Manitoba Hansard — 25 July 1991 (Sitting 93, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-93

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis c. Rocan Speaker VOL. XL No. 93 ·1:30 p.m., THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1991 Printed by the Office of the a.- Printer, Provlnt:s of Msn/tob« ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB- Liberal; NO- New Democrat; PC- Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CARR, James 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,C iif 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 LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood 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 Rin Flon · La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY LIB NO NO LIB LIB NO LIB NO PC PC PC PC NO NO PC PC PC LIB PC PC NO NO PC PC NO LIB PC NO PC NO LIB NO PC NO PC NO PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NO PC NO PC PC PC PC NO PC NO PC PC NO NO

5312 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, July 25, 1991 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: To the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member. It conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is itthe will of the House to have the petition read? Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the province of Manitoba, humb ly sheweth: THATthe Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines," in its current location, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport. THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are employed at the airport is not in the best interests of the community. THAT "The Pines" project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public.

THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pines" project will give a foothold to commercial development which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighbourhood. WHEREFORE your petitioners humb ly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbourhood by requesting the provincial government to withdraw provincial funding of "The Pines" project. AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. *** Mr. Speaker: To the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member.

It conforms 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? Mr. Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth: THAT the Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines, • in its current location, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport.

THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are employed at the airport is not in the best interests of the community. THAT "The Pines" project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public. THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pines" project will give a foothold to commercial development which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighb ourhood. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbourho od by requesting the provincial government to withdraw provincial funding of "The Pines" project.

AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 19 89-90 Annual Report of the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for 19 90-91 of the Grim inal Injuries Compensation Board. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Oak Hammock Marsh Ducks Unlimited Headquarters Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We have seen the Conservative government in power

5313 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 25, 1991 over their majority government act in quite a bit of a different manner than they did in a minority gove rnmen t. Th e con sensus sty le of the government is gone. The word "arrogant" has been ascribed to this government. The insensitive words have been described to this government. Words that had been associated only with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in the past are now being used on the streets and in the avenues in the province of Manitoba.

There is always a chance to change, and there is always a chance to show sensitivity to the issues that are facing Manitobans. Yesterday, again, many other Canadians now have joined Manitoba groups to oppose the Ducks Unlimited complex at Oak Hammock Marsh-interesting comments, I might add, from the Conservative caucus on the most recent story. Conservation Canada, Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh, the Manitoba Naturalists Club, the Sierra Club have joined countless other Manitobans who have presented briefs before Bill 38 and have presen ted opinions before this government on this complex.

Will the Premier now agree to take the leadership position that Manitobans need and want on this complex, the Ducks Unlimited complex at Oak Hammock Marsh? Would he impose the vision of Manitobans to leave that area as a wetlands area, not an area with asphalt and buildings, et cetera, that are envisioned in the plan being sponsored by his Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)? Would he, as the Premier, withdraw the money that his government is providing to this complex and take the leadership position and cancel that program and that building for the Oak Hammock Marsh in Manitoba? • (1 335) Hon.

Gar y Fllmon {Premie r): Mr. Speaker, anyone who might want to, for their own political purposes, describe this government as arrogant has either a short memory or did not experience the Pawley years in this province. If they wanted to look at arrogance, they ought to look at some of the behaviour and some of the responses of people like Parasiuk, Schroeder, Lecuyer and many others. They obviously have not seen real arrogance when they talk about that. We will ignore those political cheap shots, and we will look directly at the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

I say, very sincerely, this government will abide by all of the legislation, all of the requirements and regulations of The Environment Act as they were laid out, passed and conceived by the former NDP administration. There is, in that legislation, what has been termed by New Democrats as the toughest, most restrictive environmental legislation in the entire country. There is the most restrictive environmental assessment and review process.

The most thorough and complete environmental assessment and review that has ever been done in this province was done on the Oak Hammock Marsh development proposal of Ducks Unlimited, with witnesses expert on both sides of the case and a third-party independent review. That proposal was given licensing with conditions, and we as a government will abide by that legislation that was conceived and passed by the New Democrats. We will abide by that thorough complete review process that was conceived by that legislation. We will abide by it and not politically interfere with it. Mr.

Doer: Thank you very much to the Premier. 811138 Withdrawal Mr. Gary Doer {Leader of the Opposition): If he is going to abide by the legislation passed by the New Democrats, I guess he does not need Bill 38 to give his cabinet more power to override the existing legislation. I guess we got an admission from the Premier today that he is going to withdraw Bill 38 finally. He is going to finally listen to the people of this province.

If the Premier is going to abide by his word that he gave us in Question Period just a minute ago, he will instruct his ministers to withdraw Bill 38 so indeed we can abide by the existing legislation . Why is he afraid of the court action from the Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh? Why does he want to ascribe to his cabinet more power that is not there pr esently by the form er New Dem ocratic legislation? Will he now agree to withdraw Bill 38 and listen to the people of Manitoba? Do not give more power to cabinet to override the will of the public.

Do not be afraid of court action from the Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh and indeed abide by the former legislation which is in place. Hon. Gary Fllmon {Premier): As has been pointed out very accurately and very honestly by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 38 simply

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANIT OBA 5314 confirms in legislation the powers that were taken upon the go vernm ent by the former NDP administration, by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) when he was Minister of Natural Resources, by several successive NDP ministers by regulation, Mr. Speaker. What they took on upon themselves as government, by regulation, we have confirmed in law to ensure that legally everything they did is confirmed by Bill 38. That is all that has been done. Any lawyer will confirm that for the opposition party. A (1 340) Mr.

Doer: Any lawyer will confirm the government was so afraid of a court case from Friends of Oak Hammock Marsh that they had to give their cabinet more power so they would not have to worry about the will of the people to stop this project. That is what happened with this government and Bill 38. Oak Hammock Marsh Ducks Unlimited Headquarters Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier, yesterday, in answers to the media and answers in the House , stated that the Clean Environment Commission was an arms-length process from government. There were two parts of the decision dealing with this project.

One was the environmental process; the other was the funding decision. The Premier chairs Treasury Board; the Premier chairs cabinet. This provincial cabinet had ostracized hun dreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to go into this project. Will the Premier now take a leadership position and withdraw the provincial money, money that could be used in programs like the Winnipeg Education Centre, money that could be used in our community colleges, money that could be used in our public education system?

Would he withdraw the money that he has authorized for this unneeded project so that it could really be spent on the priority areas ofthis province, not on a building in the middle of the wetland region? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, to refute the

preamble of the Leader of the Opposition, that Bill 38 simply confirms exactly the same powers that were put in place by the cabinet of the former New Democratic administration. In effect, all we are doing is making an honest man of the member tor Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). That is all that we are doing. · Again, to correct the information that has been put on the table by the Leader of the Opposition, the money that has been inve sted from the Canada-Manitoba Tourism Agreement in the Oak Hammock Marsh development is money that, if it were not used for that purpose, would lapse.

That money would not be available for Education, would not be available for Health, would not be available for anything. It is part of an agreement that was ne gotiated and signe d by the former New Democratic administration. The money that comes out of Natural Resources is money that was already going to the interpretive centre of Oak Hammock Marsh. It was in the annual operational budgets for Oak Hammock. It remains coming out of the Natural Resources department for the support of Oak Hammock Marsh in a new, expanded interpretive centre, Mr.

Speaker, so let him not try and mislead the public or misinterpret that. Rural Manitoba Municipal Funding Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his colleagues continue to criticize their federal cousins for offloading services onto the provinces reducing EPF funding, but the provincial Conservatives are doing the same thing to our municipalities, for example, offloading 2,000 kilometres of roads in the last budget, roads which mu nicipalities are refusing to pick up.

I have a copy of the Conservative press release from the last election, which outlines this government's commitment to development in rural Manitoba, but this press release reads like a bunch of broken promises. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier. Why have he and his colleagues chosen to break promises to rural Manitobans by offioading services onto mu nicipalities, cuttin g back muni cipal operating grants and refusing to go ahead with previous commitments? Is it because they now have a Tory majority and do not have to keep their promises? A (1 345) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I would recommend to the member for Swan River that, rather than listening to her colleagues and reading old press releases, she go out there and talk to rural Manitobans because rural Manitobans are absolutely delighted with the promises and the

5315 LEGISL ATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANIT OBA July 25, 1991 commitments that we are keeping to them. Go out and talk to the people about the fact that, by this year-e nd, we will have 450 decentralized positions in rural Manitoba. Talk to the people of rural Manitoba about the Rural Development Bond program that will see $10 million of investment in rural Manitoba for economic development.

Talk to the people of rural Manitoba about the Southern Development Initiative that will see tens of mill ions of dollars of economic development in rural Manitoba-tal k-$1 9 mi!Hon in communities such as Winkler, Morden, Steinbach, Brandon, Portage Ia Prairie, Teulon, Dauphin, Mr. Speaker, all of those areas. Talk to the people of rural Manitoba about $45 million in the GRIP program that will go into the hands of rural Manitobans. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Premier that I have been out in rural Manitoba, and I have talked to people. They do not believe- Mr. Speaker : Order, please.

I remin d the honourable member, this is not a time for debate. The honourable member, with her supplementary question. Ms. Wowchu k: The federal government's revenue to Manitoba has increased by 5.2 percent according to this government's own budget, yet these increa ses have not been passed onto municipalities. Instead, programs and services are being offloaded onto the backs of rural Manitobans.

I ask the Premier: Given the fact that he is accusing the federal government of being dishonest and not transfe rring money back to the provinces, why has his government reduced funding to the municipalities by over 13 percent? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the provincial municipal tax- sharing agreement has been in place for many, many years. It was established back by the Schreyer gove rnment. It was only the NDP government of Howard Pawley that attempted to limit the transfers and in fact took away 14 percent of the incr ease from the rur al Mani toba municipalities.

