Manitoba Hansard — 22 February 1990 (Sitting 131, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-131

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, February 22, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS BILL NO. 88-THE PHYSICALL Y DISABLED PERSONS PARKING ACT Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 88, The Physically Disabled Persons Parking Act;

Loi sur les empl acements de stationnemen t reserves aux handicapes physiques. MOTION presented. � Mr. Minenko: I am very pleased to be introducing today in the Legislature a very pro-active piece of legislation designed to make life just a little easier for disabled people in Manitoba. The Bill is called The Physically Disabled Persons Parking Act that will ensure greater access to parking facilities for the physically disabled. The Bill sets out for the first time a set of rules governing parking stalls that are designated for disabled Manitobans. Basically the Bill has thr ee ma jor components.

First, it makes it an offence for people to park their vehicle in a designated parking stall for the disabled unless the vehicle displays a permit bearing the internationally accepted symbol of access for the physically disabled. Secondly, first-time offenders of this Act will receive a minimum fine of $100.00. Subsequent convictions carry a minimum fine of $150 and $200.00. Three, under the legislation, the size of the designated stalls incr eases from 8 to 12 feet. This is to accommodate easier access for the disabled in and out of their vehicles. This long overdue Bill, Mr.

Speaker , sends a strong clear message that a lack of consideration and respect for those who suffer from physical disabili ties will not be tolerated. This legislation is a product of many hours of consultation with groups represe nting the physically disabled as well as with organizations affected by it, such as shopping mall owners and office managers. I believe this is the very least that we as legislators can do, and I look forward to the support from the other two caucuses on this very important piece of legislation. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. *

(1335) INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: I would like to dr aw Hono urable Mem bers' attention to the gallery where we have from 5477 the Glenwood School twenty-one Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mr. Pattrick. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Vital (Mr . Rose). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Progressive Conservative Party Agenda Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, in the aftermath of the federal Conservative budget, Manitobans are looking for straight answers from this Government. Manitobans want to know what those provincial Tory letters hinting at hidden agendas will mean for them in the future, a letter for which the Leader of the Party, who is also the Premi er, cannot deny responsibil ity. What are some of those tough changes his Party has in mind if they were given a majority, in that we have already seen that Tory administration can cut vital programs and services? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs), I can tell her that I have not said anything about tough changes.

I have said that we are going to manage efficiently and effectively and manage in a way that is in the best interests of all Manitobans, as we have for two years despit e the outright ob struc tion and opposition of the Liberal Party who voted against tax reductions for Manitobans, $61 million of tax reductions to individual Manitobans on their income tax, despite the fact that the Liberal Party has voted against our reduction and elimi nation from paying the payroll tax of 70 percent of the small businesses who had been paying that tax, despite the fact that the Liberals voted against the removal of education tax off farm land to help our farmers, despite the fact that the Liberal Party voted against reducing the deficit.

We have carried on doing what we believe is good for Manitobans. We are going to carry on doing that. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans want to know what this Government is going to do about the hardship imposed upon them by their federal cousins in Ottawa. We are not talking here of deficit financing, which is what they will do by tapping the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. What we want to know is where they will be getting the additional revenues to make up the lost federal revenues or if they intend to cut programs and services, and if they do, just what programs and services are going to be cut. Mr.

Filmon: What we have indicated is that we will continue to examine every area of expenditure that this

Thursday, February 22, 1990 provincial Government has under its jurisdiction. We will look at ways in which we can make Government more efficient and more effective. We will look at ways in which we can reduce some of the areas of fat, some of the areas of adm inistration. We have in the past red uced expenditures in comm unication, reduced expenditures on research and admi nistration, areas that we do not believe are direct services to people. We will look at these things diligently.

We will take on our responsibili ties seriously, unlike the Leader of the Liberal Party, who along with her colleagues has over the past couple of years advocated adding $900 million worth of expenditures to our provincial deficit, $900 million worth of taxes that we would have to increase to the people of this province. That is not our answer; that is the answer of the Leader of the Liberal Party and her colleagues, and that is spend more, tax more- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, pleas e; or der, pl ease. The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.

Speaker , the truth of the matter is that this Government cut funds to the mentally disabled and put people on the street. This Government has given the physically handicapped less than the rate of inflation, which has resulted in a cut to services. Federal Budget Impact Education Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this Government has to face a very serious problem, particularly in the area of post-secondary education.

Can the Minister tell us just what the im pact will be on our university colleges and on our comm unity colleges with this cut to Established Program funding by his federal Tory cousins? •

(1340) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we continue to have to deal with the problems that we are faced with, no matter what the origin of those problems. We will look at them in a very sensible, common -sense point of view and a very mod erate response. We are committed, as I said yesterd ay, to ensure that health care remains at the highest standards that we can possibly provide. We are com mitted to ensure that as we address the needs of Manitobans, we deal with protecting those vital services that we curr ently have, the things that Manitobans have come to depend upon. Mr.

Speaker. what we are talking about of course is some co-operation. We need to ensure that Manitobans' expectations are not dr iven up by irresp onsi ble Opp osition, such as the Liberal Party, who say day after day, get more, spend more, you can have more, like the- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, please. I would like to remind the Honourable First Minister that we refer to Honourable Members in this Chamber as Honourable Members. All Mem bers are Honourable Members. The Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.

Speaker, one only has to ask a patient lying in a corridor of a hospital or a patient staying at home waiting month after month for surgery if they believe there have been no cuts to health care in the Pro vince of Manitoba. They know there have been. Tuition fees for students in this province have risen dramatically over the last few years. The University of Winnipeg Student Association says that as a result of this federal budget their fees will in all likelihood go up by 10 percent, that is 10 percent on fees, 7 percent on a GST and 3 percent on a surtax on student loans.

Can the First Minister tell us what his Government is going to do to ease the burden on post-secondary education students in the province, who simply cannot take any more? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker , let me just firstly correct my honourable friend, the Leader of the Oppo sition (Mrs. Carstairs), on some of the misinformation that she continues to put on the record. We have had two budgets that we as a Conservative Government have brought in this Province of Manitoba. The first budget increased expenditures on health care by over 9 percent, double the rate of inflation.

The second budget increased expenditur es on health care by over 7 percent, well over the rate of inflation. That second budget also included the largest and most ambitious capital works program in health care in our province's history. Those are not reductions. Those are not cutbacks, no matter how she wishes to characterize them. Those are increases and those are responses to real needs. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker , but they underspent by $28 million last year in health care, and they are projecting so far, three-quarters into this year, at $28 million.

Today we learned that the funding for science and technology had been slashed by 13. 8 percent by the federal Government. What impa ct will the cuts to science and technology have on the post-secondary institutions of this pr ovince who are already the most underfunded in the country? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we have been in Government for two budgets that we have brought in. In both the first and the second bu dg et our increases in expenditu res to universities and post-secondary institutions have been at or above the rate of inflation.

We have done that because we are committed to the qu ality of our post-secondary edu cation and to addressing some very serious problems that were left for us. We gave special additional funding to the Faculty of Dentistry because they were in danger of losing their accreditation. We gave special additional funding to. the Faculty of Management because they came forth with an ambitious plan to try and impro ve the calibre 5478

Thursday, February 22, 1990 and the quality of their training of people in management and administration at our university. We gave additional support in a number of specific areas, including in the miscellaneous capital area, because of our commitment to ensure that our universities can continue to operate in a favourable manner and provide a high quality of education to our students. We will continue to make a commitme nt, as much as possible, to support the needs of our post-secondary institutions in this province. *

(1345) Impact Out-Migration Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker , but in Phase 1 of their Pro Business Strategy we went from two faculties in Medicine with accreditation problems to eight Faculties of Medicine with accreditation problems. Can the First Minister tell this House how he expects to stem out-migration from the pr ovince and develop a pool of trai ned and special ized workers when our col leges and our universities are being allowed to deteriorate?

What kind of help will this Government be prov iding to those institutions so that the youth of this province are given a fair chance to make their future here in Manitoba and not some place else in this nation? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speak er, I find it reprehensible that my honourable colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, would in fact give misinformation on the record about the circu mstances at the Faculty of Medicine without having picked up the phone and spoken to the Dean of Medicine who said that funding was not the problem with respect to those accred itation matters.

He said it- An Honourable Member: What is the problem then? You tell us. Mr. Filmon: Did you call him? Did you call him? Did you call him? She did not call him, Mr. Speake r. She pr efers not to know the truth but to sp read misinformation. He said that it was a matter of the hours that they were spending in the hospitals, and it was in terms of- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. I am sure Honourable Members will want to give the courtesy to the First Minister to respond. The Honour able First Minister. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker , it is regrettable that the Liberals want to shout down the answer, because they do not like when the truth is being told to them. The Liberals prefer to say things their way to mis represent everything that is going on and not to listen to the truth. The reality is that their Leader -(interjection)-the Liberals think that this is a joke and a gr eat political game. If the y are not interested in our future in Manitoba, I am. 5479 Federal Budget Native Communication Network Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): One is tempted to talk about pro-business agendas, but that would be off topic. Mr.

Speaker, the morality of the federal Government has been questioned by all Canadians. The fact that the federal Government is cutting back on the heart and soul of Canada, health and post-second ary education, has been acknowledged by most Canadians as a very, very regressive way to go. We also, when we look at the budget sheets and see who the winners and losers are-and that affects Manitobans-we see that real personal income is going down in 1991 and corporate profits before taxes are going up 12.1 percent in 1991, a Progressive Co nservative strategy. My question to the Premier (Mr .

Filmon) is on some smaller items that are cut but affect people very directly. Native commu nications, both in the North and South, are absolutely vital for many of our communities, some of them particularly in our remote commun ities. They are a vital communication link in our commu nities. The federal Government has cut back those funds both in terms of their grant, both to the South and the North, a program that was established by federal-provincial agreements in previous years. My question to the Premier is: How much money is being cut back? What is the impa ct?

What is the Government going to do to make up the some $300,000 in shortfall potentially from this federal Conservative budget? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker , I just would like to put on the record for the public and for the Member of the New Democratic Party, the record of the New Democrats as it came to funding northern and Native programs. The increase that they received under this provincial Government was a greater amount than ever was received by the former administration in this province. Mr. Doer: Well, what a disgusting performance, Mr. Speak er.

I asked a very specific question about a program that we established before. We never attached any partisan labels to who should ge t credit for establishing the program. We are asking about the effect on communities. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars cut out by the federal Government. I would ask the First Minister (Mr . Filmon) and head of Treasury Board, what is the actual cut? What will it mean for the Native commu nication network in northern Manitoba? What will the provincial Government do?

