Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 23 (36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-23

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 23- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 24, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Atriliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River J.>.ai:cy N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

1205 LEGISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, April24, 1996 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Home Care Services Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Minerva Burgess, Rachel Greer, Shayla Greer and others requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition ofV.

Round, Brian Gray and Tanina Ehabajiluk and others requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Home Care Services Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honou rable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people's health being compromised; and THAT thousands of caring front-line service providers will lose their fobs as a result of this change; and THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mada m Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honoura ble member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people 's health being compromised; and THAT thousands of caring front-line service providers will lose their jobs as a r esult of this change; and

1206 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 24, 1996 THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes?

The Clerk will read. Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people's h(:alth being compromised; and THAT thousands of caring front-line servic(: providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people's health being compromised; and THAT thousands of caring front-line service providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and

April24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1207 1HAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and 1HAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people's health being compromised; and THAT thousands of caring front-line service providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and, THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people 's health being compromised; and 1HAT thousands of caring front-line service providers will lose their jobs as a result of this change; and THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. *

(1335) Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: The Clerk will read. Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election, the Premier promised not to cut health services; and THAT on December 16, 1995, a plan to privatize home care services was presented to Treasury Board; and THAT this plan calls for the complete divestiture of all service delivery to nongovernment organizations, mainly private for-profit companies as well as the implementation of a user-pay system of home care; and THAT previous cuts to the Home Care program have resulted in services being cut and people's health being compromised; and THAT thousands of caring front-line service providers will lose their jobs as a result of t!ris change; and THAT profit has no place in the provision of vital health services.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of

1208 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 24, 1996 Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Working fo r Value Task Force Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I have a statement for the House along with the tabling. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasurt� to release in the Legislature today the interim report of the Working for Value Task Force. Our goal as a government is to collectively fmd ways of adding value to Manitoba products. As I am sure members of the Legislature know, the rural task force which is chaired by my honourable colleague Mr. Jack Penner, the member for Emerson, and his two co-chairs, Mr. Franklin Pitura, the member for Morris, and Mr.

Merv Tweed, the member for Turtle Mountain, held public workshops in 26 communities during February and March. During these meetings Manitobans carne together to share their ideas, their concerns, their hopes and their aspirations for their communities' futures. This interim report therefore captures the collective views of Manitobans which in turn will provide a valuable tool to guide future economic development in rural Manitoba.

I would like to briefly refer to some of the fmdings in the preliminary report, all things Manitobans told us they wanted: investment incentives for value-added opportunities; better access to information and services; more initiatives to promote rural Manitoba's tourism potential; more entrepreneurship and business-related training; access to research and planning. Rural Manitobans also acknowledge that a change in attitude is required, one that is focused on leadership and vision. I hope that all members of the Legislature will avail themselves of the opportunity to read this interim report.

I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Mr. Penner, Mr. Pitura and Mr. Tweed for their tireless efforts and tremendous contribution which ''ill serve to benefit Manitobans for years to come. I would also like to thank the many Manitobans who participated in the meetings. Their input, ideas and contribution are key to future strengthening, diversifYing and adding value to our rural economy. App ropriately, the Working for Value Task Force made its preliminary report at Rural Forum '96 which was held in Brandon April 18 to 20.

Added to that, our focus for Forum '96 was working for value. *

(1340) Rural Forum '96 attracted about 10,000 Manitobans, over 325 exhibits featuring some of the best of the products and senices in the province of Manitoba and 32 food exhibits representing restaurants and food businesses. Over 400 youth participated in this year's forum in business competitions hosted by two of our forum sponsors, Junior Achievement of Manitoba and the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. Rural Forum '96 made each one of us look inside ourselves at our O\\n individual strengths, ingenuity and talent.

Whether it is musical talent or a flair for business creativity, it is all contributing towards making the Manitoba economy strong, vital and proud. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the many sponsors and partners who made Rural Forum '96 a tremendous success, and of course, our most important partner, rural Manitobans. Many thanks to them, for without their participation and commitment to strengthening the rural commu nity, we would not be able to recognize and celebrate the many successes already dotting the rural landscape.

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1209 If the tremendous turnout by the more than 325 exhi bitors at Rural Forum '96 is any indication of success, we are well along the road to achieving the targeted $1 billion in export growth set out by a Working for Value initiative. Thank you. Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement on the Working for Value Task Force that he has supplied.

Members opposite have spent many hours in listening to communities and listening to people across the province, of course sitting in on these meetings and com mittees without any type of representation from members of this side of the House who have always said that the only way to go out and to listen to the people is to do it in a collective way and to hear what everybody has to say, and to also have the reports and to have the statements heard by members of this side of the House so that we could collectively decide the way that Manitobans and rural Manitobans wanted to go.

Madam Speaker, I do want to highlight the fact that the forum, the success of the forum, as the minister has said, was a success. I had the opportunity of attending some of the meetings. I found it very interesting that some of the discussions that were brought forward also mentioned the fact that education and health care were important to providing the future development in rural Manitoba. Right now, with the cuts that this government is implementing in health, in education and highways, it is not enhancing the availability for rural Manitobans to do what is necessary for economic development.

The government talks about a task force and listening to the people. It is the same way they listened to the people when it came to education. When it came to the hog producers, when they wanted to be listened to, they did not listen. All the decisions were made long before this task force came into play and will continue under this government, Madam Speaker. Thank you. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 9-The Public Health Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 9, The Public Health Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia sante publique ), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Billl �The Pharmaceutical Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey), that leave be given to introduce Bill 10, The Pharmaceutical Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les pharmacies), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. * (13 45) Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us this afternoon, 31 teachers from Thailand and seven exchange students from Sweden, Italy, Thailand, Germany, Venezuela, Spain and Austria visiting Manitoba under the sponsorship of AFS Interc ulture Canada. These visitors are under the direction of Mr. Wayne Raff, principal of George McDowell School.

We have seventeen Grades 10, 11 and 12 students from Ebb and Flow School under the direction of Mr. Don Falk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cununings). We have 15 ESL students from Applied Linguistics Centre under the direction of Margaret James. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Home Care Program Privatization-Public Hearings Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

1210 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April24, 1996 Madam Speaker, for the last 10 days we have unfortunately had a dispute between the government and the home care workers here in Manitoba. lluoughout that period, in fact before that period, Manitobans were telling us and telling MLAs on this side and I am sure MLAs on that side that they were opposed to the ideological plans of the government to privatize.

They were opposed to the profit introduction in our home care area that the government had proposed with their Treasury Board document that became public, and that the clients and the workers and the people of Manitoba wanted to have an input into the decisions the government was making. These were very important decisions affecting the lives of many Manitobans, and they wanted a say in those decisions that the government was making. In fact, the seniors this week, we tabled a letter for the minister a couple of days ago wherein they called this a radical change to home care in the province of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government today whether they would take the high road on this dispute, listen to the clients, listen to the public, listen to the workers, call a moratorium on their privatization plans and call the public hearings that so many clients and workers are calling for here in the province of Manitoba. Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in a sea of irrationality, we witnessed yesterday an island of reason. I believe there is reason for us all to be quite hopeful.

The expression by members of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union yesterday of an acknowledgment of the reality within which we all work was refreshing. I believe that that expression made yesterday by the members of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union will continue to be reflected by the good people who work for the government of Manitoba in this province and that we will have home care services restored very soon.

Pending that decision, we would, of course, urge the honourable members opposite to urge their friends in the upper levels of the union movement to sit with members of the government to negotiate the restoration of services for people in Manitoba who need them on an essential basis. * (1 350) Printization-Cost Benefits Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister would call the Manitoba seniors organization an irrational organization.

I think the Manitoba seniors organization, the disabled organizations, the many speakers who came before this Legislature who are clients are very rational. I think the Minister of Health owes a great apology to those organizations and those people who use those services. I am quite disappointed in his language here today.

Madam Speaker, in the Treasury Board document that the government issued a while ago and was made public a while ago, and in all the documents that we have looked at, Evelyn Shapiro's information on cost-effectiveness, the grids that are contained within the government documents, the cost studies that the government has provided, we can see no numbers to justify the government's ideological decision to proceed. ln fact, this Treasury Board document may be the only Treasury Board document that I have ever seen that does not have numbers in it in terms of the decisions that the government would make.

It only has ideology, an extreme ideology in that regard in terms of, the health policy now is divestiture of all semce delivery to nongovernment organizations. Can the minister now today in the House table any long-term study on costs and quality that he has, because we have not seen it yet, and why is the government being driven by extreme ideology as contained in the Treasury Board document, rather than costs, numbers and quality of service that Manitobans desire? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Spe aker, if there is any ideology it rests with the leadership of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union who made it very clear at the very beginning of their strike that this is an ideological matter for them. This, in their view, has nothing to do with the care of the clients of the home care system; they are busy fighting their battle on the basis of an ideological bent towards monopoly which is not something that is felt is the best

April 24, 1996 LEGISLA TIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 1211 way to provide service to those who need it in our provmce. The position of the New Democratic Party, as put forward by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and I quote, is: Go back to the system we had in the first place.

