Manitoba Hansard — 26 March 1981 (Sitting 46A, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-46a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thu rsday, 26 March, 19 81 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Bir tle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMI TTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. MORRIS McGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. MR.

CLERK, Jack Reeves: Your Committee met on Thursday, March 26, 1981 and examined the Annual Report of the Manitoba Forestry Resources Ltd. for the year ended September 20, 1980. Mr. Leifur Hallgrimson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and his staff, provided information as was required by the members of the committee. Having received all information desired by members of the committee, the report was adopted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. McGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Radisson, that the report of the committee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MINIS TERIAL STATEMENTS AND TAB LING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could table at this time the second spring report with respect to the runoff situation in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills. At this time, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery where we have 50 students of Grade 8 standing from the Hugh John McDonald School, under the direction of Mr. Zilkie, Mr. Hurtie, and Mr. Sisk.

This school is in the constituency of the Ho nourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. We also have 55 students of Grade 4 standing from the Carman Elementary School, under the direction of Mr. Montgomery. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Highways. We have 45 students of Grade 9 standing from La Verendrye School in Portage la Prairie, under the direction of Mr. Wickberg, Mrs. Bates and Mr. Asham. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Portage La Prairie. 2145 On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Urban Affairs.

In view of the decision made last night, in connection with tax increases involving the City of Winnipeg and continuing reports which we are receiving from other municipalities in the province, can the Minister advise whether or not any steps are being undertaken with respect to the government of the Province of Manitoba, to increase the Property Tax Credit Program, if not in respect to its base, at least in respect to the maximum in order to ensure that those of low and middle income levels are not hurt in the obvious way, that they're going to hurt this year, because of the extraordinary hefty increases that are taking place in municipal taxation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hoourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Well, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition asked two questions which do not pertain to my responsibilities as Urban Affairs Minister, Mr. Speaker. He refers to municipalities other than the City of Winnipeg and my responsibl!itiP.s as Urban Affairs Minister are confined to the City of Winnipeg. He also refers to the Property Tax Credit Program, which I think more appropriately should be addressed to the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker, but referring to the property tax increase approved by City Council yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Honnurable Leader of the Opposition that this government increased the block funding grant to the City of Winnipeg some 16.8 percent over and above the percentage increase in the expenditures of the City of Winnipeg. In addition, Mr. Speaker, in administering the UTAP program, reallocated some $2.3 million towards the purchases of buses in the City of Winnipeg, which amount they decreased their operating budget. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the budget which they received from their Board of Commissioners was some $328,900 approximately. They approved expenditures of $322 ,81 5 so, Mr. Speaker, in fact the budget which came from the administration, Mr. Speaker, was not decreased but was in fact increased by the Members of Council. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, further to the Minister, as of 1980, under the present government's block funding program, the amount of moneys being provided to the City of Winnipeg were some $6 million less in 1980 than they were in 1977 as a result of this government's actions.

Is the Minister then indicating that no further action is intended on the part of this government, in view of the fact that we are now faced in the City of

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 Winnipeg with the largest increase, the largest increase save none, that has occurred since the inception of Unicity in 1971? Is the Minister indicating that there will be no further assistance, no further programs, in order to relieve what is a situation brought about by their lack of and starvation of assistance from the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg, that there is going to be no further assistance or initiative on the part of his government? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I suppose that political partisan activity of the Leader of the Opposition would inspire him to make the comments that he does, but I suggest to him, as I have already, that a 16 point increase in the block funding grant, as well as the increases in other grant programs to the city, as well as the reallocation of some additional $2.3 million in the UTAP program was still regarded during yesterday's debate, as I am informed, as a very reasonable increase in funding by the province towards City of Winnipeg Council, Mr. Speaker.

What we are seeing is a budget brought about by City Council in the first year of its office, Mr. Speaker. The people of Winnipeg might be well advised, Mr. Speaker, during the next Civic Election to ask the Members of City Council to bring in the same kind of budget in their first year of office as they will in their third year of office. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, first, UTAP is federal money and I think the Minister must be fully conscious and aware of that when he makes reference to additional input of moneys to the City of Winnipeg from UT AP sources. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister if he will acknowledge that indeed he is ducking his responsibility as Minister responsible for Urban Affairs; as the spokesman on behalf of urban Manitoba, when he ducks any responsibility for a situation which is worsened insofar as the comparison of municipal taxes in the City of Winnipeg with each and every other municipality in Canada; when the Royal Trust confirms today that the taxes of the City of . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Has the Honourable Member a question? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, my question simply to the Minister, he acknowledged the Royal Trust survey indicating that the taxation level, municipally, the City of Winnipeg, is the highest of any municipality in Canada? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this govern ment increased funds to the City of Winnipeg in the order of some 16.8 percent in the area of block funding as well, through the Department of Education, Mr. Speaker, well over half of the $70 million increase in funding has gone to school divisions within the City of Winnipeg to reduce the school mill rate and to equalize that situation, Mr.

Speaker, and we've seen throughout the City of Winnipeg significant decreases in school taxes. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg Council has seen fit to fill that gap and in some areas more exceeded. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs, especially in view of his remarks to this Chamber last February in which he expressed: "A special interest and concern that urban transit in the City of Winnipeg be improved and expanded upon." Some improvement, Mr. Speaker.

I'd ask the Minister whether he accepts the announcement that bus fares are being increased 50 percent for adults, from 40 cents to 60 cents; that bus passes are up 50 percent from $14 to $20 and so on? Is that the manifestation of the Minister's special interest and concern about public transit? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, what that is, is a manifestation of the Councillors elected by the City of Winnipeg as to what their views and their opinions are to City Transit. MR. DOERN: Of course, Mr. Speaker, when you have a gun in your ribs you don't have much of an alternative. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to ask the Minister about another remark that he made a couple of years ago in which he said that there has to be continual increased support for a transit system.

He made those remarks in May of 1978 and I want to ask him, in view of his special interests and the fact that he believes in increased support for transit, whether he's prepared to provide a special grant to the Council for the purpose of mitigating the adverse affects on old age pensioners, students and other riders and the dangers of reducing the number of riders who will access that system and probably result in a higher use of the public automobile? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in advising the City of Winnipeg earlier this year of the 16.8 increase in block funding grant to the City of Winnipeg Council, I specifically indicated to the Mayor and Members of Council that the unusually large increase was coming about because of the concern of our government for the public transit system and for the purchase of buses, which is to take place by the City of Winnipeg this year.

Our letter at that time was based on the estimates of the City of Winnipeg, which had come from the Board of Commissioners, which included in their estimates at that time some $2.3 million for the purchase of buses. Since then we have reallocated UTAP funds, Mr. Speaker, and that amount has been removed from the City of Winnipeg's budget. At the same time the City has seen fit to use that expenditure as a justification for the increase in transit fares and that is their decision, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: The Ho nourable Member for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I want to try to pinpoint this question and ask the Minister whether he wouldn't concede that the people of Winnipeg as transit riders were better off under the New Democratic urban policy whereby 50 percent of the price of buses was . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest the honourable member's question is argumentative. If the Honourable Member has another question . 2146

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. DOERN: I will try to be more friendly, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Min ister whether he wouldn't agree - well I would ask him this. Under the previous system 50 percent of the cost of buses was paid for by the province and grants were provided to freeze transit fares. There were few if any transit fare increases during our . . . there weren't any in the eight years that we were in power. I am saying to the Minister wouldn't he concede that the transit riders of Winnipeg were far better off under our urban policies, than yours? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately I can't agree with the Member for Elmwood, I think the transit users and the people of Manitoba are much better off under this government, Mr. Speaker, with the whole fundamental change in the system of financing education in this province, with the increase of some $70 million in that area. Mr. Speaker, they are much better off in this province with reduced personal taxation, with reduced corporate capital taxes; Mr. Speaker, they are much better off with the eliminatio n of succession duties, mineral acreage taxes, reductions in sales taxes; they are much better off, Mr.

Speaker, with the direction the Premier of this province and the government of the Province of Manitoba has taken with respect to the Constitution issues facing this country; they are much better off, Mr. Speaker, with the direction the Minister of Energy and Mines has taken with respect to mining taxes and the involvement of government in mining; Mr. Speaker, they are much better off with the direction the Minister of Agriculture has taken with the agriculture MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Kildonan on a point of order. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, my point of order is this, if the Honourable Attorney-General wishes a platform, he should get his Premier to call an election to make that kind of a speech. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member did not raise a point of order. The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the transit rider will be surprised to hear that he is better off now that he doesn't have to pay an inheritance tax, which he never paid before.

I would like to ask the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs whether he will recess the government's policy of block funding, which has permitted the increase in transit fare which will result in the average transit rider paying $1 20 a year additional taxes, which is more than the entire mill rate increase to the rest of residents of the City of Winnipeg.

That is, there is a discriminatory mill rate increase in Winnipeg, 12 mills to people who don't ride the transit, at least 25 mills to people who do ride the transit, and it comes about because of the Minister's block funding to the City, which he has indicated has permitted the aldermen to take this discrimi natory position as between citi zens of Winnipeg as to the increase in the mill rate as it affects those citizens. 2147 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, if the City of Winnipeg ratepayers are unhappy with that increase in transit fares then they will call upon their elected representatives, the Members of Council, to readjust those fares. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I find the line of questioning that is going on is more on the line of a debate rather than seeking information. The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: If you will read Hansard, Mr.