Will he meet the same obligations as he intends to do with health and post-secondary education and meet the shortfall so that Native communic ation programs can continue throughout Manitoba? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, our record on funding for Native programs has been extremely posit ive. We are the Govern ment tha t under the Northern Flood Agreement advanced a payment of $10 million to the Northern Flood Committee communi ties,

Thursday, February 22, 1990 money that they had been waiting for for six and a half years under the NOP, money that they had been denied. It was forthcoming to them under that Northern Flood Agreement, that they were stonewalled, that they were filibustered, that they were obstructed from getting from the New Democr atic Party when the y were in Government for six and a half years. We have indicated in the past that we want to do whatever we can to assist people throughout this province. Whether they live in the North or the South, whether they be Na tive, whether they be any background or origin, they are entitled to fair and equal treatment. *

(1350) The fact of the matter is that the federal budge t leaves us with some difficult choices, leaves us with a loss of revenue that was unanticipated and indeed an offloading on other programs. The fact of the matter is that we are going to have to take a very co-operative attitude, and all Members in this Legislature are going to have to jointly talk about what their priorities are. I have put on the record that the priorities of this administration are to keep personal income taxes down and in fact to keep our health care secure in this province.

The Liberals have indicated that they disagree with those priorities. We will now find out what the priorities are of the NOP. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Fiscal Stabilization Fund Native Communication Network Mr. Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable Member for Concordia. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as a Party that voted for fiscal stabilization, we can say that it is raining now on our Native and northern commun ities. Therefore, my question is specifically to the Premi er.

He has indicated he will use the so-called rainy day fund for purposes of health and post-secondary education. Will he now agree to use the rainy day fund for some of the programs that are most directly affected in Northern Man itoba, particul arly the Na tive communications system that could be and will be wiped out by the federal cutbacks announced two days ago? Hon. Gary Fi lmon (Pr emier): Mr . Sp eak er, I compliment the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) for having had the good sense to support that Fiscal Stabilization Fund.

The foolish ness of the Liberals is now apparent to everybody in Manitoba. It is all out to see, their foolish ness and irresponsibil ity. I say this to the Leader of the New Democratic Party: He has said that it was raining for day care workers; he has said that it was raining for child and family service agencies, he has said that it was raining for everybody who walked into his caucus room with their hand out during the past six months. An Honourable Member: You are a little bit like Sharon like that. Mr. Filmon: Absolutely, Mr.

Speak er, and now he is saying that his priorities are for the Native progr amming. I say this, those are not the kind of priority choices that any Government can take. You cannot say that everything is a priorit y, whoever walks into your office next is your major priority- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , pl ease; ord er, ple ase. The Honourable Member for Concordia. Mr. Doer: I am going to continue to ask a very specific question.

One of the reasons why there was a lot of extra revenue last year, and we supported a fiscal stabilization, was high mineral taxes and high revenue which is of benefit to the whole province. Mr. Speaker, given that many of those revenues come from the North, and given that many of these resources are needed in the North, in the Native areas, would the Premier now agree to the $300,000 shortfall? We are not talking about $150 million.

The $300,000, if he is not able to ge t the mone y from the federal Govern ment-and it has been cut, so it is not hypothetical-will he agree to look at a creative way to provide those programs so there is no cutback in Native commu nications in our northern and southern commun ities of service that is very vital for our people? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, now we see why we got into the constant spiral of deficit and debt under the NOP. They have absolutely no ability to choose priorities. That is why we had constantly $500 million to $600 million annual deficits because everything was a priorit y.

They choose their priorities on an ad hoe basis. If he is telling me that he wants to take $300,000 away from health care to put into that prior ity, we now know what the problem we have in this province is and why we were left with that incredible debt and incredible deficit. He does not have a sense of prior ity. He wants to take that $300,000 away from health care and put it into another prior ity. *

(1355) Hog Industry labour Force Reduction Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond). We have learned today that on Monday of this week senior management of Burns Meats here in Winnipeg met with all empl oyees in a series of three meetings and indicated to them that because of the deal the Government struck with Springhill Farms and Olympia Meats out of Quebec recently to protect 60 jobs, 200 to 300 jobs may be lost in the hog processing industry in Winnipeg. Is the Minister of Labour aware of these meetings and these dire predictions from Manitoba's largest meat 5480

Thursday, February 22, 1990 packing facility, and if not, will she immedia tely make it her business to find out the details of this prediction? Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Mini ster of Labour): I will be in touch with our Labour Adjustment Unit. Burns Meat Government Discussions Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speak er, for the Prem ier, the Burns workers were also told by senior management that the company was fighting with the Government and that the company was facing indeed tough times. What knowledge does the Premier have of this alleged fighting with the Government by Burns Meats?

Will the Premier indicate whether or not in fact Burns has predic ted 200 to 300 layoffs in Winnipeg as a result of the deal recently struck with Springhill and Olympia Meats out of Quebec? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): The agreement that was struck between Springhill and Olympia Meats of Quebec was one that continued obviously to provide for a source of sale for the hogs that were being produced in Mani toba, which was good for the pr oduc ers of Mani toba, was suppor ted by the Ma nitoba Hog Prod ucers Marketing Board and indeed supported by all those produ cers across the pr ovince who so desperately were looking for an alternative to the closure of the Springhill plant.

With respect to Burns Meats, I have as recently as the last few weeks had extensive discussions with their President and chief shareholder , Mr. Arthur Child. So has my Minister of Agriculture (Mr . Findlay), who met with him. In fact, Mr.

Child responded to me in writing, saying that he had a very positive meeting, that he was very pleased with some of the undertakings that the Minister had taken to deal with the Hog Producers Marketing Board to address some of the irritations and co ncerns of Burns Meats, and that he saw our opportunities and climate here in a much more positive way than he saw Alberta, for instance, where he was extremely offended. The Member for St. James (Mr .

Edwards) might know that he took out a full page ad to complain against some measures that the Alberta Government was undertaking that were negatively affecting his packing ope rations in Alberta. He said none of those things. In fact he made very positi ve com ments about his relationship with this administration. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Member for St. James. Mr. Edwards: Mr.

Speaker, I simply bring it to the Premier's attention that on Monday senior management told workers that 200 or 300 people in Winnipeg may lose their job and also indicated that the company was fighting with the Government. Again for the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), today at 3:30 all foremen at Burns, both night and day shift, are meeting in an unusual meeting. Does the Minister of Labour know why, and can she tell us if it 5481 has anything to do with the dire predictions given by senior management to the workers on Monday? Mr .

Filmon: The problem that we have with the irresponsible Liberal Opposition is that they continue- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, please. Mr. Filmon: -to deal in secondhand information, rumours, innuendos. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James (Mr . Edwards), on a point of ord er. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker , I have attempted today in an entirely responsible fashion- Mr. Speaker: Your point, please. Mr. Edwards: -to bring to the Government's attention information that senior management at Burns Meats are threatening 200 to 300 people out of work in Winnipeg.

If that is not of concern to this Government, what is? Mr. Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order . It is a dispute over the facts. The Honourable First Minister. ***** Mr. Filmon: What is of concern to me, Mr. Speaker , is the irres pons ibil ity of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, who day after day bring up innuendo, secondhand information and all kinds of rumours that they want us to respond to. I will deal with the issues as they arise. We have had a good relationship with Burns, which I have told him about. If he does not want to believe that, that is his problem.

Drought Assi stance Cost Sharing Mr. Laurie Evans (F ort Garry): Mr . Speaker , my concern rests with Mr. Wilson's budget. Agriculture was virtually omitted from his budget, but he did indicate that pr airie farmers could be sup por ted through contingency funds. In the Oi lseeds and Grains Program there is a cut of three-quarters of a billion dollars, with the argument, and I will read the argument that he used: It is a decrease in the requirements under the Canadian Drought Assistance Program. *

(1400) Can the Premier or the Acting Minister of Agriculture indicate as to whether formal representation has been made to the federal Government for drought assistance or for special gr ains assistance to overcome the depre ssed prices? Is this Government prepared to cost share that agreement if it is brought forward?

Thursday, February 22, 1990 Hon. James Downey (Mini ster of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will try and be brief. Yes, there have been discussions, I underst and, between my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr . Findlay), and the federal Government at the ministerial level and as well at the technical level discussing all matters dealing with agriculture and agriculture problems. Mr. Laur ie Evans: This offload ing is not new to agriculture.

Can the Acting Minister indicate whether or not Manitoba has agreed to pay 25 percent of the total cost of the new crop insurance proposal that is currently before the federal Government? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for my colleague. Agri-Food Programs Funding Mr. Lau rie Evans (F ort Garry): I have a final supple mentary then, Mr. Speaker . The current Agri Food program under the ERDA is for $38.5 million. That expired on the 31st of March of this year. We are operating now on contingency funds till the end of the calendar year.

Can the Minister indicate whether we can anticipate something in the order of $38.5 million coming in for the next five years specifically for agricultural prog rams over and above the soil conservation project that has already been announced? Hon. James Downey (Min ister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Member is aware of the fact there has been a new one signed, but specifically with the question, I will take that as notice as well. Federal Budget Impact Native People Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): My question is to the First Minister.

The federal Government has called on the aboriginal people to take

part in the burden of reducing the federal deficit and also reducing the expenditur es. The aboriginal people in this country are the poor est of the poor, and we are asked to dig in our pockets to reduce the deficit. I ask the First Minister, what plans or what action is he proposing to take to combat this outrageous and immoral action of the federal Government? Hon. James Downey (Mini ster of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr.

Speak er, I find it extremely strange that the Member for Rupertsland would rise in his place and ask such a question, when he was Member of a Cabinet that in fact did not increase the support for the Native or northern communities from 1987. We were the first to increase that support when we became Government some 20 months ago. He in fact had no increases year after year for some three to four years when he was the Minister responsible. Northern Development Agreement Replacement funding Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my second question is dir ected to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

We had in place a Northern Development Agreement, a program well over $270 million that was expended under that program. I believe the Minister of Northern Affairs has bungled that agreement and lost all the cost-sharing arrangements with the feds. I want to ask the Minister, what action is he going to take to continue those programs that were contained in the Northern Development Agreement, prog rams such as BUNT EP, northern nursing, social work? Where is he going to get the funds from the federal Government? I believe the Minister indicated that he was going to be negotiating with the feds on that matter. Hon.

James Downey (Min ister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I again am somewhat astonished at the Member in his question. He is sitting as a Member of the New Democratic Party, who in fact did not have a new agr eement negot iated with the federal Government but in fact an extension, two years on top of the old agreement. We have had positive discussions, and we look for some fruitful positive outcomes of those discussions very shortly. However, I want the Member for Rupertsland (Mr .

Harper) to know that it is this Government, this Premier and this Party that are committed to give his commun ity, some seven communi ties, hydro-electric power off the northern genera ting system that he was not able to deliver. They were treated as second-class citizens with 15-amp power of f diesel gene rators. It is this Government that is going to give his communities hydro power off the system that has been in place for many years. Mr. Harper: Mr. Speaker, that commitment was already made by the provincial Government and Hydro in our term. Federal Budget Impact Native People Mr.

Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs, what are his plans to deal with the federal budget, and also the GST that is going to hit the community with 7 percent, and also the rate of inflation, the cost of goods in the North and remote areas? I ask the Minister, because when I purcha sed two litres of milk, 2 percent, it cost me $4.19 in Red Sucker Lake. Can he tell me how he is going to combat or ease the burden for northern and aboriginal people in those commun ities? Hon. James Downey (Min ister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr.

Speaker , let me tell the Member , who was the Minister-I am asking him if he wants us to take the monies that have been allocated for the hydro development in his commu nities and use them another way. As our Premier (Mr . Filmon) has said, it is our job 5482

Thursday, February 22, 1990 to prioritize the expenditur es, to make maximum use of the funds that are available. It is our responsibility to make sure there is electricity for the refrigerators to keep that milk from going sour, and that it in fact it enables the older people, the elderly in those commu nities, not to have to go to outdoor washrooms, as they had to do under his administration. West Broadway family Centre Funding Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson).

For some four years, critically requi red respite day care has been offered to some 300 families in the neighbourhood -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, ple ase; ord er, ple ase. The Honourable Minister has had an opportunity to respond to the questions posed. The Honourable Member for Wolseley has the floor. Mr. Taylor: Well, I will restart, Mr. Speake r. For some four years, critically required respite day care has been offered to some 400 families in the neighbourhood imme diately west of the Legislature by an organization called The Family Centre, located in Broadway Optimist Community Centre.

The previous Government partially supp orted those activities by giving CEO money and some loan, but the NDP did not recognize the real life needs of the people in that community by not establishing any programs and neither has this Government. My question, Mr. Speaker, is, what is this Minister going to do to salvage or to save this required operation in the West Broadway area, given that it already curtailed some of its services while awaiting expected funding? Unfortu nately, it has announced- Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, please. The question has been put.

The Honourable Minister of Family Services. Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Minister of family Services): Mr. Speak er, it is the priority of this Government to provide full time day care in facilities for full time day care, not casual day care as this Member is asking for. I guess this must be the priority of the day for spending with the Liberals, because every day we get, spend more, spend more. Now this is not something that we have been funding, but that facility has a request in, I should add to the Member , for an infant day care full time space.

My department is working with them, and they are on the waiting list for that. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker , well it is interesting that this Government has no interest in casual day care. Then I would ask this Minister what she has been doing having a staff member for the last two years out of the day 5483 care office, attending meetings for the expansion and renovation of Broadway Optim ist Community Centre to house this very same respite day care? What is going on here? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Minister of Family Services. Mrs. Oleson: Mr.

Speaker, my staff respond to requests to meet with them to discuss various programs. The very fact that staff have met with them does not indicate that we will fund the organization. Our priority is for full time day care, which the Member must know, because his colleagues and the colleagues in the NOP have been raving about salaries for day care workers and more money for day care. We are attempting to addre ss that issue. That is our priori ty. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speak er, the answer from the Minister is absolutely incredible.

We are talking about formal participation in an ongoing program to expand a building, which the city is funding and which Core is funding. We are talking about the respite day care. Your officials have formally participa ted in the exercise to house a respite day care. Why were they doing that if they were not going to fund them operationally? Mrs. Oleson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Member before, the very fact that my staff sit down and discuss something is not a guaranteed fund. *

(1410) We st Broadway family Centre Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speak er, on this same matter, because we believe that supports for families are critically important, and they do rank up there with health care, I have a suggestion for the Minister. Given that the statistics show- An Honourable Member: You are going to spend it otherwise. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Member for St. Johns has the floor. Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis: Given that the statistics show that this resource centre in West Broadway has saved the Government a minimum of a quarter of a million dollars through preventative me asures and prog rams by keeping childr en out of care in the welfare system, and given that the children in this surro unding area have only gone into care at a percentage of about 30 percent compared to 80 percent for the broader commun ity, would the Minister, in the interests of both saving money for taxpayers and supporting the family, provide a small amount of mone y to ensure that this valuable preventative centre is able to stay open?

Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speak er, well, obviously it was not a high priority

Thursday, February 22, 1990 of the former Government, because they did not fund it to the extent that the Member is asking us now to fund it. I will repeat, as I said to her colleague, the Liberal Mem ber, our priority is full time day care. We are working to impr ove the system in that area, and that is our priorit y. Ms. Wasylycia-leis: Yes, as the Minister has said, these were started under the NDP, and now they are being cut back by the present Government.

My question to the Minister is, given that West Broadway Family Centre could have been supported through operating dollars as a family resource centre, or as a formal day care system in terms of its infant day care request, or as an innovative project around respite care for parents who want to stay at home full time with their children, would the Minister dig into one of her programs and come up with some funding to help this centre stay open so that families in the West Broadway area can be supp orted and so that deficits are kept low- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The question has been put.

The Honourable Minister of Family Services. Mrs. Oleson: Mr. Speaker , it is interesting to hear the Member saying dig into one of her other programs when every other day she is suggesting that I give more money to those programs. I am wondering which program the Member would like me to take that money from. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, pl ease; ord er, pl ease. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. Ms.

Wasylycia-leis: I would ask the Minister to look at the $7 million of underspending to date in her department and come up with $70,000 to support a program that has kept children out of care in our child welfare system, has sup ported fam ilies, has been preventative in nature on all fronts, including child abuse, wife battering, delinquency and alcoholism, and the list goes on and on. Would she act in the interest of the future of our society? Mrs. Oleson: Mr. Speak er, I am always happy to act in the interests of society, in the interests of people who fall under this department.

I will point out to the Member once again that the increases that we have spent in day care over the last two years that we have been in Government, the two budgets, in'87-88 the budget for day care in Manitoba under the NDP Government was $28.9 million. The budge t for'89-90 is $41. 8 million. That is a significant increase in day care funding. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! North Portage Development Corp. Southside Portage Avenue Mr. Speaker: Ord er, pl ease; ord er, pl ease. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr.

Spea ker, I have a quest ion for the Min ister of Ur ban Affairs (Mr . Ducharme). A part of the North Portage Development Corporation's mandate was to spend $1.2 million on developments of the south side of the street, and since the construction of Portage Place, many businesses have gone broke or moved off of the south side of Portage Avenue. My question to the Minister of Urban Affairs is, how much of the $1. 2 million directed towards the south side of Portage Avenue has been spent? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Min ister of Urban Affairs): Mr.

Speaker , first of all, to correct the Member from across the way, there was evidence of the south side of Portage deteriora ting long before the project of North of Por tage was finished. As everyone knows, the business between Eaton's and The Bay was beginning to deteriorate. To the Memb er, there was a discussion between the merchants on the south side and north of Portage. He is correct, there is $1. 2 million put aside for that benefit. A marketing committee of Corinius group was appointed. That group has been carrying on di scus sions with the south side of Portage merchants.

We should have a report back within the next two or three weeks. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Before Orders of the Day, I would like to draw Honourable Members' attention to the ga llery where we have from the Cypress River School fifteen Grades 4 and 5 students. They are under the dir ection of Bruce Craig. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. HOUS E BUSINESS Hon. James McC rae (Government House leader): Mr.

Speak er, with regard to Bill No. 31, the Bill to repeal the final offer selection, I would be announcing today that the Comm ittee on Industrial Relations scheduled for next week, if necessary, will be as follows: Monday, the comm ittee will meet at 10 a.m. and, by leave of the Ho use, at 8 p.m. so tha t we can accommodate those who would like to attend for evening meetings. It has been mentioned that certain workers find the evening meetings more convenient. Tuesday morning 10 a.m. and 8 p.m.; Wednesday 8 p.m.; Thursday 10 a.m. and 8 p.m.; Frida y 2 p.m.; Saturday 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., if it is necessary. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House leader): On the order of the commit tees, Mr. Speak er, it is unfortunate that the Minister was not present this morning. I just want to indicate that we have no problem in giving leave on Monday night for evening sittings, but I would like to ask the Government House Leader, we would still object to the number of morning sittings, the use of Sa tu rda y afternoons . We raised in commi ttee- 5484

Thursday, February 22, 1990 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, pl ease. We will hear the Honourable Member's point. Mr. Ashton: If I may finish, we raised in committee our concern that people might potentially be denied the opportunity to make presentations. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: If the- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, ple ase; ord er, ple ase. The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: If the Memb ers of the Con servative benches, Mr.

Speaker, are finished interrupting what I am going to be asking of the Government House Leader (Mr . Mc Crae), I have a question to the Go vernment Hous e Leader following from wha t happened in the comm ittee today. We had expressed concern that people might, because they are unable to attend either weekend sittings or morning sittings, be denied the opportunity to make presentation. It had been indicated by the Liberals initially and also by the Min ister of Labour (Mr s. Ham mond) that the presentations would be held open to accommodate people who would be in need of having evening sittings.

I would just like to ask if the Government House Leader can confirm to this House that will in fact be done by the Government, that the commitment that was given by the Minister of Labour and also by the Liberal Party to ensure tha t people do have the opportunity to make presentations at evening sittings will be maintained- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, ple ase; ord er, pl ease. The Honourable Government House Leader. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the Honourable Member. At present on the list of presenters on this Bill, there are 107.

Today we had a two-and a-half-hour meeting , or so. One presenter was heard from, I understand. I did not make a visit to that committee, but I do understand that presenter used approximately 35 minutes to make her presentation. The remainder of the two-and-a-half-hour meeting was spent answering questions for the most part put by the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton). *

(1420) May I remind the Honourable Member that it costs this House approxima tely $6,400 per day to sit. I suggest when we are calling commit tees with these kinds of numbers, it will cost more than that to run this House. I think when we are offering morning and evening and Saturday opportunities, if that is not reasonable, we will consider afternoon sittings too. 5485 Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank both Honourable Members.- (interjection)- Order, please. I would like to thank Honourable Members.

The advice provided to the House was that there will be numerous comm ittees sitting this coming week and this weekend. Any other discussion between the House Leaders as to eit her ad ding or removing some of these - (interjection)- Ord er, please; order , please. If Honourable Members wish to remove or by leave withdr aw some of these comm ittee meetings that Members are requesting, that will be entirely up to them and they can discuss this outside of the Chamb er. Right now, we are going to be moving on to Orders of the Day. Mr. Mccr ae: Might I ask if we have leave for that Monday evening meeting? Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave of the House to sit Mo nday even ing? Will ther e be leave? - (i nterje ction) - Order , ple ase; orde r, ple ase . (interjection)- On the question. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, you have asked if there is leave- Mr. Speaker: I have simply asked, is there leave, yes or no? Mr. Ashton: Am I allowed to- Mr. Speaker: A simple question: is there leave, yes or no? Is there leave? -(interjection)-Ord er, please. Is the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton) reflecting upon the Chair? -(interjection)-Order, please.