We allowed that to flow so that they got a massive increase in 19 88. Despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition said that the provincial government needed the money much, much more, that money flowed into the hands of rural municipalities. He justified it. He said, after all, we need the money more. He said, we pay for health care. He said, we pay for environment; we pay for education, all those expensive services. He said, rural municipalities are going to have to do with less. He said, we are proud of the fact that we are limiting it, because we have greater needs, Mr. Speaker.

That was the greatest travesty that was ever foisted upon rural municipalities in the province. We would not do that. We are flowing along a tax-sharing agreement, unimpeded, as it was designed by the Schreyer administration for the benefit of rural municipalities. Policing Services Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Pilot Mound Council has asked the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council to provide policing services for them because they can no longer afford the RCMP costs and extra policing costs that they have been asked to pick up.

Will the Premier now commit assistance to Pilot Mound and other rural communities which have not been able to afford the additional costs, along with the other offloa ding that they have been asked to pick up so that small towns and municipalities can have policing services that they need? * (1 350) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the issue of RCMP costs has been raised by the member for Swan River, because I think that it is time that the New Democrats got up and applauded the efforts of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) for all the work that he did over a period of more than a year.

He stood alone amongst Justice ministers in this country, saying, we will not allow the federal government to unilaterally impose major increases in costs on the municipalities and the provinces of this country. As a result of his efforts , we beat back the federal government. They have one year in which they will not increase the costs, they will not move to a new form ula and they have agreed to come to the table to negotiate a new rate and not do it unilaterally. As a result, the municipalities of this province have been saved millions and millions of dollars, Mr.

Speaker, because of his efforts, and I would expect that, the next time the member for Swan River gets up, it is to compliment the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) on his eff orts.

July 25, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA 5316 The Rotary Pines Project Funding Review Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Urban Aff airs. Previously, we have heard from the former federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Lewis, and from Mr. Marshall Rothstein, who was the chairman of the Transportation Industry Development Advisory Committee, of their opposition to The Pines project. Today I want to table a further letter, dated July 22 of this year, from the now Minister of Transport, Mr.

Corbeil, which goes further than just opposing the project but in fact states in part: "Without legislative protection, Winnipeg International Airport, and by precedent, all other fe deral, provincial, municipal and private airp orts/ae rodromes in Mani toba become open to pressure .... w Mr. Speaker, given this very clear prediction by the federal Minister of Transport of the dire consequences of this project on the airport in Winnipeg and around the province from the very people who will set those restrictions, will the minister now rethink his blind commitment to this project. Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated on a number of occasions, we are of the view that the current review of Plan Winnipeg is the process that needs to be gone through respecting concerns over the airport and its future. As a matter of fact, those very concerns and that very recommendation is contained in the report of the airport advisory committee to the Minister of Urban Affa irs, in its report from last summer. We are following their recommendations in that regard. They have also indicated that provincial legislation should be implemented, as it has been in Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I am assured that the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) would indicate that Mr. Corbeil has now written to every province in the country suggesting the same kind of activity for their airports. If they have not, then it is a little suspect. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this minister will not be the one who sets those restrictions.

I want to just quote very briefly from the let ter aga in: "The en actm ent of protective legislation by the Province of Manitoba, which was recomm ended by the Advisory Comm ittee established by the Province in 19 89, is in my view the best approach to deal with an issue like that raised by the proposed Rotary Pines development. w Why is this minister passing the buck down to the city official s, the very people who have done nothing but allowed development around the airport which has been adverse to the interests of that airport for the people of this province? Mr. Ernst: Mr.

Speaker, I repeat again for the benefit of the member for St. James. It is our view that the process of Plan Winnipeg, with extensive public hearings, with detailed analysis of problems, not just one specific project, not just subdivisions in the constituency of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), for instance, but a number of existing areas that have been there for a long time, which also need addressing, those, quite frankly, from the member for St. James' constituency. A number of those issues need to be dealt with. The primary responsibility for that falls on the City of Winnipeg.

They will deal with that through the process of Plan Winnipeg. At such time as their recommendations come forward in the renewed Plan Winnipeg agreement, if they are inadequate in our view, we will take other necessary action to ensure that the public interest is protected. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the time for necessary action is now. The minister says that the city has primary responsibility, but he and the provincial government are the ones who are promoting and pushing ahead The Pines project.

My question for the minister: Given that he has such faith in the public process which he says will ensue, the review of the airport, will he put The Pines project on hold until such time as that review is completed? That is the only logical thing to do, given the conclusions he has just put to this House. * (1 355) Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, and I will repeat it again for my honourable friend, the process of the review of Plan Winnipeg is now underway. It is anticipated to be completed by June 1 of next year.

That process will involve extensive public hearings, extensive analysis of planning problems associated with the city of Winnipeg. They are the primary planning authority for the city. They have the prim ary responsi bility. When they have comple ted their analysis, comple ted the ir recommendations with regard to Plan Winnipeg, then we will address the issue if that

5317 LEGISL ATIVE ASSE MBL Y OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 recommendation under Plan Winnipeg does not go far enough in our view. In the interim, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated I will not allow any changes to Plan Winnipeg that have any connection with the airport. Port of Churchill All-Par ty Committee Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Before the election, this government promised jobs for the North, a commitment to the Port of Churchill and educational opportunities in the North.

This year, this government is taking out over $200,000 in health care user fees from the North, along with the federal Conservatives who have taken over 25 jobs out of the Port of Churchill alone, a shutdown in the Northern Youth Corps, and a shutdown of the employment services office in Churchill. My question is to the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

Since, at this late date, only one ship from Poland has been committed to the port for this year, why has the Minister of Highways and Transportation not set up an all-p arty delegation, including The Pas Port of Churchill committee to go to Ottawa and meet with the federal ministers who are refusing to support this port? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, time and time again, I have put forward the position of this government and myself and the action that we have taken regarding the Port of Churchill. Our position is not a political position.

I think all members of this House have the same support for the Port of Churchill, and I indicated just last week that I am hoping to meet with the federal minister. I anticipate doing that within the week, and failing to have a positive response to him, I have indicated an invitation to members that I would then try and see whether we could jointly organize to put pressure on. lime is running short in Churchill. The bay is open. Grain could be moving through there .

I am still hoping very positively that the Wheat Board is going to be announcing some sales for grain to move through the Port of Churchill very shortly. Government Initiatives Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. Since two years ago, a delegation of northern MLAs, officials and supporters were able to force the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to reverse his stand. I want to ask the minister once again why he will not go to bat for Churchill this time instead of writing more ineffective and futile letters to Ottawa? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that the member get his head out of the sand if he has any misconception that they as a group went forward and forced the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to change his mind because that is not the way the game is being played and it does not work that way. I will continue, along with my colleagues, to keep pushing and try to influe nce and lobby as best we can in terms of trying to get action through the Port of Churchill. Mr. Lathlln: Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister: I am just looking at what the reality is out there up north. At a time when Ma nit oba is looking at a new record gr ain production, does the minister not recognize the fact that the port needs at least 700,000 tonnes to break even and deserves a minimum of 3 percent of Canadian grain shipments? Why has this minister never announced a single comm itment of his government to utiliz e and upgrade the Port of Churchill? Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member again makes reference to the North and the lack of interest of this government.

I might just indicate to him that we have two major bridges that we will be offi cially opening at the end of this month, the Bakers Narrows bridge as well as the Jack River bridge at Norway House, bridges that cost millions of dollars and are justifiably built up in the North. So the commitment of this government to the North is well noted in terms of not only words but in actions as well. If the member wants to go through the history of what has happened with the Port of Churchill since the time when there were 7,000 people living in Churchill, under their administration, we are down to 700 right now.

Let him look at the whole history of what has happened and the position that we have take n in terms of support for the communities up north.

Jul y 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5318 * (1 400) Grand Beach Concessions Tender Process Mr.CIIfEvans(lnterlake): Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, we have witnessed many examples of the ques tionable tendering policies of this government. The Provincial Auditor himself has recently criticized these practices. Mr. Speaker, last year, before election, the proposal call for Grand Beach concessions was sent out and subsequently contracted.

A copy of the criteria used in selecting the tender clearly shows that it was markedly different from the criteria contained in the original call for proposals, including the addition of criteria and the waiting of criteria. My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister tell this House why their criteria were changed and why applicants were not informed of the changes, as required in his department's tendering policy? Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice in terms of the specifics.

I point out to the honourable member that these are indeed proposal calls, and that is quite a different matter than a tender call where it is a matter of dollars and cents. Park planners, park managers have to be satisfied that the proposal being put forward by different individuals and groups of individuals for the various activities on a site such as Grand Beach have to, in the opinion of the park's managers, provide the kind of entertainment opportunities, conce ssio n opportu nities that are deemed appropriate for that parti cular park. Mr. Cllf Evans: Mr.

Speaker, in correspondence to one of the unsuccessful applicants, the minister indicated that an objective decision-making process was used, yet in another letter from one of his depar tment hea ds, stated that there was a subjective element involved in the process. Will the minister te ll this House what that subjective element was? Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I can first of all indicate to the honourable member that it is not a subjective or-what was the other one?-objective decision made by the minister or anybody in the minister's office .

This is a matter that the park's director, with capable assistants within the branch who view the various proposals that come forward from time to time- and they vary in a very wide-ranging form. They make the decision with respect to the awarding of any of the particular proposals received. Leaseholder Compensation Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, the previous leaseholder of Grand Beach concessions had its contract cancelled in 19 89 and is awaiting compensation for leasehold improvements, as stipulated in the contract with this department.