Speaker, I asked the Minister whether he would reconsider the block funding position of the government, and consider, and now I'll ask him to consider whether it is not sensible that since the Provincial Legislature are raising the taxes that are being used to assist the City of Winnipeg, that the Provincial Legislature and the government . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Questions of consideration are really not seeking information, I believe they are offering advice. The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Urban Affairs about a policy directly within his consideration, namely, the policy whereby provincial funds raised by the government and handed to the City of Winnipeg for civic purposes, whether he would reconsider that policy and determine whether because the Provincial Government raises the taxes that it is giving to the City of Winnipeg, it should have something to say as to how they are spent, particularly as it relates to transit? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, it makes common sense that those areas, those jurisdictions that have responsibility in certain areas make the decisions in those areas. That is why we have gone to a concept of block funding which makes the City of Winnipeg accountable for their decisions to their electorate, and they are accountable in this area of transit fares. If that is a result of their decis ions and their priorities, then they are accountable to the City of Winnipeg taxpayers. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Urban Affairs as to whether he now considers that all moneys spent by the Provincial Government with regard to programs as they affect municipalities, school boards, or other bodies, should be block funded, that the moneys that go to the school boards should be permitted to be spent by the school boards without any reference to provincial concerns with regard to education, which is what he is saying with regard to municipalities? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, block funding was introduced in the City of Winnipeg in order to enable the City of Winnipeg Council to establish its own priorities within approximately eight areas, ranging from construction of roads to the operation of the

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 transit service, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the previous government, Mr. Speaker, we have not chosen to intervene in City of Winnipeg affairs and tell them which street should be repaved, which street should be reconstructed, which street a bus should go down, because that is unwarranted interference in the jurisdiction of the city. They are elected to represent the City of Winnipeg ratepayers and make decisions in those areas, Mr.

Speaker, and they should make them and they should be accountable to the civic electorate and they will be at the election and will not be returned to office, I would hope, if they have not made decisions that are satisfactory to them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Education and is asked on behalf of a large number of people east of the Red River who have been massively hurt by this government's policies on education funding.

Yesterday the Minister said that according to his figures, Transcona-Springfield School Division was the fifth lowest spending school division on operating costs on a per pupil basis and the sixth lowest spending school division on a gross budget per pupil basis.

I would ask the Minister if he would review these figures, which I will pass over to him, drawn from the 1980 Manitoba Association of School Trustees' study on school costs, which shows that the Transcona-Springfield school costs were the lowest of the major school divisions within the City of Winnipeg from 1976 to 1980, five years, on an operating cost per pupil basis, and from 1978 to 1980 on a gross budget per pupil basis, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is no doubt correct when he quotes from 1980 fig ures.

Unfortunately, 198 1 budgets determine what mill rates will be. He might well take a look at 1981 figures, and those were the figures that I would using yesterday. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Manitoba's Education Funding Program uses 1980 education figures as a base year, is the Minister now saying that he is going to start switching the base years around on the basis of information which is only available to him, or is he prepared to use the 1980 figures, which are the base figures for the Conservative Government's Education Funding Program? MR. COSENS: Mr.

Speaker, we certainly will remain with the 1980 base. it seems to be the one that is working well for the majority of school divisions in this province. What the honourable member neglects to mention is that in this particular school division that he refers to, there is an 18 percent increase in per pupil cost. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona with final supplementary. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that yesterday the Min ister left the dist inct impression that Transcona was a big-spending school division, and in view of the fact that the figures, according to the 1980 figures, which are his base year figures , show him to be completely incorrect, will he now send the Transcona-Springfield School Division a public apology, or will he maintain his inflexible, unfair position solely to save face because he is wrong? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I reject outright what the honourable member has said.

Yesterday I merely quoted the 1981 actual expenditures as they were budgeted by a particular school divis ion. If the honourable member wishes to go back to 1980 and quote per pupil costs, he may well do that; those are correct figures as well. My point, Mr. Speaker, of course is that we have seen a dramatic increase from one year to another and the honourable member likes to forget that particular point. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture.

My Speaker, my question relates to a meeting held in Yorkton, Saskatchewan last Monday by the members of the Port of Churchill Development Board and all Minis ters of Agriculture for the three western provinces. My question, Mr. Speaker, relates to information which I am wondering if the Minister could give to this House as to the importance of the Port of Churchill in seeing to it that this coming season grains will be exported from that port.

I wonder if the Minister could advise this House of what took place at that rpeeting and whether or not any policy decisions were made as to what the future of the Port of Churchill will be. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members opposite aren't very interested about Churchill, but let me say the members on this side of the House, I am sure, are. Mr.

Speaker, the meeting that was held on Monday in Yorkton, Saskatchewan with the governments of Western Canada, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, to discuss the governments' positions on the use of Churchill, as well as the posit ion that the Port of Churchill Development Board have taken, was to reassure or to reaffirm our commitment to the full utilization of Churchill. We requested that no less than 3 percent of the grain from Western Canada be shipped through the Port of Churchill, which would be a total of some 30 million bushels plus, some two-thirds more than what was moved last year through the port.

That's a firm commitment from the provinces and from the Port of Churchill, that we want to see that kind of movement through the port. We are further planning our meeting with the Federal Government on the 3rd and 4th of June in Dauphin, as well as planning to go to the Port of Churchill, 2148

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 and get a commitment from the Federal Government to see what their position is, to do with the Port of Churchill; to see if we have a firm commitment to use Churchill to the maximum, whether it be for grain or other exports or imports through that port. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, direct a supplementary question to the Minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for lnkster on a point of order. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it should not be that there is a special time for commercial breaks and that we be advised of it in advance. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The priority in this House, we try and allow one person at a time; although many members want to speak at the same time, I realize that we can only allow one person at a time. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Member for lnkster is not interested in agricultural problems of this province and Western Canada and because, Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the importance of job employment at the Port of Churchill and important to the farmers of Western Canada, that grain is going to be exported through that port.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, because of a comment made by the Chairman of the National Harbours' Board, could the Minis ter of Agriculture . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. We can only have one speaker at a time in the Chamber and I realize everybody wants to speak at the same time, but at this time I recognize the Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSO N: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question to the Minis ter of Agriculture is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. If the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface wishes to be recognized, he must stand up before he is recognized. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture is, in view of the comments made by the Chairman of the National Harbours' Board insofar as the operations of The Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, relating to the Port of Churc hill, I wonder if the Min ister of Agriculture could inform this House as to whether The Canadian Wheat Board has made any definite commitment for grains being exported through the Port of Churchill. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have unof ficial information that there is a commitment from The Canadian Wheat Board to put approximately the same amount of grain through the Port of Churchill as last year, which is somewhat less than the request that will be going forward from the Provincial Governments and the Port of Churchill Development Board, however, I do not have that information officially and will be further following it up with The Canadian Wheat Board and the Federal Government, requesting that they at least put through the request that we have asked for in the 3 percent of the total products of grain moved out of Western Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake with a final supplementary. MR. EINARSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Min ister of Agricult ure. I wonder if the Minister has any information to give to this House in regard to the condition of the railway to the Port of Churchill, particularly the Herchmer line from Gillam to Churchill, as to the upgrading of that line and the problems that have been in the past and whether we can see a better future for that particular railway. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, there has been some upgrading work taking place on the Herchmer subdivision, as well as some additional work being done by the Federal Government and the CNR to work on stabilizing the track where it goes through the permafrost. Mr.

Speaker, there is a report out that indicates that there are some positive technical advances that are able to be applied to the permafrost problem, and in fact I think that we will have an opportunity to observe the infrastructure that is now there to stabilize the track and make it so that the heavier loads of grain can be transported to Churchill on the hopper cars that are required to move grain. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Labour.

Will the Minister of Labour now call an industrial inquiry into the Greater Winnipeg Gas strike, which inquiry the Progressive Party has been asking for, for the past number of weeks? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson ): No, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, I am not certain if I should reply to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture or ask a question, but in keeping with the procedures of the House, I will phrase a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask him if he can be more specific, exactly about the Herchmer line, if he can be more specific as to what those positive technological advances are that he spoke to a moment ago? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. 2149

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there's a test being qmied out by the Canadian National Railway and also the Federal Government. it's a five-year program, where in fact they're using some space age technology, where they use a heat transfer piece of equipment that continually keeps the ground frozen. it's a mechanism that is implanted along the track and it has proven to work very successfully in the test area, and I would expect to see further information available as the test progresses in the next two years, Mr. Speaker. MR.

COWAN: My question to the Minister is, if he can be more specific, Mr. Speaker, as to where those heat sinks have been implanted, how many have been implanted, at what cost they have been implanted, and when it is we can expect a report as to the effectiveness of those particular heat sink transfers? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Detailed information of that nature should be asked for by way of Order for Return. The Honourable Member with a final supplementary. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to put the Minister on a spot like that.

The question to the Minister is, if he can indicate what upgrading is going on currently at the Port of Churchill in respect to being able to accommodate those hopper cars, if in fact this technology does work out so that hopper cars can use the Herchmer subdivision to make it to Churchill? Has he been in contact with the Federal Government in order to determine if they are going to upgrade the facilities of the port so that they can more effectively handle hopper cars, if they do make it to the port? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure the Member for Churchill is quite unaware of the process of grain handling and the different kinds of mechanisms that have to be used to handle the hopper cars versus the old type boxcars. The hopper cars are quite a modern piece of equipment used for transporting and moving grain and in fact, all that has to happen is that the car moved over top of the chute and the chute is pulled as opposed to lifting up the total boxcar and dumping it from end to end, which is a lot more of a mechanical action. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, there would be very little upgrading to really take place to accommodate the cars that would hopefully be used to deliver grain to that port. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Education.

In view of the fact that the base year for education grants under the Government's Education Funding Program is 1980 and in view of the fact that he said that, undoubtedly I was correct when I said that Transcona-Springfield's spending was the lowest of all the major school divisions for the year 1980, which is his base year, is the Minister now prepared to take a look at the situation in the Transcona Springfield School Division, sit down with them, to try and come up with a reasonable compromise position, so that the Transcona School Division wouldn't be put in the position by this government's funding proposal of going from the lowest-spending school division to that which now in 1981 will be the highest taxed school division in the City of Winnipeg?

Is the Minister prepared to sit down with them reasonably to work out a compromise on this problem? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Transcona-Springfield School Division Board. They have presented me with statistics on their budget. lt has been their choice in their wisdom to budget at a particular figure which far surpasses the percentage level last year. This is the main aspect that is creating a problem in this instance. That is well within their jurisdiction to determine what level their budget will be at, Mr. Speaker. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister if he would reconsider his position in view of the fact that Transcona-Springfield School Division this year is right in the middle of a three-year building and operational funding program, which they brought in last year following the old rules of education funding, and they now find themselves in a serious predicament because the government uni laterally, without consultation, has rammed through an education funding proposal that hurts a significant tax group within the City of Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. COSENS: Mr.

