Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 56B (36th Legislature, 3rd Session)

36-3-56b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVII No. 56B -1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 5, 1997

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

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

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

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

4535 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 5, 1997 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lynda Parker, Wendy Parker, Lome Bulycz and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Obstetrics Closure-Grace General Hospital Ms.

MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I beg to present the petition of Ronald Desjardins, Don Gregg, Mark Kernaghan and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health to consider stopping the closure of the obstetrics program at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): I beg to present the petition of Lisa Biblow, Wanda Beaudry and Muriel Parker praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): I beg to present the petition of Debbie Rowe, Gladys McKay, Glynn Donaldson and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes? The Clerk will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS medical authorities have stated that breast cancer in Manitoba has reached almost epidemic proportions; and

WHEREAS yearly mammograms are recommended for women over 50, and perhaps younger if a woman feels she is at risk; and

WHEREAS while improved surgical procedures and better post-operative care do improve a woman's chances if she is diagnosed, early detection plays a vital role; and

WHEREAS Manitoba currently has only three centres where mammograms can be performed, those being Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson; and

WHEREAS a trip to and from these centres for a mammogram can cost a woman upwards of$500 which is a prohibitive cost for some women; and

WHEREAS a number of other provinces have dealt with this problem by esta blishing mobile screening units; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has promised to take action on this serious issue. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITI ONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may

4536 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Obstetrics Closur�race General Hospital Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the obstetrics program has always been an important part of the Grace Hospital's mandate; and THAT both people in the community and a number of government studies have recommended against the further closure of community hospitals' obstetrics programs; and THAT as a result of federal and provincial cuts in the health budget, hospitals are being forced to eliminate programs in order to balance their own budgets; and THAT the closure of the Grace Hospital obstetrics ward will mean laying off 54 health care professionals, many of whom have years of experience and dedicated service in obstetrics; and THAT moving to a model where more and more births are centred in the tertiary care hospitals will be more costly and decreases the choices for women about where they can give birth.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the closure of the obstetrics program at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of the Comm ittee of Supply): Madam Speaker, the Commi ttee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Brazilian Trade Agreement Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I have copies for the members of the House and anybody else that wants one. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of two important developments in our trade and comm ercial relationship with Brazil and particularly with the state of Rio Grande do Sui.

As a follow-up to the trade mission I led last August to Brazil, Argentina and Chili, Premier Filmon and Governor Antonio Britto of Rio Grande do Sui yesterday signed an agreement of co-operation on economic, technical and cultural development. Governor Britto, whom I met during last summer's mission, is in Winnipeg this week leading a mission by Brazilian officials and business people to this province.

In addition, the state's Secretary of Development and International Affairs, Nelson Proenca, and I signed an appendix to the accord to seek opportunities for exchanges in government, education, agri-business, industrial technology and health and environment. * (1 335) Although last year's trip to South America was our province's first major trade mission to that country, it has already yielded impressive results for commercial ties between our business communities.

At a special breakfast meeting this morning, IBG Global Livestock, formerly International Beef Genetics, of Gunton, Manitoba, has signed a partnership agreement with a new Brazilian company to import beef genetics and live beef and dairy cattle into Rio Grande from this province. This agreement also provides for significant technology transfer as technicians that IBG has hired in Brazil will visit Manitoba to learn more about the \

June 5, 1997 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4537 company's advanced livestock technology. IBG is a 50 percent owner of this Brazilian venture. Madam Speaker, these three accords certainly augur well for Manitoba's future trade and other relations with Brazil, and I look forward to forging even stronger links with Rio Grande do Sui particularly in the months and years ahead. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the peoples of Manitoba and countries such as Brazil that are served by an increasing web of fair and free trade that pays attention to concerns about labour and environment as well as economic development issues are developments that I think we all welcome.

I am particularly pleased that we have the opportunity to support multilateral kinds of trades initiatives that are mutual and not one-sided, that have fairness and justice as a base for those agreements, and so we welcome a new partner from Brazil, from a major state in Brazil, as a trading partner under this initiative with the people of Manitoba. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Biii47-Tbe Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr.

Radcliffe), that leave be given to introduce Bill 47, The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur !'adoption et modifications correlatives), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Ms. Kaori Satake. Ms. Satake is an exchange student from Japan and has been living in the constituency of the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. I would also like to draw the attention of honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Dr. Tan, director of research and technology assessment of the Department of Health of the Government of Singapore. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. *

(1340) Additionally, we have in the public gallery sixty-six Grade 5 students from the Southwood School under the direction of Mr. Don Thiessen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger). Also, forty Grade 5 students from Souris School under the direction of Mrs. Theresa O'Brien and Mr. Glenn Wallmann. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Also, seven adult literacy program visitors from Community Education Development Association of the Willia m Whyte School under the direction of Mrs.

Doreen Szor. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Canadian Corrosion Control Workplace Safety Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in reviewing the tragic death of Andrew Kuryk at the Canadian Corrosion company, one looks through their safety record and is quite appalled. In August of '91, a stop-work warning was issued for air shortages and not complied with shortly thereafter.

In July of '92, no permit was issued for a near miss of a worker in a bucket. In September of'93, an injured worker suffered shoulder injuries in a suspended stage operation. A

4538 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1997 complaint was issued on spray painting in open areas in '93. In '94, there were no saf ety measures for sandblasting in an open area, and then tragically in June of 1994, the death of Andrew Kuryk at the same company. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Is he satisfied that his Workplace Safety and Health Branch took the necessary action that could have prevented injury at this workplace and possibly prevented a death? Hon.

Harold Gillesbammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, certainly any accident or injury in the workplace, particularly one causing death, is a tragedy. The department was involved with this particular company, and they did issue improvement orders, which were complied with. They did issue a stop-work warning which was complied with, and unfortunately, later on there was a tragic accident. The department did work with the company and improvements were made. The thrust of Workplace Safety and Health is to work through an education process to make these workplaces safer, and this was done by the department. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Workplace Safety and Health department is also to prevent injury and death at the workplace here in Manitoba. The family representative for the Kuryks has stated that, if the company had been prosecuted long before the death, perhaps the death of their son could have been prevented. I would like to ask the Premier: Has he reviewed this investigation? Has he reviewed the situation of his Workplace Safety and Health Branch? Because we have been raising questions in this Chamber in the past. Why were prosecutions not initiated by the Workplace Safety and Health department?

Why were the kinds of prosecutions to back up workers' safety not taken prior to the death and only took place after the death? Mr. Gillesbammer: Certainly, the saf ety in the workplace is a shared responsibility: the employer, employees and the government. The process that the department uses is to work with individual companies, particularly ones that have a record that needs to be addressed. The department has done this and through education programs has made workplaces saf er.

Certainly the trend lines, when you look at accidents and fatalities in the 1990s, have improved quite dramatically from the 1970s and 1980s, but again I say any tragedy like this is one too many. We will continue to work with employers and employees to make workplaces safer. We received yesterday the results of the inquest. These recommendations are currently before the department, and they will certainly be reviewed and scrutinized very carefully. Workplace Safety and Health Act Prosecutions Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Again, this is another company that has allegedly-or has gone bankrupt, Madam Speaker, and of course last year we were asking questions to the Minister of Justice about the Kordite company that also went bankrupt. Sometimes these companies are not prosecuted because they go bankrupt, and the government has not exercised their option of prosecuting the owners of companies rather than the individual companies. In fact, all the prosecutions presently before the court name the company as opposed to the owners. The Minister of Justice (Mr.

Toews) indicated before in his capacity as Minister of Labour that he would review this matter. How come the government is still continuing to allow owners of companies to go free of prosecutions by not charging the owners of these companies? *

(1345) Hon. Harold Gillesbammer (Minister of Labour): That issue is being reviewed, along with the recommendations that were brought forward yesterday. The department will review this thoroughly and certainly be in discussions with the Department of Justice. Canadian Corrosion Control Workplace Safety Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Canadian Corrosion has a long list of violations under The Workplace

June 5, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4539 Safety and Health Act. Madam Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that this company had not been prosecuted for past violations and where they ignored stop-work warnings that were issued by the Workplace Safety and Health Branch. I want to ask this Minister of Labour: Is it the policy of his government to allow companies to use the excuse of no money and being a small company as an excuse to ignore stop-work warnings where safety of workers is at risk? Is that the policy of this government? Hon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Certainly not, Madam Speaker, and I think we do have a dispute over the facts. My staff have indicated that when they did issue an improvement order, it was complied with; when they did issue a stop-work warning, it was also complied with. If the member has information contrary to that, I would be more than happy to receive it. Mr.

Reid: Well, then, I take it, Madam Speaker, the minister has not read the report by Judge Minuk in this case, because those were the words of the j udge in his report, that the money and being a small company were the excuses given by the company for ignoring the stop work warnings. Workplace Safety-Prosecution Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to ask the minister: Considering the long list of violations of this company, why was Canadian Corrosion Control not prosecuted for a violation of that stop-work warning several years ago, which would have led to a record for this company that would have allowed the Minister of Justice, under the directions that the prosecutors have been given by the Justice department that companies will only be prosecuted where they have a prior record-why was that company not charged and prosecuted under The Workplace Safety and Health Act when they ignored the stop-work warning earlier this decade?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): My honourable friend is being vague with which incidents he is talking about. I can tell you the incident from September 1993. An improvement order was issued and complied with. In the 1991 case, a stop- work warning was issued, and departmental staff informed me this morning that that was complied with. Mr. Reid: Well, Madam Speaker, that is not what Judge Minuk says in his report. Workplace Safety and Health Act Prosecutions Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, to pose a final supplementary question. Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): I want to ask this Minister of Labour-who is a new Minister of Labour, and I have asked this question of his predecessor before-why is it a policy of this government to allow companies to avoid prosecution for serious violations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, where workers have been seriously injured or killed, by allowing those companies to declare bankruptcy, and the Prosecutions department of the Department of Justice does not prosecute the owners.