Can the minister indicate what the status of this compensation is and why the previous leaseholder has still not received payment for leasehold improvements made during its tenure? Hon. Harry En ns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice. Public Utilities Board Manitoba Hydro Rate Review Mr. Ben Svelnson (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans, I believe, will soon see the positive effects of Bill 70. Yesterday, the PUB refused MTS's requested 4.5 percent increase for '91 -92 for local services to 1 .5 for '91 and has refused to approve a 19 92 increase.

This decision will result in more money staying in the pockets of all Manitobans. My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the First Minister. In view of the PUB ruling with respect to MTS rates, will the PUB be examining Hydro rates as well? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I thank the member for giving me notice of that question. I am rather disappointed that the New Democrats and liberals opposite are opposed to lower rates for ratepayers in Manitoba Telephone System. This indeed is an example of one of the tangible, real effects of- An Honourable Member: Oz Pedde's salary. Mr. Fllmon: That is right.

It is down 1. 5 percent, Mr. Speaker, and that is a very positive effect of both good management and Bill 70. The fact of the matter is, this decision by the PUB that flows directly from Bill 70, a freeze on public sector wages, will result in a reduction of rates and a saving to, for instance, every resident in Winnipeg of some $4.50 per year. That is a very substantial reduction in our judgment and a direct saving from

5319 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 the pocketbooks of every consumer. Similarly, not only residents but business people throughout the province will benefit by that decision. As the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Neufeld) has said, we will ensure that the similar savings that accrue to Manitoba Hydro as a result of Bill 70 will also be passed along to the ratepayer. We bel ieve that those savings are readily calculable and can indeed be passed along directly to the ratepayer. I am sure the minister responsible will see to it that happens. Pharmacare Refund Process Mr.

Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Last month the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) wrote the Minister of Health about the lengthy waiting period for Pharmacare reimbursement. The minister replied that the waiting period was at an average of six and a half weeks. That was two weeks more than last year. The minister said this will come back to normal within a few weeks. Ho wever, last week, we co ntacted the Pharmacare office. That was in fact by some of the constituents. The Pharmacare office was telling it will take 1 0 weeks minimum for their process.

Can the minister tell this House whether this 1 0-week pe riod for seniors and people with long-term disabilities is an acceptable way of working? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, no, of course not. My understanding is that the waiting period of time with the year-end filings had gone up to 1 0 weeks some month and a half ago. As we have done in past years, we have put casual and other staff to work to supplement the permanent staff under the Pharm acare Refund Program.

As of a couple of weeks ago, when I checked as a result of the inquir y from the memb er for Crescentwood, I believe they were in the six-week range return and had hoped to get between four and five weeks now. I believe that they are, if not close to accomplishing that, very close. The ten-week period did exist, and we made efforts to rectify that. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, according to the Pharmacare office, a claim is first verified by a pharmacist, then the pharmacist checks for the contents, then the microfilm is made. It is a very lengthy procedure.

We do not dispute the mechanism, but we are asking the minister to form the system so that people can get their claim within four weeks. Mr. Orchard: I accept my honourable friend's good advice. Pharmacare Card Implementation Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, during the 19 88 election campaign and in 19 90, I guess all the parties made the promise for a Pharmacare card. Can the minister tell this House when finally we will have the Phar macare car d ? I mu st apologize-it was not this party, but it was the NDP and the Liberals who made the promise here. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, as often happens, New Democrats and Liberals promise, but we take action, which, with your indulgence, I would share a little story that I once heard about the New Democrats. Okay, I am sorry. Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend might know, we hosted the first national conference on plastic card technology last year, the report of which has been circulated to those provincial participants. We had inte rnationa l participation in that. Individuals from France were here because they have some technology that is at work in plastic card technology. Mr.

Speaker, that report is under review by the department, because if one of them takes a process of using latest technology, we think there might be an appropriate opportunity for Manitoba to not narrowly focus that technology and its potential benefits to the Pharmacare program alone, but are seeking whether there is an appropriate opportunity in Manitoba to have the card replace the Manitoba Health Services Commission card for other insured services as well. Education Funding Reform Mr. Dave Chomlak {KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, the session started out with the Conservative majority government putting public schools in a financial crisis and offloading, in the words of the minister, a 1 0 percent increase in property taxes to the public schools.

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5320 It is ending with the minister refusing to make public his education advisory report, Mr. Speaker, and refusing to make this report public, even though all previous ones have been made public. Will the minister advise this House today when the new education funding formula will be in place, and can he tell us, will it be as unfair as the present one which sees more money going to schools like Ravenscourt and Balmoral in increases than to all the special needs students in the province of Manitoba combined? •

(1410) Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, early in this session, that same question was posed with regard to when we would see a new funding formula. I indicated to the member at that time that a new funding formula would be in place for the 1992 school year. That commitment still stands. Mr. Speaker, the finance advisory committee have deliberated on this matter, have brought their recommendations to me. That is now before the department.

Very soon, we will be gathering a meeting of the interorganizational group to share with them the advice that has been given to us by the advisory committee. We will be, this fall, going to all the school divisions and sharing with them the approach that will be taken. Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that the funding formula will not be as unfair as the former formula was. Indeed, this is one that will treat all schools as equitably as is possible, given the circumstances of this province. Mr. Chomlak: I will believe that when I see it, Mr. Speaker. Federal Commitments Mr.

Dave Ch omlak (KI Idon an) : My supplementary to the same minister is, the government is involved with some kind of core of core funding announcements or discussions with the federal government. Is this Minister of Education and Training involved in those discussions because they supposedly involve education and training, and will he advise this House, if he is not involved, why he is not, because programs like ESL, Winnipeg Education Centre, BUNTEP and ACCESS have been cut by the federal government? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training) : Mr.

Speaker, I think we have indicated also, on many occasions, that our commitment to those programs is solid. I have also indicated that we are doing everything we can to enhance the opportunities for those disadvantaged Manitobans who are either socially or economically disadvantaged in accessing programs. within our school system. That spirit and that attitude will continue as long as I am minister and as long as we are government. High School Bursary Program Reinstatement Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan) : Mr.

Speaker, that attitude has meant cutbacks in ESL, cutbacks in high school bursaries, cutbacks in Native programs, cutbacks to the Winnipeg Education Centre, cutbacks to ACCESS, cutbacks to BUNTEP, cutbacks to public schools. Mr. Speak er: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan, with his final supplementary question. Mr. Chomlak: My final supplementary is to this minister. In about a month, the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre commences. Has he done anything on the High School Bursary programs because the students are again being told one thing by Social Services and another thing by the minister?

Has he moved, and will those bursaries be reinstated for the adults? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training) : Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member asks a repetitious question, and may I tell him once again that I have indicated to the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre, to Winnipeg No. 1 and to the students who have come forth that we are going to be looking at, and we are looking presently at a way in which we can accommodate those students who attend the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre from outside of the school division.

That is where the bursaries are needed most because that is where the greatest cost is for the individual student. I have made that commitment, and when that solution has been found, I will be then in a position to make that announcement. I can assure the member that we are looking forward to making that announcement before the next school year.

5321 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have a ruling for the House. Yesterday, during Oral Questions, I took under advisement a document tabled by the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay), which she identified as, when tabling it, a petition. My concern was that under our rules there are particular requirements relating to petitions to the Legislative Assembly, and specific times are set out in routine proceedings for presenting and for reading and receiving them.

Oral Questions is not the appropriate time for dealing with these petitions, as all members know. I have reviewed the honourable member's document and find that is does not meet the requirements of our rules respecting petitions to the Legislative Assembly and indeed was not compiled as a petition to the Legislative Assembly, which I believe the honourable member fully understood. However, the document is acceptable as a tabled paper, and I am therefore ruling it in order as such.

In doing so, I should mention that there have been several cases in relatively recent past sessions where similar documents have been accepted by this House as tabled papers. Nonpolitical Statement Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) : May I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burr ows have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Does he have leave? Leave. It is agreed. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to the ecumenical Chr istian organization Habitat for Humanity Incorporated, Winnipeg.

This week 130 volunteers are building three houses on Angus Street in north Point Douglas. In previous years, 1 0 new homes have been built and eight homes renovated. Habitat does not build homes for the poor but rather in partnership with the poor. The goal is to provide a decent house in a decent community for God's people in need. The houses are simple and are sold on the basis of Biblical economics-no profit and no interest. The recipients assume a mortgage and contribute 500 hours of sweat equity in the construction of their home and others' homes. Habitat for Humanity meets two needs.

What the poor need and receive is not charity but capital, not case workers but coworkers. What the rich need is a wise, honourable and just way of divesting themselves of their overabundance, a need which is met through donations of many kinds including labour. I urge all members of the Manitoba Legislature to join me in congratulating the building contractors and suppliers, the financial supporters, the hu ndreds of volunteers including 40 volunteers from three other provinces and five states and especially to congratulate the three tam ilies who will move into their new homes on Saturday.

May Habitat for Humanity continue to practise the theology of the hammer and build many more homes with people in need and create community in the process. * * * Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave of the House to revert to tablings. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave to revert back to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports? Leave? It is agreed. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1990-91 Annual Report of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund of the province.

ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to petition the House to determine whether or not there is a willingness to waive private members' hour. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed? Yes, it is agreed. Mr. Manness: Would you call the bills in the following order: 41, 42, 49, 54, 59, 66, 69, 72, 38, then Bill 70, then the concurrence motion, then Bill 76.

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5322 DEBATE ON THIRD READINGS-AMENDED BILLS Blll 41- The Public Schools Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 41 , The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the honourable me mber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill41 , I can indicate that I will be the final speaker from our side on this particular matter. Because we had an opportunity to discuss this matter fairly extensively during second reading, my comments will be very, very limited. We put our comments on the record, Mr.

Speaker, and we gave the government and the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Derkach) some advice from this side of the House with respect to, not as mu ch the factors affecting this par ticular amendment, but future amendments to The Public Schools Act, a process that the minister is undertaking at this time in terms of public hearings. We will be holding the minister to those points as well as another point that relates to this particular amendment that we are quite concerned about.