Speaker, to make a statement like that is absolutely ridiculous, to say "without consultation ". We have consulted with every educational body in this province and have had input from them all. This is not a plan that was placed lightly before the people of this province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona with a final supplementary. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I don 't use the question to debate as does the Minister in his answer.

I would ask him if he would look at the historical facts to determine whether in fact there was any consultation between the Government of Manitoba and the school divisions, especially those negatively affected, when they developed this particular financing proposal which they brought in over the last four months? MR. COSENS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had input from the Transcona-Springfield Division.

Without a doubt, I can produce for the honourable member briefs that we have received from that School Division, and we have had discussions with them, but I must tell the honourable member that we do not tell school divisions how they are going to budget. That is within their jurisdiction, it's part of local autonomy, and they make those decisions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Honourable Member 2150

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 for St. Boniface raised questions with regard to young people attending agencies that provide meals, I advised that I would have a report today with the regard to the present status of those agencies. I would like to inform the House that with regard to the Salvation Army Harbour Light, since the question of children attending the Food Services at Harbour Light last December, there have been 20 to 25 cases referred to either the City of Winnipeg Welfare or the Provincial Welfare Department, which were followed by the various people to make sure that there was no child neglect.

Up till now there has been no reference to the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg that in fact child neglect existed.

With regard to Rossbrook House - I might say before we go to Rossbrook House, that the Salvation Army has the ongoing liaison with the Children's Aid Society that if there are any indications that children are attending that facility that appear to have neglect that they will notify the Children's Aid Society immediately; further that they encourage children to attend, in other words, the family to attend with their parents in the treatment that they have for those particular citizens so that it's natural for children to be in attendance at Harbour Light with their families.

With regard to Rossbrook House, which we know is an agency that has been set up as a drop-in centre in the centre core area, there is in the order of approximately 40 to 60 young people that attend that nightly and they do provide foods for those that may want to have it.

I might say that in the instance of last weekend that Sister MacNamara had indicated, I believe it was to the Director of Child Welfare, that the numbers fell off because of the change of weather, which does occur; that when the warm weather appears that for some reason the attendance falls off, which would contradict the concern that we have that there was in fact an increase of children attending these agencies. I can advise you that the Director of the Children's Aid Society Winnipeg, has written Dr.

Latinecz asking him to declare any children that he knows that are attending these particular agencies, because by law if there is child neglect in the Province of Manitoba under

Section 36, it is the responsibility of any citizen to report to the Children's Aid Society or Director of Child Welfare, where they expect child neglect occurs to report immediately. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister assure this House that no children will go hungry over this weekend while this investigation is continuing? That's the main thing, we know the laws. There are some that feel that this is not a serious question. I think we have news for them, I am just asking the Minister to make sure, after the report that there is . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that all of us are concerned if there are any children that are going hungry on any weekend, but I can advise this 2151 to the honourable member that these agencies provide the service of providing a meal, and it is not uncommon that these young people that attend these particular agencies may have already had two or three meals that day, and are like any youngsters, are hungry like my youngsters are hungry even after they have had three meals, so it is very difficult to guarantee that there won't be young people in our province that may be hungry this weekend. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, the time for question period having expired we'll proceed with Orders of the day. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. J. R. (Bud) BOYCE: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to a point of order, I would like to advise the members of the House that I told my colleague, the Member for Burrows, that I would even change my deodorant, but he insisted upon exercising his prerogative because of being elected in 1966 and I in 1969; he exercised his prerogative to sit in the second row. Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I am advised that there has been a bill tabled in the House of Commons with amendments to The Narcotics Act, and the impact of such will, in my opinion, render inoperative an amendment that we passed to The Legislative Assembly Act during this Session. Having perused the rules, I am of the opinion that we can only proceed to consider something which has been dealt with during the current Session by unanimous consent of the House.

I am in somewhat of a dilemma in how to deal with what I see as a problem, because should it be the case that the House adjourn or prorogue and no election is called until the statutory date of October 1982, then the situation which we had hoped to correct will not have been corrected. So, Mr. Speaker, I didn't rise during the question period because it is a matter of procedure.

Should it be your ruling which I feel you that you must rule when I'm out of order, perhaps I could take this opportunity to give notice, that should it be the case that the amendment which possibly could amount to a sentence of the Member for Wolseley being reduced to mandatorily three years, then I would introduce a motion on a matter of privilege that unanimous consent be given to re-open that particular bill and rectify the situation in keeping with the intention of the amendment which I had offered when the bill was being considered. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I thank the honourable member for raising what he considers to be a point of order, however, I would point out to the honourable member that until

an Act is passed in the House of Commons, we cannot raise any issue in this Chamber until that becomes law. So at this point in time, the point of order raised by the member is not really a point of order. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented.

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of grievance arising from the responses which were received this afternoon from the Attorney-General, the Minister responsible for Urban Affairs, as well as the Minister of Education, and also pertaining to the responsibilities of the Government as a whole relating to financing of local government in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, we heard the Minister of Urban Affairs earlier this afternoon attempt to relieve himself of any responsibility for the situation which is now creating an impact upon the ratepayers of the City of Winnipeg by way of his reference. By way of his reference, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that grants had been increased by some 16 percent this year over last year to the City of Winnipeg. Mr.

Speaker, what is astounishing, and I regret that the Minister of Urban of Affairs is no longer in the Chamber, so that one can address one's remarks directly to him, is that the Minister of Urban Affairs would attempt to take credit this year for an increase of grants in this neighbourhood of some 16 percent. Well, he starved, as Minister of Urban Affairs, the City of Winnipeg from 1977 through to 1980. Mr.

Speaker, what we are dealing with is the fact that from 1977 to 1980 the City of Winnipeg received some $8.5 million less from this Government, despite the increasing costs introduced by inflation, $8.5 million less and, Mr. Speaker, I was slightly out in my figures and in my question to the Minister of Urban Affairs, I'd indicated $6 million. lt was $8.5 million less, paid by the Province of Manitoba to the City of Winnipeg as compared to 1977 according to the old formula that was in practise, Mr. Speaker, under the time of the New Democratic Party Government in the Province of Manitoba.

In fact, I have here a letter from Pearl McGonigal, Deputy Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, dated October 27th, 1980, when she points out, I would like to read from the letter in case there is any doubt on the part of any members across the way, that there is any inaccuracy in the figures being provided.

In the letter, the Deputy Mayor points out, "The City obtained through grants a larger portion of provincial growth tax revenues in 1976 and in 1977 than in 1978, 1979 or 1980." She continues: "Had the City received through grants the same proportion of provincial growth tax revenues in 1979 as it did in 1976, the 1979 grant would have been $58.-some million instead of the $52.8 million, resulting in a shortfall of $5.5 million." Then she continues, "The 1980 grant would be $64,495,000 instead of $55,890,000, is estimated that the city will receive this year resulting in a shortfall of $8.6 million." So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what are the concerns of Members in the Opposition, the concern of residents not only of the City of Winnipeg but indeed throughout the entire Province of Manitoba and particularly the municipal representatives of this province that the Minister of Urban Affairs can attempt to duck his responsibility by blaming the situation by which the city councillors and municipal people of this province are in this year on their backs rather than assuming full and total responsibility himself for the situation that the municipal people are faced with this year. And despicable, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, was the same sort of approach assumed this afternoon by the Minister of Education. We have been unable to obtain straight answers from the Minister of Education pertaining to the Transcona Springfield situation. Transcona-Springfield situation demands and deserves remedial action on the part of this government. We have not heard a word might I mention as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Member for Springfield who wasn't obviously doing his homework as it was pointed out to us on the part of the school trustees in the Transcona-Springfield district only some two weeks ago. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what we have is the Minister of Education ducking his responsibility, attempting to place full responsibility on the backs of the school trustees for a messy patchwork system that this Minister of Education must assume responsibility for that he's introduced to the Province of Manitoba in which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he has created inequities within the present system rather than attempt to deal with proper educational finance reform in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the past three years this government has roared, roared like a lion, and has produced a mouse.

That's what we have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a result of what the Minister of Education has done. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we are faced with is a Minister of Urban Affairs that shrugs his shoulders this afternoon and suggests to us that the blame must be attached to the councillors because this is the first year of their term in office. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the last term in office of this Government and after three years of deliberate restraint and cutback, they now in their final year of being in office, and I underline the word "final" are increasing financial assistance by 16 percent. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is not the fault of the councillors of the City of Winnipeg, the fault rests with this government, that after three years of financial neglect and restraint and cutback, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government now attempts to take credit by suddenly increasing its assistance by 16 percent after three years of financial starvation of the City of Winnipeg as well as all the municipalities in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I also note some of words that have been uttered in the past by the Minister of Urban Affairs, and also indeed by the Progressive Conservative Party when they met for purposes of determining an urban strategy on the 5th day of October 1977, and I have in my hands a bulletin that was issued and prepared by the Manitoba Progressive Conservative Party in which they indicated that their foundation enrichment program intention would be the delivery of actual property tax reductions on real property - the delivery of actual property tax reductions on real property.

What were we faced with after the Conservative policy statement; 1978, 1979, a freeze in the property tax credit system, cutbacks by way of financial assistance to the city and the municipalities of the Province of Manitoba. Cutbacks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that resulted in sharp increases in transit fares in 1978 in the City of Winnipeg, and in 1979 we have the Minister of Urban Affairs saying on page 1323 of Hansard, "I think generally speaking the 215 2

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 municipal tax for real property taxpayers are not overburdened with municipal taxation, that they get good value for their dollar but the area that has to be dealt with and resolved is the amount levied against real property for education." In 1980, the Minister said again on page 3080 of Hansard, the Minister of Urban Affairs, here are his words, "I am happy to be part of a government that in effect has reduced the burden of taxpayers in the City of Winnipeg this year compared to last for people with average homes in the City of Winnipeg.

I recognize it is not totally the long-term solution to financing of both schools and municipalities, but that has in effect been a reduction in taxes this year and I am satisfied that we will be addressing the long-term problems, the Minister of Urban Affairs outlining to us in 1980 that the long-term problems would be dealt with. After three years, after three years of being in office, the Minister of Urban Affairs attempts to provide us some assurance. Then, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have on page 2972 of Hansard, April 28th, the same Minister of Urban Affairs stating, "The province must ensure that all municipalities including the City of Winnipeg had access to sufficient revenues to support the necessary levels of expenditure on local government services and facilities.