Why are you allowing companies and their owners to evade prosecution by allowing those companies to go bankrupt and not charging the owners? Why have you not taken action to correct that? *

(1350) Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, my honourable friend refers to the government as allowing companies to go bankrupt. Companies go bankrupt for a number of reasons; to avoid prosecution is not a common one. We have sent the information from our department to the Department of Justice. Those decisions are made there on the facts that are presented to them. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Privacy Commissioner Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, an important consideration in a time of computerization and technology is privacy protection, and this is, of course, extremely important in regard to medical records. So I would like to ask the Minister of Health

4540 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1997 why he has rejected the recommendation that legislation include a privacy commissioner who can issue binding orders. Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The bill, I believe, has been distributed today to members of the Legislature and will be introduced for second reading very, very shortly so that we can get into a debate on these matters.

With respect to the specific issue she raises, the role of the Ombudsman versus a privacy commissioner, I think the debate really rolls around the powers that go with the particular office. It was felt that, in the Manitoba experience for both health information and the general privacy legislation my colleague has introduced into this House, the experience with the Ombudsman has been a very successful one. We have also expanded the powers of the Ombudsman to go to court.

It was felt, even through those consultations in discussions with the larger group, that this would be an acceptable way to proceed, although I recognize some of the stakeholders still preferred a privacy commissioner with somewhat different powers. Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, given that the protection of health information and privacy is a complex matter requiring specialized resources that simply are not available in the Ombudsman's office, I would like to ask the minister how, in all conscience, he can leave the administration and overseeing the

interpretation of this act to the Ombudsman. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the practical reality of administering such a legislative scheme as this one is that those resources will have to be developed to be able to properly administer this act. We are committed as a government, both myself and the minister responsible for the other piece of the privacy legislative scheme, to ensure that the Ombudsman's office is able to have sufficient resources of the right kind to be able to do the job.

One practical reality, which was discussed with the stakeholders, in a province the size of Manitoba-un til we get some handle on the workload that will go with this legislation, setting up a completely different structure and office may not necessarily be a very economical or worthwhile way to go. We obviously have included in the bill a right for review in five years. This allows us to place this function with the Ombudsman's office, and we will assess it in five years and see how it works. Ms.

McGifford: Madam Speaker, I think the minister misses the main issue, and so I would like to ask the minister: What is he afraid of? Why does he insist on having an Ombudsman who can comment and recommend, as opposed to a privacy commissioner or an officer by any other name who can issue binding orders? What is the reason for this? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, not this minister, my colleague nor this cabinet are afraid of any particular issue here. We look at the experience that we have had to date with the role and work of the Ombudsman.

It has been a very successful way in which to deal with the current legislation. It also provides, I think, the right kind of role in trying to work through these matters in a way that all parties, including the party wanting access to information, is comfortable with. It is the right tenor. It has worked in the past. In fact, Madam Speaker, when I met with the stakeholder groups in the health care side, we discussed all of these issues. Their final advice-the majority who were part of that discussion said going with the way we proposed it in the legislation seemed reasonable.

They appreciated the five-year review. There were a couple of organizations, including the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, which still preferred the other model, but the member should not leave the impression that that was viewed as an overwhelmingly bad thing about this legislation. In fact, the current matter was viewed as a way to proceed, given the fact that we are going to have a review in five years. That will determine exactly how it works. *

(1355) The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Privacy Commissioner Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I do not think that Manitobans in general are aware of the

June 5, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4541 massive intrusion into their personal lives that the government is proposing with respect to their SmartHealth product and their SmartHealth operation that will put more personal information online in Manitoba than in any other ju risdiction in Canada and any other jurisdiction in North America. To that end, Madam Speaker, we have a piece of legislation that is not adequate to meet the needs. My colleague's question makes eminent sense.

I ask the minister again: Why have you not taken to heart the recommendation that a privacy commissioner with expertise can have the ability to not ju st look at individual complaints but can look at the kind of information that is online and coming online like people's personal health information and ensure that it is protected now and in the future for Manitobans? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the legislation does. In fact, if I am not mistaken, even the power to conduct audits is included within that legislation.

If there are complaints, if there are results of audits that the Ombudsman's office will conduct, we would expect on a regular basis throughout the system, if those complaints come forward, there will obviously be the authority to raise that to ensure that those things are pursued. If the act is being breached, there is ultimately the power for fines, the power for the Ombudsman, if the Ombudsman is unhappy with the final result of the discussion, to go to court. All of those protections are in place.

The member for one moment should also appreciate that this legislation does not just apply to the electronic information but also applies to our current paper information. Today we have nowhere near the kind of protection that this act is proposing. This is a step forward. Mr. Cbomiak: Madam Speaker, if what the minister says is true, then why has the government divided the powers in this legislation between two areas?

Yes, the Ombudsman can investigate complaints, but the Ombudsman can only comment and can give nothing more than advice on intrusions by the government into people's personal privacy, putting information online like medical health information and the rest, and the Ombudsman has no area and no way to stop the government from proceeding to things like tax information online like they did with Pharmacare, et cetera. This is an intrusion. This requires a commissioner, an information commissioner that reports directly to this Chamber. Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, if I hear the member for Kildonan correctly, what he is really talking about are major issues of public policy as to what information goes online and becomes part of the system. It is issues of public policy as to how a system such as this will operate. Madam Speaker, it is not the role for a privacy commissioner or an Ombudsman, who in essence is the administrator of the laws and the rules that we set in this Legislature.

That is the role of such an office, to ensure that the public policy decisions that are set by this Legislature, either through Executive Council or directly through legislation, are carried out. It is not the role of a privacy commissioner or an Ombudsman to be making the matters of public policy. That is why we were elected, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Cbomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister, who is invading the privacy of Manitobans like no other government in the history of this province, indicate whether or not the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Manitoba Medical Association are in agreement with the provisions of this particular act? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am always a great believer that, when one raises issues in this House, one should try to have their facts straight and certainly have a sense of the context.

The member for Kildonan rose in this House and said that this administration is being intrusive in medical information more than any other government in the history of this province. Madam Speaker, I would like to table, ju st to put it in a historical perspective, the Journals of this Assembly, where in the early part of our history medical information was published in this House, including individuals, their dates of birth, when they were in hospital, the treatment, including for

4542 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1997 syphilis. You can go back into the history of this province as late as the 1980s where the lists of who were in hospitals were published in community newspapers. Today, this is one step forward. We are protecting people's health information in a way that has never been protected before. We are not opening up that information to abuse, Madam Speaker. We are protecting it, and the member should put it in the proper perspective. Federal Transfer Payments First Ministers' Conference Agenda Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

In the last few days, I have asked questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Premier with respect to the health care transfer payments. There is a great deal of concern from Manitobans in terms of what sort of a position this government is going to take on the whole idea of the devolution of powers from Ottawa towards provincial jurisdictions. My question to the Premier is: At the Premiers' conference that is coming up this summer, can the Premier indicate to us whether or not these agenda items are going to be talked about? *

(1400) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I still do not have the agenda for this summer's conference, so I could not say that at this point. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier be requesting or supporting those types of agenda items? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, all I can assure the member opposite is that I will continue to do what I have done in the past, which is to always defend the best interests of the people of Manitoba, no matter what the issue is.

I will go there with an agenda that is the agenda of the people of Manitoba, unlike my honourable friend for Inkster, who is always attempting to come to this House with the agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada. When that agenda is to reduce transfer payments that are harmful to us, in our efforts to try and protect vital health and social services and education, all he does is ignore the best interests of Manitobans and blindly defend his colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada. I think that is a tragedy. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Premier, as one of the most senior Premiers in Canada, put on the agenda the issue of ensuring that health care and the national government will have a leading role in ensuring that cash transfers will in fact be there so that he will be able to reassure Manitobans that health care and the medicare system will be relatively equal from one coast to the other? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, the one thing I will continue to do is defend Manitobans against the unreasonable, unwarran ted and unprecedented cuts that have come from Ottawa to our transfer payments that were designed to help us maintain the highest quality of health services that we could possibly afford in this province. We lost, over the space of the last two budgets, $220 million in annual transfer payments from Ottawa, money that was vitally required for us to be able to protect and enhance health care.

Not only does he attempt every day in this House to defend that, but when the federal budget came out with the second tranche of those cuts, the second tranche that resulted in some hundred-odd million dollars of annual cuts to us, his leader, the leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, stood up and gave that budget a four out of five. I could not believe it, Madam Speaker.

There she was out there defending it, saying this was a good budget, it deserved four out of five, and that is the kind of nonsense that Manitobans have to put up with, with the Liberal Party here in this Legislature that thinks that its only role is to defend Ottawa's interests in Manitoba no matter what they do, no matter how much their reductions in transfer payments, no matter how much they harm Manitobans. Queen versus Bauder Plea Bargaining Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Justice or the

June 5, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4543 Premier. The Justice minister has been certainly concerned about the Court of Appeal's decision and the federal government's amendments to the Criminal Code as it affects the Bauder case, but he has not been concerned about the conduct of his own department in this case. We do have concerns. Can the House and Manitobans get an explanation as to this government's policy on plea bargaining?

Is it undue pressure on the Prosecutions branch, or what, given our understanding that charges of sexual interference, uttering threats, in fact, threats to kill we understand that were made in writing and a charge of driving dangerously-our understanding is that Mr. Bauder was pursuing and threatening the victim. Why were these charges dropped? For what? No wonder the court did not think the accused was a threat. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, without accepting the accuracy of any of the

preamble that the member for St. Johns has put forward, I will take that as notice on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews). Victim Impact Statement Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I wonder if the Premier can today answer the questions that were posed to the minister yesterday in light of the fact that this case took 18 months so far. There were 12 appearances, five prosecutors; it certainly was not a lack of time. Why is it that all information that we have points to the fact that the government never so much as challenged any version coming from the accused as to the victim's conduct?

