Manitoba Hansard — 28 July 1986 (Sitting 55A, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-55a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 28 July, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. MR. CLER K, W. Remnant: lt is my duty to inform the House that Madam Speaker is unavoidably absent and would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair, in accordance with the Statutes . OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Deputy Sp eaker. MR. DE PUTY SPEA KER, C. Sant os: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Sp ecial Commit tees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. DE PUTY SPEA KER: The Ho nourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, since its inception, the Development Agreement Program of the Manitoba Jobs Fund has served the province well, helping to maintain, preserve, create jobs, serving as a catalyst for industrial expansion, providing incentive for the attraction and development of new industry in Manitoba. This afternoon, my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, is in Carberry to announce a new develop agreement of great significance to our provincial economy, especially our agricultural sector.

I'm pleased to tell the House that with Manitoba Jobs Fund assistance and with the participation of the Federal Government, the Carnation Com pany is embarking on a major expansion in modernization of its potato processing plant in Carberry. Through the Jobs Fund, the Province of Manitoba is making available to Carnation a $1.5 million forgivable loan as its share of the expansion project which will cost $38 million. This was one of the largest investments ever to be undertaken in Manitoba's food processing industry.

The Manitoba Jo bs Fund contributio n will enable the Carberry plant to reach an average employment level of 400 jobs by 1991. This is an expansion of 50 jobs over the current annual average. In addition, 50 construction jobs will be sustained through to 1989. The expanded Carberry plant will allow Carnation to produce on a large scale specialized processed potatoes which are currently imported from the United States. With expansion, Carberry will be quick to compete in the rapid expanding markets of Japan, giving Manitoba processed food products important exposure in the valuable Pacific rim countries.

The expanded Carberry plant will mean a substantial increase in Manitoba's potato acreage which will further diversify land use in the province, while at the same time, setting off a ripple that will bring increased benefits to retail merchants, truckers, manufacturers of storage facilities and dealers and machinery and chemicals. 2263 Most impor tant for the agricultural sector, this development agreement and expansion will trigger increased annual cash receipts to potato producers of more than $17 .5 million. lt is further projected that the indirect benefits will generate addit ional economic activity of $42 million annually, making the Jobs Fund investment a solid, sound and a practical decision.

As Premier of Manitoba, I welcome this great show of confidence in Manitoba's producers. I'm especially gratified to note that the expanded plants' production will replace current imports who offer great potential for expanded exports of Manitoba processed potatoes. I am also pleased to note that Manitoba potato production will continue to be market led with expansion occurring in a non-speculative fashion in a period of generally depressed farm prices. This expansion underlines the benefits th at can accrue through diversification in land use and in agriculture.

I can assure the House today that my government will work to ensure that the full potential, both domestic and export, at the Carberry plant is realized. All members of this House will agree that the Carberry, Western Manitoba, and the entire province will be well served by this latest development agreement. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I'm delighted to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative side of the Legislature, in the Opposition side of the Legislature, to congratulate the Premier, or to welcome the announcement that he's making. We are always delighted to see a company, such as Carnation Foods, expanding in the Manitoba economy, investing a considerable amount of money in long-term job creation.

That is the objective and the goal that all of us have for the future of our economy to see private sector companies taking the risk and making the investment that will allow for increased employment, increased economic opportunities, and of cour se increased spinoff benefits througho ut the agricultur al sector of our economy. We're delighted to learn of this announcement tod ay, and particularly to know that the government is supportive of Carnation Foods in their endeavours to expand in the Manitoba economy. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to just mention that although this initiative is attributed to the Jobs Fund, it's the sort of thing that governments in the past have entered into development agreements, through the Agro-Man part of our responsibility in the past, have resulted in initiatives such as this taking place by private-sector companies where the government has participated by way of agreements for infrastructure development and other investment in the economy. I want to point out, Mr.

Deputy Sp eaker, of course that the Premier has attempted to take full credit for the 50 additio nal jobs, the increase in employment and

Monday, 28 July, 1986 spinoff benefits where it's pretty evident that the investment is a $1.5 million forgivable loan and a $38 million expansion . Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would say that the Premier ought not to attempt to take too much credit for the initiative that's been put forward by this corporation. He ought to congratulate them; he ought to indicate that indeed the government is supportive and the government, in a small way, is endeavouring to assist , but that this is an initiative of the company .

This is an initiative in which the company has taken the lion's share of the risk and made the major portion of the investment. We congratulate the government for finally recognizing that indeed the private sector operators are the people who are the engine of growth in our economy. They are the people who must initiate these sorts of things. If government can assist in making, in some small way, it easier for them to undertake this expansion, that is indeed an appropriate role for government . So I thank the Premier for the announcement.

We congratulate Carnation Foods on showing and demonstrating their confidence and their ability to expand and the good things that they will be doing for our economy in future. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . ORAL QUESTIONS Brandon University - Perkins' settlement MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Premier . I wonder if the government has now received a copy of the financial settlement between the fired president, Dr.

Perkins, and the Board of Governors of Brandon University with respect to his wrongful dismissal suit. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe the particulars of that settlement were released on Friday or Saturday. I'd refer to the Minister of Education for a more specific response, but I believe that information has already been made public. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education . HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes, the Brandon University Board of Governors released the terms of the settlement on Friday.

There was a joint press release made by Dr. Perkins and the university releasing the information, and it has been made available publicly. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, has the Premier , on behalf of the government , in response to his letter to the chairman of the Board of Governors, received a copy of the settlement? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Firs t Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker , in my letter to the Board of Governors, I indicated to them my preference that the settlement be made publi c.

As a consequence of my letter to the Board of Governors , they have made it public , according to the wide coverage that it received over the weekend. MR. G. FILMON: Has the Premier had a chance to review the settlem ent and the details that were contained in that settlement? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deput y Speaker , certainly I'm aware of the details of the settlement. MR. G. FILMON : Mr. Deputy Speaker, has the Premier reviewed the settlement so that he is conversant with the details of the settlement ? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, certainly in general, I'm quite familiar with the details of the settlement arrived at between the Brandon University, the Board of Governors and Mr. Perkins. MR. G. FILMON : Mr. Deputy Speaker , I wonder if the Premier would be good enough to table a copy of the settlement so that we may peruse it now. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I thought I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that I had indicated to the Board of Governors my preference to make the contents of same public ; that has been done.

I don't know whether the Minister of Education has a copy of the specifics of the settlement, but that has been obviously already made public, pursuant to my request. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, since the Premier doesn't know whethe r the Minister of Education has a copy of it, he obviously hasn 't seen a copy of it; so I would like to ask the Premier if he would endeavour to obtain a copy of the sett lement and provide us with a copy of the settlement so that we may peruse it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Educ·ation. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I have indicated that Brandon University has made them available . If the Leader of the Opposition would wish, he could certainly avail himself of a copy. I believe the Brand on University library has copies, as does the legal office which represented Brandon University , in Winnipeg, has copy available . MR. G. FILMON : Mr. Deputy Speaker , are we to assume then that the Premier does not want to obtain a copy of the settlement, and is comfortable just to have it in 2264

Monday, 28 July, 1986 the library at Brandon University and to have it in the hands of the media of the province? Isn't he interested himself, in looking at the settlement? MR. DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Fi rst Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: The Leader of the Opposition ought to be fully aware that this is a public document. lt is a document that has now been made public for the general public at large. it's on file at the Brandon University. I'm sure that we can mail one to the Leader of the Opposition - can obtain and mail one to the Leader of the Opposition.