At the same time this government believes very strongly that municipal councils should have maximum flexibility to determine expenditure levels according to local priorities for which they are accountable to their electors." Then the Minister in the same speech boasted that the property tax credit increases of last year did indeed decrease taxes in all but two school divisions in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the issue now is, what can this government do?

After three-and-a-half years of financial neglect, after a situation which as we read today, by which the average home assessed at $8,000, the increase of taxation: Seine River estimated to be $180 ; Transcona $161; River East $188; St. Vital $11 0; St. Boniface $130; Seven Oaks $73; Norwood $50 and some cents; Fort Garry $19.07; Assiniboia South $33.10; St. James Assiniboia $48.75; only Winnipeg showing a decrease. Mr.

Speaker, what ought to be done on the part of this government in view of what has occurred, is adjustments pertaining to property tax credits, so that there can be adjustments still undertaken during this tax year for ratepayers throughout the Province of Manitoba. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government cannot extricate itself by simply increasing the base of the property tax credit system. What is required is an increase in the maximum under the property tax credit system.

If we indeed should increase the base throughout, all we will have done is continue to widen the differential which has resulted from the Minister of Education's proposals by way of supposed tax reform in the City of Winnipeg. So you would reduce, for instance, the Seine River average tax base increase to $80, but insofar as Winnipeg you would increase the decrease to $140. So that is not the answer for the Minister of Education to pursue.

The answer for the Minister of Education - we call upon the Minister of Education, the First Minister, and the Minister of Finance, to begin 2153 immediately effort, to bring about an adjustment to the situation which they have caused this year - is to meet in order to develop a formula by which the maximum under the property tax credit system can be increased so those that are on low and middle income areas and brackets can be best helped. And we call upon this government now, to undertake that immediate action, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, while there is still opportunity for them to do so before the tax bills are mailed to the ratepayers of the Province of Manitoba. Secondly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a serious problem pertaining to inequities created by the Minister of Education in regard to his entrenchment of differentials from one school division to the other.

We have already received numerous complaints in respect to the fact that differentials from one school to the next have rather than been equalized have indeed been entrenched, and the Minister of Education says "not true", just as he responded "not true" to the allegations by Transcona Springfield which were found indeed to be true, and the Minister's statements to be untrue. Mr.

Speaker, what is required is a complete re examination and revamping of the government's educational support program in order to ensure that there is greater equity, school division to school division, rather than the entrenching of the existing differentials which exist from one school division to the next. Mr. Speaker, for three-and-a-half years we have been expecting basic educational reform. We were told about basic educational reform to take place in 1978, Throne Speech 1979, 1980, and this is what we have for it, Mr.

Speaker, and if we appear to be frustrated as our school board representatives throughout Manitoba and Manitobans in general, it's because they expected much more than what they have received by way of reform from the Minister of Education. And let it be placed on record that the Minister of Education laughs, he still has not recognized the seriousness of the problem which relates to his lack of refrom initiative in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, if this wasn't sufficient that the ratepayers of Manitoba are hit by way of increased property taxation because of a lack of initiative and because of political management rather than economic management on the part of this government. We are also now confronted with and we've had great of debate, a great deal of debate in the last few days, about the discriminatory measures that were enacted in last year's budget, pertaining to the Property Tax Credit and the Cost of Living tax credit changes. Discriminatory changes that we indicated in the spring of 1980 were hucksterism.

They have proved themselves, indeed to be hucksterism and the result again has been serious impact, negative impact, upon so many of low and middle income brackets in the Province of Manitoba. So you add it up, Mr. Speaker. By the backdoor, this government has extracted millions of dollars from the pockets of Manitobans by way pf restraint policies, which have placed municipal and school board governments in an untenable position. By backdoor income tax changes last year in the budget; changes, Mr. Speaker, that have not added

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 to progressive taxation in the Province of Manitoba; changes. Mr. Speaker, that have added unfairly to those in low and middle income levels in the Province of Manitoba; and as was mentioned earlier, we are also confronted with this pertaining to the transit fare increases. On February 27th, 1980, the Minister of Urban Affairs had this to say, on page 23 of Hansard. I want to read the words of the Minister of Urban Affairs into the record. "Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I do have a special interest and concern that urban transit in the City of Winnipeg be improved and expanded upon. and I think the trend that we see in gasoline prices and energy costs across Canada and North American and the world will ensure that this will happen; and I think the announcements that were made in the Throne Speech in general, in reference to the Manitoba Energy Council and matters under consideration by the Minister of Mines and Energy policies will be developing in that particular area to assist in the problem for urban transit and many other energy affairs." The Min ister of Urban Affairs said that the problems relating to transit would be remedied, that the Energy Council's initiatives would remedy the problems pertaining to transit in the City of Winnipeg.

That's what the Minister of Urban Affairs said a year ago. Well, Mr. Speaker, the transit users of the City of Win nipeg must indeed be wincin g today at recollection of those words by the Minister of Urban Affairs. What is taking place again is more extracting from one pocket and then pretending reforms and placing money in the other pocket.

Ask any transit fare rider today whether or not he agrees with the comments by the Minister of Urban Affairs that constitutional changes are going to improve the lot of the transit fare operators in the City of Winnipeg, does he agree or she agree with the Minister of Urban Affairs in that statement, and the answer will be a resounding "No". or the Minister of Urban Affairs' comment this afternoon that the elimination of succession duties is going to put moneys into the pockets of the transit fare passenger in the City of Winnipeg. Mr.

Speaker, I would hesitate to even suggest that the Minister of Urban Affairs would have made such a statement, because I think there are very few residents, transit fare passengers, that would think for a moment that the Minister of Urban Affairs would try to suggest that transit fare riders must indeed be happy today, because succession duties were eliminated in the Province of Manitoba.

The government 's launching a tremendous battle on behalf of the province to combat constitutional changes being proposed, but at the same time there's been a hefty increase in fares, and the Minister has the audacity to suggest to transit fare riders in the Province of Manitoba, be happy for small mercies. Who is the Minister trying to kid? Who is the Minister trying to kid? Then we have many other matters that are confronting the municipal ratepayer in the province.

I could have dealt at some length with the attempts on the part of the Federal Government to reduce its share of RCMP services; the ducking on the part of the Provincial Government for any responsibility in picking up any of that additional burden that would end up being placed upon the ratepayers of urban centres in the Province of Manitoba.

The Union of Manitoba Municipalities, by way of their resolution passed last year, made it very clear and very specific that they would accept no ducking of responsibility on the part of the Provincial Government; they would look to both levels of government, Federal and Provincial, not to leave the municipalities of this province holding the bag, insofar as additional costs brought about by additional RCMP costs in the Province of Manitoba.

So what we are faced with in summation is a situation that this government has brought on to itself, and unfortunately in the process, a situation that has hurt the municipal and school board ratepayers of the Province of Manitoba, a situation by which we witness unparalleled increases by way of taxation at the local level.

According to the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, the highest tax increase in the City of Winnipeg since the formation of Unicity; according to the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, the highest tax burden faced by any city, in fact any municipality in Canada; and the only response that we're able to obtain from this government, whether it be the Minister of Urban Affairs, whether it be the Minister of Education, is it's not our fault, blame the municipal ratepayers representative, blame the school board member for the plight, the plight that the people of the City of Winnipeg are in. We say, Mr.

Speaker, that this government cannot and must not abdicate its responsibility, and, Mr. Speaker, we say to you that alth ough this government may be very well abdicating its responsibility, that we will ensure that every effort will be undertaken on the part of the Opposition to not permit this government to continue to abdicate that respo nsibil ity, and when there 's a change in government, after the next election, Mr.

Speaker, we will be getting down to dealing with the basic fundamental problems confronting municipal and local government in this province in order to ensure that services that are provided to by people are mainly picked up by the general revenues of the Province of Manitoba and, Mr. Speaker, that provincial representatives no longer meekly and weak ly duck their respo nsibil ity, but assume respon sibility for people at the local level. The elected representatives in this House are just as much responsible for the Winnipeg ratepayer as the Councillors of the City of Winnipeg are, and in fact, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that in the final analysis the ratepayers, not only of the City of Winnipeg but of the Province of Manitoba as a whole and all of the municipal itie s, will look ultim ately to the representatives of this Government and I'm sure that there will be some expression of disappointment on the part of the people of this Province, how promises were broken; how commitments have been ignored; how there has been so much fine rhetoric over the past three years; and yet at the end of three-and-a half to four years, by way of the shell game that we've often made reference to, the people, the ratepayers, the transit users, the other users of services in the Province of Manitoba have been left holding the bill because of three-and-a-half years of ill-founded, irresponsible, incompetent management of the affairs of the Province of Manitoba by this Conservative Government. 2154

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 QUESTION put on Motion to go into Committee of Supply, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Energy and Mines and Honourable for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Community Services and Corrections. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPL V SUPPL V -COMMU NITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS CHAIRMAN, Mr. Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order of Community Services and Corrections. We are on Item 5, Page 26, (a)(1) - pass; (a)(2) - the Member for Seven Oaks. MR.

SAUL MILLER: Firstly, on this line here, Rehabilitative Services, the amount last year was $32,227, 000.00. Has that all been expended, or will it be expended? I just want the total. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the honourable member, it is slightly underexpended. I can possibly get the general region of the value of the underexpenditure in half a minute. The main reason being was the delay in opening up of some of the community residences.

I would say that where it was possible, we diverted the unexpended funds into some new programs for the remainder of this fiscal year, that had been initiated under the Manitoba Marathon and some other areas relating to mental retardation. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I don't quite follow the Minister. He says it is slightly underspent because some of the community residences were slower in getting going; I guess that's what he meant. He did say, however, the funds would be used and paid for purposes in 1981-82. Is that what he said? MR. MINAKER: No, Mr.

Chairman, what happened - an example was, we provided a new $25,000 worth of funding for apartment living for the remainder of the year and then also, Mr. Chairman, we paid some deficits which occurred, I believe, in three of the occupational activity centres. We did a survey of all the occupational activity centres to find out how their funding was going and it came back, I think, that three out of the 21 centres had had difficulties and their deficits were cleared up. MR.