The question is very simp le: Is there leave of the House to allow the comm ittee to sit Monday evening? Is there leave? -(interjection)-There is no point of order here.- (interjection)- Ord er, please; order, please. This can be resolved in a matter of 10 seconds. Ord er. The Honourable Member for Thompson, in his initial remarks, said that he was prepared to grant leave for the Government to call the comm ittee Monday night. Is that agreed? Is that what he said in his original remarks? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. An Honourable Member: No, Mr. Speaker, no leave. Mr. Speaker: There is no leave?

Leave is denied. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er. Ord er, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson.- (interjection)- Order , please. The Honourable Member for Thompson has the floor. Mr. Ashton: Yes, Mr. Speaker , on a point of ord er. I regret that I had to deny leave initially so that I could indicate that our concern was that so long as some of

Thursday, February 22, 1990 the concerns that were exp ressed this morning are dealt with, in particular that every effort is made to accommodate people in the evening sittings, and 1- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, pl ease; ord er, pl ease . (i nterject ion) - Leave has been denied. Ord er. The Honourable Member for Thom pson will take his seat now. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: 98, 59, 60, 70, 56, 84, 50, 51, 52, 57, 47, 48 and the remainder as listed on today's Order Paper? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; order , please. DEBATE ON SECOND READING S BILL NO. 98- THE MANIT OBA DA TA SERVI CES DISPOSITION AND CONS EQUENTIAL AMEN DMENTS ACT Mr. Speaker: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness), Bill No. 98, The Manitoba Data Services Disposition and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur !'alienation de la Commi ssion des services d'informatique du Manitoba et modifications correlatives, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), the Honourable Member for Brandon East. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on this important Bill to express the concerns that we have about this legislation and particularly about the consequences of the sale of a very effi cient, profitable Cr own agency known as Manitoba Data Services, interes tingly enough a Crown corporation that was establ ished by Premier Sterl ing Lyon, at that time, which has had an excellent record of performance and one that all Parties I am sure agree has been very efficient. We have all agreed that it has had an efficient record and has been a tribute to the Province of Manitoba and has served the taxpayers of this province very well.

It is interesting that the Government has seen fit to bring in this piece of legislation. I dare say, if it were not for the questions and criticisms raised by the Opposition about this potential sale of MOS that this legislation might not be here on the books, or rather on the agenda, for the Legislature to consider. An Honourable Member: The question is: Do you support it or do you not? Mr. Leonard Evans: Weil, the Member for Arthur, the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), says, do we support this Bill or not.

I do not know where he has been the last couple of months, because we have stated clearly many a time that we are opposed to this legislation, totally opp osed to this legislation, because we think it is a mistake to divest a Crown corporation that has been successful and has been profitable, that everyone has recognized. The Minister of Financ e (Mr .

Manne ss) has re cogn ized it, the Members of the Liberal Party have recognized it and we recognize it, that we are dealing with a very efficient, very excellent agency that has not only been profitable, but has steadily, over the years, reduced the rates of computer services that it charges to the various users, the various departments and agencies and other users. So not only has it made money, it has made money while steadily bringing down the rates, thereby reducing the costs of main frame comp uter services to the Government as a whole. I say, Mr.

Speak er, we have had questions about confidentiality, because there are public records that are now being processed by MOS and that will be processed by a private company if this legislation goes ahead and if the Government goes ahead with its deal. Also we were concerned about the question of gua rantees; the question of guarantees of jobs; the question of guarantee of work not being slipped out of the province, funnelled out of the province; the question of whether the taxpayers are going to be ripp ed off by excessive rates. All these questions we have asked.

Both the Members of the Liberal Party and our Party have raised these questions and I believe have caused the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness), who is responsible for this legislation and responsible for this move of divestiture, to sharpen his pencil and put his thinking cap on to consider more of the implications that perhaps he considered at the beg inning.

Therefore, we have this legislation before us I believe because of the legitimate concerns raised by ourselves, particularly The Legislative Library Act being a piece of legislation that is still on the statute books and the fact that this move, this divestiture, could lead to a situation which would be in contravention of that Act. Mr. Speak er, the Minister tries to reassure us in his introductory remarks that this is going to be a great deal for Mani toba, that he is ta king all kinds of 1 precautions, that it is going to lead to jobs, it is going to lead to industrial development. Surely I would agree.

We certai nly need jobs; we certainly need industrial development. I do not know whether this is the way to bring it about and I am not sure whether this will bring it about. So far we are still getting generalities -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Member for Brandon East has the floor, other Honourable Members wishing to carry on- order, please- personal conversat ions can do so outside the Chamb er. Mr. Leonard Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speak er, for your assistance. This impo rtant piece of legislation will have a bearing on the people's lives, the emp loyees who work in that com pany.

It will have a bearing on the efficiency of service to Government departments and agencies that will need computer services in the future and may 5486

Thursday, February 22, 1990 indeed have a bearing on the economic development of this province. •

(1430) While the Minister seems to be very pleased with himself, seems to be very satisfied that he has taken all precautions, we still do not have enough details, we are still supposed to essentially have faith in him and have faith in the Government that they will be making a good deal. I simply ask, are we buying a pig in a poke? Are we buying a pig in a poke, or are we- An Honourable Member: We are selling a pig in a poke. Mr. Leonard Evans: -oka y, but the impact is the same. We are still buying a deal being offered by potential would-be buyers.

As I understand it, it was a matter of a dozen companies coming to the Government making offers, showing interest in buying the comp any, and ther efore I still say, buying a pig in a poke may be appropriate. We still have problems with the confidentiality aspects and I think this area is one that is not only espoused by ourselves, but it is an area that other members of the community have shown concern with.

I mention for instance the Manitoba Health Records Association statisticians, people who are concerned and who are involv ed as health record pr act ition ers who are concerned about the integrity and security of patient information should the privatization of MOS occur. They are particularly concerned about protecting patient related information. They are also concerned about the financial impact of this transaction on the health information systems in the province.

In other words, what will it do to the cost charged to the hospitals or to any health agency or MHSC or anyone who happens to use the services of the MOS mainframe comp uter, or whoever will be operating those particular services? Confidentiality matters were also raised by some of the small computer companies in town; people who are in the business of selling computer services and compu ter hardware have also raised the question. This has been reported in the newspapers that they too belie ve that ther e is a problem of confidentia lity involved.

It is not just ourselves saying this is a problem, but there are people in the com munity who have concern about it. think that generally speaking the people of Manitoba are concerned about this. As a matter of fact there was a survey done a few months ago where people were asked about the concerns of confidentiality. The report was quite loud and clear. The results were very loud and clear that the Government should not sell the Manitoba Data Services to pri vate investors. This was a poll done in the fall of 1989.

Sixty-five percent felt that the corporation should be retained by the Government, particularly in view of the fact that there is confidentiality involved and the fact that the corporation is profitable. In fact more than 88 percent of the respondents think that the Government has a responsibility to ensure confidential information about Manitobans does not get into the hands of a private com pany. I know the Minister has made reference to taking steps to try to guarantee confidentiality. Mr.

Speaker, we are still not satisfied, and I think there are people out there who are not satisfied that this confidentiality will be guaranteed. Mr. Speaker, the main rationale for selling this, accord ing to the Minister, is that it will provide some kind of a critical mass. It will provide a pri vatized MOS, will provide a critical mass that will enable other things to occur, that will cause job spinoffs. It will cause economic development spinoffs from some kind of a critical mass. I ask the Minister, do we not now have a critical mass? What else do you need?

Essent ially you have MOS, a large organization, with the large staff, with up-to-date equipment that is providing an essential service, is now right today existing and can provide spino ff if that is required, if they are given that mandate. I do not know what additional critical mass will be involved with it being privatized. That I do not understand. Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about liaison with groups in the community, with universities and others that could occur. There is no question that such liaison and co-operation is a good thing, but I wonder why it cannot occur now.

There is no reason why for instance MOS could not be involved with university students or other members of the community in liaison that the Minister speaks of with regard to a pri vate company. If a private company can do it, I do not see why MOS cannot do it. The Minister talks about if a large player can come in-I am quoting from page 5368 of the Hansard, Monda y, February 19. I am qu oti ng: Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are having difficulties.

Indeed, if Manitoba Data Services can be divested, and if a large player can come in and give them the foundation and the stability that is needed, we not only win one way we win in several ways. I am not sure what the Minister is talking about. What does he mean by foundation and stability? Do we not have that foundation now? Do we not have that stability now? For the life of me, I do not see what additional critical mass is necessary for spinoffs to take place. I might remind Members that some spinoff has already taken place in the past.

If you look at the past, there have been certain developments, job creation as a result of MOS opera ting, as a result if it being a major purc haser, major consumer of computer equipment. There have been many other benefits as well in terms of job creation. I can appreciate the Minister's concern about creating jobs. No one is opposed to creating jobs, creating good jobs, particularly jobs in a high-tech field, hopefully jobs that pay good wages. Mr. Speaker, so while we support initiatives to ensure jobs and bring jobs to Manitoba we are not sure that this is going to be the best way to do it.

We are not sure whether we will not be paying too high a price to achieve it. 5487

Thursday, February 22, 1990 Certainly we have had a lot of industrial erosion in this province. We should all be aware of the fact that we have been losing jobs right, left and centre in this province. Accord ing to the labour force survey compiled by Statistics Canada in January of this year we had 5,000 fewer people working in manufacturing than we did one year ago. That is a drop of 8.1 percent in emplo yment in manufacturing. Then there are other figur es showing a shrin kage of the Manitoba labour force and a drop in total emplo yment.

So good ness knows we need the jobs, good ness knows we need new industries. I am quite quickly reminded of the various kinds of compan ies that either have gone or have annou nced that they are going to go. Varta Batteries, another very sorry case where we are losing out in Manitoba, where we see some kind of concentration in Ontario , thanks to the purchase of that company by an American parent and again losing jobs that are badly needed here. (Mr .

Herold Driedge r, Acting Speaker , in the Chair) Campbell Soup have already announced some time ago, last year, that they are leaving Portage la Prairie, they are leaving Manitoba. We are going to lose many jobs there. Again, I would say, Mr. Acting Speaker , this is related to the Free Trade Agreement, if not dir ectly certainly very indirectly, because Campbell Soup have said they have to get ready for increased competition in North America. This is one way to do, and that is to close the smaller plants and consolidate in the centre of your consuming market, namely in Ontario, preferably close to Toronto. *

(1440) Another case, Ogilvie Mills, another company that is deciding it has to be more efficient and have modern equipment, a modern plant, to compe te in the marketplace because of free trade closing down their plant in Winnipeg, moving facilities to their plant in Ontario. Molson Brewery, another case where we are losing jobs, again bE;!Cause the brewery industry, although not initially affected by free trade, will be affected. The Australian owners of this company has said that they are getting ready for the second round where beer will be included, and they simply have to be more efficient.