I don't know why the Leader of the Opposition cannot simply obtain one himself, like any other Manitoban. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speak er, If it hadn't been for questioning from this side of the House, nobody would have had an opportunity to avail themselves of that settlement. This Premier was denying everybody that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: The statement by the Leader of the Opposition that if it had not been for questions from this side of the House, that the document wouldn't be made public, is absolutely false.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speak er, the record will show clearly that after three or four days of questioning, finally the Premier asked for the copy. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition have a supplementary question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, I do. Mr. Deputy Speak er, my question to the Minister of Education is: Having now had an oppo rtu nity to perus e the effects of the settlement between Dr. Perkins and Brandon University, will he now correct the initial impression that he gave that the settlement had nothing to do with the dropping of the case between Dr.

Perkins and Professor Errol Black? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the specific question that was asked of me related to the specific use of public funds for the resolving of issues outside of the disagreement between Dr. Perkins, the University of Brandon and the Brandon Board of Governors. I had indicated that on two separate occasions I had contacted the vice-chair of the Brandon University of Governors and it was indicated to me that no funds were used for that purpose. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, it came as a surprise to myself to find it referenced in the agreement. However, I indicate that no sum was attached to that. lt was nonetheless referenced in the agreement and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I indicated to the Member for Brandon West, when he raised the issue, that upon his question I contacted Dr. Stewart and that was the advice that I was given. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that one of the terms of the settlement agreement is the dropping of the suit against Professor Errol Black and that the whole of the settlement involves $1 million over a period of 10 years, is that not firm indication that there was some cost to the dropping of the suit against Professor Errol Black? Will the Premier not investigate this and now find out why the Minister of Education was misinformed by the acting chairman of the Board of Governors of Brandon University? HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I do not know tha t the Memb er for Tu xedo can say tha t I was misinformed by - however, there may have been a misunderstanding about what the implications of the Member for Brandon West's questions were. However, I indicated to the House the response that I had received to that specific question on two occasions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member references the $1 million settlement. I indicated on another occasion and it has been reported previously that the settlement, whether there had been the legal wrangling or not, would have involved a tenured position for Dr.

Perkins, whether he remained as president or not; that was part of the initial discussions. I think it is a little bit misleading to include that as part of the settlement. I acknowledge that the settlement is unfortunate and perhaps horrendous in many points of view; however, Mr. Deputy Speak er, those kinds of discussions, those kinds of negotiations, are not unusual in the removal of executives from private corporations, or in fact from the severance arrangements that had been arranged previously in universities in Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I point out to the members opposite, and the Leader of the Opposition should be fully aware of this, that in fact six senior officers at a university 197 9-80 were removed, and in fact that they were negotiated settlements that came about of that -t he same kind of expending of public funds to maintain the integrity of the institution. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I remind all members that question period is not a time for debate, that answers should be as brief as possible, dealing with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I quote from Hansard, in response to the question as to whether or not funds administered by Brandon University on behalf of the people of Manitoba were being used to settle a lawsuit between Dr. Perkins and this private individual, referring earlier to Professor Errol Black. The Minister said on Friday, the 11 th of July: "Madam Speaker, yesterday the Member for Brandon West asked me about the relationship between the University Board 2265

Monday, 28 July, 1986 of Governors and the Professor at the University and I indicated, at that time, it was a spurious allegation. I can confirm today that it was." Will the Minister of Education now apologize to the Member for Brandon West and this House for indicating that his question was a spurious allegation when, in fact, the information indicates that the settlement includes the dropping of a suit against Dr. Errol Black, and his allegation was indeed correct? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I indicated to the Member for Tuxedo that the reference to the question was relating to funding.

I asked that specific question and received a negative response from the vice-chair of the University of Brandon Board of Governors. I indicated that there is no reference in the agreement to any public sum of money relating to that issue. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I inadvertently advised that it was not part of the agreement, I have indicated that, until I received the agreement Friday morning, I did not know that. That was not indicated to me by the vice-chair. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was responding to a specific question about funding directly to the resolution of that issue. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Deputy Sp eak er, when he responded on the 11 th of Ju ly, the Minister of Education indicated that he had investigated the matter. Is he saying now that he did not ask whether the lawsuit agai nst Pr ofessor Errol Black was part of the settlement? Did he not ask the acting chairman of the board that question? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I indicated to the member on three separate occasions that the question raised by the Member for Brandon West about the specific use of public funds was raised with the vice-chair, and I've indicated the response that he gave to me. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, did the Mi nister of Education attempt to ascertain whether the suit against Professor Errol Black was part of the settlement when he spoke to the lawyer or the Acting Chairman of the Board of Brandon University? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speak er, I can only indicate that, with reference to the use of public funds, yes, that was inquired; that inquiry was made. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speak er, the Minister appears not to want to und erstand my question. I'm not asking, with respect to the use of public funds.

Did he ask whether or not the suit against Professor Errol Black was part of the settlement when he asked either the lawyer or the Chairman of the Board of Brandon University? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've indicated the basis on which I asked the question. I did not make any reference to whether it was included in the agreement specifically that has been tabled by Brandon University. I've indicated, from the inception of this difficulty, that Brandon University's goal was to get this behind them, that the question was leadership and that's been resolved.

I believe that every public statement made by Dr. Perkins, by the University Board of Governors, by members in this Cham ber, has been to the effect that, yes, we would like Brand on University to have this issue behind them. I believe that's been resolved. The members opposite indicated they would like to see the details of the negotiated settlement. That, as well, has been responded to by the Board of Governors. I don't know what more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the members opposite want. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition. He's got a supplementary question? MR. G.

FILMON: I'm asking a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Will he and his government be terminating immediately the appointments of those members of the Board of Governors of Brandon University, appointments made by this administration that made the decision that resulted in a wrongful di smissal suit, a wrongful dismissal suit that has now been settled for more than a million dollars of taxpayers' money?

Will they be asking for the resignation, the immediate termination of the appoin tm ents of th ose people they have appointed to the Board of Governors, who have acted improperly in this dismissal of Dr. Perkins? MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there appears to continue to be misunderstanding on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. There has been no settlement for $1 million. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Go to Brandon, Pawley. MR. D. ORCHARD: We don't need any more of Evans' friends. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I was there on the weekend; your name's mud. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the Premier denying the details of the settlement that have been published in several news reports over the weekend that place the total value of the settlement with Dr. Perkins over the 10-year period in which he will receive payments from Brandon University at $1 million? Is he denying that information? HON. H. PAWLEY: The figure of $1 million is incorrect. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the Premier give us the correct figure then? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that question is repetitive.

The Minister of Education has already, 2266

Monday, 28 July, 1986 twice, attempted to explain to the Leader of the Opposition the precise terms of the settlement and the reason that an amount of money is being included in a particular article, which not ought to be included, because it would have occurred in any event. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the Premier give us the correct figure, in the view of his government, for this settlement with Dr. Perkins? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are again being quite repetitive. We had indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that the terms of the settlement can be obtained.