We are asking the minister to very strongly consider the effectiveness of the present transportation system and what has been advised by individuals in the system to us to appear to be a move on the side of this minister to privatize the transportation system. We say, something that is working as well as the bus transportation system does not need to be fixed in that aspect, and the minister should go very warily in terms of changes he is going to make to the transportation system and bus transport in this province, one of the finest, I dare say, probably on the continent.

With those comments, I will close debate from members on this side of the House with respect to this particular amendment. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 41 , The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? * (1 420) Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 42- The Public Schools Finance Board Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 42, The Public Schools Finance Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur a Commission des finances des ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I turn this, on behalf of the member for Kildonan. Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Mr. Speaker, again we did put our comments on the record with respect to this bill in second reading. I can indicate that I will be the last speaker from members on this side of the House with respect to this particular bill.

We are happy to see that the province is moving to implementthe recommendations of the Provincial Auditor with respect to the functioning of the Public Schools Finance Board and the Department of Education. With those com me nts, that concludes my remarks with respect to this bill. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 42, The Public Schools Finance Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur a Commission des finances des ecoles publiques. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 49- The Colleges and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 49, The Colleges and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur les colleges et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson.

5323 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 M.r. �te�e Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, on th1s b111_1 �ust wantto.indicate for the record our strong oppos1t1on, despite the fact this matter was amended to deal with some of the concerns that were expressed. Indeed our Education critic will be indi cating why this bill is sti ll absolutely unacceptable and why we will be opposing it at third reading stage. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, 1 want to rise on third reading of Bill 49 to register some concerns as well as my opposition to this bill.

I think from the point of view of the Parkland region and the Parkland Campus of the Assiniboine Comm unity College, there are some serious concerns. The member for Roblin-Russell, who is the Minister of Education (Mr.

Derkach), is presiding o� er a m� jor change with the community colleges in th1s province, one that is very costly, I might add, and ironically so, considering the fact that the government says they have to freeze wages on the one hand and in the meantime they are prepared to spend millions of dollars for this privatization of community colleges -(interject ion)- Well, it is, and the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) is going to have to answer to the residents of the Parkland region if the services delivered by the Parkland Campus are in any way deteriorated as a result of this move.

This minister, this MLA, is going to be the one who is going to be held directly responsible, and it will rest on his shoulders. H the Parkland Campus expands in the future as a result of the board that is put in place of Brandon residents surrounding the major campus at Assiniboine Community College's intentions to expand the services in the Parkland, we will all be very pleased with that, but I have some serious concerns that will in fact take place.

If it does, the minister will not hear the complaints, but he certainly will if we have serious cutbacks and reductions in the services of the Parkland Campus of Assiniboine Community College which was put in place by our government as a result of government policy for decentralization for the development of satellite campuses and facilities. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) That is why the facility in Dauphin exists today, because of government policy.

In this arm's-length arrangement that this Minister of Education is now putting forward, we will no longer see government pol�cy imposed on the community colleges, and 1 behave that makes the campus in the Dauphin area serving the Parkland vulnerable and at risk. That is something that the Minister of Education will have to bear the full responsibility for if there are major reductions in the succeeding years as a result of this c�ange by this government.

He no longer will be directly able to ensure, as the previous New Democratic government was when it established that campus, that in fact those service would be there and would be expanded. In this case, Madam Deputy Speaker, this minister will be responsible and he will have to answer to the people of the Parkland.

That should be on the record and we will watch to see how this works out, being reminded, of course , that this government is prepared to spend a million dollars this year and nearly a million dollars in succeeding years for major cost increases because of this effort by their part, a direct contradiction in their policies as it regards -(in terjection)- Well, it is costing the government money. You are not worried about next year are you? Now the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) is saying not this year. Well, he is not worried about costs that are incurred for future years.

We are not pleased to see major expenditures while the government is freezing salaries and cutting back in other areas and slashing in health care and home care and education, all of the things that my colleagues would bring forward, and underspending in Agriculture by $1 6 million last year. No, we do not want to see those cuts while the government can throw money around for future years and commit future governments to expenditures of some million dollars a year just for an ideological, philosophical reason.

That Is what is happening here and again, I say, that this Minister of Education will be held responsible for any cuts in services at Assiniboine Community College as a result of this act and his actions as Minister of Education. Thank you. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an interesting bill, an interesting bill in the sense that it is one of the few, I think, in this Legislature in which each party has a different position, and often that is not the case.

There are some times when we agree together, some times when we agree to disagree, but it is an unusual bill which in fact has three different attitudes towards the governing of our community college system.

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5324 Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the tragedies in Manitoba education, and it has been an ongoing tragedy, has been the lack of attention paid to commu nity colleges. In this province we have experienced the lowest percentage of young people going on to commu nity colleges, per capita, of any province in the country. This is not new, this is not the fault of this government, this has been an ongoing attitude towards our communi ty colleges which has not worked in the best interests of the young people of the province of Manitoba.

We have watched them all too often be used as the whipping boy of the Depar tment of Educ ati on when somebody needed to find cuts somewhere. The commu nity colleges often became the target of that cutting system, and the result was the lack of expansion of those commu nity colleges. One of the difficulties in the Department of Education is that it is very massive. It is very, very large. Staff have to focus on specifics within the department, and all too often the specifics have been K-12. Nobody can really argue about that because the mandate of the province in terms of education is really K-12 .

That was the original th ought s in the mi nds of the Fath ers of Confederation. The expansion of universities and commu nity colleges has been very much a 20th Century concept, and that is why the federal government, quite frankly, became involved in supporting the post-secondary system where it has never supported the K-1 2 system. Unfortunately, as we have seen, that has not changed the focus particularly of departments of education.

Some provinces have dealt with it in a way unique from ours, and one which I think is a movement in the right direction. * (1 430) I would ask the Minister of Education to look into it in more depth with respect to this province, and that is the separation of the Department of Education into two departments, one K-12 and the other post-secondary education. In this case, a good mix would be post-secondary education and training. I think in light of the amounts of money, quite frankly, spent on education, it makes sense to have two departments.

This would mean that there would be an equal focus given to post-secondary education and training in this province, something which I do not believe is happening at the present time. The minister decided-1 would like to think that is how it was done-that perhaps one of the ways in which more time and attention could be focused on com mu nity colleges was to give them some governance.

That would allow the board of the community colleges in much the way that the University Grants Commission focuses on the needs of our uni versity sector-al though it is primarily the funding model for that sector, but at least it does give another authority above and beyond the Department of Education. So I do not fault the minister for looking at a governance model. I do not agree with the New Democratic Party that the status quo should be retained, because the status quo simply was not working. The status quo was not focusing enough time and energy and money on the community college system and on its growth.

So I do not fault the government for looking at a governance model as a means of focusing more time and attention on the commu nity college system in the province of Manitoba. Where I fault the go ve rnmen t is by the governance model that they chose. They could have taken, for example, the governance model in Newfoundland which moved to a system whereby all of the employees of the community colleges remained civil servants. All of their protection was there. Transfer from comm unity college was easily attained. We did not look at that model, or at least if we did, we rejected it.

We looked at models that have, quite frankly, not been successful in other provinces, and that is to provide an independent governance authority for all three commu nity colleges. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that bodes well for our commu nity colleges, because I think what it is going to do is to devolve powers to those commu nity colleges and to set them up in a competitive mode one with another. They are also going to be doing what our universities are doing at the present time, and that is turning to more and more private funding to finance the operations of their commu nity colleges.

That, particularly, will hurt those commu nity colleges, two of which of the three are not located in the city of Winnipeg. The city of Winnipeg has a natural attraction to business, because Winnipeg with almost 600,000 people has a broad business sector. If the Red River Commu nity College must turn to the business commu nity for additional funding, they will find that

5325 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOB A July 25, 1991 much more easily attained than if KCC has to turn to local business funding or ACC has to turn to local business funding. Quite frankly, the business base in the comm unity of Brandon, the base in the commu nity of The Pas, simply is not large. It is not easy to go out to a business commu nity that may, in fact, have a limited base of opportunity in terms of the number of businesses located there and get funding.

You are also going to find that it will not be easy for ACC, unfortunately, or KCC to attract business support in the commu nity of Winnipeg, who will be looking to their own commu nity college to fund. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this will in fact lead to a disp roportionate amount of money available to ACC and KCC in relationship to Red River Commu nity College. I also think that we are not making the best use of teaching staff. Teaching staff at the present time is transferable. That ease of transferability will be dissipated as a result of Bill 49.

That will not bode well for the students who will enter programs at our communi ty colleges. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish we could support this bill, because I think the minister got it half right. I think he got it half right in wanting a new form of governance, a new initiative which would bring more focus, more attention on our commun ity colleges, but I am very much afraid that the governance model that he has chosen will work to the disadvantage of the comm unity colleges. When you do something to the disadvantage of the commu nity colleges, the only ones who suffer are the students.

That is the whole purpose of an educational institution. It is to educate young people. If the opportunities for the education of those young people are less readily accessible in northern commu nities, because KCC has to cut back on its operations or has to charge unrealistic tuition fees, it will be the students who will suffer. If ACC has to offer less programming, then those children and those students will be drawn to other academic institutions in the province, driven away from their own local institution. That will not only impact upon those students, that will impact upon the whole commun ity.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great regret that I have to say the Liberal Party will not support this legislation, because quite frankly, we think the mi nister has been misguided. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I can indicate just for the record something I have indicated informally to the minister. I will be the last speaker from this side of the House with respect to this particular bill. I would just like to commence by perhaps dealing with several comments of the Leader of the third party with respect to this bill.