So they have been combining Carling and Molson across the country. As a result, we have lost the Molson Brewery in Winnipeg. In my own riding, Marr's Leisure Products was a dir ect casuality of the Free Trade Agreement, because leisure products were the first to be freed under the agreement. As of January 1989 the tariffs on leisure products were removed, and within a very short time you have that company selling out lock, stock and barrel to an Americ an company being mo ved to North Carolina. As a resu lt, we lost 44 jobs in the city of Brandon. There are other examples.

So goodness knows we have been losing jobs. We have been witnessing industrial erosion. So I can see why the Minister is concerned about trying to do everything he can to create jobs. I say this is not necessarily the way to do it. Regrettab ly, because of this loss of jobs too, Mr. Acting Speaker , and as we have become aware in this House that our population is shrinking, more and more people are leaving Manitoba under this Government. In fact there were a couple of quarters in the latter part of 1988 where we actually saw the population of Manitoba shrink.

So the best that can be said, because of this outward migration, is that the population at the very best is stagnating; there is certainly no growth. It is my view that our population is under the optimum. We would be better off if we did ha ve a la rger population, a larger marketp lace in this province. Well, Mr . Acting Speaker , the Minister has said that there were various criteria of divestiture that he was proceeding with, he was following, one of which was confidentiality.

As I said, I am not so sure what can happen, given the fact that there is an increasing amount of cases where computer files had been broken into. Indeed there is more and more discussion by people, professionals in the field, about security of information. The Canad ian Col lege of Health Record Adminis trators for one has put out a position paper on the security of comp uterized health information and they are very concerned about an individual's right to pr ivacy in relation to health information.

They note that with comput erized health information there are certain situations developing where information could be taken or could be utilized wrong ly. They have come up with a code of practices for safeguarding health information, but as I said this is put out by the Canadian College of Health Record Administrators. Well it is not only health information that we are concerned about, Mr.

Acting Speaker , it is agricultural credit information, it is information about doctors master files, it is information regard ing various vital statistics, births files, the information on bir ths, information on deaths, information on various kinds of payrolls. We are talking about all kinds of medical claims, personal care home, drug history files, Northern Patient Transportation files, public health nurse files, MHSC payroll file, Regional Health Unit files, just to use some examples in the health field.

But, as I said, there is the entire range, Motor Vehicle Registrations, all kinds of information in that area that is very sensitive. very confidential. So there is a whole range of material that is at stake. As I said, there is an increasing concern about protection of personal information. As a matter of fact, there was a conference held here, Mr.

Acting Speaker , in January of this year on this subject, the protection of personal information, an issue for the 1990s, saying that privacy is becoming a central issue to all Canadians, showing that over 90 percent of the population are concerned about protection of personal information. Part and parcel of that is information that is held in computers, computer banks. So while the Minister has addressed that in his Bill, we are not sure that he has gone far enough or whether that is adequate enough. Another criteria for divestiture was job protection.

I apprecia te the fact that he is concerned about these jobs as we are on this side. I note that there is some reference to having people who may not be taken into the private company being able to transfer to other Government departments or Government agencies. 5488

Thursday, February 22, 1990 He says one of the other criteria is a guarantee of new job creation, but I do not know how this is going to come about. That is not spelled out. There is some suggestion that a pri vatized company will take on new business that a publicly owned MOS is not now. Maybe MOS is not taking it on, but there is nothing prev enting it from doing so if that is what the Government wishes.

If the Government wishes MOS to go out and sell its services nationally or internationally, I am convinced that the staff, capable as it is, could do that and bring in more work, if that was a policy dir ection. I say again, it does not have to be privatized in order for that to occur. There is reference to another point of divestiture. There is reference to co-operative education with the universities. Surely that is something that can occur now.

You do not have to privatize a company to ensure that there are ties with the universities and that the computer facility could somehow or other not be utilized for education, for upgrading of university students. Surely that can be done now. Surely that is not a benefit of privatization. The other point the Minister adds, and I found this rather funny, is that he said, well, if you privatize it, they will pay taxes to the Province of Manitoba. Surely you are not serious that is a benefit. Sure, MOS does not pay any taxes to the people of Manitoba, it just turns over everything back to the people of Manitoba.

It turns the profits back. It reduces the rates every year. As a result, the Government gets everything from MOS. Indeed, if the Minister wanted he could require Manitoba Data Services-could bring in a Bill to cause MOS to pay taxes back to the Government. Well, what nonsense that is. Really if you did that, all you would be doing is taking some of the money that would be paid in the form of taxes to the Government of Manitoba and they would not be able to reduce their rates to the same extent or they would not turn profit back to the Government of Manitoba, to the Treasury. That is not a benefit.

That is not a benefit to say that they are going to pay taxes, because the Government is receiving all of the benefits now, 100 percent of the benefits, from the MOS, either in client refu nds or reduced rates or transfers of net revenue, of net income. l am not clear on how the Minister got to the book value of the corpora tion. He says it is $9 million. He has made some reference to that. I do not know whether he is just sort of looking at the physical-I know he said he is going to take the cash out of the comp any, that would be removed from the company before it was sold.

The fixed assets I note are roughly around $8 million or $9 million, and that is what we are really selling. We are selling its value more or less at what the physical assets are deemed to be worth. We are not looking, therefore, I would gather, for any value from the business as an ongoing concern. *

(1450) Normally when you sell busi nesses you do not just sell physical assets, you sell the value of the business, the value of the sales, the customers they have, the volume of revenue that is received. In this case, it is just the reverse. Instead of sort of estimating in terms of the value of future income flow, it seems that we are valuating just the physical assets and then in turn saying to the comp any, we are going to guarantee you that you make money for five years. That to me is a very strange situation. It is sort of a reverse.

Not only do you get the company for just the physical assets, but we are going to give you a guarantee that you are going to make money for five years. In effect, they are giving a monopoly to one com pany. That company will be guarante ed that it is going to have the business. Today, Mr . Acting Speak er, dep artments and agencies, if they so choose, do not have to use Manitoba Data Services. There is nothing written in law or in administrative practice or in regulation which causes them to use MOS, but what we are going to do now is to say you must use the privatized MOS. You do not have any choice.

You have to use that pr ivate monopoly that we are setting up. Therefore you have a guaranteed profit situation. I say that is not a healthy situation. If you are going to priv atize it why not say, look, if you want to buy this comp any, its assets, it has a good staff, a lot of experience, fine. You can bid on our business, but we are going to allow our departments and our Crown agencies an opportunity to look at alternatives. If they can get something cheaper by buying services from another company, why not let them?

If you really believe in competition, and there is a lot of value in good competition, I am not knocking good competition, there is a lot of value in that. We need competition. If the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr . Downey) wants to make the speech, I would welcome him to participate in due course. In due course he can participate. (interjection)- Well, I said in due course.- (interjection) Well, if he wants to ask me a question he can. Mr. Acting Speak er, the fact is as I said, we have a very strange situation where we are setting up a private monopol y.

I say allo w the departments, al low the agencies to deal with who they will. Maybe they will find that they would be better off to buy their own computer equipment, rather than have to deal with the monopoly. Mr. Acting Speaker , it would be good if we could get the details, more information on the contract, because we are always at a disadvantage in discussing this. We are always at a disadvantage in criticizing because the Minister could say, well, if you only knew the details you would not be so critical. The fact is we do not have the details, so there is a conundrum here.

I appreciate the fact that he is in negotiation, and when you are in negotiation you cannot have everything public. On the other hand, we do have concern about the contract that the Government may be wandering into or walking into. As I said, we have a situation where we are setting up a private monop oly. The other thing is, Mr. Acting Speaker, although there is going to be reference to a rate reduction in the contract, I see on page 5369 the Minister says, and I am quoting, written within that contract though is a 5489

Thursday, February 22, 1990 guaranteed

schedule of rate reductions reflecting the new technology generation that can come within that industry and the fact that the costs of computing on a per-unit basis continues to fall, unquote. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, we know that MOS as reported in their annual document, their annual report, ha s consistently brought do wn the rates to its customers. In fact, since 1981 they have announced nine rate reductions-this was reported in the annual report of 1988-the result being that a unit of computing which clients paid one dollar for in 1981 now costs them only 45.6 cents.

These reductions reflect the combined effects of a growing demand for our services together with the success of a number of initiatives we have taken to improve cost effectiveness. That is a quote from the 1988 Annual Report of Manitoba Data Services. So the Minister is conscious of the fact that in the industries rates have come down primarily because of imp roved machinery, improved technology. That has been passed on, but it has been passed on willingly by MOS as a publicly owned opera tion. How can we be sure that even though a private company may reduce rates that they will reduce rates sufficiently?

They may be reducing rates in one year by 1 percent when perhaps it should be reduced by 2 percent or 3 percent in that particular-how can the Government be sure that they are not going to be ripp ed off, that company always knowing that the Government must buy their services according to the contract? So I say that we may be very vulnerable. If we pay too much then we are doing a disservice to the people of Manitoba, to the taxpayers.

For all the talk about efficiency in Government and so on we may find that we are paying a terrible price to get a company that may put some new investment dollars here, may create some additional jobs-I am not knocking that. If the Minister says that is going to happen I would like to take him on his word for it. What price are we paying to get those jobs? There has to be some reasonableness of price. The other concern I have is with regard to the head office location. As the Member for St. Norbert (Mr .

Angus) pointed out the other day, very rightly that is, when you have a head office in any city or area it has a good spin-off effect in terms of services that it requir es. It demands legal services, financial services, services of accounting firms and other support services generally and creates a lot of good jobs in effect. It does have a very favourable spin-off effect. Therefore, it is very important that we have the head office in Winnipeg. The Minister is conscious of that, but I am not, and he says- An Honourable Member: What is wrong with Brandon? Mr.

Leonard Evans: Well, Brandon is even better, it is even better, but the Minister did not sugge st that in his speech, and I am looking at his remarks here. I gather that he is not prepared to move the equipm ent or to move the head office there, but regardless, Mr. Acting Speaker- An Honourable Member: We will send you back there. Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, these very kind remarks that are being made this afternoon-the fact is that you can have a head office in name only.

This is what I would be concerned -if you had a major corporation that was saying, yes, we will buy out and we will have the head office here, I am worried that you would have a head office here and maybe the executive offices in Toronto, or the administrative offices in Toronto. That can happen and it does happen.