Also the Minister of Education, I thought, attempted to advise the Leader of the Opposition, but the Leader of the Opposition appeared to fail to listen as to the terms of the settlement; and probably the Minister of Education again should convey the accurate information to the Leader of the Opposition so he could be better informed. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in addition to the settlement, details of which have been on all the news media on the weekend, according to the Premier, the settlement that has been characterized as a million dollar settlement with Dr.

Perkins, in addition to that, what were the legal costs in making that settlement with Dr. Perkins? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with reference to the Leader of the Opposition's earlier question, certainly if he had availed himself or if he does avail himself of a copy of the agreement, he will be able to put to rest the assumptions that he is making about the cost. lt is closer to $240,000, Mr. Deputy Speak er, $38,000 of that goes directly to Mr. Perkins.

The remainder is in pension funds. 1t has been indicated on a number of occasions that the reference to the long-term employment is irrelevant, in the sense that was offered prior to, and would have followed as a result of Mr. Perkins' wilful stepping down from the presidency, so I think that it is clear. We should have the numbers on the record. I believe the release of that information has done that; and I indicate to the member as well that this is not a precedent.

Universities have, from time to time, sett led di sagreements, profes sional dis putes, by way of negotiated settlements, rather than recourse through the courts. lt is not unusual; it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government and I might add, in total, at substantially more cost to the public than what has occurred here. I point out again, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the complete fallacy, the lack of judgment shown by the Leader of the Opposition in concluding that because there was a wrongful dism issal suit, that that nonetheless, was not a necessary action on the Board of Governors. lt has never denied, I believe, tha t th ere were prob lems at Brandon University. The faculty , the students, the community believe that there was a need for a change in leadership. That occurred. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will never know what the price of not acting would have been to Brandon University and its future. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have one final question for the Premier. Given that the Board of Governors, which has been appoi nted largely by Brandon Universit y, was responsible for a wrongful dismissal of Dr. Harold Perkins that will cost the taxpayers of Manitoba a total of a million dollars or more, will he not now immediately revoke the appointments of these people responsible and change those members of the Board of Governors of Brandon University? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Tu xedo persists in sugges ting that Brandon University Board of Governors have shown to be guilty of wrongful dismissal.

That conclusion could only have been stated with the kind of certainty that the Leader of the Opposition pretends, as if it had been pursued through courts. I indicated some time ago that I had contacted the lawyer for Brandon University Board of Governors, indicated that, yes, he believed that there was sufficient evidence for the initial action and he believed that it was possible that Brandon University would win. However, he indicated there was no certainty.

The difficulty for the Board of Governors was - and would have been, had this settlement not been negotiated, and we all agree that it's an unfortunate incident - however, it may or may not have been necessary. I don't believe that it's as clear-cut that it wasn't, as the member opposite; and I don't believe that the university faculty, the Brandon University faculty or the students or the community back in that time believed that it was unnecessary either. I believe they thought it was necessary. Remedial Writing Program - University of Manitoba MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C.

BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. The Dean of Arts and Science, Dean Michael Mclntyre at the University of Winnipeg, has indicated he wants to make it mandatory to introduce a writing program at the University of Manitoba concerning the writing skills of the students coming into that institution. He also indicated that it would be accepted by the private and public, as well as the students.

My question to the Minister of Education is: Is he supp ortive of Dean Mcl ntyre's plan to provide mandatory writing programs and does he agree that the students need these upgrading skills? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not seen the specific proposal mentioned by the Member for Fort Garry. I would indicate that, as with any testing, whether it's a standard achievement test or otherwise, to the 2267

Monday, 28 July, 1986 extent that it would unduly limit access to universities by those who, for whatever reasons, are having unusual difficulties, that it may a cause for concern. I wouldn't rule it out of hand. I would have to see the proposal and see how it was to be implemented before I could comment on its usefulness as a practice in our post secondary education institutions. MR. C.

BIRT: Considering that the program is a remedial program and not an exclusive or an exclusion program, I would ask, considering the Minister and his colleagues have taken great delight to keep promoting the fact that for 13 of the last 17 years they have been in power in this province, why is it necessary for a university to establish a writing skill program for its students to qualify to graduate from their institution? A MEMBER: Good question. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer the member's questions, I'm not sure that it is.

This is the first time that I've heard it raised, this specific proposal raised. I would like to inform the member that the universities in Manitoba are not alone in their attempts to deal with deficiencies as they become apparent in the university system; and that those may or may not directly reflect on the curricu lum, the teaching, those elements which go into producing a post-secondary gr aduate. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't believe the solution that's prop osed is necessarily an answer to the problems that universities face.

We believe that a much better solution is to work within the system to continue to refine our curriculum so that the end result will be high school grad uates which can all achie ve a satisfactory level at the universities. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask then: Will the Minister investigate why the dean and the universities in general seem to think it is necessary to institute remedial programs to allow students to qualify to gradu ate from their universities? HON. J. STORIE: Well, Mr . Deputy Sp eaker, I've indicated that this was the first time I have been made aware of this particular proposal.

I will certainly be wanting to follow up the proposal to see what merits it has and how it would be used and what the intention of such a writing course would be. Then I will be in a better position to reflect on what implication it has for the high school program in Manitoba. McCain's Foods Ltd., Portage MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Environment.

On July 21, 1986, during the Estimates, the Member for Portage la Prairie brought up some concerns regarding McCain's plant, Portage, where he suggested undue harassment, and that McCain's was being put under undue pressure and expense. He further goes on to say, I think that the department is going a little hairy. I'm told by people involved that some of the officials are very pompous and very arrogant and very domineering. I would like to ask the Minister, has he investigated these charges and allegations? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The member also made those charges in regard to staff on July 18 in the House. I want to state that there is indeed expansion not taking place, but that has taken place at McCain's in Portage la Prairie. The hearings took place under the normal procedures when a plant expansion occurs which has environmental impa cts. The y are requir ed to register with the department. If there are objectors, as there were indeed in this pa rticular case, the Clean Environment Commission is responsible for holding public hearings; which were held on Thu rsday the 17th, the day before this was raised in the House.

I have received the letter from the plant manager in Portage la Prairie, which I shall table, and it's copy to the Member for Portage la Prairie, in which he says: "I was surprised to learn from news reports that this same matter was discussed in the Legislature on Friday. I would like to reaffirm our desire to continue working in cooperation with your division staff to add ress and resolve environmental situa tions pertinent to our operation here." MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementary, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Where does this particular matter stand at the moment regarding McCain's expansion and their relationships with the other departmental staff? HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I've indicated McCain's has proceeded with its expansion, is operating with that expansion in place now, as allowed under the act and the results of the hearings will be made in due time. As I said, the hearing took place only on the 17th, the day before this was raised in the House.

As I indicated at the time when I took the particulars of this question under advisement, that there was certainly no harassment on part of the staff as is indeed vouched for by the letter from the Manager of McCain's in Portage la Prairie. Indeed, the remark which had been made that these hearings were being held at a time when no objections had taken place, were proved to be unfounded. Capital pun ishment MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a question for the Attorney-General.

Manitobans, and I'm sure all Canadians, would be repulsed to learn of the discovery of an 11-year-old girl in a ravine and a 27 -month-old girl found in a garbage can, both murdered respectively in Toronto in Woodstock, Ontario. I would ask the Attorney-General whether he would consider recommending or supporting revisions to the Criminal Code which would impose capital punishment in these cases? 2268

Monday, 28 July, 1986 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney General. HON. R. PENNER: That question is not a question within my ministerial competence and I think the question is out of order; and I'm not going to deal with the qu estion of capital punishment in this House. it's an emotional issue and I think the Member for St.