Why did they not put in her original statement? Why did they not put in a victim impact statement? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, without playing political games in this Legislature, he knows that I would not have the answer to the questions that were asked of the Minister of Justice, but I will take that as notice as well, because I know that he has to get himself on the agenda in Question Period. Order of Protection Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): I hesitate to ask the Premier, who thinks that something like this is a game- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Mackintosh: If the Premier thinks that this is a game, would he explain, if this case is not bad enough, why did the government not so much as seek an order of protection for the victim, did not seek a no-contact, did not seek a no-communication order? Why? Whatever happened to the victim in all of this? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member knows full well that the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Toews), in concern for the victim, has announced that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court. What is a game is the member standing up, knowing that the minister is not here with the information, and repeating the questions just for his own publicity's sake. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Payment for Injury Claims Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for MPIC. MPIC has filed its rate increase request with the PUB, and certainly there will be some increases, I believe, to 80 percent of motorists, particularly to motorcycle owners.

What I really want to ask the Minister responsible for MPIC is what the projections are from Autopac in terms of payment for injury claims. This government has cut the amount of money going to Manitobans in terms of injury coverage from $193 million to just over $100 million in just over three years under the no-fault system. Could the minister indicate what the projections are in terms of what will be paid out next year to Manitobans who are injured in automobile accidents? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister charged with the adm inistration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Act): I will make that kind of detailed information, projections from the corporation available to the honourable member. I remind him, however, of the

4544 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 unfairness of the system of the past whereby, depending on one's ability to secure clever and effective legal representation, one might be able to convince a judge that a higher award might be appropriate than for someone who perhaps sustained even worse injuries and/or damages. So the luck of the draw has been taken out of the system through the no-fault system. I think the honourable member, in general, supports that.

When you consider taking out the legal costs involved in that system, that does result in a more equal and fairer sharing of the dollars available. In any event, the rates reflect the claims, and that is the purpose for coming forward to the Public Utilities Board with this application. Mr.

Ashton: Will the minister confirm that what essentially has happened is the net payment-take out all the legal costs-going to Manitobans is at least $30 million to $40 million less now under the new system than compared to the old system, and that he ignored 35 amendments brought in by the NDP that would have made the current system a fair system? Will he explain to Manitobans the fairness of having a dramatic drop in injury payouts to Manitobans, insurance that they are entitled to under any fair system? Mr.

McCrae: Well, now, Madam Speaker, the honourable member appears to be arguing for the American system where, depending on how much you can afford to pay your lawyer, you can get a ridiculously high award. People in Manitoba want reasonably appropriate awards for their injuries, for the damage to their vehicles, but certainly for their injuries. I cannot agree with the honourable member, and I do not think Manitobans want to support, through their rates, those ridiculousl y high awards when others may end up getting nothing, which is not fair.

We disagree in principle on this, and yet I do not know how the honourable member can claim to be supportive of the no-fault system we put into place. *

(1410) Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, when will this minister stop playing these kinds of word games and accept the fact that Manitobans were prepared to support a no fault system? In fact, the New Democratic Party was prepared to support a no-fault system but not like they have done with Workers Compensation, a kind of system where they run surpluses at the expense of people who have been injured. They have done that with Workers Compensation. When will they stop doing that with Autopac, where they run a surplus and they shaft people who have injury claims? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member virtually takes himself out of the debate altogether when he, on the one hand, very quietly says: I support in general what you are doing, but I really like the American, Perry Mason-style justice system where you can get awards based on the American system. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne does state that answers should relate to the matter raised. Perhaps I may have gone on a little bit longer in my

preamble to my supplementary question, but I do not think I mentioned Perry Mason, who by the way was played by a Canadian, or the American legal system. I asked the minister whether he would explain why he has a $46- million surplus and many Manitobans are not receiving the injury coverage they are entitled to. I would like to ask if you could ask him to be a little bit relevant in his response. Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order. Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I have no doubt the honourable member would be a tough competitor in a game of Trivial Pursuit where he can come up with trivial facts and figures to back up almost any argument. Today, his point of order lacks any merit whatsoever. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, Beauchesne is very explicit. Answers to questions should be explicitly direct to the question posed. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, to quickly complete his response.

June 5, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4545 Mr. McCrae: Well, Madam Speaker, to be as responsive as your ruling suggests I should be, I would simply say to the honourable member I support the people of Manitoba who want to have the highest level of insurance coverage for the lowest level of premium. That is what people want, and we are trying year in and year out in a very transparent system which reports to the Public Utilities Board annually and brings its applications to that body annually, and we have a very public discussion of those matters.

I am on the side of the people of Manitoba who want the most coverage for the least premium dollar, and I think that is the right place to be. Multilateral Agreement on Investment Human Rights Issues Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, in the press conference release from the Western Premiers Conference, I note that the Premiers and this Premier, I guess, finally got on board with the concern about the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment and have asked that the committee of ministers of international trade should be reactivated in order to study the problems in this issue.

I am glad to see that he is finally on board with other western Premiers who have expressed concerns about this. I wonder, is the Premier aware of American legislation which prohibits trade with Burma on the basis of that country's appalling record of human rights. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to let the member for Crescentwood know that, since I was the lead-off speaker on international trade, I raised the issue and that is why it is in the communique.

The member opposite, of course, was quite ill informed when he kept raising the issue over previous weeks, when he was suggesting that this draft that he had access to was something very, very serious. The fact of the matter was, it was a draft, an early draft. The Manitoba government position has been consistent throughout the process that said we would accept no diminution of the policies and rights that we have in the NAFT A agreement, and obviously all of those issues that he kept raising would have violated NAFT A and would have been unacceptable to Manitoba.

I am not aware of the provision that he refers to with respect to Burma, and I am happy to have that information given to me. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, would the Premier also confirm then that, under the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, such legislation would no longer be possible, that human rights issues in any country would not be able to be the subject of any trade-related legislation in any other country? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat-and perhaps he had the question ready to go. The provisions in that draft that he has access to are not provisions that we support in large measure.

We have indicated to our federal counterparts that our position is that we will accept nothing less than the protection that we enjoy under NAFT A, and that clearly is not the case in the draft that he has. Tabling Request Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, since the Premier is so confident that the position that Manitoba has taken is appropriate, will he today release it so that Manitobans can see what the Premier and his colleagues have written in regard to this treaty that is under negotiation and was to have been completed this May and has been delayed for some time? So it is hardly an early draft.

This is a working paper that has had serious discussion in many different international conferences and is well advanced. Will he table Manitoba's position in writing so that we may know how progressive the minister has been in defending our interests? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): This is, indeed, a very progressive minister, so he can take great confidence in the position that our very, very progressive Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) has taken. I wanted to summarize it, because all of these things are moving discussions and moving documents and moving negotiations. So the

summary is that we will not accept any protection that is less than what we have under NAFTA. That will put it in simple terms for the member for Crescentwood.

4546 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1997 Crop Insurance Unseeded Acreage Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, the flooding that took place in the Red River Valley has certainly delayed seeding in many areas of the Red River Valley. It is somewhat ironic that at the same time we have a situation in parts of Manitoba where the drought situation is now delaying seeding in those areas where some farmers, I heard this morning on radio. are actually stopping seeding because they are waiting for rain.

Similarly, there were a number of statements made during the election campaign, which was at the height of the flooding, that indicated that the federal government would be willing, No. 1- Madam Speaker: Question. Mr. Penner: -to waive the indemnities and also to top up crop insurance or- Madam Speaker: Question. Mr. Penner: -compensation.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could give us an update as to what the seeding progress is in the province, and what indication he has had from the federal government as to their willingness to put in place an emergency federal program to help these people with their unseeded acreages. Hon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Unbelievable as it may seem for all of us who still very visually remember what the scene was like a month ago on Lake Morris, at that height some 61 0,000 acres of fertile Manitoba farmland were covered by water; 400,000 of that has since already been seeded as of today. My departmental estimates believe that upwards of 10,000 to 20,000 acres only may have difficulty in being seeded. In other words, 95 or 96 percent of the cropland will in fact be seeded, weather continuing favourably.

So I am very pleased, and it gives you some indication of the resilience and of the innovativeness of the Red River Valley farmers. *

(1420) Manitoba Telecom Services 911 Service Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My question is to the minister responsible for the Manitoba telecommunications act. I would like to ask the acting minister, I guess, if the acting minister could indicate whether the newly privatized MTS is going to be receiving a profit from the new system that is going to be in place in terms of911 charges. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question on behalf of the minister.

My understanding is that the effect of the CRTC decision is to allow for the financing of the 911 service on an equal basis across the province to all of those who have access to the 911 system, and that Manitoba Telephone System, in its application last fall to the CRTC, gave an indication of an option as to the pricing that would maintain a higher rate for rural access versus the city of Winnipeg, as well as the option of equal rates across the province.

CRTC, in its wisdom, made the decision to make the charge, in their view, fair and reasonable by making it equal to all those who have access to 91 1 across the province. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I believe there is a profit being made by MTS, which I believe is absolutely unacceptable to make profit off providing a 911 service.

I would like to ask a further question to the First Minister, again responsible not only for the act but for MTS, where there are still four government employees, and that is: Is there any indication whether the privatized MTS will be expanding the 911 service into areas of the province in northern Manitoba and parts of rural Manitoba that do not currently have the 911 service? Mr. Film on: Madam Speaker, just to be sure that the member understands, this application was made to CRTC while the corporation was still publicly owned.

So, if there is a profit in it, it would have been there in terms of a return on equity as a publicly owned entity. It is the same price today as it was when it was in public ownership. To indicate, as well, the rates in other provinces that have 911 service across Canada are

June 5, 1997 LEGISLAT IVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 4547 between 22 cents a month and 32 cents a month is the range. This is at 25 cents, which is clearly in the lower echelon of the charges. He may want to make some case for his own ideology's sake, but I do not think people will buy it. Our intent would be that, where it is practical and reasonable to do so, we would encourage the availability of 911 service throughout the province. In fact, we were instrumental, as the member probably knows, in seeing the extension of91 1.