Too often have we seen companies that have been established with head offices in Winnipeg and then we find, over time, the actual administrative and executive decisions are being made in Toronto or Montreal or maybe in Chicago or wherever and not here, and the services to that administration are therefore not here in Manitoba but elsewhere. *

(1500) The Minister uses the term "golden chair," which I find is a rather interesting idea. I gather- An Honourable Member: Platinum. Actually I should have called it platinum. Mr. Leonard Evans: I beg your pardon-platinum. gather by that term he is suggesting that he has the best of all possible worlds, and that if this deal does not go, he can cancel it. Again we are taking him on his word and in faith. Again it would have been good, even if we had a preliminar y, even a draft of the contract for some of these things spelled out.

An Honourable Member: We will get it from the Securities Exchange Commi ssion in Tokyo. Mr. Leonard Evans: The Member for St. Nor bert (Mr . Angus) says, we will get it from the Japanese Securities Exchange Comm ission in Tokyo, or wherever, which brings a rather interesting question up, whether the buyer is a Canadian buyer after all-we know there were two from Ontario-or whether we are talking about a Japan ese buyer. That is a possibilit y, or American, German or whatever. (Mr . William Chornopyski, Deputy Speaker , in the Chair) Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I know the Minister is trying to build on these, but I am not so sure that we are getting a good deal on it. There are positive aspects as he described it, but there are these negative aspects as well. While we all lik e jo bs, while we all want industrialization because we are seeing jobs disappear too rapidly here, rather than creating jobs, we are losing jobs in this province.

Fine, let us do our best to create new jobs, but the case really has not been made why we cannot allow MOS to expand now, why we cannot give them a mandate to go out and sell their services nationally and internationally and expand, why theY. cannot liaise with the community, why they cannot liaise with university students, if that is supp osed to be an 5490

Thursday, February 22, 1990 arg um ent for havi ng privatized the situa tion. The arg ument for privatized companies is, well, it can do all these things or will do all these things with university students. I say a publicly owned MDS can do that as well. I dare say they may have done some. They can certa inly do more if the Government wishes them to do that, because there is reference here.

What I am referr ing to is what the Minister said on page 5368 of Hansard on Monday last when he spoke: "H owever, before any divestiture of Manitoba Data Services it must be demonstrated that there is strong commitment to the building of alliances between the university community, its gradua tes and Manitoba companies who are capable of except io nal grow th, provided the appropriate infrastructure can be established with a dynamic company with global opportunities." As I said, I get the impression that it is only through privatization that we are going to build up alliances with the university communi ty.

Surely that can happen now. An Honourable Member: Why has it not? Mr. Leonard Evans: Why can it not-well, the Minister has been Minister for two years. If this is a good thing, if this is a good idea, why has he not suggested this to MDS? Why has he not encouraged them to do this? I do not understand it. Certainly if it is a good idea, why not? If it is practical to do, why not? I am not so sure that is the way to do it. The other point, Mr.

Deputy Speake r, he makes reference, ". . . if Manitoba Data Services can be divested, and if a large player can come in and give them the foundation and the stability that is needed, we not only win one way we win several ways." I really do not know what he means by that. What does he mean by stability and foundation that we do not already have? Why cannot these small players, presumably there are small players around that could interact with this facility, with this corpor ation, and I do not know yes, he makes reference.

I am quoting again, "Today, we have a number of smalle r companies that are within this smart industry," -it says here sm art industry " small companies in the Manitoba context who are trying to reach out, who are trying to develop, within their own sphe re, the necessary mass of huma n resources, of investment capital, to reach out into the global trading economy and to export that knowledge base." An Honourable Member: Wow, is that well said. Mr. Leonard Evans: That is what you said.

I am not sure about the term, "smar t." Did you really mean that, or is that a type- An Honourable Member: That should have been in quotes. Mr. Leonard Evans: Ok ay, I did not know whether it was a typographical error or what. Why can these smaller companies not do that now? I do not understand 5491 that. I mean, all of a sudden because you have to privatize it to have this happen, surely that is not necessary. Mr. Deputy Speake r, it remains to be seen what will happen at the commit tee stage to what extent-is that one minute or two minutes? Two minutes-w e will have public representation.

I know the Manitoba Government Empl oyees' Association will certainly be there because they are concerned about thei r staff, about their empl oyees. It will also be interesting to see whether we are satisfied with the confidentiality aspects and whether Memb ers of the Opposition wish to bring forward amend ments to str engthen the confi de ntial ity suggestions in the Bill, and indeed anything else. As I say, the Bill is limited. We are very limited by this Bill because we just get a general framework.

All it is doing is giving the Government a guarantee that it can go ahead and sell the company and not be in contravention of any existing legislation whether it be The Legislative Library Act or indeed any other legislation. I see you are nodding to me, so I will take your advice and conclude at this point and say that we will be watching this very carefully in committee and indeed in third read ing. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Deputy Speake r, I move, seconded by the Memb er for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ***** Mr.

Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach), Bill No. 60, The Education Adminis tration Amendment Act (L oi mod ifiant la

Loi sur !'admini strat ion scolaire), standing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Flin Flon (Mr . Storie), the Honourable Member has 28 minutes remaining. Oh, I am advised that we are dealing with Bill 59. My apologies. Bill NO. 59-THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMEN T ACT Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach), Bill No. 59, The Public Schools Amendment Act (L oi mod ifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiq ues). Stand. Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Bill NO. 60- THE EDUCATION ADMINIST RATION AMENDMEN T ACT Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach), Bill No. 60, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'admini stration scolaire), the Honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has 28 minutes remaining.

Thursday, February 22, 1990 An Honourable Member: Not if you only take 10. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Deputy Speaker , the Mem ber for Morris (Mr . Manness), in jest, says but the Honourable Member will only take 10 of his remaining 28 minutes. I can assure the Minister of Finance that he is wrong. It is unfortunate but true that this is about the 42nd time this Session that he has been wrong and that may be giving him the benefit of the doubt. This is an important Bill, and that is why I will be taking longer than 10 minutes.

I want to begin by saying that what looks on the surface to be a fairly innocuous what we would have in bygone days referred to as a piece of housekeeping legislation is no such thing. There is very much an agenda in Bill 60, The Education Administration Act. It is part of an agenda which I find reprehensible in many respects. I believe that the vast majority of people who are involved in education in the Province of Manitoba will find a little difficult to swallow as well. First of all, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I want to deal with one subsection of the Bill, Subsection 4(3), which is being amended in what appears again to be a very innocuous way. Subsection 4(3) reads: Subsection 4(3) is amended by striking out "to a school division or school district,". Now for mos t peopl e looking at that particular amendment, it is difficult to discern what the purpose of the amendment is. Even if you do, as I did, go back to The Education Admi nistration Act and you read what

Section 4 is all about, it is difficult to determine what the purpose of this amendment is. On further inspection, you see that they are striking out the words "school division or school district" and what that in effect does is give the Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach) the right to provide grants, to provide funds, to anybody that the Minister of Education chooses. This particular subs ect ion of The Edu cation Administration Act was put in place to give the Minister of Educa tion the right retroactively to provide grants to school districts and school divisions.

This particular clause was put in the Act because it is recognized that because of the comp lexities and uncertainties dealing with budgeting in the Province of Manitoba, because you are dealing with different levels of Government and cr oss-level funding in education, that there are going to be occasions where circumstances require late announcements, in terms of the money that is being provided by the Government to school divisions or school districts. This provision, this clause, in the original Education Admin istration Act was put there so that Education Ministers could provide grants retroactively.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is a practice that has been common across administrations for many years. Ministers have written to school divisions advising them, after the commencement of the school's fiscal year, saying that they are receiving such and such a grant. Mr. Deputy Speaker, why this amendment at this time? It is interesting because only one year ago the Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach), in what was clearly an unprecedented step, announced a major increase in funding to pri vate schools.

He announced a grant that was retroactive not only to January 1, 1990, but he announced that this major funding increase, which was done without public consultation, without the knowledge of school divisions, without the support of school di visions or tr ustees or teachers or the 200,000 students' parents who go to the public school, the Minister of Education announced that he was going to provide gr ants retroactively to private schools to September 1, 1988. * (15 10) At the time, I wrote the Legislative Counsel and I said: is what the Minister is doing legal?

The answer is technically, no, because The Education Administration Act does not give the Minister of Education the right to retroactively grant monies to priv ate schools. There is no such provision in The Education Administration Act. Now the fact of the matter is, and I was guilty also of technically breaching this Act because grants have been given to pr ivate schools previously, but the intent of this Act is to elimi nate any responsi bility on the part of the Minister of Education to be held accountable for the grants that he or she is making as Minister of Educa tion.

That is the reason this grant is here, because the question of the legality of what the Minister of Education was doing was raised.

I think perhaps it was also in the Minister's mind that there were many, many people who were not in favour of the increased grants that were being provided to private schools, and those included members of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, the Manitoba Association of School Principals, and others, individual priv ate citizens, that led him to conclude that he had better amend the Act to bring it into conformity with what was in practice, and certainly to bring it into conformity with his wishes to be able to provide grants when and where and for the amount and under the circumstances that the Minister of Education chooses.

That is the purpose of this amendment, there is no other reason. The purpose is to give the Minister of Education unfettered right to give taxpayers' monies away to elite schools like St. John's-Ravenscourt or others. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want you to know that we oppose that, we oppose that provision, we oppo se the lack of accountability in that provision. We oppose it because there has been no dis cus sion across Manitoba society as a whole to determine the relative merits of providing grants in this way. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the fact of the matter is that the Minister of Education is currently providing grants of more than $15 million, almost $16 million to pri vate schools, and there is no accountability whatsoever for that $16 million that is being provided. We have seen just about a 50 percent increase, a doubling of funding to private schools, a 100 percent increase in support to private schools in Manitoba, while our public schools are strug gling along with increases of 3 percent or 4 percent on an annual basis-ab solutely outrageous.

I want to say that the call from public school trustees, from public school teachers, from parents in the 5492

Thursday, February 22, 1990 community at large, is growing to have the whole direction that is being established by the Liberals and Cons ervatives, the elitist group in this Legislature, for the dir ection that they are taking funding to priv ate schools, aid to priv ate schools, and the position they are leaving the public school in, in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this Bill in part, in the subsection I have been just referring to, is part of the agenda of the Government to make it easier to do whatever they want with respect to private schools, without regard to the impact on public schools. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not the only section. This is a very, very small Bill. There are five clauses in this Bill. Two of them are clearly dir ected at making it easier for the Government to shirk its responsibility when it comes to spending taxpayers' money on private schools. The second

section that I want to talk about, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is Subsection 3( 1), which is amended in an apparent effort on the part of the Government to give the Minister of Education more authority when it comes to investigating matters of what is termed in the Bill, "the welfare of pupils enrolled in priv ate schools." This, too , is a bit of a farce. The Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach), along with his colleague, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson), needs no additional authority to investigate private schools. The authority is already clearly in The Public Schools Act.