The Manitoba Society of Seniors, those organizations representing disabled Manitobans and other Manitobans with whom I have consulted extensively over the past couple of years, Madam Speaker, it is the consensus amongst all of them that we have an excellent Home Care program but that there are things that need to be improved in that Home Care program. But the honourable member for Kildonan says, just go back to the way things were. Madam Speaker, the way things were creates some problems for the sustainability of the Home Care program, those problems being an inability to be responsive.

How many times has Vera Chernecki, president of the Manitoba Nurses Union, for example, told us that we cannot properly discharge people from our hospitals because the Home Care program is not responsive enough? Those are the kinds of things we want and need to address, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the letter we tabled with the Minister of Health on Monday asked the government to put its privatization plans on hold and have public hearings and have a moratorium, and it is in writing.

I would like to ask the minister, in light of the fact that his own assistant deputy minister on March 23, 1996, said, and I quote: I would not hang your hat too much on the $10 million because it is based on a whole lot of uncertainties right at the moment-in light of the fact that the minister has said there are no savings in the ideological decision of the government, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) has said there is $10-million savings, the ADM is saying, I would not hang my hat on the savings, and the government has placed $10 million in their budget, can the minister today table the Treasury Board documents that have never been released-if they have them-that justifies the decision to divest themselves of all service delivery in nongovernment organizations including home care?

Can he give us the numbers and facts and figures that back up their proposal, rather than the ideology that seems to be driving a very stubborn government that should have the moratorium and put an end to this dispute and let the public speak out on their home care system, Madam Speaker? Mr. McCrae: I would encourage the honourable Leader of the Opposition to show enough interest in the clients of the Home Care program to participate in the discussions at the Estimates review level in this Chamber perhaps later this afternoon or at any other occasion that honourable members want to

schedule a discussion on the Estimates of the Department of Health, and he will see that the commitment of this government to the Home Care program is extremely significant when compared with that of the government when he and his friend Mr. Pawley were in charge. We have increased funding, Madam Speaker, to the Home Care program by some 111 percent and in addition to that, this year we are adding another $8 million to the budget for home care. No such commitment was ever shown by honourable members opposite and indeed the honourable member- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable members ask me questions. Then they want to put an end to my answers. I mean, why do they ask questions if they do not want to hear the answers? *

(1355) Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." I would submit to you that the minister has been asked three very specific questions. On three occasions he has refused to answer those questions. I would like to ask you to call him to order and ask him to answer the question or sit down so we can try and get some real discussion and debate on this issue. Madam Speaker: I would remind all honourable members that common courtesy is required in this

12 12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 24, 1996 Chamber so that those members ·wishing to hear the questions and those wishing to pose questions can be heard and, conversely, so that those members responding to questions can be h eard. On the point of order, I am going to say there was not a point of order. Regrettably, I was not able to hear all of the remarks of the minister because of the disruption in the Chamber. Home Care Program Privatization-Moratorium Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

We have received no documentation, no support, no advice as to why the government is privatizing. Today we find that even an owner of a private home c:are agency has said, and I quote: The government workers have demonstrated a really strong track record OH:r the years in providing a wonderful service. I would be: very sorry to see that home care service as it is currently offered now be dissolved. Madam Speaker, even the few people who support, I presume, the government's privatization appear to indicate they are not in favour.

Can the minister do the right thing, put a moratorium on this, allow the people of Manitoba to discuss it, allow it to come under scrutiny to see the actual docum entation? Will they put it under a moratorium today and end the strike? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I believe the honourable member is referring to a news report quoting the owner of a home health care serv1ce company. The trouble with the honourable members opposite sometimes is they forget to tell you the rest of the story.

If the honourable member would like to table that and maybe share with the rest of us, the story goes on to point out that this particular person the honour able member is quoting also goes on to say, it does not matter wheth er you are employed by the private sector or the public sector. This person has no doubt that the quality of care w ould not in any way be affected by any changes like this. So the honourable member should maybe: be a little more forthcoming and forthright with us when he is referring to the comments of people who take his side of the argument. You cannot be quite so selective.

Put the whole story on the record. *

(1400) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister now, given that he does not understand the

article that I read and he perhaps could read it again, will the minister-if the policy is so strong, if he is so convinced his position is right-put a moratorium on his plan, allow the public to discuss it, allow for input from the public, allow us to review th e minister's documents, put it on hold, end the strike, stop the line-up and the fill-up of the hospitals and do the righ t thing? Will he today announce a moratorium? Mr.

McCrae: Well, for about the first time, at least I can congratulate the honourable member for being con sistent, because what he is asking here is consist ent with his policy of go back to the system we had in the first place. The only trouble with his policy is that it is not consistent with his own report, the Price Waterhouse report commissioned by the NDP, which points out many, many areas where improvement is required in our Home Care program, which, by the way, suggests as the solution to all the problems, the NDP should bring in user fees and the NDP should bring in cuts in service. We reject that.

We recognize, how eYer, that there are problems we need to address, and it is nice to know that there is support in the public service of this province for the people of this proYince and a recognition that there is a reality that exists. I just wish honourable members in the New Democratic Party would join the rest of us in the '90s and understand that there are realities \\ithin which we have to work. Privatization-Report Tabling Request Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My supplementary again is to the Minister of Health.

Madam Speaker, I will table the minister's o\\n Treasury Board document, dated December 16, 1995. I would like to ask the minister, will the minister finally explain to this House why it is government policy, dives titure of all service delivery to nongovernment

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1213 organi zations? Will he provide the tables, the studies, the experts, anybody from the Department of Health or anybody in Manitoba who· can justify this ridiculous policy that has forced us into a strike situation, forced workers off and forced clients to suffer at the hands of this government? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I understand why honourable members today are feeling so despondent.

The despondency that we see opposite in this House today is a reflection of their acknowledgment that they have over the-1 do not know for how long, but certainly today they misread what is going on in our province. Honourable members opposite may begin to join the human race in the '90s very soon. We hope that will happen and then the questions that come forward in this House will be far more constructive and far more relevant to the realities of the '90s. Victims Assistance Programs Funding Reduction Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Yesterday the minister said, as I think she says every time she has an audience, that this government has made a very strong commitment to victims of crime, just like in the election when the government said victims would get top priority. My question for the minister is: Given this talk and given more victims than ever under this government, am I reading this year's Estimates at page 99 right where it says under Victims Assistance, a cut of 6 percent, the largest single service cut in her department? Bon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I will say again for the members across the way, yes, this government does have a commitment to victims. We do have a commitment to victims services. We are at the moment undertaking a provincial study to deal with strategies to deal with victims all across this province. We also continue to fund programs to assist victims. We have extended the RCMP program for victims services for another year while we are developing our strategy. Yes, there is some change in the Victims Assistance line.

It does come from a decision in the area of the Criminal Injuries Compensation area. Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain her cut of $116,700 to victims assistance in light of this very unique and specific election pledge made during the campaign, which the minister co-chaired, and I quote: The Premier (Mr. Filmon) said victims assistance funding will be increased by two- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns was recognized for a supplementary question, and I believe he asked the supplementary question and is now reading from text. The honourable member for St.

Johns, quickly rephrase your question. Mr. Mackintosh: How can the minister explain this specific promise? The Premier said victims assistance funding will be increased by $250,000 in the 1996-97 fiscal year. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, what that refers to is our support for the RCMP program for victims assistance. I find it amazing to see the member laughing. The commitment made to victims by the government across the way simply did not exist. This government has made that commitment. We have entered into partnerships with organizations such as the RCMP and community groups to provide services to victims.

We provide additional services to victims in the form of our Women's Advocacy Program. We have expanded the Women's Advocacy Program. Members across the way did nothing like that when they had the opportunity-nothing. Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain, while the money goes to the Victims Assistance committee, not RCMP-t hat during her tenure in office, victims assistance grants have been slashed by 4 2 percent in just four fiscal years. Is that a top priority, Madam Speaker? Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Speaker, absolutely not, and when the member and I have the oppor tunity to in fact get into a detailed discussion in the Estimates of the De partment of Justice, I think he will fmd that some of those changes come from payouts in the area of Criminal

1214 LEGISLA TlVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri124, 1996 Injuries Compensation when the payouts have been completed. So in fact he is wrong again, as he always is. Madam Speaker, this government continues their commitment in the area of support to victims. We have enhanced that commitment in support to victims; we continue it. When we are able to bring forward in the next while our provincial strategy on victims, I believe it will provide very significant and additional support to victims across this province. They are in fact a priority.

We continue to bring in legislation as well whic:h puts the victim back into the system. Home Care Program Minister of Health's Comments Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, when it comes to many issues, including the home care issue, there is a growing crisis of democracy in this province. We have a government that is afraid to face home care clie nts and many other Manitobans at a protest on Monday, that ducks out of, in the minister's case, going to the Deer Lodge opening, which is afraid to face the people of Manitoba.

Instead of trying to bring Manitobans together to solve this dispute, I would like to ask why the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is making such statements as he did on April 17, 1996, saying that the ND P stood for taking people's groceries out of their shopping baskets and throwing them on the ground and hissing and shouting and spitting and slashing tires and breaking windows and bombs. How does the minister think such a ridiculous statement helps settle the home care situation in this province? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Again, Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Thompson is very sensitive and somewhat despondent today. His very, very close links with the leadership of unions which have in the past engaged and been involved in activities which are clearly against the public interest, unkind and profoundly rude in some cases-and it is that sort of stuff that goes on when you get into certain disputes-honourable members opposite consistently fmd themselves on the side of the leadership of the unions and not on the side of the ordinary people of this province.