It had only been available previously in Winnipeg, Brandon and Shilo, and as a result of the initiatives of this government and some money we put in through Rural Development, it has become available now in quite a number of rural municipalities. I have the list, but it is probably longer than the member would want me to read. It has been brought to my attention by Peggy and Norm Phillips, who reside in the Riel constituency, that present at this meeting in Winnipeg was a Florida resident, Iva Givens, who is the Grand representative of Manitoba in Florida.

Iva Givens travels North America meeting thousands of people and is charged with the task of promoting the province of Manitoba as a great place to live, visit and enjoy. I understand that she does this with tireless enthusiasm and dedication. In the past three years, Iva has attended 37 Grand

Chapter meetings across Canada and the United States. On behalf of the citizens of Manitoba, I would like to thank Iva for promoting Manitoba and, on behalf of all members present also, to thank Iva Givens. Flooding- Tribute to Farmers Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I wonder, Madam expired. Speaker, whether I would have leave to make a nonpolitical statement. NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS Order of the Eastern Star Madam Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines have leave for a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Hon.

David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, this past week the Order of the Eastern Star held its 75th Annual Winnipeg Grand Session meetings at the International Inn. The Order of the Eastern Star is the largest fraternal organization in the world to which men and women may belong. It encircles the earth, with over 10,000 chapters in the United States, Canada and 18 other countries. Though its teachings are based upon the Bible, the Order of the Eastern Star espouses no religion and is neither secret nor political.

Its members are comprised of men who are Master Masons and women with specific Masonic relationships. Millions of dollars are raised annually within its membership for numerous projects which benefit humankind. Many national and local charities are among the projects supported by its members, including in Manitoba the Manitoba Eastern Star Chalet and the Manitoba Lung Association. Through this fraternal service to humanity, its members strive to build a better and more fulfilling way of life for all. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Emerson have leave? [agreed] Mr.

Penner: I would like to, today, rise and pay tribute to the farmers in Manitoba, especially those who suffered through the flood of the century and especially those who have had much of their or all of their farmland inundated by waters for many weeks and all of those families who were not within the ring dike communities. I would encourage them to use the same kind of tenacity, perseverance and determination in rebuilding their farmsteads and ensuring that their crops be planted. I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) indicated to us today that there were probably very few acres left in the valley unseeded, and it is my view that this kind of determination that is being shown by our agriculture producers in the Red River Valley is the kind of mentality that has existed all along in rebuilding and building livelihoods and lives and an economy in this province that is second to none in all of Canada. These farmers are demonstrating that they can in all adversity make a livelihood for their communities, for their families and indeed contribute in a difficult year to the economy of this province.

Madam Speaker, I stand and I ask all members to congratulate these people in the valley and the rest of

4548 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1997 the province for putting this economy of this province ahead of all economies in this country. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Bon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, this morning we were able to see eight bills passed to committees, and I would like to announce that on Tuesday next at ten o'clock in the forenoon the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet to consider bills referred, and at ten o'clock in the forenoon on Tuesday next the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet to consider bills referred to it. Madam Speaker: I will repeat the announcement for the benefit of all members.

Tuesday, June 10, at 10 a.m., the Law Amendments committee will meet to consider bills referred, and, additionally, on Tuesday, June 10, at 10 am., the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet to consider all bills referred. Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. * (14 30) MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE Change of Party Status Mr.

Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I would like to exercise my right to bring forward a grievance before this Chamber today. How much speaking time do I have for a grievance? An Honourable Member: Forty minutes. Mr. Kowalski: Madam Speaker, in the spring of 1993, I was a school trustee and a police officer in the late spring-and I enjoyed those two positions-when I was approached by members of the Lib eral Party who after Paul Edwards' leadership win and with an upcoming by-election needed to win The Maples seat.

Being an active community member involved in many community volunteer activities, one of the things they told me is that as an MLA I would have the resources and the time to devote full time to those types of activities, to work in my constituency, to show leadership for projects, to bring forward projects and to help members of my constituency, so I decided to meet with Paul Edwards. After meeting with Paul Edwards and having a long conversation with him, I was very impressed by the leader of the Liberal Party at that time.

I found not only was I impressed with him, but I felt that I had his respect not only for me as a person but for many of my ideas, and I found that quite often not only on justice issues but on a large number of matters, Paul, along with the other members of the caucus that I was eventually part of, lis tened to me, and I felt I had a voice. That was in 1993. One of the things they told me is that it is going to be difficult at first because we only have seven members, so you are going to have to carry a large number of critic roles, but after the next general elec tion, things will improve.

We will have more members. We will have more resources, and the workload will be shared amongst a lot more people. Well, that turned out not to be exactly true. During that time from '93 to '95, yes, I carried a number of critic portfolios, but I had a supportive leader. I had a number of caucus colle agues all of whom were very supportive and helpful, and we had a staff of 14 people who helped me realize many of my personal expectations, many of the goals not only in my constituency, but I was able to bring forward issues.

They help ed me live up to some of the potential I thought I had and maybe even beyond any potential that I thought I had as a member of the Manitoba Legisla ture. Then came the '95 election where, in fact, we did not increase members. We went down to three members. As a result, we lost that support staff and many of the resources we had. But during that time, both from '93 to '95, and even after the '95 election, I do not think anyone in the - '

June 5, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 4549 Li beral Party could doubt my loyalty to the party. I attended a number of AGMs all over the provinces. I attended forums on behalf of the party. Many people saw me in the hallways here very late at night doing my duty as a critic. I worked very hard at it, and I was very loyal to Paul Edwards. But then we had a new leader. I have learned from the police force that even if you do not respect the person, you respect the position, and I worked very hard at working with the new leader.

Unfortunately, I do not feel I have the respect of the new leader, and, I do not feel, my ideas. As a result, I felt muzzled over the past period of time, but I have still been a loyal Lib eral. I made a decision some time ago to do something, but I waited until after the federal election. The federal elec tion is now over, so, today, at 1: 15 , I faxed to Ginny Hasselfield tpY resignation as a member of the Liberal caucus and the Manitoba Legisla ture led by her.

I am still willing as a part of a caucus of independent members which, in fact, according to the rules is what we really are- the Chamber has been good about recognizing us as a Liberal caucus, but according to the rules, we are a caucus of independent members. As a caucus of independent members, in LAMC, the independent members' office have been given a budget, a very meagre budget. It works out to $500 a month for three members of this Assembly, and I hope that will continue. The independent members deserve a greater budget than that from these Estimates, and it is up to us how we will continue.

We have a staff member that is given, according to the budget line. He is considered independent member staff, and I will continue to claim part of his resources. When it comes to votes, if my two former Lib eral caucus colleagues wish to, I am willing to caucus with them as independent members who carry a Li beral membership card, as I do. Mine does not expire until December of this year unless the party revokes it, and I am still willing to caucus with them, but I will not vote as a block as directed by Ginny Hasselfield.

This has been a very challenging thing to do because I know that when you become a member of a party you make many friends, and many of them are very loyal, and I know I am going to lose a great number of friends, but I know also that it is going to give me great challen ges, because now each vote, each bill, I will have to decide with my own conscience on how to vote. The next throne speech, the next budget, I will have to examine and with my conscience decide how I will vote.

There are some other housekeeping matters, everything from the phone listing in the telephone books to the printing of Hansard, identifying the party affilia tion, and everything to the front message board where it lis ts the different caucuses, but those are small matters. The main reason I am doing this is that pretending to support a leader who I cannot takes a lot of energy, and I find that although I do not always have the highest integrity, I try to be a boy scout.

I always try to be, and with an upcoming by-election, my conscience would not allow me to go forward and advocate for a leader whom I do not support. I will not air any dirty laundry in public. The rela tionship between the leader of the Li beral Party, Ginny Hasselfield, and myself, I am just saying it does not work. I am not going to give details. I am not going in any way do any harm to the Libe ral Party or to Ginny Hasselfield. That is not what this is about.

This is about my constituents, that the past little while I have not had the voice that I have had in the past under Paul Edwards, that I was able to bring forward a lot of issues, that I was able to put a lot of energy. I find pretending to support someone you do not takes a lot of energy, and that energy could be put into serving my constituents, doing a number of projects. * (1 440) Some people may find it very difficult to understand the situation. The average public do not know as much about politics as we like to think.

I am surprised how many people in the last couple of days asked me if I was re-elected in the election on Monday. It shows how much they really take an interest in poli tics, and sometimes, maybe, we exaggerate how important we are in people's lives, really, but we do important work here. So, as I say, I will continue to sit as an MLA. I guess, according to the rules, I will continue to be an

4550 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 independent MLA. As I said, my Li beral membership card does not expire until December of this year. Unless it is revoked, I continue to carry it. I am willing to meet with the other independent members of this House, but I will not be caucusing with the Liber al caucus as led by Ginny Hasselfield. Being a grievance, I still grieve that independent members of this Chamber at $500 a month is something that I think is a shame. It is a shame that a member of this Legisla ture is given such meagre resources in comparison to the other caucuses.

So with those few w ords, I will end my grievance. Thank you. Member's Contribution Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): I am rising to speak on the opportunity using my grievance, Madam Speaker. I just want to place on the record that I appreciate the difficulty that the member has with himself and the difficulties that he feels that he had to correct. I just w ant to acknowl edge that the contribution of the member who has just spoken, the decision that he has taken, I think truly demonstrates the quality of the individual, that he has struggled and has come to grips with it.