Unfortunately she misinterpreted the position of the New Democratic Party on this bill by stating-and if anyone read my remarks or any of our remarks in Hansard, they would see quite clearly what our position was with respect to this bill. We are certainly not advocating necessarily the status quo by any stretch of the imagination, and we made some very concrete suggestions during second reading debate with respect to what we thought could improve the situation. Secondly. in some respects the Leader of the third party is correct. What I see curious about this bill is, it is really a rather schizophrenic bill.

It provides all power to the minister and then it does not provide any power to the minister. It could be read both ways, and I am saying that of someone who has had some experience with drafting legislation of this kind, and it reads to me like a typical corporate entity with all power to the board or no power to the board, which is the way often that corporate entity legislation is drafted. It deals with delegated power, et cetera. So I think in that respect, the Leader of the third party is correct. The minister is kind of having it both ways.

He is keeping a foot in both camps on this bill, much like the Liberal Party is with respect to their position, sort of a foot in both camps, so both the government and the Liberal Party are quite cleverly trying to keep on both sides of the debate with respect to how this is going to work. Why is this bill before us today? Is it the result of consultation with the comm unity? Was there a hearing process? Was there consultation with students? Was there consultation with parents? Was there consultation with rural groups? Was there consultation with anybody?

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, definitively no consultation with respect to this legislation, with respect to this model that is being put in place. Madam Deputy Speaker, is this bill before us as a result of some kind of intensive study, some analysis undertaken by the minister? I think not,

July 25, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5326 although I must admit there is a task force report. The minister has one. He is refusing to give it to us. The bill has been put in place, the task force report has been there for some time. The minister is failing to give it to us, so we cannot even make a proper or an adequate assessment upon the basis that this model, this change, this governance has been put in place. So I have to suggest that there is no study, there is nothing in plac e tha t sug gests why the government is adopting the approach that it is adopting.

How can we on this side of the House make any kind of meaningful analysis if we do not know the basis upon which this bill, this whole system, was put into place? How are we to conclude that it is not simply being done for, I dare say, political reasons or, worse yet, philosophical reasons. The minister failed to give us any costs until finally it went to committee a couple of weeks ago. The minister failed to make the report public despite repeated demands. The minister failed to hold consultation.

How can we on this side of the House but conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, how can we not but conclude that it is being done for philosophical and/or political reasons, because no meaningful analysis, no rationale, no basis has been provided to us in order to make this particular decision. Madam Deputy Speaker, when changes were made to the com munity college system and the university system in the '60s and '70s, some very innovative changes by, I dare say, Conservative governments, it was done as a result of consultation, royal comm issions and the like, but no, not with this government, not with this minister.

What you have is what is being put in place, the pro-business, pro-Conservative agenda, just like in the letter that went out and said, we need a majority government to push our pro-business environment. * (1 440) That letter went out and all this session we have seen that kind of legislation being brought forward by members on that side of the House and by this Minister of Education. How else can we conclude otherwise, Madam Deputy Speaker? We have no choice but to conclude that it is philosophical.

We have no choice but to conclude it is political, because the minister is offering nothing and has failed to offer, despite repeated demands, any rational basis or information as to why this decision is taking place. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we say, when the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says that this is a result of privatization on the part of this government, it is true, because there has been no contrary facts offered on the other side.

It is a singl e- min ded atte mp t on the par t of this government, following the lead, following the role of their mentor in Ottawa, Brian Mulroney, and his sidekick, Michael Wilson, to go on market-driven training and to totally saturate the market. Every aspect of post-secondary education is now ma rket drive n. It is ma rket-d riven this and market-driven that. If it is not Workforce 2000 or private training, it is privatization of programs, and I will demonstrate that In the course of my comments.

It is all done for a philosophical, political move towards the market-driven, and we have said many times on this side of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is a role for market-driven programs. Let there be no suggestion on this side of the House that there is not a role for market-driven program s, but market-driven programs do not dominate, predominate and overwhelm every single other aspect of education. That Is what is happening under this Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach ) and un der this gover nmen t-total domin ation by market-driven programs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, why should we on this side of the House not conclude otherwise, when we see the manner and the fashion by which this kind of bill has been brought in? First of all, we have the climate of industrial relations that have been brought in under this particular government. Madam Deputy Speaker, they do not understand industrial relations. The minister is laughing. The minister was the most shocked person in the committee room.

He was the most shocked person in the committee room during committee hearings when he found out that the employees did not somehow hear his words, did not somehow hear his pronouncements. This minister was shocked to find out that the word had not been commu nicated to the minister. That is because they have no sense of industrial relations. If we look at Bill 70, if we look at The Workers Compensation Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we look at the government's, finally, reluctance to accept the amendment in this particular bill, we see this government does not understand labour relations.

Indeed, this government, this minister,

5327 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 does not understand human relations. I am sorry to say that, but it is a reality and it is a fact. If it ever became clear, it was certainly clear in the climate of the committee hearings that were held about two weeks ago, when presentation, after presentation, after presentation, indicated that the employees, the students, and all those individuals out there did not know where the government was going in college governance. That is what happens when you do not consult. That is what happens when you keep your task force report secret.

Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, all of this bill, this whole process has been brought in, in the climate of forced cuts and forced cutbacks at the community college expense. We have seen a retrenchment of funding to the community college system for the last three years and, in particular, this year we see a $3-million cut to the community college system and many, many programs cut. How else can we on this side of the House but conclude that the concept is ill conceived, ill thought out, philo sophical and political, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Thirdly, we have seen forced cuts in programs being offered by the community colleges across the board at all three commu nity colleges. Coinci den tally -let me reite rate that coincidentally, we see these courses being offered in the private sector. It is coincidental that these programs are offered in the private sector. You know, I want to set an example of a woman who came to see me yesterday in my office. She was told she would be retrained. She was told, go to one of the private retraining institutes in the city of Winnipeg, so she went. She sat down with them.

One of the private training institutes said, oh, yes, you can take our course. It is going to cost you $3,700, and we want $200 down. This woman does not have $200 to put down. She then went to Success College and was told, oh, yes, you can take our course. Indeed, you can qualify for a federal government grant to take our course, but it is going to cost you $4,500--$4 ,500 at a course that cost at Red River College $500 to $700. That is what this government is doing. That is what is going to continue on an increasing basis.

If you look at the list of programs cut by the gove rnmen t, not by the colle ges-let us be honest-the programs were cut by this minister and this government. If you look at them all, they say, alternatives, go to Success; alternatives, go to some other institute. Yes, you can go. You have to go on a waiting list, and you have to pay five, six, seven, eight, nine times the cost. That is what is happening with this total commi tment, this overriding preoccupation with private training. That is what is happening. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me cite the other example, the ESL program. Now there is an example.

English as a Second Language taught at Red River Community College: waiting list, 10 0 students; waiting to be tested, 1 00 students. What does the governmen t do? Wha t does the government order Red River Community College to do? Cut half of the program-cut half of the program where there is a waiting list of over 200 people. What does the government offer as an alternative? Oh, go to Winnipeg School Division No. 1 , where the government attempted only months earlier to cut out the ESL program. At least, they reneged. At least, the public got up in arms. A thousand people went to a rally.

They forced the government to retrench and back off that program. Unfortunately, the government then cut half of the program at Red River, but I di gress . This government says, we will cut half of the program at Red River Community College, and you can take it at Winnipeg School Division No. 1. You can take it at a place where there is another waiting list. In this context, in this environment, how can we on this side of the House conclude that the decision was rational or was well thought out or was done for educational reasons? It is very, very difficult.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we had anticipated amending the bill in a very wide range. It would be our preference to see a new, a different structure put in place. We had anticipated amending the bill in a wide variety of ways. I am just going to touch on some of those areas because the way, the context, that the committee hearings went, we did not put all of our amendment forward. We would have liked to have seen a better process for choosing boards to allow representation from regional bodies, as were so eloquently put by the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).

We would like to see more representation by those involve d, students, faculty, workers and others, because one of our greatest fears, and this day will come to pass, is that board will be another example of rampant Tory patronage. It will be the same crew that are on numbers of other boards and

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5328 will be giving the minister the same kind of advice that those same boards give. Madam Deputy Speaker, so they will only hear their side of the story, and that is what is dangerous because, right now, the minister is only hearing the Mulroney line and the minister is only hearing the Michael Wilson line. Then the board will only give him the same board line, and that is a concern of ours. • (1 450) We would like to see an amendment because of the confidentiality

section in the particular act, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the board- while meetings are supposed to open, if a matter is confidential, it can be made confidential. We would like to see an amendment that would somehow not allow the board to have and to put into place horrendous tuition fee increases, something that has happened at the universities at the expense of the students and something that will unfortunately happen as a result of this process. I have already indicated what is happening in the private sector.

Courses that cost $500 to $700 to attend at Red River can be got, yes, in the private sector for $3,000, $4,000, $5,000. We would like to put an amendment that would put some check on that kind of increase that will only have to be borne on the backs of students, Madam Deputy Speaker.

After asking in the House, on num erous occasions, after numerous attempts, the minister finally outlined for us what the costs of this governance model would be, and I dare say, Madam Deputy Speaker, those are probably not the total cost, but I will accept the cost and use them at the face value because they are the ones the minister provided. I think they probably underestimate ; nonetheless, we will accept those figures. So we are talking about a million dollars, close to a million dollars, $900,000 .

Madam Deputy Speaker, how many ESL students could that train, how many other students could that close to a million dollars train this year, how many people would be attending Assiniboine College, Keewatin, Red River, but for the minister taking that money and putting it into a whole new model, the whole new system that is not that well thought out? In addition, Madam Deputy Speaker, $800,000 per year will be the cost of implementation. The minister asks us to believe that this money will not be at the expense of programs and students.