The purpose of my comments is to attempt to expose these honourable members for what they really are. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the same minister. When will the minister realize that we are not going to resolve the home care dispute until the minister stops making inflamma tory comments against anyone who disagrees with him, whether it be the New Democratic Party, whether it be home care clients, home care workers, the Manitoba Society of Seniors?

When is he going to bring this province together to solve the problem with home care instead of making inflamm atory comments on a daily basis in this House? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, rather than engaging in personal attacks, I suggest that we might resolve disputes better at the negotiating table, and it might be useful if the leadership of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union would search inside their hearts and perhaps fmd it within their hearts to agree to provide services to people who need them on an essential basis.

That to me would go a long way to resolving the problems that some of the clients of our home care system have. But honourable members opposite consistently support strike action. I do not support strike action. I support providing services to people who need them. *

(1410) Minister of Health Replacement Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, if the minister will not withdraw those comments, and the kinds of com ments he has been making about many other Manitobans, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier if he will ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to ask for the replac ement of the Minister of Health so we can get somebody in that portfolio who can work with Manitobans instead of- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Bon.

James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, let me respond by saying that I, first of all, take this opportunity to acknowledge the workers for the people of Manitoba in working on behalf of the government to carry out their responsibilities in a very

April24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 15 respon sible manner. It is that kind of commitment that Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. should be acknowledged and thanked, and we do so. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate today that the member who has asked the question, the New Democratic Party, has again attacked the workings of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), a man who has stood to make sure the services have been provided for those people who are in need of the home care services.

He is, in fact, making sure that is provided, while members opposite, for their own political purposes, have aggravated and agitated to get a strike against the people of Manitoba in the services that have been provided. It is for their political purposes, and they and the union leader should consider what their future path will be. Point of Order Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), and now the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey), are alleging that members on this side would break the law in agitating for a certain vote in a democratic institution under The Labour Relations Act. I know members opposite do not understand that these decisions are made in a democratic way under The Labour Relations Act, but we on this side follow the law, believe in democracy and it is about time the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Health also respect The Labour Relations Act and other institutions in a free and democratic society. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. Landfill Sites-Winnipeg Requirements Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Environment seems to be quite content in terms of standing by to allow BFI to put together another garbage dump in the north end of the city of Winnipeg. Call it what you will, it is a garbage dump, and the- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, to quickly pose his question. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, just over a year ago a report on the public hearings from the CEC recommended, and I quote: That the Manitoba government should provide leadership in the development of an integrated system for solid waste management in and around the capital region. Can the Minister of Environment give this Chamber any evidence whatsoever that will illustrate that the city of Winnipeg needs to have three garbage dumps? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster should know that we have spent considerable time over the last couple of years working in the capital regions organization to make sure that the city of Winnipeg and its surrounding authorities are at least attempting to work together on some long-range planning for the area, but there was certainly no broad understanding or agreement on that, and this proposal put forward by BFI has been undertaken to be reviewed for its environmental merits or lack of. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the north end needs a hospital instead of a garbage dump. My question to the Minister of Environment: Can he tell this House that in fact there is a need in the capital region for the city of Winnipeg for yet another garbage dump? Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, there were two sets of hearings on this proposal, giving the member considerable opportunity to raise issues if he so chose. But, in reviewing the proposal, t.lJ.e Clean Environment Commission indicated that there were a number of jurisdictions-or was told there were a number of jurisdictions that needed service.

Frankly, one of the problems that we have had is that when jurisdictions within the capital region, other than the City of Winnipeg, were looking for services and

12 16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri124, 199 6 offering to pay for those services, they were flat-out told confirm it for her in Estimates or some other area where to forget it. So they went ahead and began establishing we are together. alternative services for themselves. As a result, we now see this application being brought forward by BFI. Ms. Friesen: W auld the minister tell the House what Mr.

Lamoureux: Given that, is it not in the City of Winnipeg's and in essence the province's best interest then that the Mini ster of Environment follow the recommendation put forward by CEC, meet with the City of Winnipeg and BFI, and see if in fact they can com e up with a compromise as opposed to seeing a third garbage dump put in the city of Winnipeg? Mr. Cummings: I am glad to see that the member for Inkster is now onside.

I agree that we need to have the City of Winnipeg and BFI sit do\\n and clearly address the issues between them, but frankly you have to have two willing parties and one of them is not willing. * (1 420) Education System Home Economics Curriculum Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Mini ster of Education. The gap between what a Tory gov ernment says it will do and what it really plans t o do is enormous, and most Manitobans now recognize it.

Education plans talked of renewal, of enhanc:ement, but the reality is continuous cuts to the public education system and loss of program opportunitie:s for our children. Can the Minister of Education confirm that as a result of both her funding cuts and her timetabling disruptions, home economics will be no longer offered in Grades 7 and 8, St.

Boniface School Division, Rhineland School Division, Seine River School Division, Pelly Trail School Division, that in Pine Creek School Divisi on it will be cut from Grade 7 to Senior 4, and that in six other divisions, primarily in rural Manitoba, it is under review for elimination next year? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I do not have with me what school divisions have chosen as part of their o\\TI timetabling.

I will get that information and bring it back to the member or her answer has been to the letters she has received on this from, for example, the Ashern School Advisory Council, who \\Tote to her that the elimination of home economics would hurt our students in a very profound way, or to Gladstone Parent Coun cils who, like many Manitobans, recognize that our children need the hands-on approach to learning, and underlined for the minister that many of these classes also provide life skills to these children? How can she claim that she does not know this? Mrs.

Mcintosh: I thought, in the first question, the member had asked me to confirm what decisions school divisions have made concerning the courses they choose to offer to their students. That confurnation I need to obtain from school divisions. I know that school divisions in setting their school plans are able now to better reflect the wishes of their constituents, the parents in the community who may say they value, for example, music over another elective.

As in many areas, the greater flexibility that has been requested so that schools and communities have the opportu nity to have the programs in the school reflect community wishes, decisions have to be made by boards as to how far they wish to go to accommodate the community. I do not have those final decisions made by those boards here with me today. I will obtain them and provide them to her. Independent Schools Funding Formula Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Could the minister inform the House of any private schools in Manitoba which have eliminated significant programs this year as a result of her 15 percent increase in funding to th ose schools? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Again. I do not have decisions that have been made by schools, school boards or indivi dual schools as to those programs they have selected according to their electives.

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1217 I do know that most independent schools have shared services agreements with school divisions to provide things such as band, music arts, et cetera, and that many share bus routes, things like that, where independent schools and school divisions work in co-operative relationships with each other to maximize cost effectiveness for both.

Those shared services agreements, obviously, if an independent school is purchasing a shared services agreement on home economics, for example, with a school division, that would be dependent upon whether the school division is offering that particular course. Madam Speaker, we do know that we have courses that are compulsory, primarily talking specifically about literacy, language arts and mathematics in our schools. Those pertain to all schools, independent and public. Home Care Program Privatization-Moratorium Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when a minister establishes an advisory committee, as the minister did on continuing care, you would think that the minister would listen to the recommendations of that committee. Instead, the minister is pushing ahead with privatization of home care, when his own committee says, rural regionalization transferred to the Winnipeg home care agency and the resulting massive contracting out had the potential to erode the quality of provincial health care. Will the minister listen to his own committee? Will he list en to the home care workers?

Will he listen to the clients and put in place a moratorium so that home care can continue and we can have public hearings on how people want this service delivered, not on the path of the minister's privatization? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, we are listening to the Advisory Committee on Continuing Care. We are listening to Price Waterhouse. We are listening to all the others who have reminded us of some ofthe problems that exist and reminded us of the danger of exactly what the honourable member referred to. That is why an incremental approach is the approach being taken.

We are talking about 25 percent-putting 25 percent of home care services in Winnipeg-b eing the subject of competition, no changes in rural Manitoba. Honourable members opposite lead people to believe that what we are talking about is user fees and cuts in services. No, that is the NDP approach as set out in their report, the Price Waterhouse report which they commissioned, which calls for user fees and calls for cuts in service. We are not doing it that way. Even though that is their way, it is not ours. Responsibility-Rural Manitoba Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): I would like to ask the minister if he is now backing off on his [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wowchuk: Is the minister telling us that he is now backing off on his own Treasury Board document that says, regional health authorities will take over all service deliveries in rural areas? Is this what he is saying, because that was not included in the document that he tabled? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): It is an established policy, Madam Speaker, that these services will be the responsibility of the regional health authorities in the future.

That is not new. That has been recommended by the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council, has been stated as government policy for a long time. The only thing that these regional health authorities will have to do is meet or exceed provincial standards. Home Care Program Privatization-Standards Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, where are the standards that these people will have to meet if you have not tabled any standards? Where are the standards and where is the agency, the public agency that is going to deliver if you are privatizing?

The regional health boards will have to privatize the home care service. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I have to admit, Madam Speaker, I sometimes have trouble

1218 LEGIS LATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 19 96 understanding honourable members opposite. Are they seriously telling me that what they think is the best home care system in North America has no standards? Is that what the honourable member is trying to tell me? Madam Speaker: The honour able member for Burrows, with one very short question. Child and Family Senices Children's Advocate Recommendations Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, last year in the Children 's Advocate's first annual report there were dozens of recommendations.