MILLER: But in fact it wasn't therefore an underexpenditure; it was simply that the money may not have been spent for community residences, but was in fact spent for something else. So, generally, the full amount shown in this Appropriation 5. has in fact been spent, not down to the last nickel, but has there been any significant shortfall in expenditures? From what I gather from the Minister, there hasn't been. MR. CH AIRMAN: 5. (a)(1) - the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, just a small point, but I have a criticism here.

Office of Rehab Services, 2155 Manitoba Special Olympics - that grant to the Manitoba Special Olympics would come here? That's something new that I see on the list; it is $9,000.00. I want to hasten and explain why I don't like this. lt is not the fact that you are helping these people but I don't think it should come under this department. I think that when you are talking about sports and fitness, it is time, and this is what governments are preaching, that we deal with these people as ordinary people.

You are talkin g about sports (Interjection)- my point is this, that under this, 5.(a), you have a grant for the Manitoba Special Olympics for $9,000.00.

I am very much in favor of the government supporting these people, but I don't think it should be under this department at all. lt should be under the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport, because you are singling out people and it practically looks as if it's charity or welfare, and these people are entitled to it and we are saying, more and more governments are preaching and these people, the diffe rent organizations of handicapped people and so one, want to be treated like anybody else and they take their Olympics very very seriously.

I guess the main thing is they get the mo;;ey and I don't want to be overly critical, but I would suggest, if there is any more of that, that should go - you have a department, a much smaller department than this, Fitness and Amateur Sports, and that's where you should find the - because they are helping the Olympics, they are helping the Canada Games, they are getting involved in that with the athletes and these people are athletes like anybody else. MR. MINAKER: I will take the honourable member's suggestion under consideration for next year's Budget.

The only thing I would like to indicate is that this money is used to seek out volunteers, who assist in the provision of these programs, so it's primarily to assist in seeking out volunteers and to assist in the program, but we will look at it. As you say, they do not want to be segregated and we will look at providing it under a different part. MR.

DESJARDINS: Let me just say that you some of the grants that are made under Fitness and Amateur Sports also are to seek volunteer organizers, coaches and trainers and all that, the same thing, so I think it would be just a gesture to further recognizing that they are ordinary people with some handicaps. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: I assume, Mr. Chairman, this is the group, the administration, which has to approve the community residences for the mentally retarded; therefore, I want to talk on that aspect of it.

The City of Winnipeg last year, I believe, finally changed their zoning requirements so that the problems, which occurred in the past with regard to setting up these residences, have been somewhat alle viated, or considerably all eviated. I am wondering, therefore, about two aspects of it. One, are there many more plans for this year, and to what extent does the government assist in the capital financing or the capital acquisition of a home, for children, mentally retarded in residence in the communty. Or does the government simply not

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 contribute any capital, but simply pay towards the operating cost. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, we have continued the policy as was the case when the honourable member was the Minister, that we recognized the costs of borrowed money in the per diem rates, but the Manitoba Marathon, as the member knows, is also involved in providing part of the capital of some of these community residences, so that if there's continued payment then we recognize the cost of the borrowed money in those as well.

In terms of the numbers of community residences for this year, we're looking in the order of approximately four. If you noticed four to five, yeah, if you noticed in the announcement in the opening remarks, I believe we have, if I remember correctly, approximately $1 85,000. MR. DESJARDINS: Financial assistance line, is that it? Is it in four? MR. MILLER: Mr.

Chairman, what basically is occurring is this, that the people who want to establish a community residence, have to find the financing, once they find the financing, they apply to the province for recognition and once recognized they'd be paid a per diem, which would help them to retire the capital investment. Mr. Chairman. the Minister indicated there were four more. Could the Minister tell us whether this all those, will that meet the needs of all those that have applied to date, or are there simply some that are being told to wait, because the province isn't prepared to fund their operations? MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: getting the information. Last year the Minister was good enough to give us a list of the community residence for moderately retarded, providing supervision only the names, the number of clients that is served, the per diem and the expenditure for - well that was 1978-79 that I have here and the staffing. lt would be nice if we can have that to make a comparison. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR.

MINAKER: First in answering the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, that we have had requests for eight bed residences as well as other numbers for - and six bed. The numbers of four or five new community centres, resid ences would cover the request that we've had for eight bed residences. No, we haven't got enough funding at this time to cover those requests.

We are looking towards the idea of providing special allowances for different levels of care, in the same way that we have in the mental health care field, in the mental retardation field, where we will have a certain allowance per month for a level 1, level 2, level 3, and level 4 care, and we feel that when that is approved, that we can probably accommodate some of these requests, because we know at the present time that it can be done in the mental health field, but at the present time that has not become an approved policy of the government, this level of care allowance that we are looking at. MR.

MILLER: Am I to assume from the Minister's statement, when he says the eight-bed ones are being approved or have been approved, and there are no eight-bed ones that have not been approved - there are none that are on the waiting list? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, we will still have to approve the four new community resid ences. (Interjection)- No. MR. DESJARDINS: Is there money in here for that? MR. MINAKER: Yes, Mr. Chai rman, there is $1 85,000 of new funds above and beyond the funding that we had last year, along with the increased costs of funding the existing residences.

That is to recognize the Manitoba Marathon and their input; it's only part of the Manitoba Marathon input recognition. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, again, I want to pin it down. Then there is money in this year';; Estimates to allow these eight-bed community residences to come onstream in 1981 and 1982, and although they may not have been informed of that, you will inform them, I am sure, after the Estimates are passed.

Now, with regard to the four and five-bed ones, is the reason that the request is for four and five-bed rather than eight -bed because of the kind of residents. the disability of the residents which determines the request for only four and five in a community residence? I am just wondering why these groups wouldn't also seek to go the eight-bed route, rather than try to reduce the size. MR. MIN AKER: Mr.

Chair man, the four-bed residence is more of a foster-type setting and that's why we feel if we established different levels of care allowances, that we should be able to - or anybody that takes on this option should be able to finance that type of a residency. We have been advised and indicated to by the CAMR that it might be easier to locate and find a residence that would handle four residents easier than it might be for eight. Our concern is the fact that if we went to a four citizen-type residency that we would have to double those particular group homes in Win nipeg, or anywhere. MR.

MILLER: I can see the unit cost per bed would be higher if the number of people living in the residence is smaller, because you still need the couple who lives in and instead of looking after eight people, they would only be looking after four, so I can see that. So it has nothing to do with the degree of disability or the degree of retardation that determines that, it's really whether the people can find a residence, an older home that's big enough to accommodate eight residents plus a couple, a live-in couple. Is that the problem that they can't find these larger homes at prices that they can afford to pay? MR.

MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, it has been indicated that is part of the problem. 215 6

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. MILLER: What's the other problem? MR. MINAKER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the four-bed residents could be that there would be four moderately retarded people in a four-bed residency and it becomes more of a foster sitting.

The fact that we have indicated that we want to try and maintain an eight-bed type of residency because of the cost factor, that is why we're introducing these levels of allowance for care, recognizing then that if you get four moderately retarded citizens who want to live in one of these four-bed residences that we should be able to look after the majority of the financing of that situation with these levels of care. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying that

whereas the traditional, if you want to call it that, they're not all that old, but the traditional community residences for the retarded are sponsored by an organization or by a group who raise the funds, acquire the house, and then proceed to hire somebody to act as live-in surrogate parents, house parents?

Is he saying that's the traditional way, but the other way is for someone, anyone, who has a busines to simply say, I'm prepared to run a foster home, I'll take in four retarded people and get paid as if I was running a small business, almost a lodge of some kind for retarded but I'll only take in four people? Is he saying he's looking at that as a possibility? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, that is a possibility with the new guest home regulations, that that could come about, that if it ended up that in that particular facility you had four citizens that qualified for social allowance, that that could actually take place. MR. MILLER: So they'd be very similar to any guest home operation in a sense only instead of . . . they would be for ill people involved here. Is the Minister satisfied that this is the way to go when dealing with the mentally retarded?

Is he satisfied that using that approach of people who are looking at this as a business is the best way to go even though he may have licensing and inspections and so on? Doesn't he feel that working through organizations and getting the community as a whole involved, is really the best way of bringing these community residences into being and making sure that the services in that home and the standards in that home are maintained at all times, rather than leave it to someone who is looking at this as an income.

In the traditional eight-bed home, the houseparents are hired by the board and. the board usually are the parents of children there, so they make darn sure that the home is run properly and if it's not, they can fire the houseparents. In the case of a privately-owned facility that takes in four or five mentally-retarded children or adults, then the profit aspect of it comes into play.

Is the Minister satisfied that he should even consider that as another avenue, another alternative, rather than trying to work through organizations and groups of parents who get ·together and form a non-profit organization so that they can take in both their own children and other children as well. We know the kind of care they are in and the atmosphere they are in is very much geared to the needs of the residents and is not coloured by the fact that they have got to make a buck at the end of the year. 2157 MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, maybe I was misunderstood.

What I had indicated was that we are now offering that to the non-profit organizations to take up as an option. The system exists out there at the present time in the guest home situation that we do have some mentally-retarded people being cared for in guest homes.

What we are proposing now is that we will indicate to the CAMR groups, or any towns or cities that have citizens who volunteer and want to open up one of these residencies, that we have this option as well as a community residence option available to them, where we fund the actual budget of the community residence, or we can offer them the different levels of care allowance, if they want to take that on like a guest home operator. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I am interested in the presentation of the budget and the descriptions there and I want some clarification on a comparison. In last year's Estimates, under this item, 5.(a). there is the same description of the nature of the work and I would like to read it just to confirm that - if you will follow the current year, you will see it, and last year's, I think, is the same - it says, "Divisional administration, including program support and funding of services, care and accommodation for persons living in the community." I think that is the same as we have this year, but the amounts are different.