That is the same minister who said funding private schools would not be the expense of the public school system. Madam Deputy Speaker, what we have seen is things like, this year, more money going to Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall in increases than all of the special needs students in the province of Manitoba combined. That is the same minister who said, oh, no, this money will not be lost to the public school system. I know the Liberals are chirping on this because they are sensitive.

The minister is sensitive, and he is chirping because he is telling us to believe now that this million dollars a year and this $800,000 a year in increased costs will not affect programming. How can it not affect programming when you have cut 19 programs this year, when you have cut 14 to 16 from Brand on, when you have cut from Keewatin? The minister expects us to believe that this money would not go into programming, would not go into students, would not go into faculty.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this cannot be the case, and it clearly will not be the case because this money would have been pumped into the education system, or alternatively, it would have gone to some form of tax relief, but do not let the minister mislead us or lead us down this path of believing somehow that this money would have been available to programming. We will be watching the implementation of this policy, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will be watching the implementation of this. We will be watching the cost factor. We will be watching the expenses factor.

We will be looking to see how all of these proliferating private schools that are now providing courses at horrendously increased costs that were formerly provided by the community college system, we will be looking to see how these schools are managed, how these schools are properly being dealt with. We will be watching. We will be watching the appointments to the board of directors of these community colleges.

We will be watching to see if these become like what happened in Alberta, where a Tory member actually went to the convention of the Conservative Party of Alberta and said we have to stop these patronage appointments to our community college boards because they are wrecking our community colleges. We will watch to see if that happens in Manitoba as

5329 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 well where this crew will continue to go on its single-minded way listening to no one, consulting with no one, not releasing reports and appointing only those who say what they want them to say to the boards of the various colleges and the various organizations. We will be watching the tuition fees. We will be watching what happens to the students as a result of this. We already know.

I have already indicated that I had a woman in my office yesterday, who for a course that would cost $500 to $700 at Red River, has to pay $3,700 at one private college and over $4,000 at another one. We have seen that happen, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will see what happens to the tuition fees and we will see how they treat the people involved in the system because, in the final analysis, that tells all. That is one of the reasons we are suspicious of this whole process in the first place, because of the haphazard and rather unfair way that those involved in the system have been dealt with by this government.

We will be watching how the people are dealt with in the system, not just those directly involved, but the students and all those on the periphery. We will be looking to see if there will be more and better graduates, Madam Deputy Speaker, from this process that is going to be put in place by this government. In the final analysis, the most important thing, of course, is what is done for the students and the people of Manitoba, whether or not out of this will come better education, better training, higher quality, more students employed and the like in the province of Manitoba.

In the final analysis that is what really matters and, all partisan issues aside, this is what we really all are striving for in this Legislature and in this province. We will be looking to see if that happens. We will also be looking to see, as I indicated in my second reading speech, whether or not we will see 10 ,000 widget makers trained with this horrendous amount of money going to the private sector when there is only a need for six widget makers in the next few years ahead. We will be seeing if the planning under this system actually works. I hope it works.

I hope the system works for the sake of all students. I hope the system works for the sake of all Manitobans, but this minister and this government will be accountable. We will be holding them accountable for the results of this particular approach. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): I rise to put a few closing remarks on the record on this bill. I am not suggesting that I am closing debate.

The member for Kildonan said he was going to be the last speaker from the opposition, so from that I would conclude that I in fact will be putting concluding remarks on the record. Madam Deputy Speak er, we have heard from both parties with regard to their attitudes on college governance.

I would have to say that the Leader of the Liberal Party did put some thoughtful remarks on the record with regard to the Liberal Party position on college governance and indeed, if one were to look at the various models of college governance throughout Canada, one would find that there are several different models and they work in varying degrees.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when we decided to move towards college governance as a result of requests by the commu nity colleges in this province, as a result of requests by the communi ties themselves, as a result of requests by Brandon, by Dau phin, by The Pas, by the commu nity in Winnipeg, the chambers of commerce, students who were attending these colleges, we put together a group of individuals representing the communities, representing the community colleges, to look at what form of governance would best suit our system in Manitoba.

I would have to indica te tha t we had representation from the commu nity college system on that task force that submitted a report for the minister to move towards college governance. It was with that that we moved in this direction. We did look at other programs, at other college governance systems in Canada, and we have put together what we think will work for Manitoba.

We have retained some powers for the minister to ensur e that there will not be dupl ication of programming between our colleges, so that there will not be a degree of competition between our colleges to the extent that it will take money away from programs that students can access. * (1 500) Behind all of this is the intent to improve the service delivery to students and to potential workers in this province. It is true that we do not have a large percentage of our high school graduates moving to

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5330 a community college system and the reason for that is that we have a small community college system, one that has not been able to respond to the needs very quickly and very well because of the way that it has evolved. What we are doing is ensuring that community colleges are going to be able to be more responsive. They are going to be governed by people from within that community, people who can make decisions for the community colleges, who understand the community, who under stand that community college within that area.

Whether it is in Dauphin or The Pas, I am of the firm belief that it is the people of those communities who can best decide what types of programming those community colleges should be offering so that student graduates out of those community colleges will find employment within those communities. I am confident that this system is going to work for our province, it is going to work for the benefit of the students who are attending those institutions.

There may be some hurdles that still have to be crossed with regard to implem entation of this process, but we have tried to iron out all the wrinkles that we can foresee at this time, and if there are some minor changes that are required as we move along to college governance, we are committed to correcting them. For that reason, we put in a transition team, a team made up of people who are working at the col le ges, of the people who adm inister the col leges, of peo ple from the community who can help us in the transition phase.

Yes, the amendment that the members from the New Democratic Party brought in was acceptable. That just shows, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are open to good suggestions so thatthe community college system can benefit. Madam Deputy Speaker, our intent with this legislation is to ensure that we have a strong comm unity college system. The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has criticized this move because he is content with the status quo. He is content with leaving the college system where it is. The New Democrats do not have a vision for change.

They do not have a vision for moving our college system ahead into the future. We have that vision, and we are going to ensure that this system is going to work for the benefit of the students who attend our community colleges, for the communities themselves, so that our community college system can grow and offer more programming for the residents of this province. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), third reading of Bi11 49, The Colleges and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les colleges et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives). All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. All those opposed, please say nay. In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Oppositio n): Madam Deputy Speaker, Yeas and Nays, please. • (1 510 ) Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third rea ding of Bill 49, The Colleges and Consequential Amendmen ts Act;

Loi sur les colleges et modifiant diver ses dispositions legislatives. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas Connery, Cumm ings, Dacquay, De rkach , Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gille shammer, Hel wer, Laurendeau , Manness, McA lpine, McCr ae , Mcin tosh , Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.

Nays Ashton, Barrett, Carr, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Harper, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Malloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid, Santos, Storie, Wasylycia-Le is, Wowchuk. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 26. Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried. THIRD READINGS-AMENDED BILLS Bill 54-The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1991 Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the honou rabl e Min ister of

5331 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 54, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 19 91 (Loi de 19 91 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Le onar d Evans (B ran don East) : Mr. Speaker, of course as we know, this is a collection of various miscellaneous amendments in the field of taxation and finance. The opposition raised one or two concerns yesterday in terms of one or two of the clauses in this particular piece of legislation. I have expressed our concerns in particular about the

section that has a bearing on the payment of social allo wance payme nts to thousands of recipients in the province of Manitoba. We have over 20,000 cases on social allowance, and I would dare say that they are all going to be affected by this particular amendment. I appreciate the minister's explanation that the key part of this amendment is to enable the government to pay out over a 12 -month period certain tax credits rather than have them paid out in a lump sum by application through the income tax process.

This sounds admirable on surface, and we wish that we could accept the minister at his word on this, that the social allowance recipients will in no way be hurt by this. On the other hand, we do regret that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has not seen fit to consult or discuss this with the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization or some of the various more prominent social service agencies, social service nonprofit groups, associations that do exist out there and represent people who are going to be affected by this legislation.

We are particularly concerned that when this bill is passed and the new procedures are brought into effect, in some way or another these funds, these monthly payments representing the Property Tax and the Cost of Living Tax Credits, are somehow or other not lost and that somehow or other these do not substitute for the regular inflationary increase. (Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair) I would trust that next year when this comes into effect we will have the inflationary increase that is usually provided for, depending on what has happened to the consumer price index, depending on what has happened to rise in the cost of living in the province, but we would also have, in addition to that, equivalency of these tax credits.

It seems to me that there are going to be some difficulties in providing these. It seems to me, from my understanding of it, these payments are going to relate to the previous year, so if this becomes effective in January 19 92, it will have reference to credits that normally would be applied for in the spring or the early spring or late winter of 19 92 for the year 199 1. So instead of the social allowance recipients obtaining them in lump sums, probably around late February or March or whatever, these monies will now not be fully available until the end of the year.

In other words, they will be paid out on a one-twelfth basis per month. To that extent, the government probably stands to save interest on funds. I suspect, although we do not know, it has not been explained to us, the government will likely be saving some money on this by virtue of the slower payout of these funds. Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, we want to assure the House that we will be monitoring this.

We will be in cons ult ation wi th the organizations and associations that represent these people who are be ing affected, such as the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization or the coalition for social allowances. We will be talking to them. I would trust the minister will be in contact with them as well, to ensure that the administration of this is done in the most fair and equitable manner possible. Having made those rem arks, I for one am prepared to see this bill passed. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness), third reading of Bill 54, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 19 91 (Loi de 19 91 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite). All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5332 DEBATE ON THIRD READINGS- AMENDED BILLS Bill 59-The Workers Compensation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honou rable Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 59, The Workers Compensation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les accidents du travail et diverses dispositions legislatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, indeed I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill 59-not pleased with Bill 59, because this is yet another example of the bias of this government. This government, since it has achieved that majority the last election-a majority is a majority is a majority-indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, has charted a clear course that fundamentally is dictated by one sector of our society. This is a Workers Compensation bill.