In his second annual report which is now over a year old, the Children's Advocate observes that very little change appears to have occurred in spite of all the rhetoric from the Mini ster of Family Services, and that Manito ba 's Child and Family Services system needs to be rebuilt to meet the needs of children and families and he hopes that any efforts to redesign these services does not include offioading onto families, including foster families, or at the expense of children in care which appears to be the route outlined by recent policy initiative:s in the department.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services, what is she doing to rebuild the Child and Family Services system, given the sheer numbers of complaints to the Children's Advocate and the systemic problems identified by the Children 's Advocate? Bon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Senices): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. It does allow me to indicate that I think the protection of children and the care for children does cross party lines, and I believe all members of the House and all Manitobans want to ensure that children first and foremost are protected and cared for.

I want to indicate again to my honourable friend that it was this government that put in place the Children 's Advocate, and it his role to provide constructiv(: criticism on things that are not working in the system. The fust step that we have taken this year is to restructure the Department of Family Services in the last couple of weeks that does place all the services for children under one assistant deputy minister.

We will be placing more of a focus on compliance and community development, and there will be things that I will be able to discuss in great detail through the Estimates process with my honourable friend. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. A point of order was raised by the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) during Question Period on April 12, 1996, about the

preamble to a question by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). In doing so, the government House leader cited portions of Beauchesne Cit ation 409.(1) and (2) which read: A question " ... must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate." . . . "The question must be brief A

preamble need not exceed one carefully dra\m sentence .... A supplementary question should need no

preamble." I have reviewed the Hansard of April 12 and find that the

preamble of the honourable member for Kildonan was not unduly long in li ght of Manito ba's Question Period practices. Further. in my opinion, the question did not constitute an argument or debate which would have been contrary to our Question Period guidelines. Therefore, I rule that the government House leader did not have a point of order. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Flooding-St. Norbert Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, once again I am proud to stand up and say that I am a Manitoban, and I am proud to say that Manitoba has lived up to its motto of Friendly Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, last week I had the opportunity of working with the community in St. Norbert and many volunteers from across the city in holding back the ravaging Red River, and let me say that the volunteers that came out were very much appreciated. It was interesting to see the varying people that came out. We had people on social assistance; we had people from the

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1219 banks; we had people from Richardson Greenshields, the stockbrokers; we had some firemen. There were just so many of them that it is hard to list, but most of all the students. The students from the schools-[inter jection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Laurendeau: Thank you, Madam Speaker. But most of all it was the students from the schools, and it was not just St. Norbert Collegiate and FRC. It was schools from throughout Winnipeg that came out, and a number of the students made the comment to me that it gave them a feeling of being needed.

It felt good to just be able to help out. They worked side by side for a common good. I was proud to be part of this group, and I am proud to say today that all Manitobans should be proud of our youth and all those who go out and help volunteer within society today. Social Assistance-Policy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, this is my second instalment in a series of dumb policy ideas which discourage individual initiative. If you were a high school student with very low income would it make sense to apply for a bursary from your school division? Not in Manitoba.

One of my constituents applied for the Margaret Crawford bursary. Since the combined income of her and her spouse for the previous year was only $6,000, she qualified and was awarded the bursary in the amounts of $275 and $250. Guess what happened next? Was she better off for having received the bursary? Did it help her to buy bus fare and school supplies? Did it encourage her to continue working hard at her studies and stay in school so she could obtain a decent job? None of the above. Why? She reported the bursary as income, as she is obliged to do.

She was allowed to keep the first instalment, but the second will be deducted dollar for dollar from her social assistance cheque. Was this a mistake? No. I checked with the assistant deputy minister for Income Security and bursaries are not exempt as income. Revenue Canada, though, exempts the first $500 of income for bursaries and scholarships, but The Social Allowances Act in Manitoba does not allow for that. This is a dumb policy which discourages individual initiative. That bursary, which could have been a hand up for that student, was instead an insult.

The Margaret Crawford bursary was established by Margaret Crawford for the purpose of assisting low income students attending vocational schools in Winnipeg No. 1 Division. She would be appalled; I am. So should the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). Manitoba Government Employees' Union Strike Vote Rejection Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union for their decision to reject the union leader 's effort to create confrontation.

When you live in a time of change, as we certainly do, it is easy to choose confrontation rather than co operation- [interjection] Now, I acknowledge my honourable friends on the other side of the House who are not listening today. They have trouble listening, Madam Speaker, but really we do live in a time of change. It is easy to confront rather than co-operate in dealing with the ramifications of that change. Yet the members of the MGEU have recognized the need to work with government to achieve a common goal.

As governments at all levels attempt to deal with the fiscal challenges they face, it is more important than ever there be a willingness to negotiate reasonable and level-headed solutions to problems. Madam Speaker, the MGEU members have sent a clear message to their union leaders and to the members opposite that they understand the challenge this government must deal with and that they wish to do so in a co-operative and consultative manner. Manitoba government workers have shown us the true understanding oftoday's fiscal environment, and they are to be congratulated.

They have set the example for all groups and sectors that are facing change. While it must be frustrating for the members to be represented by leaders out of touch, they should take heart with the actions yesterday.

12 20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 24, 19 96 I thank the members of the MGEU who placed a vote of confidence with this government. We look forward to continuing to work together to achieve our common goal. Thank you, Madam Speaker. fc (1 440) Regional Health Boards-Appointments Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when the government announced their concept of regio nalization in health, we raised many concerns.

We were concerned that the regional health boards would end up doing the cutting in rural areas that we know is going to come under this government when we see the cuts they are proposing to health care . We were also concerned that the public was not well enough informed about the appointments to regional boards. I, in fact, asked the minister to delay that process because many people were not aware that they could run for boards or what the job would entail, but the government made their appointments.

Since they are doing this, we have to ensure that all regions of the area have representation, and I want to speak specifically about the Parkland Region. The minister is well aware of the concerns of the: people in that area, that there is not representation from two communities, namely, Winnipegosis and Grandview. In fact, in Winnipegosis there was a meeting on March 19 , where my colleague the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) represented me when I was unabk to attend, where over 300 people came out to raise their concerns about the lack of representation on this board.

I want to encourage the minister to use his authority; he has the ability to appoint two people to the board. I would ask that he would recognize that there are two communities, Winnipegosis and Gilbert Plains, that need representation. They both have hospitals. I would also ask that the minister conside:r the third position that has to be appointed, and it is the board that has the opportunity to appoint, that we are looking for representation from the aboriginal community. There is a very large aboriginal community.

We also have to recognize, the minister has to recognize, that there have not been enough women appointed on these boards. So I would urge the minister to listen to the people of the region, look at the many petitions that were presented and ensure that there is representation from all areas on these boards, as they will have to make decisions on health care in the region. Anniversary-Menno Simons Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I hope you will indulge me by allowing me to put a few sentences on the record in one of my first languages, Dutch. I would be happy to translate these sentences.

Dutch spoken. Madam Speaker, I just stated that 19 96 is the anniversary year of the birth of a great Christian reformer, Menno Simons. Menno Simons was born in 14 96 in the small town ofWitrnarsum, which is located in the Dutch province of Friesland. 1be ideas of my compatriot Menno Simons had a profOWKily positive effect not only upon the scattered Anabaptist followers he organized and led after 15 36, but upon all Christians.

His major work, Dat Fundament des Christelyken Leer-The Foundation of Christian Teaching-is still very significant for our world, and although Mennonites were at first persecuted by both the Crown and church in Holland, their spirituality and peace-loving principles were soon recognized, and they contributed enormously to the golden age of Holland in the 17 th Century. Madam Speaker, I do not have time to chronicle the many, many positive contributions that hard-working Mennonites have also made in the last 10 0 years in Manitoba, and Manitoba was not always appreciative.

I mention only the regressive 1916 school act that drove 5,0 00 Mennonites away from this province into Mexico and Paraguay. There is a higher percentage of Mennonites living here in Manitoba than in any other jurisdiction in the world. To us, that is a source of great pride and bodes well for Manitoba's future. On the anniversary year, I salute the spiritual descendants ofMenno Simons who live not only in Altona, Steinbach, Gretna, Winkler, Morden and East and North Kildonan, but all over this province, this country, this world.

Over 75 years ago, the Mennonite Central Committee was formed to feed the hungry in Russia. MCC has become one of the most efficient and effective church-

April24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1221 conn ected service and aid agencies in the world. It deserves our total support. In fact, I urge all honourable members to participate in the MCC relief sale and auction to be held at The Forks on June 15 and 16. Serving God by helping others is the Mennonite way. The light Menno Simons kindled for us 50 0 years ago shines now as bright as ever. Thank you, Madam Speaker. House Business Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to introduce a motion respecting the rules.