The authority rests with the Minister of Education from the time a child becomes eligible or by the time a child reaches school age. He has the authority to attend to the educational welfare of that child. The Minister of Community Services-the Minister of Family Services now-ha s the authority to deal with matters of child welfare , whether those concerns are being raised in the context of family, commun ity, school or anywhere else that I have left out amongst those options. There is no additional authority required. The Min ister of Educ ation (Mr .

Derkach) brings forward this passive, meaningless in many respects, amendment to try and leave the impression on the public of Manitoba and on Memb ers of this Chamber that somehow the interests of the public, in terms of the finances that are being provided to pri vate schools and in terms of the welfare of children, are being add ressed by this piece of legislation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish it were so. I wish these amendments were designed to be meaningful. I wish these amendments had some teeth to them.

I wish these amendments requir ed some accountability on the part of those who are opera ting pri vate schools in the province. Unfortunately, it leaves the onus of making the required changes on the Minister, incidentally on the Minister who has no current capacity to direct, to gather information about private schools. It leaves the onus completely on the Minister of Education to act, and he acts from a base of ignor ance. The Department of Education is not, on a daily basis, weekly basis, monthly basis or a yearly basis, involved in the activities of pri vate schools.

They are, for all intents and purposes, operating on their own outside the educational system of Manitoba. So for the Minister to pretend that by introducing a wording change to The Education Administration Act which gives him authority to look into matters relating to the welfare of pupils enrolled in private schools, it does nothing, because without some additional support , resources, within the Department of Educati on, without a dir ect mandate to departmental officials, there can be no information base for the Minister to act. So what will happen, Mr. Deputy Speaker? What will happen is the status quo.

What will happen is the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) will respond to questions raised by Members opposite, by the official Education Critics. He will respond to press articles, to press reports and to parents' complaints. He will be responding to crises. This Government is particularly wont to respond to crises.

There is virtually no one on the front bench that is pro-active in their department or in their area of res ponsibil ity, no one on the front benche s who anticipates problems, who reacts to the possibility of proble ms, no one that is developing pol icy and certainly no one in the Education Department who is developing education policy. This is so evident in this Bill, because it does not require any change in the status quo in terms of the operation of private schools. It is a facade.

It is an attempt to make people believe that the problems are being addressed , but the onus is still on the Minister to find out, on the Minister to respond. There is no obligation on the part of private schools.

For example, the latest private academy that was abusi ng its students-and abusi ng its students apparently according to the administrative handbook that the school prepares-that corporal punishment and abuse, most people would term it, were part of the adminis tration's modus opera ndi, that in fact the private school said this is how we are going to discipline our students, this is our discipline code, regard less of what community standards or parental standards might be. Where does this little wording giving the Minister some authority to look after the welfare of students put us in respect to those schools?

It does nothing because the Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach) has no way, in his defence, of knowing what is occurring. The only way to correct the problem , Mr. Deputy Speak er, is to set a set of stan dards, a set of requirements, a set of prerequisites for private schools on which they must operate.

The only way to be pro active and prevent those problems is to have a system that is akin to the public school system where there are elected officials responsible, where those officials are responsible dir ectly to their parents, where the dollars that are being spent are public dollars and they are held accountable to the public for them , where the information is public, where access to that information 5493

Thursday, February 22, 1990 is public and where the dealings of the school in every respect, from its extracurricular activities to its discipline policy, are in the public domain, where we have a system that is truly accountable to the people who fund the system. * (15 20) The Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach) and the Liberals want to set up a dual track system. That is what they really want in the Province of Manitoba.

A system for the elite who can afford to subsidize the educational system, a system where the schools are not forced to address the plethora of problems that exist in many of our inner city areas across the province or in northern parts of the province. They want a two tiered system, one for the rich and one for the poor . That is what they want. They are prepared to spend taxpayers' money to get it. I have a -(interjection)- I am sor ry, I did not catch the Minis ter of Energy and Mine s' (Mr .

Ne ufeld) comment.- (interjection)- The Member for Rossmere sugge sts that the pri vate school parents are paying twice, and the Member is wrong on both counts. Number 1, the parents, like any other set of parents, are making a choice. It is their choice, they are not required to pay any time. It is a public system. There are no fees or charg es. They pay through their taxes like everybody else. The parents are paying only by choice any additional charge. Number 2, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the fact of the matter is that is no different than the Member for Rossmere deciding that, yes, he pays taxes to the City of Winnipeg, municipal taxes, to have police services provided. They are provided to everyone on an equal footing, on an equal basis, but that is paying once. The Minister of Energy says, no, I am not satisfied with that. I want a little better, I deserve a little better. I want to fund a priv ate system- ***** Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): A point of ord er. Will the Member for Flin Flon- Mr.

Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, on a point of order . Mr. Neufeld: Will the Member for Flin Flon (Mr . Storie) entertain a question? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would be more than happy to entertain any number of questions from the Minister of Energy and Mines once I have finished my remarks, with the leave of the House. ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon has the floor. Mr.

Storie: I want to make the point that the point the Minister was trying to make that this was somehow unfair that parents who choose to send their students to pri vate schools should have to foot that particular bill. If the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr . Neufeld) did not like the pol ice services that were being provided in his neighbourhood, then he bel ieves that he should have the right to ask the Member for St. Norb ert (Mr . Angus), myself and other taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg, to suppo rt his interest in his own securi ty, have his own police force, his guard dogs, the fence around his pro perty.

The same thing is true, Mr. Deputy Speak er, for a whole plethora of services that are provided to the public on an equal access on a universal basis. I do not even want to talk about the concept. An Honourable Member: What if he takes his pro perty away from the police and they do not have to go and service? The first payment does not have to service his prope rty. Mr. Storie: The Member for Morri s (Mr . Manness) is now taking this argument to even a more illog ical sequence. The Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) is now saying, well, what happens if he says, well, the police will not come.

Well, if he is robbed or mur dered or anything else- An Honourable Member: He gives up that right. Mr. Storie: You know that is ridiculous. That is not what happens in the publi c school system eith er, because private students end up back in the public system.- (interjection)- That is right. The parents whose childr en atten d priv ate schools-and I have no objection-I believe that is their right, absolutely a parental right, but I do not believe that the rest of the public has any obligation to fund it.

Historically we have, and we have now a funding system that has reached 50 perce nt.- (interjection)- Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the Member for Kirkfield Park (Mrs. Hammond) wants to make the point that Mr. Schreyer, the former Premier of the province was the one who implemented a system of funding for pri vate schools. Yes, he took it a further step and he went to 50-50 funding at the time.

I have said on many occasions, I am not suggesting or promoting the idea that we aba ndon those private schools or that - (interjection)-what I want now -(interjection)-I will make it very clear that my own philosophical bent is not for the public to suppor t private schools whatsoever. I have said that on every occasion. I said that as Minister of Educa tion. I said that as a teacher, as a parent, as a Manitoban, I do not believe that is the way it should be. However, I understand the historical context of it, and it is a fact. I accept it.

What I do not want is: No. 1, I do not want the Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach) or the Government or the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) or anybody on that side to attempt to lead the public to conclude that by these changes we are bringing any accountability into the use of taxpayers' dollars in pri vate schools. I defy the Liberals, who are also in this, in fact who warit to move perhaps even more quickly to 80 percent 5494

Thursday, February 22, 1990 funding for private schools, who want this dual system, one for the rich and one for the poor, the elitist Liberals as we have always known them, we believe that this is fundamentally wrong .

It is always surprising to me that the Conservatives , the Government historically who have been the strongest supporters of public schools , the Government who originally introduced The Public Schools Act , who have constantly stood in rural Manitoba for a strong public school system and believe in the primacy of the public school system are now prepared to sit back while this Minister of Education fulfills his own person al agenda at the expense of public school s. It is a tragedy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I want to tell you why it is a tragedy.

The public school system has served the Province of Manitoba since 1890 extremely well. It has served the people of Manitoba well through some extremely fundamental changes to our society, and it has done so by being adaptive . It has adapted to the reality of our society . In Manitoba 's public school system today , we are teaching some 33 different languages, languages in bilingual classes, in core language classes, in supplementary school classes. We are teaching 33 different languages .

We have integrated a multicultural philosophy into the educational system that recognizes our uniqueness and yet our collective heritage and collective responsibility as Manitobans and as Canadians. The public school system can do that. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that the Liberals and Tories now want us to change . They want us to support a system of school funding that is going to create enclaves on a religious , cultural, language , nationality basis .

They want to dismantle in effect an institution , the public school system, an institution that has been one of the principal means of cre ating harmony and tolerance and understanding in our communities. My son and daughter attend public school, I am proud to say, and they attend a public school that is represented by people from virtually every country of the world , speaking many languages - English for many of them is a second language - from many different religious backgrounds . Believe me, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wish that I had the opportunity as a student growing up in a small rural community where there were only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants or white Catholic members , basically. I wish I had the opportunity to be able to get to understand the viewpoints, the cultural viewpoints , the circumstances of so many other people who now share our future, who have become Manitobans and Cana dians.

The fact of the matter is that, unwittingly apparently , the Liberals and the Conservat ives are pre pared to let the most important institution we have for the process of acculturation, for the proce ss of bringing people together to understand each other, were prepared to dismantle that to have each group start their own little priv ate school and be publicly funded. *

(1530) I am not even going to talk about the quality of education that may be available in those private schools built on denominational or racial differences or language differences. We are still going to lose something as Manitobans and Canadians, and we are going to lose something that is going to cost our society tremendously in lost understanding and lost opportunity to gain understanding in the future .

I believe fundamentally and strongly and sincerely that the idea that we should support a multitude of private schools is wrong in terms of the ability of the public school system to compete , to maintain quality of educat ion for those who cannot afford the private school system. I believe it is wrong because our society demands that there be those institutions to bring people together, to work to create harmony and understanding.

I believe it is wrong for the Government and the Liberals to present this alternat ive to the people as a Government initiative before it has taken the time to understand the consequences of the steps that it is prepared to take. There has been no discussion of the implications of moving to an 80 percent private school funding limit.

I want to put the Government on notice and I want to put the Liberal Party on notice that as of today I have the support and the New Democratic Party has the support of the Manitoba Association of Schoo l Trustees, the Manitoba Teachers' Society-and I have spoken to the presidents on both occasions-and the president of the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents . I have the support of those organizations and the organizations like the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and others to oppose and consistently oppose the direction that the Liberals and Conservatives are taking this province .

They oppose the continued increases to funding to private schools . They want a review of this matter . They want some indication from the Liberals and Conservatives that they have considered the consequences of taking us in this direction . The taxpayers of Manitoba want to know, too . Why is this being done? How can we afford two systems? Why are we moving to a two-tiered system , one for the rich and one for the poor . An Honourable Member: Because it is right, because it is fair. Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says it is fair. It is fair to whom?