Is it indeed the workers of Manitoba who are being listened to by this provincial government? No, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the Chamber of Commerce. Surprise, surprise, surprise, the bill goes to committee, brought in by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Surprise, surprise, surprise, every single workers organization, every single injured workers organization condemned the bill. Surprise, surprise, surprise, there were a few brief briefs from the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. What did they say?

Well, they did everything except pat the minister on the back and say good, good job, Mr. Minister. They said quite clearly that the election debt to the Chamber of Commerce was paid up, and that is what this Workers Compensation bill is about, an election debt to the Chamber of Commerce. * (1 520) Indeed, I was reading through a Tory fundraising letter earlier today, a fundraising letter that was brought out before the majority.

It said, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this was sent to their fundraising list, quite clearly that the government had been able to implement some aspects of its agenda with a minority, but it needed a majority to get the job done. What did it say this government would do? Wha t did it say? Fairness for people-did it talk about that? No. Did it talk about economic development? No. Did it talk about social justice, proper social programs? No, it said that they needed funds donated to the Conservative Party to win the majority so that there could be a pro-business government in Manitoba.

That is what they said before the election when they were raising funds. Today they are paying off those people. They are paying them off by bringing in a pro-business Workers Compensation bill. That is part of their election debt. Indeed, the minister protests from his seat. He knows that this bill is fundamentally in keeping with the Chamber of Commer ce agenda and always has been. He knows that, in his own comme nts before the committee, for every dollar in additional benefits for workers, this minister is taking away $4 out of the pocket of injured workers.

He is cutting the budget at the expense of injured workers currently and in the future, and survivors and their families. In committee, the minister, after hearing the pleas from injured workers' organizations, from the labour movement, from practising physicians for changes to the act, brought in nothing but technical amendments so that he could go to the Chamber of Commerce and he can be patted on the back and be told, good job, Mr. Mini ster, good job, you deli vered.

Madam Depu ty Speaker, in the Conservative Party, that may advance the political career of the minister, but I remind him through you that he is not the minister responsible for big business. He is the Minister responsible for Labour. He is the Mini ster responsible for Workers Compensation, and it is about time that minister and that government started paying attention to the working people and the injured workers of this province instead of delivering on election debts to the Chamber of Commerce. I sat in that committee and heard those pleas.

They were reasonable, and they were based on concerns that have been expressed over the last number of years, that have been expressed going back to the review committee, the King Report. They were based on that, and I say they were reasoned concerns. They were concerns based on the future of this system of workers compensation in this province, and I want to deal with the specifics. I want to deal with the specifics, because I want on the record the type of concerns that were raised that this minister and this government are ignoring.

5333 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 I want to raise, on the record, the way in which this government is ramming through one more piece of antiworker, anti labour legislation in this session and, in fact, as we remember this session, it will be characterized by basically that same approach. This government has its majority. It is not listening, Madam Deputy Speaker, it knows it has the majority. It did not listen on Bill 70, it did not listen on Bill 38, it has not listened on Bill 49 and it is not listening on Bill 59, either.

We went through a hearing process and it did nothing to change the mind of this government. They sit there, they say why should they change their minds, they have a majority now and they can do whatever the heck they want. I could use stronger language, but whatever the heck they want, and that is what they did in Bill 59. I want to raise some of the concerns that were expressed.

First of all, the minister is not giving the real facts about this bill when he suggests, as he did to the media the other day, that somehow this bill is to deal with Workers Compensation claimants getting greater than 1 00 percent benefits. If that was the intent of this bill, nothing more, nothing less, why did the minister not bring in a bill that said that.

What the minister did, instead, was bring in wholesale changes to Workers Compensation, many of which are not supported by working people, and went out and tried to mask it as being, in that particular case, that it was somehow to deal with strictly the overpayment benefits. I want to deal with what this bill does. If that was the intent of the minister, the actual fact of what he has done is reduce, by his own Estimates, in the range of $7 million to $8 million, the kind of benefits payable.

He is saving money by his shift, the gross to net shift, and it is not, Madam Deputy Speaker, a shift to 90 percent of net-that is for the first two-year period. It is a reduction to 80 percent after that period. Some workers will receive thousands of dollars less, all single workers will receive less money under this form. It is going to save the Workers Com pe nsation Board money. The minister indicated that on the record. That provision was to do with reducing the deficit at the expense of injured workers and their families. That is the sole intent of that.

For the minister to suggest that really all he was just doing was preventing people from receiving 11 0 percent, 12 0 percent, 13 0 percent of benefits- that is not what that shift does .. It goes far further than that and the minister knows that, but that is Indeed the response he gave in the House, the response he gave to the me dia. That changes , fundamentally, the bottom line, the number of payments that are paid to individuals.

I point once again to how this government did not listen in committee when the city of Winnipeg unions there indicated they wanted one of the most innovative programs of rehabilitation, of getting workers back into the workplace after they were injured. What does the City of Winnipeg do? It provides top-up benefits. The City of Winnipeg provides the basic principle that workers should receive 10 0 percent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, one can argue whether it should be 90 percent, or 1 00 percent, and if the intent was to deal with strictly the situation where people could be paid higher than that, there is the question of whether that is interfering in the collective bargaining process or not, but I can see that it is a reasonable concern the minister could express, but he has gone far further than that.

He has gone far further than that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I point to the city of Winnipeg as an example, where they have a model program on rehabilitation where they provide greater support in the way of renumeration for lost wages than virtually any other employer in the province of Manitoba. I point to that because the bottom line is, the facts were before the minister.

The minister chose to ignore the facts and proceed with that change, one of the major factors of this bill. .. (1 530) The other change is in regard to the lump-sum payments in comparison to the previous system , and once again it is going to save the Workers Compensation Board money. The minister said between $7 million and $8 million, and I am basing this on the committee figures. -(in terjection)- ! hear the member for Portage speaking from his seat.

I want to indicate that we may have our arguments at various times, but I do know that in the case of the bill that he brought in, as much as I disagreed on a number of points, he will note that we did support the bill, and he may remember some of the discussions that took place at committee whereby we ensured-- Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): You are not going to support this one?

July 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5334 Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Rnance says we are not going to support this one. No way are we going to support this; no way are we going to support Bill 59. I note the comparison when, with the previous minister, he brought in a series of changes, a number of which by the way were supported by both management and labour, a number of those changes, and was a fairly crafted balance. I have had many an argument with the member for Portage, but not on that bill. I do not mean it as an obituary for the member for Portage in a political sense.

I have actually agreed with him twice now in the space of about two weeks, first on a point of order with the member for St. James. I do not know if he has changed or I have changed or if it is just one of those unusual circumstances that occur, sort of like an eclipse, where the planets line up and the two of us agree. I did agree with the bill he brought in. We supported that bill, and we had discussions and en sured tha t it was passed wi thout an y amendments that might have detracted from that passage. I note that, but this current minister is reducing benefits.

This is going to impact on future injured workers; it is going to impact on future survivors of injured workers, widows and their children. That is one of the more unfortunate aspects of this particular bill. There were other changes. We indicated at committee, we support the indexation. It is not a complete indexation, but certainly the principle of indexation in the bill, and we support the increase in the maximum earnings under this bill. In actual fact, one really implements the policy that has been in place in a general sense, although I agree it should be legislated. That is the indexation.

The other change, Madam Deputy Speaker, really is a matter of catch-up. We feel the figure is, if anything, on the low side, given the changes in earnings in Manitoba, but it certainly is reflective of that change. As I said before, the balance, dollar for dollar, in this bill was in the range of four to one, based on the minister's own statistics. For every dollar workers get extra, four dollars is going to be taken away, and that is the bottom line of this bill. It does not stop there. This affects current injured workers and future injured workers in terms of benefits. How else does it affect injured workers?

A number of other provisions were brought in over the protest, once again, of vir tually every organization that appeared there other than the Chamber of Commerce and employers. I refer to the $250 fee that was put in place, and there was one change on amendment, but the basic principle has been adopted now by the government in terms of frivolous appeals of charging individuals, companies, $250. I just want to remind the minister of the type of circumstances that most Workers Compensation claim ants who are fighting their claim find themselves.

A lot of them are on weHare, have lost their homes, have lost their families in some cases. I have dealt with people who have fought for years to establish the ir Worke rs Compens ation claim-years , Madam Deputy Speaker-and were only successful after going through financial, personal and marital ruin. This minister is now saying that they have to have hanging over their head the prospect of a $250 fee-up to $250, says the minister. These are people who do not have any money. Is the we Hare department going to finance their appeal if someone determines it is frivolous?

Well, it is not covered under the guidelines. That is what this minister is doing, and that is one of the other problems in this bill. This bill is based on the assumption that there are a lot of people out there trying to cheat the system, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it very insulting for the many workers wompensation claimants whose claim has either been accepted or even those who have had it denied. I would say in my 10 years I have never seen a fraudulent claim, a frivolous claim related to workers compensation.

Every person I have dealt with on workers compensation-! have dealt with many, both as MLA and as critic for our party in workers compensation issues. Every single person that I know has not been acting on a frivolous basis, yet this minister has built in this particularfee. Did it stop there, Madam Deputy Speaker? No, it did not. The minister went further. One of the things on the Chamber of Commerce hit list was access to employers for medical information. The minister says, we cannot deny this, we cannot deny it, we have to give it.

I say to the minister that I do not buy the kind of rationale that he has put forward. He says other provinces are doing this, other provinces are doing that . He uses Ch arter arguments, legal arguments, et cetera.

5335 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 25, 1991 I remember in this House, and I use as an example, where the ele ctoral bou ndaries commission assumed that the Charter of Rights would not allow for a 25 percent variation in political boundaries. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) will remember that. What happened in Saskatchewan and the court case there? Their boundaries were legalized based on the 25 percent variance. The Minister of Northern Affairs, I know he was very concerned about it at that time, the loss of a rural seat. We were concerned about the loss of a northern Manitoba seat.