Mada m Speaker: Is there leave for the government House leader to introduce a motion respecting the rules? [agreed] Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that the rules of the House be amended as follo ws: THAT paragraph (

b) of sub-rule 74.(1 6) be repealed and the following subst ituted : "(

b) notwithstanding sub-rule (12) , one Member may demand that a formal vote be taken and where such a demand is made the Chairperson of the committee, or a

section thereof, shall defer the vote on the motion until the next sitting of the Committee of Supply in the Chamber; and" Motion agreed to. Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business. It almost slipped my mind. I believe there is a will of the House to adjourn at 4:3 0 today because of the visit of His Royal Highness. Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adjourn at 4:3 0 p.m. today in honour of the visit of His Royal Highness? [agreed] ORDERS OF THE DAY Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs.

Vodrey), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Health. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please.

Will the Committee of Supply please come to order this afternoon. This

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item l.( b)(

l) on page 34 of the Est imates book. The honourable minister was going to complete her response. Would she like to continue today? Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could just proceed with the round of today's questionings. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, I understand we are in the policy area, and I have a question on the boundaries issue. Mrs. Mcintosh: Just for clarification, I believe we are still in Executive Support for the minister's office, but we have been wandering a little bit. * (150 0) Ms.

Barrett: Well, I will ask my question and if it is too far afield, then we can deal with it later on in the Estimates. As the minister knows, I represent a constituency, a port ion of which has a particular concern about the

12 22 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 24, I996 recommendation on boundary changes and both the original Norrie commission and the second Norrie commi ssion and that is the Brooklands Sc:hool, the Brooklands area that currently resides within the St. James-Assiniboia School Division and under both the original and revised boundaty map would go into the new southwest division. The residents were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining with the-I am sorry, they would go into the northwest quadrant. Excuse me. The residents were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the St.

James School Division whether that was in a southwest quadrant or some other configuration. We held public meetings and a survey, and it was a very clear indication. I am wondering if the minister has any response on that particular issue, if she is prepared to make any changes or what the current situation is on the Brooklands Schooi, Brooklands area problem. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, the member raises concerns which have been brought to my attention. The member was good enough to accompany the people from that area, which is in her constituency, to my oflice at one point to discuss these concerns.

They are currently under study, the two ma jor ones being, as pointed out, the tax effects for that area and the new governan ce, me aning perhaps a new approach to the way in which schooling is delivered. Both of those are areas of concern that, having been identified to us, are part of our discussions and will be taken into consideration as we come to conclusions on the Norrie commi ssion. I am not able at this point to indicate what the exact outcome will be, because that has not yet been deternrined.

I have indicated that I expect to have information on the government 's intention with regard to the Norrie recommendations this spring. But the exact date I am still not able to provide, simply be:cause the area is so complex and requires so much examination. Ms. Barrett: I am glad the minist er talked about the taxes. That was another ma jor anomaly in the original report. I am not sure what the minister means by new governance. Is that in response to my concern about the location of the school? Mrs. Mcintosh: Yes, it is.

If the governance ofthat particular area is altered, if it is a new governing body, then obviously there would be some adjustments to the way in which education is delivered to reflect that new governance. That is the subject of concern expressed by people from that particular area in terms of, will we then have to be like Winnipeg 1 or will we be able to stay like St. James or will we have to be like Fort Garry or will we have to be like Charleswood?

Those kinds of questions are questions that are based upon a new, amalgam ated board that might make decisions that would be different from decisions currently made by the board that governs them . Ms. Barrett: The residents of Brooklands were very concerned about being in a situation that was comf ortable for them and wanted to remain in the St. James area. However, the ultimate, basic concern that they have is that they remain within the school division that encom passes \\hat is now the St. James School Division.

That is the concern, and I am assuming, I am hoping that when the minister talks about governance that she is talking about which division that community will reside m. Mrs. Mcintosh: We are talking about the same thing and maybe just describing it a little differently. The Brooklands people, in indicating that they do not wish to lose their current, connections maybe is not the ri ght word, had expressed concern that in the large ama lgama tion recommended by Norrie that the influence that they nright experience could be predominantly one of the other di\isions other than St.

James. depending upon who becomes elected to the new board and who then would be governing. So I think we are talking about the same thing. You have indicated they wish to remain wherever St. Jam es goes. They contend that, as well, but they then ask the additional question, what guarantee do we have that we will still have that influence? So it is just an expansion on the primary concern. Ms. Barrett: I would suggest, carr ying along with that influence concern, that it is not just the residents of Brooklands that have shared that concern. This is a concern shared by many , many of the schools and parents

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1233 comment that the real future of innovation is in identifying and disseminating best practice, not focusing on structural arrangements? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, I indicate that I agree with the member on both counts on the points that he has made. I think that he has philosophically touched a very important point that cannot be ignored, must be looked at and must be utilized where possible. I am trying to recall the statistics off the top of my head and I cannot recall them exactly.

It is not directly tied to what the member said, but it kind of is a little piece of information that validates the point that he made, and that is that a certain percentage of our economy has been agricultural for a long time, a very high percentage, closer to the 50 than the zero percent. That economy has been agricultural in the 40 percentile, somewhere in there, for generations and generations, and predictions for the future show that coming down to a one digit percentage in terms of an agricultural economy.

Everything is becoming the dissemination of information and that type of thing, which I believe the member is aware of the trend and probably has some sense of the statistical data there. That has tremendous implications for everything that people do as they prepare for life. ir (1 620) But the dissemination of best practices to me has to include the reality of that kind of change in the world, and if we can get cross-fertilization via best curricula materials, if we can look at utilizing our best teachers in such a way that they can disseminate information readily to more than just one location.

I am thinking of an interesting example in Miami, Manitoba, which is another little town that you sometimes go past on your way to Cartwright, a very small community. They have a student there receiving calculus as a course in that school taught by a teacher through interactive TV in another community. Ordinarily that student would not be able to avail himself of that course, being the only one in that small school wanting to take that course, and I think that is a reality that is now not only possible but beginning to happen.

Costs are factors, and we have to be aware of costs, but if we have access to technology that we can begin to work with and we can try to work through various agencies to bring costs down, to lobby for educational rates which we are beginning to see happen, we are beginning to see companies and other areas acknowledging there should be educational rates for some of these technologies. I do agree with the member.

I feel that Norrie, in coming forward with his conclusions, also made some commentary on flows of people in and out of communities, and he had compiled some data showing population drifts away from certain small communities into other ones. That information was valuable because I think we all know as the people drift out so does the money, so does the vitality of the town. Part of what boundaries could and should be all about is trying to help stem that flow and keep communities vibrant. One of the ways to do it, of course, is have the presence of a school.

I do not want to get into a big, long philosophical discussion. That is not true, I do want to get into a big, long philosophical discussion, but I realize it is probably not proper. I am always intrigued and I used to have this debate often with some of my own constituents when we were having to close some school buildings in my constituency, and they would say you are closing our school, and I would come back and say, no, we are not closing your school, we are closing the building in which your school is housed.

To me a school has always been the thing that it was at the beginning of time, that interaction of learning between a master and an apprentice, and I still think that that is what a school is. When I say keep a school in a town, the building is important. I am not negating it in a small town where there is only one building that houses the school. The thing that is really important is the school itself which is that environment of learning. We want to keep that alive.

My deputy has passed me a note here, and I think it addresses what the department is doing in regard to your specific question, and it covers off some of the distance ed stuff, too. Provincial wide professional development strategy, the secretariat which is trying to blur the department, so to speak, and co-ordinate the services rather than have a social worker from Family Services dealing with a child, and then have someone from Education dealing with the child, and 15 people deal with

1 234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 1996 this child until the child is so confused. We need to tiy to get rid of some of this overlapping that traditionally has occurred as governments grow and grow. We are striving now to tiy to see that we are seeing the child as a whole, that maybe we have got various government departments working with that child, but that child is not chopped up into fo ur different compartments; the child is a whole human being. First Year via Distance Education (FYDE) program : We hope to get university programs into local areas.

These are some of the ways of reaching out, but they are all foc used on one central thing, which is tiy to empower communities so that they can be independent, so that they can access services of learning without having to move away and leave their home and their base and their community in which they live and lose their lif estyle. Mr. Sale: Briefly, Mr. Chairperson, my frustration with the minister 's answer is that I do not see anymore the kind of thorough attempt to identify and share best practices. I see, again, structural arrangements.

We are going to deliver first to university or we are going to have distance ed here, there and everywhere and the calculus example, it is a good examp le except that the calculus was being taught out of Souris, I believe, in 1986-87; it is hardly a new example. But when I was in the Northwest Territories in 1989-90-91, they were using Manitoba's online calculus instruction to teach kids in very remote communities up in Baffin Island. It is a good program. I am not saying it is not good, but it is not new.

The program that everyone that I have talked to spoke highly of and apparently just is not done anymore, or at least if it is done, it must be on a very low scale, is to identifY the best teachers, the best programs, to free them up fr om their classes, to give them five months or six months or three months or whatever to package, to travel, to promote, to do that linking, networking, interacting thing rather than again foc using on what the minister was really describing to me, which are, I do not mean this pejomtively, but institutional arrangements, the structures fo r doing things.

They are important, but it is the content that is the real issue. * (16 30) More and more our world makes structures less relevant We do not need to be hampered by boundaries in order to deliver the wonderful programs that individual teachers have developed in various schools across the province and to make those known and shared. Boundaries are irrelevant to that issue. So as loog as we spend time foc using on the structures, we do not spend that time tiying to identify the really skilled and gifted people who are making a big diff erence in kids' lives all over Manitoba.

