saw a surplus when we came to the government. We left them with a surplus. They benefitted, I have to say, from large tax increases that were put in place. That Is why this government has been able to sit there and say they have not raised taxes. Yes, we raised taxes to pay for the services that were there.

Yes, we made cuts in programming where it was necessary so that we could keep our spending under control, and yes, we left the surplus when we left government. This government has turned a $55-million surplus into a $500-million deficit in the span of three or four years, and their deficit continues to grow in this province. So I say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) that he should ensure that the kinds of spending in four agriculture support programs do reflect the cost of production.

Because only then can we ensure that farmers are going to climb out of this whole debt spiral that they are in, and can once again start contributing and spending that money in the commu nities where it has that tremendous, positive effect on the local economy and on the economy of the province and the country as a whole. I think that the sooner this government recognizes that fact, the sooner we will see a buoyant economy.

Now we have said that in grain production, since we export the vast majority of our production, that we cannot have it open-ended, because we cannot be subsidizing the consuming countries to all that they will purchase from this country. It is just not fair for the taxpayers to do that even though there is a great deal of return, as I said. But the fact is, there have to be some caps on, in terms of the amount of government dollars that would in go to support-you can talk about a quota system. I mean, that is in the supply-managed commodities, we have that. It is capped, the amount of production that is paid.

An Honourable Member: Which farm are you going to cut down? Mr. Plohman: Now, well, the minister says, what farm are you going to cut down? The fact is that we could have a sliding scale of support that would be

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2267 acceptable to everyone, that would recognize that there would be less support at the larger levels of production, so that every farmer would have the support for the first amount of prod uction, 10,000 bushels or 20,000 bushels or a thousand acres or whatever it might be. Then on a declining scale, you would have cost of production guaranteed, first of all, for the first amount of production. Then you would slowly and gradually drop that off to three-quarters of cost production, or half, or whatever the case may be.

I believe that ensures that the money that is spent is targeted to the smaller produ ce rs-to all producers-but ensures that there is that base of production that is covered for all producers, and ensures that the population is maintained in our rural areas, because we do want to have more farmers. We want to have more people living in rural areas. We want to have more farmers on the land. I was driving along the other day from the Hudson Bay Route Association. It was dark, and you could see the lights, as you drove along, of the farms along the way. Well, those lights are becoming fewer and fewer as you drive.

Years ago the yard light was on almost every quarter

section or two. There were many people on the land years ago. I am speaking after Hydro was introduced of course. There were still a lot of farmers. Since then, that number has been dropping off. Now you can drive along through agricultural sectors and you will see very scattered lights as you drive, very few, because the farms have been thinned out. Farmers are becoming larger and larger in order to survive, some of them.

They think that is to survive but, in fact, they are getting into more trouble and more debt, and in many cases, the medium to larger farmers have been in some serious difficulties, as have the smaller farms. But the point is that we want to keep more and more farmers on the land instead of less. We must have programs that are targeted and tailored for the smaller farmers, and this program did none of that, in GRIP.

In fact, it ignored the fact that the huge corporate farms could take out hundreds of thousands of dollars-1 hesitate to say millions but there may be a few-out of this program, supported by taxpayers,

whereas the smaller farms, 500 acres or whatever might have been the case, would take out very few dollars out of a program such as this, in support. It just is not enough to help them, realistically, pay for their fuel and their taxes, raising their families, and their machinery costs, which are continuing to increase, and their repairs and all of that. So we need to have programs that are targeted better to support those who need it most. We have not done that with this program. The minister has missed the boat with this program in that respect.

So I say that one of the positive things about the changes in Saskatchewan is that they have eliminated the offset that was there-and I talked about this earlier on-where it is deducted from your GRIP payout if you produce more and cannot even sell on the world market, you get it deducted off your insurance level. I think that is wrong, so I said to the minister, that is wrong. An Honourable Member: How is it targeted? Mr. Plohman: Now he asked me how it is targeted. I can tell you that-well, what is it now since the Saskatchewan government was changed? How many months has it been?

The minister wants to know how is it targeted? He knows it is a national program. Well, yes, there was a minority report of NFU mem bers, from the commit tee that the Saskatchewan government set up, that wanted more drastic and radical changes to GRIP than were actually made by the minister, and that were criticized severely by the federal minister, McKnight, in response to the NDP government's changes in Saskatchewan. But the fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that six months is not a lot of time to make the kinds of major changes when you are part of a national program. Mr. Findlay: Why do you give excuses? Mr.

Plohman: No, no excuses, realistic: I am being realistic and the min ister knows that. Because you know the minister and his colleagues use the excuse that they could not do anything about it because of what the NDP left them in Manitoba, for years and years. They are still doing that, and it is five budgets later. They are still saying that the taxes are our fault. Well, why have they not taken those taxes off if that is the case? Why have they not eliminated the waste if that is the case? They could not find the waste that they talked about, politically, before the '88 election, before the '90 election.