I raise that because there is a classic example where if you sit there and you take that sort of approach, if we had not taken that sort of advice, if we had in the legislation-and I say we, it is collectively-put in that provision, and if we had instructed the electoral boundaries commission to act on that basis, we would not have lost those two seats. We would have had, I think, a fairly reasonable distribution between urban, rural and northern seats. I use that as an analogy, because in this case the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation (Mr.

Praznik) says, well, we had to bring in employers' access to information. I will tell you what physicians are saying. They are concerned about the access to information by people other than, in this case, the Workers Compensation Board, who obviously have to have that material, or the workers thems elves. This is interfering in the patient-physician relationship, the confidentiality. What it does is it sets the system up for abuse. It means that employers are going to have access to information that can and, I believe, will be used in other contexts. I beli eve that fundamentally, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It will be used in other ways. I believe what it does is it sets up the system in a far more adversarial way than it has been up to this point in time. I want to describe how that is going to develop by looking at some of the other problems. Experience rating- this government has been doing that by the board policy for the last year and a half, two years. What is experience rating? Well, experience rating says that a particular employer's rate should be based on the number of claims that employer makes. What are the problems with that?

If you want to see the best example of the kind of difficulties you run into with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, look at the City of Winnipeg, which is self-insured. Look at the pr ese ntations at committee from the Transit Union, CUPE Local500. Both of those presenters indicated the City of Winnipeg appeals claims on a regular basis. Like the member for Portage (Mr. Connery) told the committee, that by the sounds of it, in his opinion, it appeared to be nothing shor t of harassment-indeed, harassment. Why does the City of Winnipeg do that?

They do it because they are self-insured; they essentially have what is experience rating. Their rates are based on the claim experience. What it has done is it has introduced an adversarial relationship in the system far greater than with other employers generally. Who else is in that category, Madam Deputy Speaker? The rail roa ds. Who else made prese ntations before the committee? The rail unions and the rail companies. Why? Because they are on an experience rating system.

Anybody that is seH-insured in this particular case, in the case of an employer, can cut down on the amount of payments that are made by reducing benefits, by making sure there are fewer claimants who are successful. What has happened, the experience with those employers, has been they routinely contest cases and they have whole branches of their bureaucracy established to do nothing more than contest claims.

This minister is opening the entire system up for that type of a concept, and if the minister does not believe that there is going to be abuse on experience rating, he should look at the fact that there has already been abuse with employers, even without that direct incentive to reduce it. • (1 540) I know cases, and I have outlined this before in debate on this, I know a case-my brother, when he was working for lnco, was in that same situation. I outlined this in debate on second reading-where he was injured, indicated he could not return to work.

The company offered to pick him up; they were desperate not to have this reported as an accident. He was a medical student at the time. He knew the damage that could take place, even with so-called light duty. He said, well, I really cannot come in; I will be back in the day after if everything is okay. When he came back in he was told by his supervisor, we know your kind, you will never work here again. Coin cidental ly, Madam Deput y Speaker, when he applied the following summer he was not hired again by lnco.

July 25, 1991 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 5336 Coincidence? Well, I leave it to your judgment, but the fact is, the whole approach-the company in this case, in particular the supervisor, and I do not say that is the approach at lnco generally; I do not believe that is the case-was to tell someone who was injured to get in to work, to keep down the accident clai ms, something, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think is absolutely unacceptable. It was happening before and it is going to happen on an increasing basis. Well, did the minister stop with that?

Did he stop with what would have been a pretty Draconian piece of legislation and say, well, we have done enough for now for the Ghamber of Commerce again? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, no, he did not. He brought in another

section which gives the board the ability to privatize a significant part of its business, including adjudication. Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister may say, well, it will only be in terms of positive cases. I just want to look at the difference in the system we are going to see as a result of the minister and his bill. Injured workers now are going to be faced with access to their medical records.

They are going to be faced with the $250 fee in terms of frivolous appeals, and they are now going to be faced with the situation where companies are increasingly involved in the handling of Workers Compensation itself. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you if you would feel comfortable if you were involved, say, in a civil action, or someone else in this House, and you were to be sued by somebody, and you then found that the person who was suing you was also the judge deciding the case.

That is the concern that people have in this particular case: the destruction of the impartial basis of workers compensation, and that is what this minister is doing. I want to deal with some of the main concerns that were expressed in committee about the principle. I outlined some of the details of what this minister is doing. I want to talk about the principle, Madam Deputy Speaker. What is the principle of what this minister is doing? The original relationship that was established with workers compensation was a trade-off. Injured workers were giving up the right to sue. Why would they do that?

Indeed, because the legal process is a lengthy process, a costly process. One of the main reasons for that trade-off was to allow injured workers more immed iate access to benefits. Indeed it was a trade-off. The trade-off was not being able to have access, as we have seen increasingly, to some of the high liability payments that have arisen out of court action. Madam Deputy Speaker, what was the trade-off for employers? For employers it was an insurance system against that type of action, a trade-off.

I know some injured workers have questioned whether that trade-off really applies with some of the delays that have taken place. I am not just blaming any particular government in terms of what has happened in terms of the handling of cases. They are efforts made by all governments. There have been increases and decreases and waiting times, et cetera. So long as anyone has to wait for any extensive period of time is obviously going to be a difficulty. Apart from that, one can use whatever description you want. You can call it workers compensation. You can call it employers insurance, if you like.

That was the trade-off. There have been concerns expressed in the bill about the fact that court action is being opened up in a number of cases. I note that for the records, Madam Deputy Speaker. Beyond that, what about that trade-off? I kept hearing from em ployers that this is employer funded. Indeed, would you not expect employers to fund a scheme that is essentially insurance and protects them against lawsuits, provides benefits to individuals and compensation? Who would you expect to pay liability insurance, Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of the operation of a store for customers, the employees?

No, you would expect the employers. That is where this minister is so fundamentally wrong in his approach on this bill, because he is increasingly asking not the employers to pick up the tab but employees, in this case for reduced benefits now, reduced benefits for future injured workers and reductions in terms of the number of people who will be able to qualify. That is the trade-off. I want to look at how this minister, if anything, is putting us back. He is being regressive. He is putting us back years in terms of workers compensation by addressing another concern that was raised.

I mentioned the benefit concerns, the process concerns. There was a very real concern expressed about the definition of occupational

5337 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA July 25, 1991 disease. A practising physician said, very clearly on the record, that in his opinion the

section in the bill that the minister has included on occupational disease is restrictive to the point where future claimants, particularly those where medical science is discovering some of the impacts of the workplace in ways that had not been the case before, are going to be denied their claims. He indicated that very clearly.

There was concern expressed indeed once again by a practising physician and by others about the use of the term "dominant cause" and how that is subject to abuse and how people might, who even currently could receive benefits, in the future would not receive benefits under that provision. It does not just stop there, Madam Deputy Speaker. Occupational disease, dominant cause, the minister has essentially-and the dominant cause in particular has dealt with that-elimin ated some of the changes that took place.

Another thing that was definitely on the Chamber of Commerce hit list in terms of pre-existing conditions of recognizing their role in conjunction with workplace-related factors in creating difficulties. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a whole package in that piece of legislation which is aimed at reducing the number of people in the future who will be able to access workers compensation benefits. What defence has the minister used? Well, he has used the book's argument. He has suggested that, and that indeed is the case. It is to reduce the cost of the Workers Compensation Board, but I have dealt with that.

We do not feel it should be done at the expense of injured workers. What other arguments has the minister used? The minister has tried to suggest this is part of the review committee, the so-c alled King Report that was brought in. What the minister forgets to mention is how this government has not acted some key provisions of that report, how it has twisted others to the point of being unrecognizable.

I note, for example, the Manitoba Federation of Labour was very clear in its presentation and listed for the minister some of the changes that have been brought in, whether they were consistent with the King Report, whether they were in opposition to it and whether there had been any action at all. I note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this report in no way represents the kind of consensus the King Report represented, where the vast majority of recommendations were achieved by the support of all three individuals on that particular comm ission .

That includ ed em ployer represen tatives; that included the em ployee representatives and the chair as well-- unanimous support. So what has this minister done? Well, the first thing he has done in terms of the process is he has broken yet another promise of the Premier (Mr. Filmo n) -(in terjection)- Well, the memb er for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) says that he cannot keep track of all the broken promises.

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this session, we are seeing that the Premier who before the election was talking more of the same is now bringing in a totally, a drastically different agenda and particularly in regard to labour legislation. The Premier said in the election there would be no major changes to labour legislation without full consultation. It was made clear by the employee reps. They did not feel that this bill had been subject to anything other than perfunctory consultation. That is where we are at, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bill 59 has been rammed through a committee by the government majority.

Bill 59 is before us with only a few minor amendments, mostly technical in nature. Bill 59 is just as bad on third reading as it was on second reading. Mr. Jam es Carr (Crescentwood): Worse, because they did not listen in committee. Mr. Ashton: Indeed, perhaps as the member for Crescentwood says, worse, because they did not listen in commi ttee. Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are seeing on a daily basis the words of the minister responsible for Natural Resources who said in committee on another bill, and it could equally apply to this bill, that he had to be In committee, but he did not have to listen.

That is the Conservative attitude. They have to be here. They have to sit in here. They have to sit in committees. They have to go through a formal process of listening to people, supposedly, buttheydo not have to hear what they have to say. * (1 550) Perhaps it had to come, the wisdom in this case, from the dean of the Conservative caucus, the dean of the Legislature. I give him credit. He is honest. He says what he thinks. He said what he thought on that particular occa

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-93
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 93.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	119c506ece551008b1381d81d7e013cb977276e1

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