That is my frustration with the minister's answers on this question. I thank her fo r continuing to tiy and respond. Mrs. Mcintosh: I realize I have had the time pointed out to me, so I will just give a very brief response and maybe come back when we begin again with a fuller response, because what you are saying is not out of line with what we are thinking and saying, as well. We are doing that, fo r examp le, with division exams. In terms of using master teachers and training the trainer kindofthing, we have done a fa ir bit of work in terms of the training the trainer type of methodology.

We are sharing the division exams on a databank, sharing them with others. I think, when we take a look at our master teachers-teachers have always been involved in curriculum preparation-we are now constantly selecting mas ter teachers to be on curricula development along with masters in the area of curricula. For example, we may say that we are going to do some curriculum preparation in biology, and this is slightly diff erent from the way it used to be dore, although there are similarities, but we will look fo r the master biologist and the master teacher to put together for that development and that sharing.

An Honourable Member: But that is what we have always done. Mrs. Mcintosh: Well, no it is not really what we have always dore. Bef ore, we would accept people who were presented to us by an outside group. We did not go out and search out the mast ers. We were given names of people from another organization and we would utilize those names. Sometimes those names were people who were available and wanting to do the work, not necessarily who might have been considered the true masters of biology, fo r example, or of pedagogy

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 1225 Ms. Barrett: A comment and then a request: I think that, in eff ect, by not asking the commission to give at least a brief rationale for response to the request for change that came through, other than that they were not convinced, which is a fairly general rationale, the government misses an opportunity and has not availed itself of the thought processes that the commission went through when it decided to make two or three small changes and decided not to make hundreds of other changes.

I think you have missed the possibility of some information, the benefit of their considerations, and the rationale for that. That is my comment. My request is that the minister-and I apologize to the minister that I did not bring with me my notes from the meeting that we had, but my distinct recollection is that the minister said to the group, I understand your concerns , you have made a very valid point, and I will be sure to share your concerns with the commission. Now the minister has said that she transferred them.

My sense was, and again it is not anything that can be quantified, I had the distinct impression, and I may have been misinterpreting it that the minister would act in this regard as more than a conduit, and would share with the commission your concerns with that. Now the minister said it would have been inappropriate.

Since the commission has made its second report and the government is responsible now for making the decisions, I am asking that the minister go back to the commission and say in this regard, and I would be willing to be prepared to say any of the others, if it takes a while longer to do it, get the information, but at the very least to go back and ask the commission for the rationale for not making that change in boundary for the Brooklands School and the tax implications. I would like to ask the minister to make that commitment. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr.

Chairman, just for clarification, because I maybe did not phrase my initial response in a clear enough fashion. When I indicated that the Norrie commission had said that they had not been persuaded to change their original decisions, that no one had convinced them that they should change, by that what they were indicating was that their original rationale, the rationale they had presented in their original decision, they felt, still was the prevailing rationale.

So it is not that there was an absence of rationale, rather that their rationale was still the same as in the original decision and that they had not been convinced that their original rationale was not the best rationale. So, essentially, they came back saying, we believe the conclusions we came to in the first instance in this area were the right conclusions for the same reasons that we originally made them, and we have not been convinced that any of the positions presented to us had higher credibility than those which we originally made. So it was not an absence of rationale.

It was rather that they were standing by the original rationale. I indicate, as well, the passing on of concerns to the Norrie commission, that I had several divisions come to me during the course of the study to express their own perspec tive and their own identified needs.

Each time that occurr ed, particularly when it was specifically asked of me as in the situation you have described with Brooklands where they said, we really want to make sure that Norrie knows that we are worried about these things, I did pass on to the commission those expressed concerns without asking the commission to examine my thinking as minister, but rather these citizens of Manitoba have come to me with a concern. They are very worried about this and this, and they want to make sure that you know of their concerns so that you can consider it in your deliberations.

As minister, I am passing this to you for your consideration. I did not put them forward as an advocate, per se, but rather to ensure that their concerns were, in fact, put before the commission for consideration, and I hope that was in keeping with what the people were expecting me to do.

I felt that was being of service to ensure that as minister I drew to the Norrie commission's attention particular concerns without giving direction because that I felt would have been inappropriate. * (1 530) You had asked a question, your main question actually here, about whether we would go back now and ask the Norrie commission to go through some of these concerns. I think at this stage the people who need to go through those concerns are no longer the members of the Norrie commission but rather the members of government because those concerns have now been put on our table

1226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 24, 1996 for us to decide. So what is important at this stage is how government will react to all this inf or mation. We have not just the Norrie commi ssion report but other items fo r examination, including the material that the Norrie commission itself received.

To go back to the com mission at this point on Brooklands would mean that we should also go back on those other areas that have expressed similar intensity of concern, perhaps a different issue but with the same depth of feeling that some other areas have experienced, and I believe that at this stage we would be taking Norr ie for the third time over ground that he has already covered, and having asked him to do the thoughtful second look-he has done that and given us what he concluded-we now have to as government do our own examination and come to our own conclusions and make the decision.

I will assure the member though that the points that Brooklands raised to the commi ssion I am fully aware of, and those are things that government will examine when we do our decision making. Ms. Barrett: I am heartened by the minister 's statement that she is aware of the concerns . I just think that not knowing what some of the other hundreds of concerns are, I cannot speak to them. I just will make this final point.

I do not want to belabour the point, but I do think that the tax implications in the first and second Norrie co mmission report are so startling that if I had received this report, I think I would have wanted to find out from the com mission why they felt that the issues you spoke about, the parameters of the stud y-one of the words you used was equity, and I would hope that the minister and the government will look at all of the decisions that Norrie made by omi ssion and by co mmission, because there are hundreds of decisions Norrie made between the first report and the second report by omission and very few by com mission.

I hope that the government will look at all of those, and speaking quite parochi ally, most particularly the equity and community-of -interest-which is another principle-issues fo r the Brooklan ds' residents as they make their final decision. Again, I would be interested myself in knowing why the co mmission felt that this tax implication was furthering the principle of equity. So I am just asking the minister. I am putting it on the record, and I am sure the minister will take a very serious look at these issues. That is the conclusion of my concerns about this area. Mrs. Mcintosh: I thank the member very much.

I have had some fairly extensive dialogue with Mr. Norrie and the commission members about the over all thinking that they put forward, but I note her concerns and the sincerity with which she puts them fo rward and thank her for her comments, and we will keep them in mind when we are doing our own discussions. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I have a question about the boundary review.

In last year's Estimates I asked some questions in regard to the situation at Seven Oaks School Division, inequity of representation in the wards there as a result of the board of revision not operating while the Norrie report was going on. Now, since those Estimates, they have had another election and the inequity has contin ued. You have 17,000 people in one ward being represented by three trustees and 15 ,000 people in another ward being represented by five trustees.

Although trustees, of course, work fo r the benefit of the entire division, there are certain directions that that board might tend to take because of the balance of representation there. So now that the Norr ie commi ssion is finished, what is the situation with the board of revisions, and what will happen in the three years time till the next civic election? Will this inequity continue once again or can something be done? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, the member raises a valid point. The Board of Ref erence, as it is called, I know what you are talking about and people refer to this as a lot of things.

Technically it is called the Board of Reference, but the Board of Ref erence will be reconstituted . The decision to sort of pause the work of the Board of Ref erence until a decision was made on boundaries was made at the time this whole proce ss was begun, and you will see very shortly that the Board of Reference will be reconstituted in con junction with an announcement of decisions on what we are going to do with the Norrie report. So sometime this spring then, you should see that Board of Reference reconstituted and the backlog of

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 27 situations such as you described dealt with as swiftly as possible. Mr. Kowalski: You know, in my community, I have been approached by a number of people that wanted to present to the minister according to the act. I think it requires 25 people to request the minister to look at the electoral quotient, and I persuaded them to hold off because it would be a waste of money and effort if there is going to be a change in the Seven Oaks School Division as a result of the Norrie report.

Now, what I am looking for is, before the next civic election, are we going to see changes or should these people come forward to the minister and correct this inequity now? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, the Board of Reference will definitely be reconstituted well before the next civic election, and it should be reconstituted sometime this spring.

I do not have a definite date because I do not know the exact date at which our fmal conclusions will be made but, as soon as we come to a decision on the boundaries as recommended by the Norrie commission, as soon as we make our determination as to how we intend to officially respond to his report, the Board of Reference will be reconstituted so that they can begin again making adjustments as requested by the people, if they deem they are feasible requests, to vary boundaries in one way or another. Mr. Kowalski: I have just one last question. I want to make sure I understand correctly.

First of all, the government will move on the Norrie report before it puts forward the Board of Reference. Is my understanding correct, because I do not want to put the Board of Reference through all the work of changing the representation only to find out a year later that we no longer have a Seven Oaks School Board. Is my understanding correct that first the government will move on its decisions out of the Norrie report, and then the Board of Reference will be reconstituted? * (1 540) Mrs.

Mcintosh: The indication of what we intend to do with Norrie and the reconstitution of the Board of Reference should occur more or less simultaneously, and maybe this might help. If we make changes to boundaries because of the Norrie commission, then the Board of Reference will maybe have need to vary those boundaries slightly, and they will need to be in place. If we make no changes because of the Norrie report, then the Board of Reference will still have some issues they need to deal with because people over the last year or so maybe have decided they would like to see some adjustments.