No rb ert doe s a di sservice to the tragedy - (Interjection) - he does. it's exploiting the tragedy of those families to raise that issue in this House for purely political reasons and I for one will not allow the tragedy of people of that kind to be exploited for the narrowest of cheap, political motives. MR. DEPUTY SPEA KER: Order please. All the members of the House know that questions should be within the ministerial competence of the Province of Manitoba. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General attends meetings of Mi nisters of Justice and Attorney-Generals across Canada on an annual basis or even more often and consider amendments to the Criminal Code at all of those meetings, I ask the Attorney-General to state for the members of this House and the people of Manitoba, what is his position with respect to that matter? HON. R. PENNER: The minute the Minister of Justice or Solicitor General has the courage to put that question on the agenda of one of our meetings, at that point I will have to have a position, I suppose, for that meeting.

At that time, if I have a position and if I state it, I will advise this House. MR. G. MERCIER : A supplementary, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker. I ask the Attorney- General, is he mo re interested in dealing with prosecuting 93-year-old bootleggers than in dealing with this particular problem? HON. R. PENNER: The actions taken against that bootlegger were taken by the City of Winnipeg police, right? And they were not taken at my instance.

Again, we have the former Attorney-General who should know better, trying to wriggle out of the corner he's painted himself in this afternoon by accusing me of prosecuting that particular case. The facts of that case are apparently - I gather from a quick perusal of this morning's paper - somewhat in doubt. I, for one, while the case is still pending, would not make it the subject of debate in this House and I'm sorry that he does. Land Titles Office - work backlog MR. DE PUTY SPEA KER: The Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Attorney-General.

On May 27 the Minister said in this House regarding the Land Titles Office: "We've increased term staff to increase the turnaround time so that those out there who are waiting for titles can get them as soon as possible while we're waiting to computerize." In light of that statement, can the Minister explain why the time for processing land titles in Manitoba has increased from 16 days last summer to 35 days at the present time? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney General. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, indeed, I have - at least I hope - an intelligent answer; and the answer is, we still have tho se five term people but because of the economic policies which this government has been pursuing, we are leading the country in terms of economic activity in the field of housing and housing starts, in housing sales and the volume in the Land Titles Office has increased far beyond anybody's expectations as a result of our policies. Indeed, we may have to add some additional term staff to cope with the success of our own policies and we would be prepared to do it. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary, Mr.

Deputy Speak er. In light of the last statement, can the Minister assure us that some of the $800,000 in increased fees to be charged to those purchasing real estate in Manitoba, will be in fact put in place to hire additional staff? HON. R. PENNER: it's my hope that that will be the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Supply management commodities MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In view of the fact that all agricultur al products will be on the table at the bilateral trade talks with the United States, what will be the implications of the negotiations for supply management commodities, such as broilers, eggs, turkeys and vegetables? And my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the honourable member for his question. There have been meetings between officials in our department and Industry, Trade and Technology in Ottawa with the federal negotiator.

From our information and our advice to them is that the supply-managed commodities that the member makes reference to would, in fact, be decimated if they were put on the table and traded away in some areas. As well, the vegetable industry, of course, would lose its preferential treatment in terms of the seasonality of support and tariff protection that is now being afforded by present agreements with the United States. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Lac du Bonnet with a supplementary. MR. C. BAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 2269

Monday, 28 July, 1986 Just what mechanism is his department using to bring this to the attention of the negotiator? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, what we have done is, during our discussions at the official's level and at our meetings nationally, at Ministers' meetings, we've taken the position that we should focus the present discussions as it relates to agriculture primarily on non-tariff trade barriers. The issues that we've had with the United States in the pork industry, with the use of chloramphenicol as a health hazard, are those kinds of issues that should be discussed.

We should continue to make our position in the way that we have stable access to U.S. markets. We should not be put in the position, as we have in the past, to react and respond to the whims of either U.S. Governors or the U.S. Congress in terms of having a lack of access to U.S. markets. We need the long-term stable access, and not trade away the key commodities that have given producers in this country years of stable income protection and have given consumers a steady supply of fresh product at reasonable prices. Property tax increases MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The City of Winnipeg figures show average increase for property owners in suburban school divisions in Winnipeg will increase from 11 percent to as high as 306 percent. Will the Minister now proclaim Bill 10 5 to protect suburban property owners from outrageous tax increases? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speak er. I've seen the article, but I haven't seen those figures in any great detail. However, as I've said before, proclamation of

Section 2 of Bi1110 5 will not do anything to address that problem. We will be meeting with the city in the next month or so, once we have more up to-date, valid information, to look at ways to prevent any undesirable shift of taxes on City of Winnipeg residents, but that will be looked at when we have the information that's required. MRS. G. HAMMOND: A supplementary question to the same Minister. Will the Minister bring in other legislation then, this Session, that will assure City of Winnipeg property tax owners, the people in the suburbs, that they will not be hit with high taxes?

Will he protect them in this Session, and not wait until next? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The appropriate decisions will be made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, once we have relevant, up-to-date information and time to think through the possible solutions. I would hope that there would be sufficient time to introduce legislation, if need be, at the next Session to deal with the potential increase in taxes.

However, I think all members should be aware that there will be some increases, even within the residential, when you have a system that is something like 30 years out of date. lt may well be that, in some of the suburbs, the impact will be felt, but we will look at ways of minimizing the impact. Watershed Conservation Districts - funding to MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Can the Mi nister indicate whether the water conservation districts have all received their money that was supposed to be allocated to them for this year? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIA K: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I had indicated in this Chamber in answering a question on another occasion, the money that is allocated to the water conservation districts is disbur sed in interim appropriations. A large percentage of the funds had been sent out earlier and, more recently, there was another interim appropriation made.

I cannot indicate to you whether the conservation districts are in receipt of those appropriations, but they have gone through the necessary appropriations within government to see that they are on their way to the conservation districts. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. COMMITT EE CHANGES MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speak er. Before moving us into commi ttee to discuss the Estimates, perhaps there are some committee changes. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker.

I have a change to the Public Utilities and Natural Resources: Slake for Kovnats. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: A substitution, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, the Member for The Pas substituting for the Member for Burrows on Public Utilities. ORDERS OF THE DA Y MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Ho use Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Again, before moving the motion, I believe there is an inclination on the part of members 2270

Monday, 28 July, 1986 to forego Private Members' Hour today and continue through with Estimates to 5:30, and then picking up again at 8:00 p.m. I move now, seconded by the Min ister responsible for Native Affairs, that Mr. Deputy Speaker do leave the Chair and the House resolve itse!f into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for Health; and the Honourable Member for Kildonan in the Chair for Education. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: Committee, come to order. We're on Page 51, Item 3., Resolution 48, Financial Su pport - Public Schools - the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Can the Minister explain what the categories of school grants are as they relate to that $400 million?