All I can say is that he has been a major contribution to this House, and however he decides to represent his constituents, he has done himself proud, and as a member of our party and the Deputy Premier, I just want to say that we feel very much with him as an individual. He has had a tough decision, but I know that he has contributed and will continue to contribute in the manner in which he has decided.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. *** Madam Speaker: The motion before the House is that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Suppl y to be granted to Her Majesty. Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) FAMILY SERVICES Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please . Will the Committee of Supply ple ase come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply will be meeting in Room 254 and will resume consideration of the Estima tes of the Department of Family Services. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 9. I .(

a) Minister's Salary $25,700 , on page 51 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions I would like to ask the minister, who I appreciate is under her salary, and I guess it is real ly more ofli policy question which arises out of a constituency matter that has been drawn to my attention, of this young mother-w hile I would say I am not sure of her age, I would say probably late 30s, maybe early 40s, who has two children.

One of them has a learning disabil ity, but, regardless , she desperately wants to upgrade herself to get off the social assi stance system. Her ambition and her objective is to get her Grade 12 which she does not have. There is an adult learning centre in Brandon which is prepared to take her and assist her, but for whatever reason the staff are not accommodating of her request, and she cannot understand why when she wants to desperately get off the system. She presently is a very hard-wor king, determined young woman but does not seem to be getting a sympathetic ear from any of the staff.

I understand that one is expected to do a job search if you are capable of employment. I think it is 15 job searches a month. She was saying something about being penalized to the tune of $10 0 a month unless she was regula rly seeking a job. So I think she is in the position now of being prepared to even lose that $10 0 a month. She can barely make-she only gets $947 a month as it is keeping herself and her two kids. It is a real struggle. Now, if she does not seek a job, look for a new job or look for a jol>-because she is studying and attending classes-she is going to be penalized by another $1 00 a month.

June 5, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4551 So it just seemed to me that there is something here that contradicts statements that you have made as a minister where you are anxious to help people upgrade themselves so that they can hopefully get employment. I appreciate Grade 12 is not employment specific. It is not a training for a specific occupation. But, nevertheless, there are a lot of empl oyers today who just will not look at you unless you have Grade 12 . So it seems to me there must be some discretion here on the part of the staff, and I just wondered whether the minis ter had any comment on this.

Are you not allowing people to upgrade themselves to Grade 12 under the system? Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the minister to respond to a question? Leave? [agreed] Point of Order Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. I guess the reason why I raise it as a point of order, yesterday when we were having some discussions, the Chair seemed to be more than eager to try to keep people relevant.

I think what is important here is that we have to realize that we are on the ministerial salary, and virtual ly anything can be asked of the minister on that particula r issue. If she feels there is a requirement to have staff in order to facilit ate a better answer, she can always take the question as notice. I say that because I, too, have some questions, and I thought maybe it would be better just to get it on the record now as opposed to possibly having to comment on it later. Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.

The minister will answer the question of the honourable member for Brandon East. *** Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, I thank my honourable friend from Brandon East for that question because-or the individual circumstances that he has shared with me. Certainly, it is not our government's policy not to allow individuals to complete their education in order for them to become employed. I guess I would like a little detail and some more information, and I certainly will check into that circumstance or situation.

Our policy has changed, whereby we do say that once your children are over the age of six or in school full time-it has to be both of those two things-there will be work expecta tions placed on you. I think we have tried to be as accommodating as possible in every instance to ensure that people have the skills or there is a job, and there should be no penalty if there is no job available and if there is no child care in place. All of the other pieces need to be there before-and then you would have to outright refuse a job.

If everything else was in place, there might be sanctions which would be, first of all, $50 per month and then $1 00 per month. So there is not anyone who is sanctioned unless everything is there. Now, if people are interested in training-and I guess one of the problems, I suppose, and probably it is because we have the highest numbers of individuals in the city of Winnipeg who are single parents on social all owance, we have more programming in place. Lik e, Taking Charge! is only in Winnipeg at this point in time.

I know that I have talked to the board and the staff over at Taking Charge!, and I think they have had some requests from parts of rural Manitoba. I would imagine Brandon would be one of those areas, to see whether we could expand that kind of programming into Brandon.

I think that might be important, but all of that is very training-related and related to trying to get individuals the training required to help them enter the workforce at some level, but there is nothing in our policy that says that we do not allow people to upgrade their education. [interjection] There is nothing in our policy that says we will not, so we will, and I would certainly like to get some more detail around the individual.

Our main goal and objective through our whole Employment First strategy is indeed to get people into meaningful employment, out of the dependency of the welf are cycle, and whatever we can do to assist on an individual basis, we are wanting to do. So if there is

4552 LEGISLATIV E ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 something that is wrong in the Brandon area, we will certainly try to correct that if I have some more detail. * (1 500) Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for her comments, and I certainly will write her a letter and give her the specifics, which will enable her to look into it, but I just want to make this point, and that is that others have also indicated to me-in the community, people on welf are and people in the educational system-that there seems to be an attitude prevailing in your Brandon office which is thwarting a lot of people.

Now, I do not want to be unf air and judgmental, because I do not have all the data, but in this case, I just might add, the children are I 0 and seven; one has a learning disability. The fact is the staff have said-! think they do not feel that her taking Grade 12 is necessa rily going to prepare her for a job, so it is a judgment call. She is very convinced, though, that she needs that to get on, and she is very determined, but the point is she has mentioned about being penalized $10 0 a month, and it seems to me this is incredible.

I mean, we all say we would like people to get off of welfare, the ideal is zero welfare, zero social assistance, and we have to do everything we can possible. It seems to me that we have to be on the, if I can use the term, li beral side of interpreting the regulations, so give people the benefit of the doubt to take training. If it was just the one person, I would have just written a letter, but there have been other people who have spoken to me about this too, so it seems to be a general situation.

So I thought I would draw it to your attention, because I really believe that any admini stration should bend over backwards to allow people to get training, including academic upgrading, if that individual thinks that it will help him or her. They may not succeed, but at least give them a chance. Mrs. Mitchelson: I think our ultima te goal and objective is to try to ensure that everyone has an opportunity and some hope in their lives, and if, in fact, we can accommodate that and try to be sensitive through the process, we certainly will try to.

So if there is an issue that needs to be looked at in any of our offices, I can make the commitment to undertake that. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do have a number of questions that I would like to ask the minister. We were talking about child poverty yesterday, and I wanted to continue along the line. In doing a li ttle bit of research, one of the more interesting documents that I came up with was a document that was actual ly produced by Winnipeg Harvest. A while back, I actual ly had a tour of Winnipeg Harvest, as I am sure the minister and the critic have also had that tour by Mr. Northcott.

You see a lot of community-hard -working, committed individuals doing what they can in terms of trying to provide the basics for people that are unfortunately put into a situation which is quite often, more than not, beyond their control. So they do have to rely on Winnipeg Harvest in order to provide food. It is interesting, you know, over the years what we have seen develop is more and more food banks.

In fact, I can recall a couple of years ago when we had the-I am not too sure which critic it actually was, but the critic was talking about the competition between the number of food banks and the number of McDonald's restaurants. I believe the comment was to the extent that the number of food banks now exceeds the number of McDonald's, and that actual ly took place in the last number of years. When I was down there and I had the tour, I was provided all sorts of wonderful information. One of the pieces of information was kind of like I 0 years ago compared to today, and I asked if I could get a copy of it. Mr.

Northcott was very gracious in the sense that he faxed me over a copy of it. I wanted just to go over that particular document, because I do think it says a lot. Now, if I can read from the fax here-take out the stapl e-th is would have been, I guess, faxed to me the lO th month, eighth day, '96, so it is fairly recent. The headline is, Winnipeg Harvest, a I 0-year snapshot: I 0 years ago compared to today. So that would have been, I would assume, roughly between 19 86 to 1996, which is not too far off in terms of when this government was, in fact, elected, Mr.

Chairperson, because we all know that it was in '88 when this government took office. A lot has happened, and when we talk about poverty, if you take a look at this particular snapshot, I believe it says a lot. -

June 5, 19 97 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 4553 What I wanted to do was just to go over this and ask the minister to comment on it, and then possibly to even then go into some of the issues that have really had a dramatic impact from my perspective, or from our party's perspective, that have had a very negative impact with respect to, for example, gambling in the province and the Lotteries policy of this government and what impact that has had on the whole poverty issue in the province of Manitoba.

Anyway, I wanted to make reference specific to this document where it talks about I 0 years ago that there were 835, 45 1 pounds of food shared with Manitoba families. Now, that, I would anticipate, would be through different food banks or, I should say, Winnipeg Harvest. Today, over five million pounds of food is shared with more Manitoba families and cle arly demonstrates just the size, or the amount, I should say, of food that is being circulat ed. It is just phenomenal in terms of the increase, from 835,000 to over five million pounds. That is in 10 years.

So we have seen really a huge reliance on trying to put food on the table through the donations of sorts, Mr. Chairperson. One could talk extensively about the types of foods that are actually being donated. It was interesting. When I was going through the tour, one of the things that Mr. Northcott had mentioned was the biggest problem area in terms of donations of food was that of baby products-c anned, if you like, baby Pablum, food requirements that can feed the youngest of our population.

So, quite often, what will happen is they will get cash donations in order to be able to purchase some of those food requirements. I guess one could even ask the government with respect to what are they doing in order to address an issue that is as basic as providing baby food to the population. The minister, I am sure, knows full well of the negative side, if, in fact, you do not provide good nutrition to infants. I am sure she is well aware of the benefits of ensuring that our young children today are, in fact, properly fed.

Here is an area in which-as we all know, it was clea rly demonstrated through the flood how generous Manitobans are- there is just not enough in order to feed our children. I think that is very unfortunate, and one ofthe areas which, in particula r, this minister does need to look at. Mr. Chairperson, I do not say it li ghtly. I do believe that the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has been negli gent in addressing that particular issue.