As well, the Board of Reference will have other items with which it will deal that do not connect directly to what government decides to do about the Norrie commission, and they will be wanting to proceed on some of those requests, as well. I do not know if that clarifies the issue for you. Okay, good. Thanks. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Chair, I regret that I was not here earlier for the Education Estimates, so I am maybe lacking some of the context, and I hope the minister will forgive me.

I am trying to reflect as much as possible in my questions-and I do not have that many of them-the kind of direct and practical questions that northerners ask. As I travelled around, I think their biggest concern seemed to be that-well, they felt it was a made-in-the south solution, and they were a little bit puzzled about the rationale. I guess their biggest concern was how do we keep the local autonomy solid. I am thinking of places like Snow Lake that have operated independently for many, many years, and I presume Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake, as well, certainly, a smaller town like Snow Lake.

I have talked to several of the trustees, and if they could ask you the question, the question would be how do we safeguard that autonomy, that independence, that sensitivity we have always had right at the grassroots level if we were to be part of a larger amalgamated district. (Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair) Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, it is a good question the member has asked. We talk about communities of interest. We have received presentations, and the member is, I am sure, aware of the specific concerns put forward by Leaf Rapids and places like that.

1228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA April 24, 1996 Again, I do not want to be in a position to def end or condemn the Norrie report. The Norrie report has given us a blueprint that the com mission believed would be right for Manitoba. It is our job now as government to examine those recommendations to see if we agree with them or not, and as we go through that process which we have been going through now for about three months ourselves, some of the questions that we ask ourselves are those very questions that you have just put forward at the table.

I think at this point the things that Norrie recommended are now on our table as one of a series of pieces of information, albeit a fairly major study, and I could maybe just indicate to you that the com mission attempted to look at a whole wide variety of goals and objectiv es, and the issues themselves become a balance of taxation, the comm unities of interest, the local autonomy, the question that you just raised and administrative issues including things such as schools of choice and transportation and so on.

We will need as government to look at all of those reco mmendations Norrie made, many of which we have already accepted. I believe we have accepted some 21 of those recomm endations already. Those recommendations do not have anything to do with where lines are drawn, but schools of choice, those types of things; we have already indicated that we accept. Where the lines are drawn is of great concern to all constituencies and we are aware of those more remote locations where geographical distances are more vast than in more populated sections .

We will be considering their concerns as we make our deliberations as government,. Mr. Jennissen: Madam Minister, I would like to just reflect what one trustee said to me in Snow Lake. She was a lady and she said she had been involved with the school board for many, many years, and Snow Lake has an honourable tradition of having many women school board members. But she said in the amalgamation process if the headquarters-! guess you could call it-where the superintendent resides would be, let us say, Flin Flon or The Pas, that would be a distance of either 200 or 220 kilometres.

It would be virtually impos sible for her to travel alone that kind of a distance, specifically in the winter when the roads are bad. It is dangerous. That would be a four- or five-hour drive at the best of times and basically would disenfranchise those people, and that was a major concern they had, apart from the fact they would lose enormous blocks of time. I wonder if you would respond to that, as well. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, this issue has been raised in several of the rural divisions, the matter of distance and the ease or lack of ease with which trustees could attend meetings, for example.

While I think Mr. Norrie indicated he felt that a lot could be done with techno logy, the point I think that people are making and the one that you have just made is that is not always going to be what people wish to occur. The concerns that have been expressed about winter driving over long distances have been presented from several divisions .

I could appreciate that in the North where, notwithstanding what the winter has been like in Win nipeg this year, normally the winters up North are longer and roads usually not as passable as they might be in the more southern parts of the province, and we are aware of those conc erns. As I indicated before, we have those in our discussion packages, so to speak, on this particular issue. Mr.

Jennissen: Well, given then that we are running into problems with geographic distan ces, also lack of local autonomy and sensitivity, if we were to go ahead with the amalgamation, and if added to that there seems to be no likelihood of saving any money, what then would be the rationale for proceeding in the North with amalgamation? Mrs.

Mcintosh: Those are the kinds of questions that we, too, are asking, and that is not to discount anything that the Norrie com mission has put forward, because we also know that we have divisions like Frontier that work quite succ essfully, in my opinion, and we have divisions such as the Francophone division where the geographical configuration is unique, and it is a little different from the way the geography of most divisions occur. So we examine all the pieces of information on the table before us with an open mind.

We have said, though, that our goals of improved quality and delivery, et cetera, of education and either the cost-savings or prevention of escalation of costs will be two things that

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1229 we would like to see addressed. We have never been afraid of change. I think that is fairly obvious to almost any observer. However, change for the sake of change is not something that we believe in. Change has to be for a purpose. ... (155 0) Some of the recommendations that Norrie has made blended very well with some of the things that we are doing in New Directio ns, and I again refer to schools of choice, for an example.

Many of those things could affect arriving at our desired goals and outcomes by permeating rather than eliminating boundaries in certain instances. So we are asking ourselves those kinds of questions. I guess I can indicate in the North, Norrie indicated that Churchill may benefit more directly, for example, by joining Frontier School Division rather than his recommended Northern Lights division.

He indicated in his conclusions that he felt it was important for smaller units to be linked together with larger units in order to access the benefits of the educational support professional development move into personnel type issues. That was his indication after he reviewed supplementary information. I know that Leaf Rapids, for example, as I indicated earlier, had some very distinct perspectives on this issue, but Norrie maintains that there are possi ble advantages of amalgamation such as those that I just outlined that were indicated in his second report.

He indicates the pooling of the best educational practice and resources and possible efficiencies and broadening the tax base in sparsely populated areas would be positive benefits of the type of amalgamation he recommends, and indeed they would be. The question then becomes, there are indeed possible benefits. Are they greater than the possible disad vantages? Which outweighs the other? So while I recognize and appreciate the concerns that have been brought forward about disa dvantages, I also indicate there could be some advantages.

Our task now is the very difficult decision of trying to determine which outweighs the other. We are being very careful in our analysis on those sensitive issues. Mr. Jennissen: I thank the minister for that comment, and it is true that it, on the surface, makes a lot of sense to do professional development in a larger chunk or unit. In fact, we did this in 1990. I was the chairperson of the northern Manitoba professional development committee, and we did it without amalgamation. We can do it even without amalgamation . I guess the sentiment in the North appears to be, why fix it if it ain't broke?

I am happy that the minister said that change for the sake of change tends to be quite useless and why fix things if they are not broke. I think the North is rather adamant that we have another good look at things . They have worked fairly well for us, and we do not want to jump into something that is going to jeopardize a system we think has been working very well. That is not to say that some minor things do not need fixing or chan ging. You mentioned Churchill, for example, joining Frontier. I think that is by and large a positive move.

There are also systems out that have worked extremely well, I mean at the forefront of education, and I think they are very tense now about possible changes associated with amalgamation that could, in fact, be negative. Their biggest overriding concern is if you cannot save money with it, why are we doing it? With that, Madam Minister, I would like to turn it over to one or the other of my learned colleagues. Mrs. Mcintosh: I thank the member for Flin Flon for his comments. I appreciate the reflection on his constituency's concerns and thank him for bringing them forward for my attention. Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I want to say at the outset I am encouraged by the minister 's thoughtful responses in terms of the struggle that they are going through inside the department to try and sort out costs and benefits in the areas of boundary issues. Reflecting back on the time that I spent in the department in the mid- and late-'80s, these issues were very much on the table at that time, as well. The work that we did during the time when the Honourable Mr.

Derkach was minister did not indicate to us that there was much to be saved, in rural Manitoba, in particular, and I want to first ask the minister just to perhaps reflect again on the virtues of providing incentives to get the behaviour

12 30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri1 24, 19 96 that we want rather than fo rcing amalgamation on rural divisions . (Mr.

Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) I ref er particularly to an experiment that was undertaken in the Beautiful Plains area where Beautiful Plains acted as the host fo r a co-operative buildings and maintenance pro ject in which remote-sens ing equipment was installed in schools to monitor school security, heating plants , et cetera, over periods when schools were closed, provided good security, reduced costs, and, in fact, I believe it was, if I was not mistaken, the deputy minister will probably remind me, I think it was Johnson Controls that sponsored that one and indicated that savings would exceed, in fact, guaranteed that savings would exceed the costs of the equipment that was installed.

My question to the minister is whether she could give some indication of the approach of the department, whether it would be an incenti ve-based approach to such shared services where divisions were allowed to retain at least some reasonable proportion of the savings that they developed by virtue of innovative busing or building maintenance or shared services agreements of various kinds. Would she consider that approach rather than fo rcing an amalgamation? Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Chairman, a little diversion at first.

We had talked yesterday a little bit about the inf or mation coming in from school divisions and so on where they say we are assuming that there will be costs or cost savings depending upon certain assumptions . Those have been very intere sting and very helpful, and the variable factor there, of course, would be whether or not the assumptions will, in fact, become reality.