Now, I can appreciate there may be some very small ones but I want, in a general sense, the listing of the types of school grants that are available under this $400 million. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, the breakdown is: Statutory Grants, 394 - I'll read off a more exhaustive list. MR. C. BIRT: This is of the Statutory Grants? MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify the question. There seems to be a little confusion here. Under Item 3.(

a) School Grants and Other Assistance, you are looking for their categories dividing up the $40 1 million. MR. C. BIRT: That is correct. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, referring back to my less exhaustive list: $394 million of that is called Statutory Grants; Miscellaneous Special Grants, $1 38,000; the Winnipeg Special Grant $2. 1 million; Non- resident Grant, $287.4; Special Needs Grant, $464,100; Sacre Coeur, $91 ,000; School Tax Rebate 24; and Institutional Programs $3.6 million. MR. C. BIRT: The last one Institutional Grants, was it 3.6? HON. J. STORIE: 3.6. And that adds up to - I rounded some of those off - 400. 1.

MR. C. BIRT: Could we get a breakdown on the statutory grants, please, of the $394 million? Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the Minister has a copy that might make it easier for us just to refer to, if not, we'll take notes. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, the block grants represents 377 million, recognizing there are essentially 2271 three components, the categorical grants, equalization grants and the block grants. The block is 377.8 million. MR. C. BIRT: Whoa, could we back up category? HON. J. STORIE: Categorical? MR. C. BIRT: Yes. How much was that? HON. J.

STORIE: Equalization and block, or block, equalization and categorical. MR. C. BIRT: How much was the categorical grant? HON. J. STORIE: 91. 6 million. MR. C. BIRT: And the equalization grant? HON. J. STORIE: 63.8 million. Which gives you a total of $533.3 million. MR. C. BIRT: The line 3.(

a) refers to almost 40 1 million, how do we get to 533 million? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, if the member will recall, when we talked last night in the Capital, that 65 percent represented the provincial contributions out of provincial revenue and the 35 percent came out of ESL. Removing from that 533 figure should be the ESL, education support levy, which would take us down to Mr. Chairperson, then there are a number of other admi nistrative costs, other support to private schools; that gives you a total funding of 594 million. Then from that, you subtract the ESL contribution. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: I take it then it's really the 594 million less the 400 million will give you your ESL figure. Is that correct? HON. J. STORIE: Essentially, yes. I believe the ESL is - what? - 190 million, 19 0.9 million. Mr. Chairperson, the Member for Fort Garry has a question. MR. C. BIRT: The block grant of 370-odd million, is that the formula of funds that goes to each of the school divisions? If that is not the correct description of it, could the Minister then advise what the criteria is for the block grant? HON. J.

STORIE: That's the total of the block grants that go to school divisions. The member wanted as well the formula. Do you want the formula? MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member want the formula? The Minister can give you that. MR. C. BIRT: The formula, I take it, is the one that's set out in the regulations. No, I'm not interested in that. The Minister, in giving me some supplementary information, I think broke down into categories or groupings what formula gets what sum of money out

Monday, 28 July, 1986 of the 377 million. No, he didn't. Can you give me, of that 377 million - there's a group of school divisions on the GSE formula. lt shows 19 86, and I'm referring to your funding of 19 86 programs. Can you break that out as to what grouping gets what sum of money under this block formula? HON. J. STORIE: No, Mr. Chairperson, we don't have that breakdown. I think the member may have or I can certainly give him verbally the percentage increase that each school division got however in overall operating support, I should say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the memb er want th at information? MR. C.

BIRT: Yes, I'd like to have it. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Ch airperson, I hope we're referring to the same sheets. Essentially what you would like to know is what percentage increase each of those divisions received? MR. C. BIRT: Each category. HON. J. STORIE: Each category. In other words, for each school division the percentage or the block grant, the categorical and the equalization. Mr. Chairperson, we don't have those figures as percentages, but I can give you total amounts for each of the three. Perhaps I could just give the member a copy of this sheet. Would that be easy? MR. C. BIRT: Mr.

Chairman, that sheet of paper is not helpful, because it doesn't pull out into groupings the way this information has been given to us. Isn't there a formula or is there a percentage or some way of saying that the east-end school divisions got a 3.8 percent increase over last year? The next column got 2.8 percent. HON. J. STORIE: lt wasn't broken down that way, no. MR. C. BIRT� Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if it can be done without too much difficulty because it's difficult, just looking at this row of numbers, to try and figure out who is getting what on what formula. I note that this just relates to 19 86.

On the gross numbers, even if we were to try and break this down, we wouldn't get a percentage increase over last year. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, we can do that. I believe the percentage increases are available for the total. Perhaps it would be simplest if I just read the percentage change. Winnipeg, for example, is 2. 7 percent total change; St. James-Assinboia is .6 percent change; Assiniboine South 7.3; St. Boniface 1. 9 percent; Fort Garry 4. 1 percent; St.

Vital 3.6 percent; 0 percent in Norwood; 4.6 percent in River East; 5.9 percent in Seven Oaks; 3 percent in Lord Selkirk; 5.4 percent in Transcona Spri ngfield; Agassiz 1. 2; Seine River 11 percent; Hanover 6.9 percent; Boundary minus .3 percent; Red River 3.2 percent; Rhin eland .1 percent; Morr is Macdonald 1.1 percent; White Horse Plains 4. 1 percent; lnterlake 4.8 percent; Evergreen .9 percent; Lakeshore .2 percent; Portage la Prairie 2.3 percent; Midland 1. 5 percent; Garden Valley 9 percent; Pembina Valley 1. 2 percent; Mountain 2.9; Tiger Hills 1. 8; Pine Creek 4.6; Beautiful Plains 2 percent; Turtle River 3.9; Dauphin Ochr e .7; Duck Mo untain 6.4; Swan Valley 3.4; lntermountain .5 percent; Pelly Trail 2 percent; Birdtail River 1.1 percent; Rolling River 1. 7 percent; Brandon 2.9 percent; Fort la Bosse minus .1 percent; Souris Valley 2.3 percent; Antler River 0 percent; Tu rtle Mountain .5 percent; Kelsey 4.5 percent; Flin Flon 2.1 percent; Western 2.1 percent; Frontier 3.4 percent; Churchill minus .8 percent.

Do you have these as well? These are all on this list? MR. C. BIRT: Yes. HON. J. STORIE: Okay. Snow Lake . 1 percent; Lynn Lake 3.6 percent; Mystery Lake 4.2 percent; Sprague minus .3 percent; Leaf Rapids 4. 7 percent; Gypsumville .2 percent, and that's it. MR. C. BIRT: Those percentages were just referring to the block or was it the total program support increase. HON. J. STORIE: Total operating support. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DER KACH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin with I'd like to just get into the area of the funding formula and the three different formulas which are in place at the present time. Can the Minister first of all indicate to us how the 19 85 formula differs from the 19 86 formula? HON. J. STORIE: The difference between the'85 formula and the '86 formula essentially flows from discussions, I guess, with school divisions about the appropriateness of the total GSE being based on supportable expenditures.

The change essentially is that both the categorical and equivalent equalization grants are now 100 percent dollars essentially based on full funding, provincial or full share of support. Only the block supp ort remains tied to the supportable expenditures.

Again, that's a request that came to us via the school division that the differentiation need to occur because of, I suppose, particularly those involved in equalization with the recognition that they were already receiving equalization payments, and that it would unduly penalize them if they were related to supportable expenditures and not 100 percent dollars from the province. MR. L. DERKACH: Can the Minister explain what he means by supportable expenditures compared to 100 percent dollars? HON. J.