2268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 15, 1992 You see, it does work on the one side for this minister to blame the previous government. Then here we have a new government in Saskatchewan only six months old and they are wrong to be blaming the previous government, or they should have-(interjection] No, they should have made all the changes they are going to make in the first six months, with seeding season coming up, Madam Deputy Speaker, pressure to make those changes. The minister himself is in a mess here because he has not got his changes in this province in on time.

He has not announced them, and this minister runs the risk of having all of the contracts declared null and void. Now I would think that over a period of time, and had the New Democrats been in government in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the other provinces, that this program would have been much different in its design than it is at the present time, and at the national level of course. It would have been much different. The Conser vative pro vinces and federal Conservative government ended up with a deal that resulted in massive offloading onto the provinces, and it still did not result in a fair program.

This mini ster is a strong advocate of crop insurance. He thinks that crop insurance is the be-all and end-all. I would think he thinks it is the greatest thing, and he actually feels I believe-and I will be putting words in his mouth-that it almost should be compulsory to belong. As a matter of fact, in order to belong to GRIP he wanted it to be compu lsory that you are in crop insurance, and he even sweetened- that is what he did. [interjection) Well, the minister advocated in the House that they should be part of crop insurance.

As a matter of fact, his lending agencies, MACC and the banks, were going around telling producers that if they want to get operating loans, they would have to join GRIP. That was something that was being said. The minister may say that it was never said, and I think he has softened on that a bit. I hope he has, because I do not think it was their business to tell them that, but in fact they were putting pressure on a lot of producers to in fact sign up for GRIP if they wanted to get an operating loan or they were going to be out of busine ss fore ver.

So it was-[interjection] well, and other loans that they were looking at through the Mediation Board. The minister knows that through the Mediation Board there was pressure being put on people to join GRIP. As a matter of fact, it was a policy, they must join GRIP before they could get a renegotiation of their loans at that time. The minister knows very well that for a time that was a policy. I do not know if that is a policy at the present time. Clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen a program that has helped some and hurt others.

Insofar as crop insurance is concerned, the people who had positive experience in crop insurance reaped a windfall from the program. Those who had negative experiences got hurt by the program, and those who were not in crop insurance did not get their dues when they signed up for GRIP, because there was no recognition of their good management and positive yield history in previous years simply because they chose not to sign up for a voluntary program.

Now the minister cannot have it both ways, that it is a voluntary program, that there is no way he believes it should be compu lsory, yet he builds into the program penalties for those who did not join crop insurance over the years because it was a sound management decision not to join up because they lost money by paying crop insurance premiums. They lost money, because the coverage levels were not sufficient in many areas of the province.

The Interlake was one of them. • (1 530) In other areas, they found by in fact self-insuring themselves, they were able to take the bad years with the good years and come out on top by not being in crop insurance. Gilbert Plains is one area where there were a lot of people not in crop insurance and where they did very well.

Yet, the people that were in crop insurance across the road from a farmer that was not-both of them equally good managers-the person that had been in crop insurance maybe never having drawn from crop insurance over the years, that he paid for that peace of mind of having insurance to fall back on if he needed it was getting on a thousand acres some $30,000 more in coverage under GRIP than the person who had never taken crop insurance before. Fair? We raised that in this House. We raised it throughout but, no, the minister went headlong with this program. You had to be in crop insurance.

He even stood in this House and justified through the policy that those people who are in crop insurance

April 15, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2269 have in fact paid a lot of money into crop insurance over the years, so maybe they are entitled to get higher coverage. Yet, it had nothing to do with GRIP. They never knew GRIP was coming. The minister did not know GRIP was coming. Crop insurance did not know GRIP was coming. Why would they have been entitled to some kind of reward, because they were in crop insurance?

Why not start them all atthe same point, and letthem show that they are better managers or if the minister chose to in fact allow increased coverage because of good management experience under crop insurance, then allow an individual to prove through their own records that they were in deed outproducing the average and were producing at a high level, because of their good management skills and allow them to buy higher coverage. The critical thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, was how much coverage could you buy. That was all.

That is what resulted in the amount of money you could get from the program is how much coverage you could be covered for, how much you could buy. Those that could buy less were guaranteed to receive some $30,000 less or more based on a thousand acres. We had done those kinds of examples. It really divided communities. It was very unfortunate. I say to the minister that has been one of the disasters, the major faults of this program. He has a lot of work to do. I will be watching with interest, when he looks at this kind of a proposal which will give the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) the opportunity to place money in an account to be paid out. Sure that will have to be done, because the premium levels that are paid in are not always going to pay the bills, so you have to have a mechanism. I do not know whether the minister feels-he said he did not feel he was doing it illegally up to now. This should have been done last year when the program was brought in, so it could have been fully debated in this House at that particular time.