The amounts shown approved for last year are greater than the amounts shown on the left-hand column here. In order to satisfy myself as to how it happened, I looked at last year's Health Estimates and I find that there is no similar

section under Health and this year, under Health, there is a very very similar program and I want to read it in. While you look at the item we are dealing with, 5.(a), I want to read to you what it says under 2.(

b) on Page 73 of these Estimates, under Health. lt says, "Provides program support, funding of services, and care and accommodation for persons living in the community," so it seems to add the word "and" and it seems not to say "divisional administration including." When I compared the two last year, the two left hand columns, I find that in most cases, in three out of these five items before us, (1 ), (2), (3), (4), and (5), the total of what is shown under Health and shown here under Community Services adds up to what was shown last year under Community Services, so there is obviously something split away from last year's budget and put into Health this year - I don't mean this year - that has been put into Health, because they are showing the costs in this year ending next week as being some $547,000 - no, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong figure - $195 ,800, which is fairly close to what was voted last year under this column, under Community Services.

I question this; I want an explanation of the division of services, because it seems to me that when we approved of the Estimates last year, we approved of this whole program being done in the Department of Community Services and this year we are being, and have been asked, to divide the program between Health and Community Services. I am concerned, as I became concerned, was it two days ago, when we learned that the Minister said,

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 and I quote from my memory, "The Minister of Health has indicated that he would like to take more of the health features under his department." I am bothered about the thought of having - is the word "bifurcated?" it's a good word anyway - supply of services generally. but I refer to it specifically under Community Mental Retardation.

So I ask more specifically, under Salaries, the difference between what is shown in these Estimates under Health and under Community Services and what was shown in last year's Estimates for the same item for last year is very little - it's about $300 more under Salaries. Under Other Expenditures, it totals the same amount. Professional Training does not appear in the Health · Estimates, but then last year it was shown at $14 0,000, so there has to be an explanation there.

But in Financial Assistance, under (4) and (5), the total of what is shown under Health and here in the left-hand column totals what was shown last year in Community Services. I trust by that

preamble, it is clear that I am concerned for an explanation of what appears to be a portion of responsibility being pulled away from this Minister and turned into the Health Ministry and I would like not only an explanation but a justification for that. MR. MIN AKER: Mr. Chairman, to ease the Honourable Member for St. Johns' mind, you will recall that the other evening, or at least when we opened the Estimates, there was a question by the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks to explain the reconciliation statement that indicated there was a transfer of functions to Health of $403,200, on Page 22 of the Estimates.

What had happened, last year, with the splitting of the departments, which occurred in the late fall, there were some items that were missed and included under our department relating to mental health. As the honourable member realizes and remembers. that when the department was split, it was recognized that mental health was a disease and was considered to be a health situation;

whereas mental retardation was a disability.

If the honourable member recalls, I indicated that from the Community Services and Corrections Department to the Health Department, we transferred the professional training, Mental Health Directorate, some $200,700, and the Mental Health Directorate was transferred over to Health, which included three SMYs, for $42,500; the operating costs of that were $15, 000; and then the financial assistance to Sarah Riel Residence for half a-year relating to mental health, and the Respite Care Portion relating to Mental Health, which totalled those three items to $77,000; and then the agency, CMHA, which is the Canadian Mental Health Association, for $58,000; and the YM HA portion relating to mental health programs of $10,0 00.00.

When we totalled those items, they came to $202,500, giving us a total of $403,200 that has now been transferred to the Department of Health. There are no funds being transferred because of other changes, that I am aware of. MR. CHERNIACK: I wanted to know how the delivery of services is affected by this change, this transference of money, recognizing the transference of program. I understand, one is a disability and one is a mental health problem, but the description of the two programs is almost identical, as I have already read into the record. How do we account for that?

How do you know which does what to whom? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, it's the same type of service, it's just a different type of client. One is post-mentally ill, and the other one is mentally retarded. lt was simply, I have been advised, a simple error in print last year, that it should have been in the Health Department and it was not. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I can understand that feature. I want to know how is the treatment different for the persons living in the community, as between the delivery under Health and under Community Services? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, if I understand the honourable member correctly, there is no difference. MR. CHERNIACK: I don't want him to understand me; I want to be able to understand him. What do you mean, there is no difference? Why is it that two departments are delivering similar services with the bureaucratic need to deliver the same service to two different groups of people? Would you please justify any increased cost? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, if I understand the honourable member correctly, I indicated earlier that mental health and the services in institutions related to mental health come under the responsibility of the Minister of Health. If it is part of the regional delivery system, it is handled by the Minister of Community Services, our department. There is no separation in that regard. However, the community residences and the Directorate of Mental Health fall under the Minister of Health. MR. CHERNIACK: But the Minister says there is no difference in the nature of the service or treatment in dealing with the two types of patients.

MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with this specific piece of the Estimates, there is in the other areas of services to mental health and mental retardation. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm looking now at the Health Item 2 (

b) calle d Community Mental Health Directorate, page 73, bottom of the page, and I'm looking at the item before us and the description of the work they do is the same except in this case the words "Divisional admistration including" is added and I ask the Minister what is the difference between the type of service offered under 5 (

a) and what is offered under 2 (b)? I could understand theoretically that there is a difference between a mentally ill person and a disabled person. That I understand intellectua lly, I don't know that I know there's a difference in the way they're being handled once they're out in the community, persons living in the community is what the two apply to. Therefore, I'm asking whether there isn't a duplication of supervision? MR. MIN AKER: No, Mr. Chairman, I've been advised that there has been for many years always been the Community Mental Health Directorate and 2158

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 a Community Mental Retardation Directorate. There has been no duplication of services. it's just that we've now split off and put the Community Health Directorate under the Minister of Health which was where it was supposed to be. MR. CHERNIACK: Does that mean that before this split took place between the two Ministries then you must be aware that I'm doubting the validity of having done that by my question, whether prior to that there was one supervisory group of people in the depar tment then of Health and Community Services that looked after both of these aspects? MR.

DESJARDINS: The ADM but not the Directorate. MR. MINAKER: No, there was always two separate Directorates. MR. DESJARDINS: At the ADM level, yes. MR. CHERNIACK: When the Estimates were put throug h last year, was there more than a typographical or, no that was not the word that was used, a computer combination of the two because last year when we passed the Estimates, we passed them all under Community Services and you say that it was a mistake in the Estimates but that there's no change in the department? The Minister also said that we transferred three SMYs from Community Services to Health.

Was that on paper they were transferred or were there actual bodies that are suddenly reporting to a different Minister? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I believe, and we'd have to back to Hansard which I'll get our staff to check, but I believe that the fact that the Mental Health Directorate was under our department was mentioned and brought to the attention of the committee at that time, that it should have been included under the Department of Health. I'll check into that to verify that. There was no intention to have it under the Department of Community Services at that time. MR.

CHERNIACK: Could the Minister please inform me, can we visualize two houses theoretically side by side, one dealing under Health with persons living in the community and one dealing under Community Services with persons living in the community with the diagnosis being different, one is mentally ill and the other is disable d; how are they handled differently as between those two houses? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, one would be funded by the Department of Health, the other one would be funded by the Department of Community Services. lt could be if it was located in, we'll say, Virden, it could be serviced by the Department of Community Services in terms of counselling through either a Community Mental Health worker or Community Mental Retardation worker, in terms of counselling. If there was a separate worker for both, the mental health and mental retardate, then it would be two separate say, social workers. If it was one common one that was serving that area for both, then they would be served by one counsellor.

MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I don't care one wit where they're funded, under which department. 2159 it's still the taxpayer that pays the money through either department, but the Minister says, "either it might be where there's a worker from Health looking after it or a worker from the Community Services looking after it," I'd like to know the difference and the nature of their service or program but then he said, "but if it's one worker that looks after both sides then that worker would look after both." Are there such people? Are there people that work under both departments? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, in most regions, we have separate workers for both the Mental Health and Mental Retardation.

What I was citing was an example where maybe that particular staff man year had not been filled because somebody had been transferred or retired, then I would presume that we don't leave those clients unattended just because we don't have a Mental Health or Mental Retardated worker, but I would maybe draw to the attention of the honourable member is the fact that the Community Mental Health Directorate just doesn't deal with community residences. it coordinates and relates to the rest of the whole mental health system which could be your hospitals or it could be your institutions at Selkirk or Brandon, which come under the Minister of Health.

In other words if it's a post-patient, they could end up out in a community residence. That's why we have that line of authority and coordination with the Department of Health where as we are responsible as the honourable member knows, for the Mental Retardation Institutions, and that's why we have that line of authority into the community living. MR. CHERNIACK: Is there a difference in the program? MR.

MINAKER: I can't give the honourable member the full details but I would think that and I know there's difference in the program because there's different problems. it's basic decision, not by this Minister but by generally the medical profession and society that someone who is born with mental retardation is different than someone who has a mental collapse, mental health collapse and becomes mentally ill, so that there are different programs to provide services to these two different types of clients. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I would guess and I'm just guessing, that the person responsible directly for the care of either of these two types of people could do either job. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of Medicine but my informants indicate to me, no, that is not the case. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5 (a)(1) - pass; 5 (a)(2) - pass; 5 (a)(3) - pass; 5(a)(4) - pass - the Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: On looking at the new list that we have, I have a few questions.

First of all in the last list that we had, requirement for 1978-79, there is notice here, "not open yet, Covenant Home, Winnipeg, 1978-79, but approved" and we have the same thing here again, there's a note, "not opened yet." Now what's holding that up?

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, I've been advised that the failure for Covenant Home to open up has been one of a zoning problem and my understanding is that they have now overcome that problem and they will be opening up in the not too distant future. MR. DESJARDINS: But the house is there, it's not under construction. it's not like DASH. it's not the same program. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, I understand that they bought one home and then they had to sell it again because they couldn't get rezoning, and as the honourable member knows there has been some amendments to the City of Winnipeg bylaw to overcome some of those problems. MR. DESJARDINS: As the Minister knows, also there has been some amendments to a provincial act where you could act too, so if you want to - (Interjection)- You shouldn't have volunteered too much information. Mr. Chairman, another question.

In 1978-79 the projected per diem was $15.90, and most of them are going up, some of them quite a bit, and here you still have $1 5.90, now is that realistic? Are you asking for enough money here for Covenant? it's the same thing as they were asking as projected 19 78- 79, and everything has gone up. Are you under now or were you over then, or is it a change in the type of people that you have and the care needed? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, as the honourable member knows they are not operational at the present time and this is an estimated budget and we will have to zero in on the actual budget and then at the end of year, as the honourable member knows, we correct usually the grant and accommodate those facilities and look after the costs. MR. DESJARDINS: But nevertheless, Mr.