So any possible savings could be based again on those kinds of assumptions, but we are very receptive to the idea of trying to have incentives for school divisions where they can come together and effect cost savings to try to ensure that they benefit in some direct way for having been diligent enough to achieve cost savi ngs. Now, exactly how, I am not able to say at this point, but the concept the member raises is one that we are receptive to. I have been impressed lately by the degree of co operation we are starting to see with divisions .

There always have been some divisions that have worked together to do certain things, and the member, I think, is probably aware of South Winnipeg Tech School , which is one of my favourite examples because it is one he can touch, where three school divisions have come together to do something joi ntly for the benefit of all at one-third the cost fo r each one. Those types of things have been happening over the years in Manitoba, but of late there has been renewed vigour, shall we say, in this approach, and I think probably fo r a couple of reasons .

One, school boards are very intent on trying to save costs because the funding is tight. We are all very aware of the 2 percent reduction and rising costs and those kinds of thin gs, so school divisi ons are being super diligent in looking fo r cost effectiveness. I think, as well, because someone has said this to me, they are hoping that, if they can show that they can achieve a certain measure of cost savings, the intent of the com mission to be more cost-eff ective and have improved delivery and so on can be shown to occur without amalgamation.

So I take your question as more than a question and rather a suggestion in it, as well, which has merit in it. * (1 600) Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister fo r that response. I will conf ess to a little frustration that this proposal was put fo rward in 19 88 in a draft education finance review.

Though it was never published, in fact, much of it became the basis of the new funding system, which was announced in 19 89-90 or '90-9 1, I am not sure of the actual year, but in that, in one of the sections on promoting effectiveness and efficiency, it was strongly suggested that we look fo r an incentive framework. It is now seven or eight years later, and I know my colleagues or fo rmer colleagues in the department are very capable of designing the technical details of such a program.

I hope the minister will move in that direction because it has always been my view at least that it is better to provide support for the behaviours you want than to try and punish the behaviours you do not want. In the long run we get a lot further that way. I would ask the minister if she could comment also on what I think is a broad trend, both in urban and rural

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 3 1 Manitoba, and that is a growing sense of-I am not sure what adjectives would be most appropriate, but anomie, isolation, disempowerment, the feelings on the part of communities, that they can only impact on their community's quality of life with almost superhuman efforts. I refer, for example, to a small community in western Manitoba, in the Birtle Valley, that has made enormous efforts using the Internet in a very creative way, advertising in eastern and western press, having a committee called Birtle into the Future.

Against all the kinds of trends of communities of under a thousand in Manitoba, where there are no major natural resources other than the agricultural community, this community has attracted a few new businesses, small businesses. There are no houses for sale in town right now. They have an excellent quality of life in lots of ways in that small community, but it takes herculean eff orts on their part to keep it that way.

My sense is that governm ents in their headlong pursuit of cost cutting sometimes find themselves doing things which undercut the very base that enables communities to be contributors to the economy that the government is so concerned about. I tell the minister that I was at a rally this fall, this winter rather, in Birtle in which they are very concern ed about the proposed cuts to rural hospitals, as are most small towns in rural Manitoba. They said, just very straight out, we are not talking about health care here.

We are talking about the survival of our town, because if we do not have a decent-it does not have to be big and it does not have to be huge high tech, but it has to be decent-acute care facility, we simply will not keep older people in this town who begin to have health problems, and we certainly will not attract new people to it. When we take school division headquarters and jobs out of struggling communities, we have to take into account a bigger economic picture than just the Department of Education's bottom line. The communities have a bottom line, too.

I am sure the minister is aware of that, but I would be interested in her response as to whether that forms an active part of the decision making or whether the decision making is largely focussed only on the Estimates and needs of the Department of Education. Mrs. Mcintosh: I agree with the member in this respect, that small towns to be vital must have certain things in them. I disagree in another sense in terms of the generic part of the question that the rural communities are having difficulty being successful. It may be true for some, but we have just had our Rural Development Forum.

I do not know if the member had an opportunity to be free for that or not, but some of the exciting things going on in rural Manitoba towns are just incredible. My parents were born and raised in Cartwright, Manitoba, a little, small community that has only some few hundred people. Cartwright, to me, has been the same from the time I was a little girl till now, just a lovely, tiny, little prairie town. Yet it, as well, now has a window and door factory and trailer factory.

We see pasta plants coming up in various places where wheat is grown and a whole wide variety of things, very exciting things, and a lot of them having been done through inspiration or assistance and support of some kind provided by the provincial government. I agree with the comments that the communities must have certain things in them to be vital. I believe that rural Manitobans are revitalizing and invigorating themselves in splendid ways right across the province. Having said that, just so that I have my perspective on that on the record, as well, I do indicate that I appreciate what he is saying.

You lose a school board office or you lose a community school, you change the town. I think that is very true. We are working to attempt to improve the opportunities for those kinds of things to exist and remain existing in towns through a number of vehicles. In terms of allowing communities, whether or not they have buildings, to have meaningful interaction, we have advisory councils. We have set up regional consortia. In our DET Council, we have localized community college governments.

We have included communities in school plans and are working towards the interactive television network in the decentralization initiative and so on. If I could just backtrack for a moment to the topic we were discussing before your most recent question. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) had also made the point, if it is not going to save us any money, why do it in relation to a boundaries review? I concur that one of the things that we had hoped we might be able to see is also the study of boundaries that would be either cost savings or some vehicles that would stop the escalation of costs.

I appreciate that. I really appreciate it because we do not

12 32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April24, 19 96 have a lot of money, but I do not want the whole boundaries review thing to turn into a cost exercise, because I think the major intent of it was to look at how we can best service the children of Manitoba.

We certainly would pref er to do it at lesser costs, but I think that, if we talk more about a best benefit to children approach, we probably would include a wise use of money in that, but I always get a little nervous when we get off that as our focus. * (1610 ) I am not saying that the member was off that as focus, not at all, because costs are a component. I just really wanted to indicate that as we examine each of the components of the review, one of which is cost, that I want to keep refocusing back on best benefit to children.

I do not mean to imply by that at any stretch of the imagination that that is not the first interest of the members opposite either. I just think for anybody reviewing the record that they should know that we are keeping that as our first focus. I do not know if I answered your question completely or well but, ifyou wanted to add another, I will do my best. Mr. Sale: I have one final question. I appreciate the discussion. The minister I think responded fairly to the various issues that I raised.

My concern was simply, if I can just summarize it, and I do not need further response, that when you make decisions about health or education in a rural context, you are not simply making decisions about health and education, you are making decisions about the viability of the communities involved. I hope that when that discussion is going on that that is a very lively understanding on the part of government and that they recognize that sometimes the requirement to have a vibrant community may take precedence over the requirement to save small amounts of dollars.

If the issue is truly educational improvement then I do not think those communities will fight changes if they can see the improvement. But if we are simply saving a few dollars or even a modest amount of money at the cost of community viability, then I think they have every right to fight that. So that was my point. I think the minister did reflect at least in part on that.

I wanted to just conclude with another sort of broad observation, and that is that even in the time that I worked in the department, and the minister will remember that she and I were school trustees at about the same time in the '70s, we were beginning to see- Mrs. Mcintosh: We were very young. Mr. Sale: When we were very young, yes. The minister said, when we were very young. We are I think about of an age. This is true.

We were beginning to see the trend then but it has accelerated enormously even since the beginning of the 19 90s, and that is that increasingly educational quality and educational delivery are transparent to the structural arrangements for education. We began to think about distance delivery in its origins in the late '60s and early '70s. We think now it is possible on the Internet. We think what is possible in terms of computer technology that allows divisions to maximize efficiency of bus routes, for example, building maintenance.

Increasingly, best practice is the issue and not the structural arrangements around best practice. So it seems to me that the department, if it wants to enhance education, and I take it that it does and always has and I hope always will want to enhance education, should focus on identifying and making really readily available best practice, being, in effect, the discoverer of lighthouses, and then the sharing of the map to those lighthouses, so that we become much more flexible in how we learn from each other.

We promote that kind of learning which in many ways seems to be better done, I hesitate to say this, but it is better done in some ways in some of the emerging industry sectors who, for example, a company like Hewlett Packard that made a decision 1 0 years ago to go to open standards, so that they shared all their trade secrets, in effect. They shared their code and said, write programs for us. They became the kind of promoters of openness and sharing because they believed it was in their corporate best interests. The record shows that it probably was, in that company's case.

Could the minister comment on steps that her department is taking to identify and make accessible really widely best practice. Would she agree with my

April 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 23 and teachers throughout the city. Concern about the fact that the four quadrants, as recommended by Norrie, has enonnous potential for losing the positives of the ability of local communities to retain their flavour. That is broader than just Brooklands, but again, just to reiterate that, for Brooklands they want to have local influence, but I would suggest that they want to have local influence within the St. James context, and would, I am sure, probably like to see a smaller school division than the quadrant that is being proposed.

But if that quadrant is what actually happens, they want to be south of that line, not north of that line. I think the minister and I are in understanding of that. I would like to ask the minister, if I may, what rationale was given to her, if she has asked the question of the Norrie commission, why they did not make this very small, in the context of all the other changes, change as was overwhelmingly recommended by the residents in that community. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Norrie did not offer any definiti

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-23
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 23.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	20fc1dccae6814f821930ed16063758c50c3a24b

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