I think the minister did not bring this in last year, because he did not want to face the music and have the kind of debate in this House on GRIP and the problems that it was facing at that time. He felt now after one year it was a little safer to do it. Why did he not do it last year? Why did he not bring this mechanism in? He knew that it was needed or did he not know? It may be that he did not know. You know why? You know why he did not know, because he was not organized. He did not have his act together. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable memb er's time has expired.

Is the House ready for the question? Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burr ows): I mo ve , seconded by the memb er for Kildonan (M r. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 53-The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transporta tion Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act (loi modifiant Ia

loi sur Ia manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummi ngs) , standing in the name of the honou rable memb er fo r Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River? An Honourable Member: leave. Madam Deputy Speaker: leave. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act. The bill deals with- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Selkirk is commencing debate on second reading of Bill 53. Mr. Dewar: This bill deals with the cleanup of contami nated sites within the province. Site cleanup, as all memb ers are aware, is a very costly and a very lengthy process, one that I will be dealing with later on in the debate this afternoon. I would like to specifically deal with my own constituency and nearby area and that is the ground water contamination in the Stony Mountain, West St. Paul area. I would like to refer now to some of the notes provided to us by the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummi ngs) where they talk in a little bit more detail on the bill. I will quote from this. It says new past owners, handlers of the dangerous goods and contaminants also tied to contamination, e.g. Bristol.

2270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April15, 1992 That is, I believe, a direct indictment of Bristol Aerospace at the Rockwood propellant plant in the Stony Mountain area that is a culprit in that particular contamination. Though it is slightly premature, since the UMA report was released yesterday, and though we have not had a chance to review it as yet, it did not categorically accept Bristol as the culprit, although all indications, of course, point directly to it.

It was brought to light late last year when former employees of the plant came forward to talk about some of the practices that they used to do when they were em ployed at the Bristol Aerospace Rockwood propellant plant. I would like to quote from one of the former employees. I thought about it for years, he states, a man who dum ped barrels of assorted chemicals and debris into a dispo sal pit at the Bristol Aerospace site as part of his job. He said the pit is likely the source of solvents found in the water at the propellant plant and nearby residences. I almost swear by it.

It works out perfectly to where the wells are being tested. A man who worked there for 20 years said the rockets would come back from NASA and they would be filled with solid fuel. They would scrape them out and put them into drums and most of the contaminants then were burned. The actual raw propellant left over after mixes are put into big oxidizer drums. I used to wonder what would happen, he would say, even if these drums do not leak, they will rust and there is oxidizer in the drums, and as soon as it gets wet it is like salt. As long as it is dry they are okay, but with any amount of moisture they go bad.

He is wondering, he said a lot of people working at the plant have died of cancer, and it is worthwhile wondering if it is wo rthwhile working there. Individuals are wondering if it is worthwhile living there as well. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was stating before, individuals are now wondering if it is worthwhile living there. This is probably the worst water contamination problem in Manitoba now. This was confirmed by Dr.

Lockhart Gray, who is the head of the province's ground water section, and he states that the solvents that have entered the aquifer from the plant have likely sunk to the bottom of the aquifer. The nature of the contaminants is that they are heavy metal, they move to the bottom of the aquifer and then flow with the ground water. He said the concern is, the contaminants have entered an underground water system that is a single huge aquifer generally flowing west from Lake Winnipeg and the Red River. Everything east of Stony Mountain to the Red River is at risk.

I do not know if honourable memb ers are aware, what is between Stony Mountain and the Red River are of course the West St. Paul, St. Andrews, Lockport areas of my constituency. I know the Liberals have no concerns about this since they have no mem bers outside of the Perimeter. I am surprised they know where Stony Mountain is, but anyway- * (1 540) An Honourable Member: There are lots of members outside of the Perimeter. Mr. Dewar: The Liberals, I stated. An Honourable Member: Oh, that is not nice. Bring back Gwen. Mr. Dewar: That is interesting.

He says, bring back Gwen, but I remember Gwen Charles, the former member for Selkirk, in a newspaper

article stated there are no environmentalists left in the Liberal caucus. This is the position of one of their former mem bers. Gwen Charles stated this, so I am glad you want her back, especially how she has denounced your leader so often in the local media. I am surprised you would like her back. Anyway, she is very honest. She is very, very truthful at least in that one incident where she did say that there are no environmentalists left in the Liberal caucus. She certainly was accurate in that analysis.

Some of the chemicals found in this particular area: trichloroethylene, and trichloroethane, that would be TCE and TCA. They are manufactured organic solve nts, colour less liquids with a chloroform-like odour. They are used as cleaning solvents in dry cleaning and degreasing agents in industry. They have been used at the plant in the Bristol area for around 30 years, and I was raised in that general area, maybe five, six miles away from the plant. I remember every summer, actually throughout the year w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-47
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 47.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b61594a2c8fb90da50f735bef34e974d619aa416

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