Chairman, you try to be as factual as you can, and then you like you say it is an estimate, but I am comparing estimate with estimate, but for three or four years after with this inflation, - I don't expect you to have it to cent, but it seems to me that maybe they just took $1 5.90 and put it there and it's not realistic, unless it was a way overestimated three years. it's not that important but you'll catch up. MR. MINAKER: I think, Mr. Chairman, that with the experience the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface had as a Minister that he recognizes that while we have four residences funded for this year and other ones coming onstream that usually there is a bit of a buffer in the total dollars available and we would accommodate and correct that particular figure. MR. DESJARDINS: Could the Minister indicate the four news ones that we have? Are they on this list here? I would like to mark them, because I missed a couple of years. Are they not on this list? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, they are not fully decided at this time. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue the question of my honourable friend here.

The Minister is putting in front of us a certain amount of 2160 money for this. They have not been that they have the go-ahead, this will be done when this money is passed, but have they been approved by Cabinet? In other words, are you telling us, oh, we need the money, we are going ahead, or is it something that you want a bit of flexibility that you might decide or not decide? Is it going ahead now, is it approved, these four? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, when the $1 85,000 is approved for this particular function, if we can get five new community residences, we will put five in; if we can get four, we will put four in. What I am saying is that our objective is to get those residences onstream this year, and we have $1 85,000 to do it. We haven't decided the location of those as yet. MR. DESJARDINS: You are not asking for money that you might not spend and come back next year? MR. MINAKER: No, that's not me, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to say that in all likelihood they will be split, two in Winnipeg and two outside of Winnipeg, and if we can get five, we will locate the third one. MR. DESJARDINS: There are two 48-beds now, including Covenant that is not opened, 8 there, but not counting the four or five new ones that you are getting. That's the list? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the Covenant's Home in Winnipeg, and the Flin Flon residence are not open at the present time, so that would be 15 .

I understand that Steinbach is now opened, so there's 15 out of the 248 that haven't, and this is where we were able to get funding for this apartment living that we came forward with, by using up these unexpended funds. MR. DESJARDINS: In a quick calculation, it seems to be there's about 68, 70 beds, out of 248, not counting those new ones in Winnipeg. lt seems out of kilter, the population is here and you have 68, and you have less problem in the city than in the area, I would think that living in the city is worse. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, my first reaction to the honourable member's question is that in the guest homes, in terms of the number of people that are served in guest homes, they're much higher in numbers in the City of Winnipeg and I would think probably that is the main reason that a lot of our mentally retarded citizens are living actually in residences as in guest homes. I would have to get the information . . . MR.

DESJARDINS: If that is the case then you have a problem, because I think you really have to watch what is going on in the guest homes, because these people, as my friend mentioned, are not qualified to take care of these people. So you know, what kind of a life . . .

I think that then you need to really enquire what's going on because they are certainly not getting the service where you have these type of people, four, or eight, or ten, and then you have the people that are qualified and it is monitored by the Department, it would be very very hard to find those and to determine which ones of the mentally retarded are in guest homes. it means that you're

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 licensing of the guest home will be quite difficult and I don't know how you are going to do it, because you would have to investigate everybody there to see if they are mentally retarded or not, and you have a big job ahead of you. MR. MINAKER: We recognize exactly what the Member for St. Boniface is saying that's why it is not something that existed today but for the last 10-15 years and that's why we're happy that we were able to get through the regulations on guest homes.

One of the things that will allow us to locate where the mentally retarded are located in guest homes is the majority of these particular citizens are on our social allowance roles, so we will be able to zero in on those particular ones. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, when this is done, are you going to try to provide, as you go along, it won't be done from one day to the other, the right type of care for these people that are in guest homes.

For instance , trying to have more community residences, group them together, and see that they have the care, because I can't see how they are going to get the service in the guest home. They'll exist, but it is not going to be a life, and it's very difficult, because the people in the guest homes - for instance, for one thing, the guest home people are all for profit, it's a business, which again brings a problem, and I would imagine that most of the community residences if not all are non-profit. Is that the case? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, as the honourable member knows, the majority of those guest homes probably are run by families or citizens in the city or in the rural areas for a fee that they utilize. If they make a profit off it, I guess they make a profit off it. They are paid for the care that they provide. The majority of them are at the present time run by private people. MR. DESJARDINS: That's right, Mr. Chairman, and if you're licensing these people, you say there are so many in there, you don't know how many, but you say that's probably the answer why there are more guest homes.

In other words, they're people that have not been identified and I'm not saying that's easy, but are you going to be satisfied if they are going to be identified. Are you satisfied that they should stay there? That's my point with people that are not qualified to keep them.

You have no control over them, you don't know every single one that is mentally retarded and some of them no doubt will be in guest homes, but when this is found out, if you must know, because you're saying that that's why there's such a big difference; are they going to be identified and will there be a method to treat them properly, the way they should? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, as we know, one of the objectives of the department, I believe it was when the member was the Minister, was to get as many of our mentally retarded citizens out into the community-living type of atmosphere, rather than in institutions or in group homes, and even those individuals still receive some counselling from community mental retardation workers, and they have day activity centres that they can go to or, in 2161 the case of some of these moderate ones, may be employed.

We intend on licensing all these guest homes, and to make sure that they meet the regulations of basic care and basic health standards, and I believe that as this programs develops that the care will become better and better. At least it's a step in the right direction of improving situations and we've always, I think, been faced with moving citizens, whether they're mentally retarded or the aged, out of guest homes that are not proper facilities for them to stay in. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is missing my point completely.

He's treating these people, if there are any of these people and I don't doubt that there must be some, that are mentally retarded and are presently in guest homes. He is treating them just like any ordinary people - (Interjection)- yes at this time, you have no idea where they are and are you looking at the people that own and operate these homes to see if they're qualified to give the same care to these people as these people in community residences are? That's the point I'm trying to make. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister is saying that in our time and it's the same policy with this government, that you are trying to depopulize, if that's a word, the institution and bring it into the community but we, and I admitted that a few years ago, that we made a mistake and we weren't the only ones. Practically everybody around North America were doing the same thing, except that one big thing was missing, they weren't ready in the community.

So you let people that definitely should have been and if nothing else should have been in an institution, you're just saying good-bye and you've lost track or you're going to lose track of them. That's exactly the point and now, by the medical profession, the experts will tell you that this is a problem, that you have to have an educated community and then you have to have the service or you're just getting people that have nothing else, that belong in an institution and they're just alone in a place and they're vegetating, they're not living.

You know, this might difficult, I'm not saying that this should be done in a day, I'm not asking a

schedule from the Minister; I'm asking a policy, a declaration of policy and I'm not getting any. MR. MINAKER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, if the honourable member remembers, earlier in the review of the Estimates this afternoon, we indicated that we were instituting a different level of care allowance for mentally retarded citizens, and our objective is that if they are living in a guest home and they need a certain level of care, then it will be considered that that allo wance will be paid for that particular individual, and we'll make sure that the care that they receive is up to the standards expected for that level of care payment. lt's quite obvious that the honourable member recognizes that the community residences are, in many ways, for retardated citizens that are say more profoundly retarded than those that might be living, more or less independently in guest homes, so that there would be a different level of cost for the care.

But our objective is that to improve the situation that has existed there for the past 12, 15 years and to give a better care for all of our citizens, not only the

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 mentally retarded, and that's our basic objectives that we're going through. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection and no criticism of that at all, of trying to improve the guest home, but the Minister is the one that brought this topic on by his answer, and now I'll try to demonstrate to him that then the answer wasn't correct. The last statement of the Minister was this, that the Member for St. Boniface should know that most of the people that are in these community residences, need more care than those in the guest homes.

But if you remember that what triggered all these questions is I asked the Minister how come there was only approximately 68 or so in Winnipeg, out of 248. Now we are dealing with a special group, following the last answer, that these need more care. So my question then, how come there's only 68 or 70 in Winnipeg that are in the level where they need more care then the country; therefore my question is unanswered. A couple of easier questions I'm sure.

I just started by looking at my old list of 1978-79, the per diem and I find one here who has the same number of beds, the same place, that actually the per diem went down. There must be some explanation. I'm thinking of 720-722 Ebby, with eight beds, that was $1,76 1 in 1978-79 and now it's $1 ,494.00. And that's the only one that I find, are you taking people that need less care or what? MR. MINAKER: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, was in that particular instance, that there was a special time limited arrangements to pay off some of the capital debt which has not been completed.

In other words, they had, I don't know whether it was a second mortgage or at least the payment has now been made and, as a result it has dropped down to the per diem rate. The level of service hasn't dropped off. MR. DESJARDINS: lt was an inflated thing to take care of the mortgage that was due in such a time to retire the debt. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a) ... MR. DESJARDINS: Whoa, whoa, just a minute, one more thing.

Just a very short progressive report or report on D.A.S.H., because I know the trouble we had for that, and finally it's on stream and all the complaints and the people around there were so scared and they were opposing it I think. How is it going? Is everybody happy? Is it working well, because it was kind of a pilot project, it was an experiment. lt was people that had two or three different handicaps, if I remember, They were very severely handicapped, so can we have a short report about what's going on. MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, it's my understanding there's no complaints from the community, there 's no complaints from the operation, however, as the honourable member recognizes with the comparison of the per diem rates, that it is quite costly, but everything seems to be working. MR. DESJARDINS: I think it's not the same type of people at all, they might be physically and mentally handicapped, I think that was the case in most of them, mentally and physcially handicapped. And that was one of the conditions, we knew that it would be costly. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)(4) - pass; 5.(a)(5) - pass; The Honourable Member for St. Boniface.

MR. DESJARDINS: Can the Minister give us the breakdown of these external agencies. I think we have it on our list, that's Canadian Association of Mentally Retarded, Steinbach, North Y.M .C .A. that's the one? MR. MINAKER: Steinbach Development Centre, in Montcalm, Gordon Bell School . MR. DESJARDINS: Where? MR. MINAKER: Montcalm, Gordon Bell School, that's the training . MR. DESJARDINS: The Winnipeg School Division. MR.