Another thing coming from the 10 years ago to today-a gain, I qualify the today being, that would have been back in early '96, because that is when I was provided the document, but 10 years ago, it says 3, 624 people needed food assistance. Today, over 34,000 people need food assistance. I guess when I think of that particula r point, there are a number of things that come to mind. It is a very, very humilia ting experience to have to go to a pl ace and ask for food.

So, ultimately, many, including me, would argue that, look, if I were put into that sort of situation in which I did not have the ability to be able to provide food on the table, I would have to then approach these nonprofit groups such as Winnipeg Harvest, and that is quite the leap for a lot of Manitobans. I do not believe that all Manitobans have, in fact, made that leap. I think there are a lot of Manitobans, Mr. Chairperson, for a number of different reasons just do not feel that they can go to Winnipeg Harvest. I have personally, over the years, talked to people.

When I talk to these individuals, I try to explain in the best way that I can that sometimes it is necessary, in order to provide that food on the table, that you have to put your hand out, and you should not feel shamed or inadequate to have to do that. * (15 10 ) My coll eague for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) always made reference to the phrase, there by the grace of God walk I. That could happen to any one of us.

Even the MLAs, you lose an election, you find yourself in an unemployed situation, you have the monthly bills that continue to come, and sometimes the amount of bills and the total of those bills exceeds how much money you are bringing into the house. At times it means you do not have the proper financial means in order to get the food which is a basic. That puts people in a very awkward spot where they go to families, where they go to places like Winnipeg Harvest, so it could happen to any one of us is what I would argue.

Those individuals should feel no shame in the sense that, at times, they should go to Winnipeg Harvest and

4554 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 agencies such as that in order to ensure that they are getting their food requirements. I bring it up in that context, Mr. Chairperson, for what I believe is a very good reason. Because if we look at those numbers, 10 years ago 3,624; today over 34,000. Well, I would argue that that 34,000 is likely underestimating the size of the real problem, and that is the reason why I put it forward in the fashion that I did in terms of context. Another very interesting point that came out was 6,500 -th is is again 10 years ago--6 ,509 hours for vol unteers.

Well, where does that compare today? I am sure most would not be surprised that are now in the committee room because I have talked about the amount of food and I have talked about the amount of people requiring the food- well, no surprise that there has been a tremendous need to get more people involved in the distribution of the food. Would you belie ve- now, this would have been back in 1996-- that that amount increased to almost 10 0,000 hours are volunteered?

My hat goes off to the type of people that feel in their hearts that what they want to be able to do is contribute to people that do not have the means in order to provide that basic service. It once again reinforces how generous Manitobans really are, not in terms of just donating food, but in terms of donating their own personal time in order to make it work. I believe, you know, Mr. Northcott would be the first to admit that it would not be possible if, in fact, we did not have the food, No. 1, donated, but if we did not have the volunteers to ensure that these sorts of things could be done.

The types of volunteers, and again I would go back to the tour that I had, were varied. You had individuals that were not so young as opposed to seniors, let us say. We had young people there. We had individuals of different ethnic backgrounds, all recognizing the importance of ensuring that there were enough people there that were processing the food. I know in the area that I represent in Inkster there is Gi lber t Park which is a large nonprofit housing complex. They actually have things such as food bingos.

They actually have had food banks, and what is encouraging is that, again, we might tour Winnipeg Harvest, but Winnipeg Harvest feeds into a lot of other groups, and those groups actually distribute out the food in different ways. Again, what we are talking about is more vol unteers that participate in the process. Do you know what I believe we have seen over the years? WelL we talk about 10 years ago and we say 6,500 hours of volunteer time, and we see almost a hundred thousand hours today, today being back in 1996.

What has been lacking, I believe, is some sort of government action that would complement those vol unteers, that you do not have to rely strictly on the good will of Manitobans in order to address this issue. The government should be more proactive in working, Mr. Chairperson, to ensure that everything-the volunteers are appreciated to blocks of money given to provide things such as baby formula or infant formula. There is a role for the government, and the government needs to get out of the mindset that, geez, if we kind of step back, the private sector or the generous hearts of Manitobans will fill the gap.

I think that is important for the government to look at. I should say this. Mr. Chairperson, that it goes beyond giving a social assis tance payment, because some of those social assis tance payments that go out, in some cases-maybe it is misappropriately spent, those monies, which deprive children of groceries. In some cases it is not enough. So it goes beyond more than, well, you know, I am the Minister of Family Services and I am going to put a grant or I am going to provide this particula r social service and then just leaving it at that.

The minister does need to look at those nonprofit groups, and I just happen to be talking about Winnipeg Harvest. There are other groups that are out there that also the minister should be looking at in how government can interact in a better way. Another point that it brings up is, again, 10 years ago a single parent with one child employed at minimum wage needed to work 41 hours a week to bring the family to the poverty line. Well, 10 years ago, there was a 40-hour workweek for most Manitobans, and I think that the expectation was virtually that.

It is not necessarily to endorse the New Democrats were doing a good job. It is just the fact that, look, back in and around 19 86, if you buy into that the information that is being provided here is factual and correct, that they

June 5, I9 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 4555 are not too far off in terms of the 4I hours versus 40 hours. * (1 520) But today, what is it today? Again, I qualify today by saying that this would have been I9 96. The same single parent would need to work 75 hours per week to make the equivalent income. Well, you know, Mr.

Chairperson, I would like to think that I, like the minister responsible, try to keep up to date on information of this nature and I would really be interested, and she does not have to give me the answer to date per se with respect to this particula r question, but I would really be interested in her explaining that particular issue because, again, that says so very much in terms of what is expected of people and lifestyles that would appear to be deteriorating as a result of maybe the government not doing some of things that it could be doing.

One of the things that I would suggest when I think of this line if, in fact, it is accurate, and the minister needs to confirm its accuracy, is that why did it take so long for this government to recognize the importance of minimum wage. For years this government did nothing with respect to minimum wage, and now we see that we are in a situation, according to this, that it now takes 75 hours per week in order to do the same requirements of I 0 years ago. You do not think that contributes to child poverty? Do you really think that people are working the extra 25 or 35 hours a week?

What sort of proactive actions is the minister taking to address an issue of that nature? Other points in this, and there are three other points-m aybe before I go on to those other three points, because I know there is somewhat of a limi tation on how lo ng- could I ask how much more time I have, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: I 0 minutes. Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I might be able to cover the points. It states, again, I 0 years ago approximately 25,000 people were unemployed and, again, approximately today 34,000 people are unemployed.

Now, the government, on this particula r point, relatively speaking in comparison to other provinces, strictly speaking with employment, is doing a fairly decent job. So, I guess if l can give government credit, this is probably one of the areas in which you could get credit in terms of actual numbers of jobs relatively speaking compared to other provinces where it seems to be doing a decent job. But where it could receive criticism is the types of jobs that are out there and how is this government trying to fill in some of these jobs.

For years, for example, within the garment industry there have been hundreds and some would argue well into somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 jobs and they are better than minimum wage jobs. It has only be the last couple of years, because I know if I stop talking right now and I left that particula r point the minister might say, well, geez, you know, we do now have some training for the garment industry that is taking place, some monies that have been provided.

Again, you have to look at it in terms of how long were you in government prior to taking some action on that particular issue, and what does the government do to try to promote or to assist individuals who are on social assistance to get off unemployment. For the longest time, what was happening and still happens today is that if you get a job in which you hit a certain threshold, dollar for dollar you lose in terms of welf are once you hit a certain threshold. What incentive is, in fact, there in some cases? Now, again, there have been some changes.

There have been some very negative things that the government has done with respect to working and getting people off social assistance. I am sure the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will recal l, for example, the big billb oards-the snitch line. Do you know someone that is frauding welfare? Well, call this number and the heavy hand of the law or the government will come down on them. I personally do not think that was a wise way of dealing with people that are li ving, in most cases, in poverty; that government can, in fact, take a more positive approach.

Another interesting point was the one of the city of Winnipeg welfare cases and, again, I 0 years ago, 6,958, the city of Winnipeg; back in '96, there was currently 14 ,593 . Now, I do know that there are some changes,

4556 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 there are some differences. For example, single parents going through provincial assistance, I do not have those numbers at hand so I really cannot comment in terms of the number of single parents on provincial welfare today, compared to I 0 years ago, but it would be interesting to know, and it is quite possible, because I do know that the Estimates have been going on for a while, so has the health care Estimates, and I have been spending time in the health care Estimates because I cannot be in two places at one time.

I trust and assume that there would have been a great deal of dialogue with respect to the numbers of individuals that are on social provincial assistance and what the government is doing in order to concentrate its efforts on assisting these people in getting off of provincial social assistance. Having said that, Mr. Chairperson-and I do not want to say that the Liberal Party coined the phrase because, quite frankly, it could have been coined many, many years ago-the fact remains that the best social assistance program is a job.

If you provide the proper atmosphere, you will allow for more people to get involved in the workforce. The more people you get involved in the workforce, the less the requirement for social assistance. The less requirement for social assistance, obviously, that means you get to spend that much more money on other more proactive issues such as literacy and so forth which will enhance one's skills. I think that that would be a very positive thing. I am sure the Minister of Family Services would like to have additional funds.

The other issue that I thought was interesting was that they pointed out I 0 years ago-again that would have been just prior to this government coming into office-no rural food banks existed in Manitoba. Today 43 rural food banks are operating in Manitoba. I would have thought that that would raise a great deal of concern from within the Conservative caucus, especially given the make-up of the caucus.

There is fairly decent strong representation, one would think, coming from rural Manitoba, and yet we have seen just a huge number of food banks being created in rural Manitoba, and that has got to say a lot in terms of what it is that is happening.

Earlier, I commented on the issue of food banks to try to demonstrate that I do not believe that the government is being successful at ensuring that people, both in Winnipeg, urban centres, Brandon and Portage, and not only those, our smaller communities in rural Manitoba, do not in many cases have the ability to be able to provide food on their table, that they have to rely on food that is being donated. The minister, I am sure, is aware of that. I guess at this time, because I do want to pick up on the Lotteries issue, because I think that, Mr.