STORIE: In the 19 86 formula, block support is based on the previous year's net expenditures related to the number of pupils. That's essentially it. Just to add to that, basically what I defined for you was a definition of supportable expenditures. In relation to the 19 85-86 change, it means that in 19 85 both the 2272

Monday, 28 July, 1986 block and categorical grants were limited to 66 percent of supportable expenditures. What was removed out of there was the categorical grant which became not related to net expenditure but were 100 percent provincial dollars. MR. L. DE RKACH: In essence, what was supposed to happen in that case was that the formula, although it had been altered, would still do the same thing for the school divisions in either category. But to date, you have a large number of school divisions that don't fit either category. They're still out there in limbo.

I'm wondering, is there going to be any attempt from the department to come up with yet another formula that is going to attempt to encompass more of the school divisions in the province. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, I would certainly never rule out the possibility of some fine-tuning or some additional thought being given to the funding formula.

I point out, when he mentions that some have moved to the new GSE formula, some have not, some have remained with the previous year plus a guarantee plus the 1 percent, really is an indication that the department was attempting to meet the needs of school divisions and remain as flexible as possible. I don't feel any need to defend the GSE in its entirety.

I believe that I have thrown out the challenge to school divisions themselves and to members opposite that, if they have a magic solution to this problem which is essentially the differing needs of school divisions and their differing abilities to support locally and financially those needs, I would be more than willing to listen. My understanding is and the expectation is that increasingly over the next fiscal year, those who are on the 19 85 formula will roll into the 19 86 terms.

In all likelihood, if and when the province can move to the 90 percent formula, the other divisions are likely to find it acceptable as well. MR. L. DERK ACH: Mr . Chairman, the previous comments of the Minister would indicate that it seems that he or his department are not able to deal with the complex situation that exists out in Manitoba with respect to school funding. No body is suggesting that there is a magic formula and, if the Minister is looking for a magic formula, I think he'll have to look long and hard and never find it.

However, the Minister has been presented a brief by low-spending school divisions who have complained bitterly about the inequities in the funding formula which were supposed to be addressed. I happened to be present at the time when the funding formula was presented to the western region, and also the comments that were made with respect to what the new funding formula was going to do for school divisions throughout Manitoba. lt wasn't very long before it was realized that this funding formula was not going to do any more for many of the school divisions than the old formula had done.

As a matter of fact, it's even placed some of the school divisions in a more disadvantageous position. With respect to the school divisions who practice efficiency, who practice perhaps some restraint, I would like to know the justification behind basing current year's revenues on previous year's expenditures. 2273 HON. J. STORIE: I raised that, and we certainly did discuss it with a group of trustees and municipal councillors, etc., who were in to see me attending with the trustees on the presentation of low-cost school divisions.

I indicated at that time that - and the member raises the question about how you can justify basing it on supportable expenditures. I suppose if you didn't, then those school divisions who had exceptional needs - and I've discussed this before - who had a 300 percent turnover in their student population in a year, who had a tremendous number of students to whom English was a second language, Native students, they would not be able to provide services.

Wh ere there are legitimate needs being addressed and supportable expenditures increasing more dramatically than in other areas, the province would then be abandoning them and saying, well it's unfortunate that you have these exceptional needs, but we can't address them. it's, I guess, a no-win situation. Those divisions whose requirements, if you will, were not increasing dramatically have received less significant increases from the province.

That seems to be, on the surface at least, a defensible argument that, if your expenditures are not increasing and there has not been a dramatic change, there should be no need for additional support. What the divisions would, in effect, be asking is that the province share an additional portion of the cost of education at a time when other divisions, whose supportable expenditures were much higher and growing faster for all kinds of other reasons, would be receiving significantly less.

I point out there are also instances where it's not simply a question of need, but it's a question of the demographic changes which certain school divisions are experiencing increasing enrolment at a time when most others are very stable, and others again are dropping. So you have that variety of needs to be addressed. With all due respect, I guess, to the efforts of the previous administration and ones before that to find a formula which worked satisfactorily from everyone's point of view, it's difficult.

The previous formula had serious problems and those were certainly raised by school divisions at the time that program was introduced. I think, in all fairness to the Government Supp ort to Education Program, if you look across divisions, you'll find that where the need was highest, the percentage increase allocated was the greatest, and most school divisions received, on average, a fair increase and one which reflected the expenditure costs which they and their taxpayers were bearing. MR. L. DERKACH: The Minister raises several points.

First of all, he has indicated if we did not have this kind of formula in place, then we would not be able to address the special needs areas, and I find that somewhat contradictory because, for example, in the Winnipeg School Division, there is a special grant which is awarded because of a special situation. Those kinds of allowances were made even under the old formula, but obviously there are some serious shortfalls in the formula, when we have only 20 school divisions which are on the original formula, and now we have had to create two other formulas to attempt to cover the needs of other school divisions.

Monday, 28 July, 1986 Even to date, we have a large number of school divisions who are saying tha t the formula is not there; the formula is discriminating against them and it's causing them to levy exceptionally high special levies to meet their requirements. I'm wondering whether the Minister, this year, is going to address directly the concerns of those school divisions who are finding themselves in the situation where they have to increase their mill rates exorbitantly, and it's at their expense the province is gaining. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Chairperson, I suppose if the member is concerned about fitting everyone into a little box that yes, in fact , if we could have had all school divisions on the GSE , I suppose that's possible . We could have said here's the formula , and not made any attempt to deal in a more long-term way with their concerns, not make any recognition of the special circumstances. I don't think the fact that more aren't on the GSE at this point is a reflection necessarily of the inadequacy of the funding arrangements.

It's more a reflection of a willingness on the part of the government and the department to remain flexible, to attempt to address the individual needs and the peculiarities within divisions at the same time. The member refers again to the brief which was presented to me by the so-called low-cost divisions , and references the high exorbitant, he says, mill rate increases, special levy increases .

I pointed out to the group which made the presentation - in fact, in all fairness, it was part of their presentation - the fact the average mill rate was substantially below the provinci al average and , although it reflected a 20 percent or 30 percent increase, it was also true they remained, after the increase , 20 percent or 30 percent below the provincial average in terms of special levy mill rates . In fact , if you look at the so-called low cost divisions, their average mill rate in 1986 is somewhere around 43.2. The provincial average is more like 52-poin t something.

The mid-range, the school divisions experiencing mid-costs, middle-range costs at an average mill rate of 50.7, and the school divisions which were seen as high cost, spending a good deal of money, ranged in the area of 53.8 as a mill rate in 1986 . So there is some semblance of reason, the lower cost divisions had lower mill rates on average , received lower grants from the Provincial Government on average. MR. L.

DERKACH: One of the things which the Minister's not addressing is the fact that the reason their mill rates remain lower than the provincial norm, I guess, is because they were forced to take money out of their nominal surpluses , which was not raised by provincial funds, which was raised by their own local levy ; they were forced to take those monies out to lower the amount of money they were going to be asking the taxpayer for in this particular year. HON. J. STORIE: Well it wasn 't only low spending divisions which have done that, and do that from time to time. I mean, high spending divisions do it as well .