MINAKER: ... right, Training Day Activity Centre, that's been moved over to Gordon Bell and the number served has been increased, and the International Year of the Disabled Persons, there's 90,000 ... MR. DESJARDINS: For an office and staff. MR. MINAKER: Yes, well it's the grant now, that's $90,000.00. The total grant, Mr. Chairman, was $1 20,000, but the year goes from January to January, so $30,000 was taken out of this present year's Estimates and $90,000 ... MR. DESJARDIN: lt wasn't budgeted for, you made up, far as I can see .. MR.

MINAKER: We were able to because of the fact that those residences had not come on stream, we were able to get the $30,000 there, also the one that the member drew to our attention that we will consider transferring over to the Minister of Fitness and Sport, the Manitoba Special Olympics, for $9,000.00. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, you didn't have anything last here that has been discontinued, in this? MR. MINAKER: I don't think so, no. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, the International Year of the Disabled Person, this is a one-year or one-time only grant, is it, at the start?

I mean, it was to organize for this special year? MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. In fact, it was very specifically indicated to the organization that it was funding for this year to help them and assist them in making the year a success and making our communities and citizens aware of our disabled citizens. In fact, the organizing committee agreed with us that any of the new programs that they initiate this year would not be ongoing and commit the government to new 2162

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 expenditures next year without first coming to us to discuss anything with us. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(aX5) - pass; 5.(bX1) pass; 5.(b)((2) - the Member for Transcona, on (bX2). MR. PARASIUK: it makes no difference, I would like to ask on (1 ). There is a very significant increase there of $2.25 million. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, we now have 15 new positions. That is an ongoing program and I indicated earlier in my opening remarks that we would like to see an annual increase of staff at the Manitoba School at Portage.

I don't know whether the honourable member has the staff man years comparative figures that were handed out, but on the second page, there are 15 new SMYs for the school. In addition, these salaries now for the coming year include the two-year agreement of the MG EA,

whereas last year's did not, so that is where the significant change occurs, that we know what our increase of salaries will be for the coming year, so we have now included it in that figure. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: But, Mr. Chairman, I think I am right with the information that you have provided us, that I have in front of me, there is a big increase in the per diem at St. Amant also, which is close to a $1 million, the per diem rate at St. Amant. MR. MINAKER: Yes. Mr.

Chairman, that comes under (3) if we are dealing with number (1 ). lt will appear in External Agencies. I don't know whether the Honourable Member for Transcona was talking about the $13 million figure or the $23 million. MR. PARASIUK: I am talking about both, actually, in that I was looking to get a comparison of the per diem costs in Portage la Prairie, in Pelican Lake and in St. Amant. MR. MINAKER: I don't maybe have the figures here but I could give you the population of each one. If you want to multiply it by 365, then you can have the total that would come pretty close to it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, we have the figures for those, your per diem rate, but those that we haven't got the figures on are these that you are running yourself, like the Manitoba School at Portage la Prairie. You must have something on that, that's one of the important things, Pelican Lake. MR. MINAKER: Which one do you want to deal with, (1 ), (2), or (3). MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b)( 1) - pass; 5.(b)(2) ... MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, the only reason asked was the per diem comparisons you are talking 216 3 about are in number (3).

I don't know whether you want to deal with them now. MR. PARASIUK: I don't mind, I can go to (3) and then we'll deal with them. MR. MINAKER: I can give you the total number of SMYs. MR. DESJARDINS: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, just a question, it is not under (1 ), I would imagine; (bX1) are those that the province runs themselves. Those are salaries, Portage and Ninette. MR. MINAKER: No, that comes under External Agencies. MR. DESJARDINS: Then External Agencies are those where people are running it and you are giving them a per diem rate, right? MR. MINAKER: Mr.

Chairman, what might help the Honourable Member for Transcona, we have the population as of December 31, 1980, is 828, as compared to 854 last year. So then your total budget, if you multiply that out, I think it runs about $47.00 per diem, where St. Amant runs at approximately $55.25 per diem. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour of 4:30 having arrived, Committee rise for Private Members' Hour. SUPPL V - ENERGY AND MINES CH AIRMAN, Mr. Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This Committee will come to order.

I would direct the honourable members' attention to Page 54 of the Main Estimates, Department of Energy and Mines, Resolution 58, Clause 2. Energy, Item (

a) Energy Management (1 ) Salaries - pass; (2) - pass - the Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: We are used to the Minister not making much of a defence of his Estimates, but surely he could explain what this

section is about and why he is asking for the funds. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Just as the Estimates indicate there, it really consists of the activities pertaining to energy supply and demand, energy conservation, research and development into alternative energy sources, and energy conservation techniques. lt is the general area where most of the activity in the past of the former group under the Manitoba Energy Council, which existed prior to the formation of the department, were located. I think, as I indicated, there are 10 SMYs in this group.

Most of their activity has dealt with development of policy positions and so on for representation before National Energy Board hearing meetings, with regard to the various decisions, Canadian decisions, not necessarily ones directly involving the Province of Manitoba but involving the establishment of national policy with regard to energy at that level. A great deal of the activity has been concentrated in the development of that work.

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 lt also contained the economists and engineers who have acted as the backup personnel in the work that has gone into the various projects that are being pursued, that I alluded to in the opening remarks, whether it's the initiatives being undertaking by the government at this present time. So that, in general, represents the principal activities of this particular section. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In looking at an answer to a question of the Honourable Member for Elmwood on Friday, February 22, 1980, in which he asked the government, and in particular the Minister of Urban Affairs, whether he has a spe cific plan for the ·development of urban transportation in Winnipeg and Manitoba, or whether he has particular interests in supporting the development of urban transportation in the province.

The Minister of Urban Affairs replied at that time that the Manitoba Energy Council would be dealing with these matters and that matters under consideration by the Minister of Mines and Energy involved policies that will be developed in that area to assist in the problems for urban transit and many other energy uses. I wonder if the Minister could expand on that at this time and tell us what, if anything, since February 22, 1980, his department has been doing in that area. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, I might indicate that - I was looking for the backup information - there was a grant made about a month ago to the City of Winnipeg on a specific study on urban transit. The amount of it was $150,000 to begin the studies. I will provide the member with a copy of the press announcement that went with it at the time, which will give him some further information on the intent of it. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, we are looking at salaries here for this section, of $315,000.00.

I would expect that there is some pretty high-priced help in that area and from what the Minister has told us so far, he doesn't seem to have giv en us much justification for that expenditure. I would like to know what program, if any, his department has in terms of energy management. Surely he can give us a better defence than that which he has given us so far. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, I have indicated that there are 10 people involved in this department, in total, and their primary involvement has been in preparation of the economic studies and other studies that have gone into the representations made before the National Energy Board. A fair amount of time has been occupied in that itself. The other energy studies that have been undertaken have dealt with, as has been indicated here, energy supply and demand. A lot of work has gone in, in the last year and is still going into the provision of research information on both supply and demand.

So most of the work in this area really does pertain to the supply, demand, energy policy matters with regard to the National Energy Board relative to the Manitoba picture, and also to the supply picture for Canada. With the number of activities that have gone on in energy in the country in the last year, it 2164 has been a major undertaking just to keep up with what is going on at the national as well as the provincial level. As I indicated the other day, this is also a relatively small department.

There is a high degree of cross fertilization of personnel and you will find that they are working with the people, also, that come under the Canada-Manitoba Energy Agreement, which is the $18 million program over a five-year period. In setting up for the administration of this, you will find a cross-over of personnel in both of those undertakings as well.

The Conservation and Renewable Energy section, as well, comes into the picture and all of these three really work very clo sely together in all of the programs that are being mounted and have been under way for the last year and are accelerating in their activity over the next two or three years. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do want to explore under this item, what I consider to be a very significant decision relative to future energy policy in the Province of Manitoba and more particularly, Mr. Chairman, relative to future energy policy of this country.

I would ask the Minister, and I would almost assume without question, that he would be looking into it, whether the Government of Manitoba has looked into the implications of the recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which has in effect decided, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Government could not place an excise tax on the export of natural gas - I believe it was natural gas - to places outside of Canada. This decision, Mr.

Chairman, can have tremendous implications, particularly because of the suggestion that court decisions now become enshrined so that they cannot be undo ne; and also particularly because there are suggested amendments to the entrenched Bill of Rights, or the entrenched Constitution, which would more confirm and underline provincial ownership of resources in such a way, which could make such decisions of the courts even less desirable from the point of view of national interest, than they are at the present time. Now as I understand it, Mr.

Chairman, and I have not read the actual decision but I have read the press reports on it, what the Alberta court has decided is that the Government of Canada cannot tax a resource that is owned by the province and since it was the province that owned the resource and was shipping it out of the province, that this was contrary to the Constitution, which says that the Federal Government shall not tax the provinces and, I thin k the provinces cannot tax the Federal Government. That appears, Mr. Chairman, to have been the gist of the decision.

Now, when that case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, which I am certainly of the opinion it will, the Supreme Court of Canada can either confirm that decision or not confirm it, or overrule it. If it is overruled, then in my view, Mr. Chairman, an important matter in the national interest will have been overruled and there will not be great concern on my part with respect to that decision, and the Federal Government will continue to have the

Thursday, 26 March, 1981 authority to deal with the export of a natural resource in the way it has up until the present time. If, however, this law becomes entrenched, then no matter what the Federal Government wants to do, if the court rules against that kind of interference, we will never be able to change it unless we get seven provinces, having 50 percent of the people, subject to veto power by the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario. lt seems to me that there are people who regard this as quite acceptable, which I find ridiculous, Mr.

Chairman, and since the Prime Minister has decided to use the word coward, I say that there are cowards who don't want to face their electorate with important decisions facing this country and therefore say, well, let the courts decide it, and I will continue to be a parliamentarian and not have any authority to deal with these questions which are causing so much vexation and I will say that this is a matter for the courts.

So once the word coward is used with respect to this matter, let it be understood that in my view, this could be a very good mechanism for people who say, I don't want to argue the abortion question; let the courts do it, so I won't have to go to the right-to-life people and tell them I think they are wrong, or I won't have to go to the abortion-on-demand people and tell them that they are wrong; I will tell them that it is out of my hands; the same thing with pornography and the same thing with hate literature and the same thing with right-to-work. Mr. Chairman,

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-46a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 46a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1646ac69b5c6c8219fb6f6bba53d909e8a20f97f

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