Chairperson, the Lotteries is an excellent example of, here is a policy that the government brought in and has had a dramatic impact on the size of poverty in the province of Manitoba. Prior to getting into that, I do not know if the minister wanted to respond to those points that I have; otherwise, she can take them as notice, and I can continue on a bit different line. * (1 530 ) Mrs.

Mitchelson: Without getting into a long dialogue with my honourable friend around the issues that he has raised, I think-and it is unfonunate, I think we talked a lot yesterday about the whole issue of child poverty and where we are headed, not only as a province but as a country. Maybe I will just try to briefly indicate to my honourable friend that there has been an awful lot of work done at both the federal and the provincial level.

It goes back to a couple of years ago when the federal government initially decided to unilaterally cut, I think it was about $7.5 billion from the provinces for Health, for Education and for Social Services. As a result of that, many, many provinces were facing unprecedented decisions that had to be made around how they were going to spend very precious resources.

So it was the Premiers at one of their annual Premiers' Conferences that unanimously agreed, all I 0 provinces and two territories, that with the absence of some federal leadership in this area, they would bring together representatives from all of our respective governments-and I want my honourable friend to know that this was unanimous.

Premiers of all political stripes right across the country-! think Newfoundland was the lead at the time, so Premier Tobin from Newfoundland would have been the lead Premier-<lecided that we should get together and put a ministerial representative from each province and territory together in a ministerial council to take a look -

June 5, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 4557 at making recommendations to Premiers that might deal with a lot of the social issues, health issues and education issues. So that committee was struck, and there was a report that was developed over the process of a year or so that had several recommendations to Premiers which they endorsed and which they sent to the Prime Minister as a result of that endorsement, calling on us to look at integrated supports for children and for the disabled across the country. Those were two of the main key areas of discussion, at least those that affect my department.

As a result of the report going to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister agreed absolutely that it was good work, the provinces had done good work, and he wanted to put together a federal minister to work with the ministerial council to try to move ahead or move forward on some of the issues. One of the issues was child poverty. As a result of that process, there were committees of officials struck, working committees, to see whether we could find a process to reduce child poverty right across the country.

My honourable friend tends to be very critical of our government, and I do not think there is any government across the country, regardless of political stripe, that is not trying to deal with this issue. If we can work together to deal with it, I think it is important, because I do not think any of us agree that any level of child poverty is acceptable. So as a result we have, I think, on the table, a really positive approach to the direction we need to take right across the country and that is the new national child benefit that was announced.

The federal government did put some money in their budget next year for the national-[interje ction] It is around $600 million. That really, you know-the honourable Pierre Pettigrew was the lead minister federally for the ministerial council process. I know he indicated that this would just be a down payment on a national child benefit, but that, in fact, there would be incremental funding year by year by the federal government. There were three objec tives of the program. One was to reduce the depth of child poverty.

The second objective was to try to ensure that those that were working were better off than those on welfare so that there would be some support to children in low-income families regardless of whether they were working or on welfare, and that we would try to reduce overlap and duplication between the two levels of government and so reduce administrative costs and have more money available to go to families that need it. Those are the three objectives. I think we probably have done better on the first two than we have on the reduction of overlap and duplication at this point but, hopefully, that will come.

The whole obje ctive would be to take every child out of the welfare system. So there would be X number of dollars provided by the federal government, direct payment to children in families, and the commitment on behalf of the provinces was that any money that was saved as a result of those payments not being part of the welfare system to children would be reinvested in programming for children, Earlystart, Headstart, nutrition programs, child care, training for moms so that they could get back into the workforce or enter the workforce.

In fact, the federal government was making a greater financial commitment, but the dollars that we were presently spending as provinces would have to be reinvested into programming. I think it is the right direction to go. The ultimate end result would be that no child would be supported through the welfare system.

Every child would receive X number of dollars based on what provinces and the federal government believed was the right amount for children, but that the dollars that we presently spend on welfare payments for children would be reinvested into other programming that would give children a good start to life. So that really is where we are at. All provinces have endorsed it. The federal government has endorsed it, and we have a small down payment. I argue sometimes with the federal minister saying, well, it is not really a down payment; it is a partial repayment for what you have taken away.

When you have taken $220 million away from our province and you are prepared to reinvest $20 million back, it is still not back to where we were, but it is a good start and it is-the process is right. It is the right thing to do for the right reasons. As I said, every province has endorsed the process, and the federal government has endorsed it too. I think it is very significant to note that it is one of the first issues that we have all been able to agree on is the right

4558 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 direction and the right way to go. So I think the federal government recognizes there is a need to do something. The provincial governments recognize there is a need to do something, and my honourable friend has made a lot of comments about what the community is already doing. These are issues that we all have to work on together. I think we are moving in the right direction and we are not there yet, but it is at least a start. There is a consistent approach.

It is an approach that governments of different philosophical backgrounds have come together and said this is the way we need to go for children. So I would rather talk about the positive than some of the negatives, and there are lots of negatives out there, but I think we are on the right track and we are moving in the right direction. I just want to put those comments on the record, and would be prepared to share documentation or whatever around the issues that we have come to agreement on and we will continue to agree on.

Now that we have sort of got a process for children, we are looking at people with disabilities to see whether there is not a standard approach that can be taken and some agreement we can come to, as two different levels of government, around how we support people with disabilities right across the country, because everyone is struggling with that issue too. So those are the two priority areas. We seem to be on track with the children's agenda, and we will be working pretty aggressively on the disability agenda over the next year or so.

So I just wanted to put those comments on the record and indicate that there is a fair, significant amount of co-operation and recognition by politicians that we need to get our act together. * (1 540) Mr. Lamour eux: When the minister started off, she made reference to the $7.5 billion, I believe, that was cut from transfer payments and the impact being $220 million in the province of Manitoba. It seems to me that you do get ministers that exaggerate the actual cut within their particular department. To be very specific on that, for example, today I asked a question of the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), and the Premier tried to give the impression it was $220 million that was cut out of health care. You ask the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), and it is $220 million that was cut out of education. This minister, you know, just gave the impression that it is $220 million that is taken out of this particular area. That is why when she made reference, she says, well, look, they took out $220 million from us and they gave us a meagre $20 million, which I assume is a portion of the $700 million.

Where it is, in fact, taken out of context, but that is not-and I acknowledge that that is what the government has been doing, and by my raising the issue, government jumps to its feet saying that I am just trying to protect my federal counterparts in Ottawa. It is not necessarily to protect them, it is just trying to get the government to be a little bit more honest with the numbers as they talk to different groups. I have heard these different ministers talk to outside groups, all attributing these millions of dollars coming out of their particular department, which I do not believe is accurate.

Yes, there was an overall cut. Yes, I personally did not support the cut; I would have liked to have seen it come out of other areas, but I was glad that there was a threshold that was put in.

I guess that is the area in which I want to bring it to the Minister of Family Services, that if you put aside the cut for now-and what I have been asking the ministers of Finance, Health and the Premier was to get their opinions on the social transfer which she just finished making reference to, because part of that social transfer, that block fund, goes towards the financing of the Department of Family Services for social assistance. I am interested in knowing if this minister would support the transferring of cash transfers in favour of tax point transfers. Which one would she rather see?

It is important to ask in the sense that if you favour the tax point transfer, then you are-ultimately the national government is not going to be able to, I believe, have as much influence on giving a national direction. The minister herself talked about how important it was to have a sense of co-operation with the national government and other provinces, and I agree wholeheartedly with her on that particular point.

If we are going to come to grips with fighting child poverty, not only in the province of Manitoba but in Canada, what we do need to see is a high sense of co operation between the provincial government and the

June 5, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 4559 national government. It is not just one provincial government. You know many, including myself, find it absolute ly amazing that in B. C. they attempted to exclude people from claiming social assi stance if they were not living in the province of B.C. for a number of months. That was under a New Democratic regime. I found that that was absolutely amazing, and you know what?

If it was not for the transfer payments, that block funding of cash, the federal government would not have been able or would not have been anywhere near as effective at forcing the New Democratic government in Ottawa to pay social payments to all Manitobans. In fact, as one of my friends expressed to me, if you carried that on to many, many years ago and you had that sort of a policy, Manitoba would not have very many people living in it.

That is the reason why it is important that we do have a strong national influence with respect to combatting child poverty, much like when the minister says, look, other parties in other jurisdictions, we all agreed this is an area, and we are all going to work together, but, Mr. Chairman, as someone that is in an opposition position, part of my responsibil ity is not only just to provide creative ideas and resolve all problems but is to point out where I can where the government does have some deficiencies.

I do believe that there are some areas within the province of Manitoba that this government needs to do more work towards. That is somewhat a digression from the question that was actually asking the minister, and that is the importance of those cash transfers. The minister indica ted that she has met with fellow ministers, her counterparts in other provinces. I would be interested in knowing if, in fact, they even had discussions along the line of the cash transfers because I think that is critical. The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says from the table, did he ask this question in Question Period?

The whole issue of devolution of powers is something which I am greatly concerned about, and one would think that the official opposition should also be greatly concerned about, especially New Democratic opposition, because I had thought that the New Democratic Party beli eved in the benefits of having a national, strong central government with strong, national standards, as he nods his head in the affirmative. He knows, as I do, if it were not for those national standards, that NDP government in B.C., Mr.

Chairperson, would have disallowed people in need to receive social assi stance only because they were not living in B.C. long enough. I am glad that the member for Burrows is with me in opposition to what the NDP in B. C. were supporting. That is the reason why it is absolutely critical that the government, the national government, the one which both I and the member for Burrows are in support of having good national standards and those standards to be enforced. The way in which you enforce those is you better have some levers.