Divisions with high special levy mill rates do that as well depending on the circumstances; depending on the year; depending on , I guess, the importance and the priority of issues within the division as the division makes its budget. MR. L. DERKACH: I would like to know what this particular Minister 's attitude is toward divisions having in place nominal surplus. Does he support school divisions having a nominal surplus and operating with a nominal surplus? HON. J. STORIE: A nominal surplus; I guess we would have to define what a nominal surplus meant.

I guess the other point is the department has also changed its funding, the way it provides contributions to the school divisions , so it makes the necessity and the cost to the division less, so we 've tried to address that need in a different way as well. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr.

Chairman, it is very clear that those school divisions who have been efficient , who have run their school divisions effect ively and efficiently and are categorized in that low cost school division category, have found themselves in a state whereby the amount of funding they are recei ving is less than that of school divis ions of similar assessment base simply because of the fact they are low spending school divisions, and because of that they have found themselves in a state where they can't afford to levy the kind of mill rate incre ases which have come as a result of this formula and, therefore , they have had to draw on their nominal surplus to, I would say, to take part of the province 's responsibility .

I would like to know whether the Ministe r is going to address the situation of those low-spending sc hool divisions and provide them with more funding . HON. J. STORIE: I'm not fully prep ared to accept the member 's assumptions.

I recognize that they have presented a perspective , giving some of the statistics , but I point out that in terms of government support, as a percentage of supportable expenditures , government support as a percentage of supportable expenditures , the low-co st divisions , on average, rece ive about 83 . 5 percent support from the Provinc ial Government and th e so-called high-cost d ivisions receive some 73.8 percent , exa ctly the reverse to what the member was expressing a con cern.

I'm not sure that we can buy holus-bolus the member 's argument that these divisions have not received their share of support , although the formula supports , provides a part , not only the block grant on the basis of supportable expenditures . I've indicat ed , on the surface at least , that seems to be reasonable . If we look historically , up to and including 1986 , the amount of money , percentage of support that comes from the Prov incial Government, it is greates t in the lowest cost division s. MR. L. DERKACH : Mr.

Deputy Chairman, Brandon School Division approached the departmen t with respect to this problem. Would the Ministe r confirm that fact that they were told that the only way they could get more money in Brandon School Division was 2274

Monday, 28 July, 1986 to add programs to their division? In other words, increase their expenditure was the only way they could hope to have any more money, in terms of percentage, coming in to them in the following year? MR. J. STORIE: I can't confirm that they were told that. I have heard that said before. I can indicate to you that Brandon School Division obviously made a decision to do essentially that, for whatever reasons, to lower their pupil- teacher rat io, whatever, they increased their budg et some 8.4 percent, I believe, in 19 86.

I would indicate to you as well that Brandon School Division receives 80.9 percent provincial support as part of their supportable expenditures, and you compare that to some others that receive as low as 70 percent. MR. L. DE RKACH: Mr. Deputy Chairman, would the Minister tell us then whether, by increasing their budg et by 8.6 percent, does that mean then that next year they will qualify for a greater portion of funds? HON. J. STORIE: To the extent that the block grant is based on supportable expenditures, I would assume, yes. MR. L.

DERK ACH: Then what is there that is going to stop any school division from increasing their budg et and, in many instances, we're going to start running inefficient, ineffective operations, simply for the purpose of receiving more funds. HON. J. STORIE: Two reasons. No. 1, of course the government does set the upper limits; and No. 2, of course - and the member was a member of a local school board - I believe that school divisions across the province and their respective trustees are interested in providing the best education at reasonable cost to taxpayers and I don't expect that to happen.

I also think probably that the school divisions who didn't present their brief, the so-called high spending school divisions, would take somewhat umbrage at the suggestion that they were not living up to the obligations of their taxpayers and were not trying to meet the needs of their students. I am sure that they, like other school trustees across the province, believe that they're acting in the best interests of all concerned, and the fact that they are high spending may reflect more than their willingness to be profligate spenders. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, I would be the first one to acknowledge that school boards throughout Manitoba practice fiscal responsibility and try to, in the instances that I know about, run very efficient school divisions. However, school boards will not sit by and watch a situation where they are being penalized because of running deficient operations. They are being forced to run, as a matter of fact, what I would call inefficient operations, and to add programs to their divisions so that they can simply take advantage of increased funding.

Low-cost school divisions have been hurt by the fact that they have - and the former Minister indicated that 2275 these nominal surpluses were cushy kinds of bank accounts that weren't necessary- and yet it was through nominal surplus that the school divisions who had saved the province millions of dollars through interest cost savings, because the nominal surpluses that were held by school divisions offset much of the interest that had to be paid to banks which, in effect, would have meant that the province would have had to pay the interest.

Now these same school divisions are being forced to take out of their nominal surplus, funds to support the kinds of programs that the province is really responsible for. That is why the low-spending school divisions presented this brief to the Minister, because the situation is serious. The Minister is saying he's not sure whether they're correct or not. The study has been done; it's been placed before him. He is admitting to the fact that there are inequities, by the sheet that he has presented to us, utilizing three different formulas. How many more formulas are there going to be?

Should there not be one base formula that can be used, not that we can put everybody into that same package - we're not suggesting that at all - but at least there's got to be a base to work from. We've got school divisions that are grandfathered. There's no guarantee as to how long they're going to be grandfathered. 1t appears as though the funding formula is going in a direction where there is no clear evidence where it's going to end up.

My contention right now is to know whether or not the Minister of Education is going to address this problem this year and let school divisions know that there will be some stability in the funding formula that is going to be worked into the school divisions in this province. HON. J. STORIE: I've indicated that the information that was provided to me by the low-spending school divisions, that I accepted their point of view. They feel that they require, need, deserve a greater proportion of provincial support.

I've indicated to them that, clearly, the divisions that are spending a great more money on providing services to students feel that they have a greater need, that it wouldn't matter whether the increase was 2 percent and they only received 1 percent from the province, it would be unfair. I have had divisions who have had 10 percent increases in funding come in and indicate they weren't satisfied, that it wasn't enough.

I point out again to the member, the inference that somehow the profligate spenders receive a better break from the province isn't reflected in the fact that currently in 19 86, the low spending school divisions received 83.5 percent on average of th eir sup por table expenditures directly from the province. You compare that to the percentage which is 73.8 percent of the supportable expenditures which is received from the province. So, to the extent th ey increased their spending, they don't receive the same benefit.

The other point the member raised was with respect to the surpluses and, of course, school divisions have maintained and used those surpluses for years as they saw fit from time to time. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Chairman, you can bafflegab and cloud the issue with percentages as long as you like and we never get down to the truth of the matter.

Monday, 28 July, 1986 The fact is there are school divisions who have the same student assessment base, relatively the same, who are receiving a differential as much as $360 less. Now, if the percentages are higher in the low spending school divisions, then why are those same school divisions receiving up to as much - well, it's even more in some instances; but in this one example, I have before me right here, there's $360 difference per pupil. Why is that difference there? HON. J. STORIE: Well, Mr.

Chairperson, what it doesn't reflect is the cost that is incurred by the division above and beyond that; that in fact they may spend an additional $400 per student or $480 per student. That, of course, is reflected in the amount of money they have to generate from their special levy. The facts the member refers to do not reflect the facts other schools face, and that's the point I've been making all along, that you take from one school division's set of facts and you try to extrapolate and say well all other divisions should be dealt with on a similar basis. They aren't all on a similar basis.