Is it fair to the inner city reside nts who cannot afford private schools? Is it fair to them that $30 million should be siphoned off for the wealthy and the well-to-do who can send to private schools ? Is it fair to those school divisions that are going to be left deal ing with the students that are most disadvantaged and least able to cope? Is it fair to the parents of those students who have no alternative? The fact of the matter is that this is unfair. It is unfair in financial terms to those parents who cannot afford the $7,000 it takes to get into St. John 's-Ravenscourt.

It is not fair to the teachers or the trustees who are left in charge of students with fewer and fewer resources . It is not fair to the people of Manitoba , who 5495

Thursday, February 22, 1990 are going to have to deal with the consequences of losing an instituti on that is building fairness and understanding amongst our people. What is not fair is the shortsighted, myopic, political opportunism of my Liberal and my Co nservative colleagues. That is what is not fair. The people of Manitoba want a strong public school system. They deserve it, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

I can assure Members opp osite that this Party will be working to preserve that, notwithstanding the getting into bed of the Liberals and the Cons ervatives to create a two tiered system of elitist education in the Province of Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bill No. 60 also stands in the name of the Honourable Member for Brandon East. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Stand, please. Stand, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave that the Bill remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brandon East? Mr. Leonard Evans: We have another speak er.

We have some others to pass. An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave. BILL NO. 70- THE PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion by the Honourable Minister of Justice (Mr . McCrae), Bill No. 70, The Provincial Court Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Gour provinciale), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr . Cowan). An Honourable Member: Yes, Mr . Deputy Speaker , I would like to speak on this Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Concordia. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speak er, we would like to speak on this Bill, and I should say at the outset that- An Honourable Member: What do you mean "we"? Why not just you? Mr. Doer: I understand, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, why there are a lot of religious figur es around this Cham ber, because no matter what your religion is, you must impl ore the good will of a gr eater being to tolerate sometimes the comments from the Member and the Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr . Downey). Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would like to speak on a more temporal matter, a matter dealing with the courts.

Perhaps people have equated the courts in our system to be accountable only to God, but they are created by this Legislature and they are indeed a creature of this Legislature in terms of the administration of justice in the Province of Manitoba under The Provincial Court Amendment Act. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are a number of concepts in this Bill which we in the New Democratic Party support, but I should get to some of the issues that we find fairly challenging in this Bill, and it comes to the two fundamental principl es that are somewhat in conflict in this Bill.

The two fundamental principl es that are a bit at conflict that I- and I want to be dipl omatic in my words because I know all the judges will be reading them -i s the principle of the independence of the judiciary which we all support in this Cham ber, and the issue of the authority of Cabinet to establish certain spending limits under a British parliam entary system which we enjoy in our democracy in Manitoba. Certainly this has been a dilemma that all Legislatures in Canada face, indeed Parliament I believe has tried to face this issue as well. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, because these principles are held by us and our Party, the New Democratic Party, and they are both held to be principles that we hold, we have some difficulty with certain concepts in the Bill in the way that those two principles conflict, and I want to touch on that in our discussions. That does not mean to say that we want to have this deba te necessarily in a prolonged way in this Cham ber. We think the Bill should go before the public and we would like to listen to people, learned members of the legal system and other members of the public that will be coming forward on this Bill.

We also would like to hear very carefully how the Government intends to deal with the supr emacy of Cabinet in establishing issues such as compensation with the makeup contemplated in the Bill. Those are the areas that concern us. It seems to us that the compensation committee established or proposed in the Bill can be established by a Lieutenant-Governor in-Council and the report is tabled in the Legislature, and the report can be referred to a committee of the Leg islature. However, it allo ws the Legis lat ive Assembly-I do not know whether the Minister of Finance (Mr .

Manness) has reviewed this or no t-b ut it allows the Legislative Assembly to decide on the matters continued within the report. *

(1540) Now, Cabi net usually determines wages and benefits. You may have reports, you may have commissions, you may have various forms of col lective barg aining, but Cabinet makes the final decision and I think it makes the final decision because, even if we are dealing with judges or engineers, or some other group in society, it is still money from the public purse, and money from the public purse, Mr. Deputy Speaker, determines other wages and benefits in the public pur se. For example, under The Civil Service Act there is the righ t of arbitra tion.

The right of arbitra tion, although it has not been used since the early '70s, and people have reached agreements at the tables, would a com mit tee established by this Legislature and reporting only to thi s Legislativ e Ass embly , perhaps in a min ority 5496

Thursday, February 22, 1990 Government situation, determine the wage pattern for the whole public service? Has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) looked at that precedent and what it would mean? Would that mean that 1 percent in a judicial settlement translates into $25 million per percentage in a public sector settlement? I think it will.

How can you argue that the Legislature is establishing a certain level for salar ies for high paid judges and a worker building Highway 75 or a person working in the Manitoba Development School, at a very high stress job and very, very low paid in relative terms , why should they get something less, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I suggest to the Government that these two principles are in conflict. What we do in this Legislative Assembly , I suggest , has a great deal to do with what 80,000 people, both directly or indirectly, can expect or will aim for in the areas of a settlement. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is why if we were only dealing with judges and not dealing with 79,900 people, then I think the method by which this Bill establishes a compensation, which obviously includes salaries and other matters , pension , vacation, sick leave, travel expenses and allowances , would be appropriate . This Legislative Assembly has a greater responsibility than just judges, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Members of the Treasury Bench have a responsibility, directly or indirectly, for about 80,000 people.

I do not know how the Minister of Finance could allow a Bill to be passed that would take away the right of Cabinet to establish salaries , benefits and pensions. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I have absolutely no problem in a Bill establishing an independent commission reporting to this Legislature. I have absolutely no problem in that legislat ive report being tabled in this Legislature. I have absolutely no problem with that Bill being debated in this Legislature , but I have a lot of problems taking away the right of the front bench, the Treasury Bench, in establishing wages and benefits. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I assure you that the siren sound of the independence of the judiciary is compelling to all of us. Nobody can tell me that in collective bargain ing, in arbitration, or in any other means of establishing salaries, benefits and pensions , that one settlement, especially for a higher paid group , is not used as a benchmark, if I can use that term , for other groups . Mr. Deputy Speaker , where does the independence start and end? Is it the judges, the Legal Aid lawyers , the prosecutors? Is it Members of this Legislature? - (interjection)- I do not pick and choose .

I believe it is the responsibility and the authority in a British parliamentary system to establish the compensation levels for all employees directly or indirectly under their resp onsibility . I happ en to believe that . Should we establish a committee-sure , no problem. Should that committee be established every so often, every two years? I guess so, but how does that affect, Mr. Deputy Speaker , as I said before , if the Governme nt is looking at bargaining with all their employees, how does that affect their bargaining? How does it affect their negotiations?

I suggest to you that every percent in the Public Service is worth $25 million . You cannot just let this thing go along like it is an unguided missile. The powers of the Compensation Committee are to prepare a report and use The Manitoba Evide nce Act, no problem with that. They have the powers and privileges of commissioners, no problem with that. The Minister should table a report, no problem . The report can be referred to a committee. This is the first piece of legislation I believe , Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that allows the Legislature to establish pensions, travel expenses, salaries, benefits, allowances, and excludes Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. Now I ask the Minister why he does not have faith in the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council making the final decision after it has gone to the Legislature? Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Law Reform Commission, with the greatest respect, it is a lot of lawyers and a lot of people that deal with law.- (interjection)- Well the Member is pretty touchy. I said there are two fundamental principles in conflict. They have made a decision to sacrifice one principle .

They have made a sacrifice. They are going to sacrifice this Bill, something that comes from the Law Reform Commission. I do not think any one of those people has sat around a Cabinet table and had to figure out how they explain to a secretary at $18,000 a year why they are going to get a less percentage increase than a judge at $80,000, $90,000 a year. The Member mentioned a person 's name who has never sat around a Cabinet table . With the greatest respect, I believe -(interjection) that is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that Cabinet should make that final decision .

How do you tell a secretary, oh, Cabinet is only giving you 2 percent increase, but they are giving the judges 4 percent increase because one of them was done by an independent commission that went to the Legislative Assembly. It still lasts in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So I really believe that the independent judiciary is not , not prejudiced in terms of the role of making decisions on the bench in their day-to-day decisions as judges by Cabinet making the ultimate decision .

If we need to have a different process because they cannot bargain with the committee , I would support the Minister of Justice on that up and to the point in time that we have Legislative Assembly establishing the wages and benefits . What is to stop Members of this Legislative Assembly from amending The Civil Service Act now and saying we need an independent Civil Service, a meritorious Civil Service? It is the British parliamentary trad ition. We will have the Legislative Assembly make the final decision on wages and benefits and salaries and pensions.- (interjection)- No I would not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I went head to head with the former Premier of this province, two former Premiers of this province. I always respected them . They were good negotiators . (interjection)- Beg your pardon? An Honourable Member: You did not go head to head enough with that last Premier we had . 5497

Thursday, February 22, 1990 Mr. Doer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not see the Member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) giving back his pensions and his wages. I never noticed the Member for Brandon West when I was involved with the same organization as he was going to a meeting and complaining about the wages being too high, both under Sterling Lyon or former Premier Pawley, the two Premiers. Actually I have to say, and I should-n o, I will not say it-but if anybody looks at the salaries and benefits, well, you know -(interjection)- well, Sterl ing's bark was one thing and his bite was another thing.

Bless his heart now that he sits on the bench. I cannot make any other comment, but the bottom line is that I think the Min ister may do well with his cred ibil ity with the Law Reform Comm ission. I know that. I mean, I know how these groups work. I have met with them a lot of times. We have talked with them a lot of times and they like this kind of stuff.- (interjection)- Sure they do, they will sit at the law faculties, they will sit in these clubs and Bar meetings and everything else, and I do not blame them. I would rather have- (Mr .

Richard Kozak, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) An Honourable Member: How many lawyers did you have in your caucus? Mr. Doer: We had a number of lawyers and they are citizens too. I am surprised that we are doing a bit of a lawyer bashing here, but -(interjection)- An Honourable Member: Where is your pal Al? Mr. Doer: I miss him over the other Mem ber for St. James. You know, if we wanted a Tory we should have elected a real Tory, not the one that is from St. James.

I like my Tories to be Tories, I do not like these hybrids that we see in the Member for-th ese mutants, these mutant Tories that are sort of crossbreds between real Tories and some fuzziness, the Tories with fuzz. This is a very important Bill and I would like to get back to the princi ples. I agree with everything that is in this Bill except for impl ementation of the report. I do not know how the Attorney General (Mr . McCra

e) got this one past the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-131
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 131.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	27b7385234ce1741ebe1de1da7faa3dfba9a05eb

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