The best lever you are going to have is cash, cash in hand, because if you allow it, and under Brian Mulroney-if the Chretien government did not make that change and set the base, what would have happened is the whole block fund would have gone towards tax transfer points. This government today does not acknowledge the tax point cash cow that it has received over the years. Today it does not acknowledge that, so why should we believe that they are going to acknowledge it in the future? That is what Mr. Charest was talking about, which really put a lot of confusion into the issue.

That is the reason why, over the last few days, it has been a very important issue for me personally, because I believe there needs to be a strong national government. There has to be that presence and that presence of co operation between the different jurisdic tions, all of the provinces and the national government, to ensure that child poverty, not only in the province of Manitoba but across Canada, is maintained.

The reason why you have to emphasize that time and time again is because I do not believe the government in Manitoba is advocating for a strong national government that has the ability to enforce national standards in three critical areas, post-secon dary education, health care, and family services. If I were to put them in an order of priority for me personally, health care is No. 1, followed by family services, then followed by post-seco ndary education. Every time I ask the question, we keep on getting stonewalled.

If you cannot have a province li ke Manitoba who has a vested interest in protecting those cash transfers, if we as a province are not going to be

4560 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 97 advocating that, then who is, outside of the federal government? If you look at the factions within Ottawa currently where you have only three national parties but two of those national parties are not that great in terms of numbers, and I can sympathize with them with respect to numbers in Chambers, Mr. Chairperson. I know the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and I would like to see us do the same sort of thing that the Conservative Party did in Ottawa and go from two to 20. We remember the good old days of 20.

I tell you, when we did have 20, this government was a little bit more accountable. Hopefully, some day soon we will be refurbished with a large number of Li beral MLAs. Anyway, I digress somewhat. * (1 550) The issue that I am looking for a comment from the minister on is the tax points versus the cash transfer. The reason why I ask that is because in her response she talked about the need for the co-operation of all parties and their working together and how Ottawa does have a respons ibil ity for funding programs. That is what the minister said in her respons e. Well, Mr.

Chairperson, I am asking her to carry it a little bit further and ask does she believe that the block funding, which is absolutely critical, is equally important in terms of ensuring that it remains as a cash transfer. Before I go on to the next component, I will leave it with the minister, see if she wants to respond to that. Mrs. Mitchelson: After all of that dialogue, I suppose-! am not sure exactly what I would call it-I want our fair share of dolla rs to come to Manitoba for Manitobans for programs that they deserve. That is as far as I am going to go.

My honourable friend can ask me again, but I want to indicate to him that I want to see Manitoba get its fair share of dolla rs from Ottawa. I will tell you, cash transfers were provided to Manitoba with 50-cent dolla rs for welfare programs and everything else, and as a result of block funding under the CHST, Manitoba is getting considerably less and the programs that we fund are no longer 50- cent dolla rs cost-shared. I do not know where my honourable friend is coming from. All I want to do is indicate that I want to see Manitoba get its fair share of dolla rs to support Manitobans in need. Mr.

Lamoureux: One of the things for a politicia n is to try to build their self-confidence, and I am beginning to question whether or not I am explaining it properly, because, you know, what I get from this minister is the same thing I get from the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and that is, they are saying we just want to ensure that we have our fair share. Well, the question that I have been trying to get across is, yeah, we all want to have our fair share.

There is no doubt about that, but not only do I want our fair share for today, I want to ensure that we are going to be able to protect our programs for tomorrow, and the ways in which we can do that is by looking at issues like block funding and trying to get anyone within the minister's-and there are five key people within this government that I would be so happy and so pleased if I could actually get a straight answer on that. And those people are hers truly, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson), the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Now, I would even settle for the second-in-com mand of the grand Pooh Bah. An Honourable Member: Jules Benson. Mr. Lamoureux: Jules Benson. Well, if Jules Benson could speak on Hansard, I might comment on that. An Honourable Member: He has had a lot of power, Big Jules has. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, he likely has more power than most of us, but anyway that kind of takes us a little bit off. I would dearly love to get at lea st one of those.

It would do me wonders in terms of my own self confidence in knowing that they understand what it is that Manitobans actually want. What they want is to have a government that recognizes the importance of issues such as child poverty not only today but also in future years, and the -

June 5, 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 456 1 best way we as provinces in Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces, Saskatchewan can ensure that is to watch the way in which our national government distributes their programs and their cash. I do not like it at all when I get a government or when see the prov incial government completely side stepping a ma jor issue when we are going into a summer when the minister meets with her counterparts, and I have absolutely no assurances from anyone from within this government speaking positively for cash transfers over the tax points.

It just does not make any sense, and I do not understand why it is or why the great reluctance. I could see it, you know, and maybe the mistake I made was I asked the question prior to the federal election and I put in Mr. Charest's name, and that would have meant that there would have had to have been a conflict in policy. Maybe I should not have asked that particular question then. An Honourable Member: Mr. who? Mr. Lamoureux: Charest.

Maybe I should not have asked the question then, but I do believe that Manitobans have a right to know what position this government is going to be taking on a critical issue when we are looking over the next year, year and a half , of the types of discussions that are going to be occurring with this minister and her counterparts and in the Premier of our province. If a constituent of mine asked me, I would not know what to tell him other than fair share. Well, that is nothing new. We would expect you to fight for the fair share. You would not accept for anything less than that, I sure hope.

But what we are asking for is some indication on policy, on what sort of a vision does this government have and maybe giving a national perspective. One does not have to be a member of Parliament in order to give a national perspective. One can be an MLA and be a proud Canadian at the same time and talk about the benefits of living in a federation which is second to none throughout the world. That is all I am asking the Minister of Family Services, and she could do a better job than the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), because he has waffled on the question-the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson), the Premier (Mr. Film on). I am not sure, I cannot recall right offhand if I have asked the Deputy Premier. If I have not, I will have to look at the research and no doubt I will get the opportunity at some point to have the same sort of a discussion. The relevancy for this particular minister, before I leave it with her, because I am hoping that she will say a li ttle bit more than just, we are fighting for our fair share.

The relevancy of this whole issue is because even though we are in provincial Estimates talking about child poverty, the national government, I believe, has a role, and its role is not going to go away in the future. * (1 600) I would argue that that role needs to be maintained into the future. What we have to do is ensure that there is going to be a national government that is going to have the abil ity to ensure that there are going to be some standards, especially when you compare Treasury Boards of Manitoba versus Onta rio or Al berta and other provinces.

You know, the biggest problem that I had with the Meech Lake was the opting-out clause, because under that particula r clause, Mr. Chairperson [interjection] The Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) says ditto. It is something which we recognize, that the federal government has a role, and in fighting child poverty, the federal government and the provincial government have to work together, or we will not get rid of child poverty. There are some changes that one has to be very much aware of. The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has a lot more in terms of resources.

That is why when we say, look, you have a responsibil ity not only to think about child poverty today but also for tomorrow, when you sit down with your ministers, if the Government of Canada, no matter what its political stripe might be, chooses to say, look, as a province you can opt out of this sort of a program, well, the minister I would think should be saying, just hold on a minute, as a province, and you should be building alliances with other provinces that do have a vested interest in saying

4562 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1997 that, look, by allowing for the opting out, the feds say here is a program that we are going to institute and, by the way, you can opt out of this and it is fighting child poverty. Well, Mr. Chairperson, the provinces that have the resources, plenty of resources, why would they not opt out, take the money, maybe add a little bit more, take the credit for the program? We might not necessarily be able to compete with those sorts of treasury boards. That is the reason why, when you meet with your other provincial counterparts, this should be an issue.

We sit for 240 hours of the Estimates, and we have lots of line-by-line discussions of, well, how is this dollar here being spent; how is that dollar here being spent. That occurs for 240 hours every year on the different lines, and those are important questions. But equally, and I would ultimately argue more important, are some of the principles that guarantee that we are going to be able to provide some of these social programs. That is where it takes leadership, Mr. Chairperson.

That is why the challenge to the minister-and I ask the minister to do something that her other provincial ministers have not done, and actually reinforce that, yes, there is a need with respect to the transfer payments, that cash, that block, to ensure that it remains cash transfers. Ideally, it would be nice to see that cash transfer increased and, hopefully, it will increase. The government will always have my support in terms of lobbying for more. I would like to see some sort of objectives coming from the provinces saying that, look, we would like to see the cash transfer hit this percentage of a budget, Mr.

Chairperson; get some goals so that we can strive to achieve those goals. That is the way in which we can reassure Canadians that we are going to have a government that is going to be able to ensure that there are standards. In the long term, that is in the best interests of Manitobans. That is the reason why I believe this is an absolutely critical question. The Minister of Family Services should be bold. know she has been bold in the past on certain issues.

This is one of those issues which I would say that she could say a few words, and if she does say it in a very positive way, I promise not to ask the question on Monday trying to put the minister or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on the spot, but I reserve it for Tuesday. Mrs. Mitchelson: I have already answered that question. Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I do not want to beat a dead horse, or I think it was the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed)- Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on a point of order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Chairperson, I take some offence to my honourable friend talking about beating a dead horse. I wonder if he was referring to me. Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, in defence of the minister, I would not want anyone to misconstrue the Chairperson's remarks. I would never even want to remotely imply that the minister would be anywhere close to being a dead horse. I have a deep amount of respect for many of the things that the minister has, in fact, done.

If she did take any offence to that comment, I would be more than happy to retract it. Mr. Chairperson, I will leave it, but in the back of my mind I hope at some point in time to raise the issue once again in hopes that she will have some time, maybe over the summer, to rethink, and would strongly recommend to her that when she does meet with her federal counterparts that she does have to think in terms of the long term, not just strictly within the province, because the long term, in fact, protects the interest of the province also.

I know there was a will to try to pass this minister's line so we can go on to a diff

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-3-56b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 3rd hansardpdf 56b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	28fd65150635216864e10015707619734d52e8ce

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