They have other costs including transporation, special needs, whatever, that require them to expend an even greater amount per pupil from special levy as a result of what they see as an inadequate funding base from the province as well, even though they may be high spending school divisions. I point out again the members hope we can develop a single formula based on a per pupil formula of some type that is equitable across divisions is a difficult proposition given the different needs of students and the differing problems school divisions face. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member tor Roblin-Russell. MR. L.

DER KACH: Ther e are other extenuating circumstances that have been dealt with. For example, a Na tive community pulling out of a school division creates a considerable amount of havoc in a school division in that all of a sudden there is an decrease in the amount of revenue that school division receives and that is shown up in the next year's budget and, therefore, it creates turmoil with the formula as well. The former Minister did deal with that situation after a considerable amount of pressure. Therefore, no one is saying every school division is going to be the same and the formula will fit precisely.

Here we are dealing with a different matter. You're saying the per pupil assessment in two divisions could be very much the same and yet there is a great differential in the amount of money they're getting on a per pupil basis. This is a problem of a different nature and that's the problem which has to be addr essed; that's a problem which has to be faced. You can't skirt around and say oh well, but look at the percentages in what the low spending school divisions are getting. You'd have to take a look at what they're getting on a per pupil basis and say whether that is fair or not.

I think the point has been made, and it's got to be recognized by the Minister, there is a problem here and it's got to be faced. HON. J. STORIE: There are problems. There are anomalies within the formula which we have tried to addr ess and the member has raised one of them.

I point out I can take the opposite, and I think equally plausible position, that what we want to do is make sure all divisions receive the same percentage of government support in terms of their supportable expenditures, and to do that, obviously, would require a significant infusion of additional funds, or equally - and equally painful and unacceptable obviously from the member's point of view, would be to further reduce the percentage of supp ort going to the low cost divisions, so we had some equity in terms of overall provincial support going to all divisions. lt seems to me, and certainly from my early conversations with school divisions, there is only one satisfactory solution and the member had indicated at some point he didn't think this was the only solution, but that was to spend more money and not to reallocate it.

I believe the member made some comment in the House at one point - either he or one of his colleagues - that it wasn't necessarily a situation of spending mor e money. Certain ly, from the comments the members made, from comments I've heard from the high spending school divisions like Winnipeg 1, I'm afraid I have not been able to draw any other conclusion than most divisions want more, demand more, not less. Obviously, any amendments to the formula or any new formula has to reflect that reality as well as the reality that needs are differing, in one formula, there has to be some flexibility. MR. L.

DERKACH: Another problem which has been faced by school divisions is the timing of the knowledge of what formula that particular school division may fall under.

I just refer to the last year when school divisions had submi tted their proposed budg ets based on the first formula which was given to them to find out only after the preliminary budg et was put in that, in fact, they would be operating under a different formula and when the bud gets came back, the school division found itself, in many instances, a considerable amount of money short even after they had announced the special levy which was going to be levied in the municipality.

I'm wondering whether the Minister is going to addr ess the situation well enough ahead of time so those kinds of surprises will not be experienced by school divisions in the coming year. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I understand that we are in a better position this year to deal more expeditiously with those questions. MR. L. DERKACH: With respect to the school grants, I notice in 3.(

a) there's an amount of $3,637,000 that is recoverable from the Federal Government. Could the Minister indicate specifically what that amount of money is tor? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr . Chairperson. That comes about as a result of a Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Official Languages in Education. MR. L. DERKACH: With respect to the funding formula, once again, the old funding formula was in the statutes, as I understand it. This new formula is now part of the regulations. Are each of the formulas that are being operated under at the present time going to be placed into regulation now? 2276

Monday, 28 July, 1986 HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. L. DERKACH: So that means that the funding formula then, will subject to change simply by Order in-Council at any time and at the wishe s of the department or the Minister. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, that is correct, recognizing however, that in the guarantee there will be no less funding provided than the previous year, as in the act. MR. L. DERKACH: Just a question, if the Minister could explain in his news release on January 9, 19 86 the support for Education - the increase was going to be $22.2 million in provincial funding.

Could he explain the 3.8 percent increase in government support to Education? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, the 3.8 percent is based on the $22.2 million additional over the full amount they received in 19 85. MR. L. DERKACH: So it's simply on the figure of $379 million? HON. J. STORIE: No, I believe it's even referenced in 3.(

a) on the left-hand side, the $379 million. The reference to the $22 million is 3.8 percent, I believe, of that figure. MR. CHAIRMAN: The $379,099,200 figure for the year ending March 31, 1986, I believe, is what the Minister is referring to. MR. L. DE RKA CH: So it do es not include the Miscellaneous Grants and the Assistance to Schools in Remote Settlements then? HON. J. STORIE: No it would not include 3.(b), no. MR. L. DERKACH: Could the Minister just work that out for me because our figures don't seem to add up here? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, my reference to 3.(

a) was incorrect. The total is divided by the total funding school divisions; not just the . . . MR. L. DERKACH: Could you give us the numbers please? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, the total funding of school divisions in 19 85 was $58 1, 267,778; and although the estimate in 19 86 was $22.2 million, the actual is - it's an estimate still but it's more accurate than the $22.2 - it's $23.2; and if you divide that into the $23,225,973 - if you divide those two - you should come up with roughly 3.8 percent, or 3.9 percent. MR. L DERKACH: Could you repeat that again so we're clear on that? HON. J. STORIE: Yes.

The 3.8 was referencing the amount of increase in spending this year to the total amount of spending last year in Education. The total funding to school divisions which included the $379 million, last year's school grants, and included the Educ ation Suppor t Levy as well as su rplus es contributed: total funding to school di visions, $58 1,2 67, 778 and di vide d that by the estima ted contributions in 19 86 of $23,225,973.00. MR. L. DE RKA CH: The amount of money that's allocated for transportation; can the Minister give us that figure, please? HON. J. STORIE: Yes.

The total amount for transportation in 19 86 is $25,637,578.00. MR. L. DERKACH: How much is that on a per-pupil basis? HON. J. STORIE: Quite a bit. Yes, it's based on $410 per transported pupiL MR. L. DE RKACH: Does th at also include th e transportation for special needs students? HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. L. DERKACH: Can the Minister give us what that figure is? HON. J. STORIE: Breaking it out? MR. L. DERK ACH: Yes. HON. J. STORIE: No. MR. L. DERKACH: Well, can I get that figure somehow where we can ascertain how much money was spent on a per-pupil basis for transporting special needs and special area students?

HON. J. STORIE: Well, the grant is still the same; it's $410 per transported student. MR. L. DERKACH: Who makes up the difference if the student has to be transported from one school division to another school division to take an immersion course? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, the sending division is required to provide the transportation and that division would receive only the $410 per transported pupil grant from the department or from the government. MR. L.

DERK ACH: Is the sending school division also required to pay either the transportation costs, provided it is a certain distance, or the room and board? HON. J. STORIE: The guidelines are essentially that the distance has to be greater than 80 kilometres and that the student would have residence away from the parents' principal residence. MR. L. DERKACH: The school division, as I understand it, is responsible for either providing the transportation where the di stance is less than 80 kilome tres or 2277

Monday, 28 July, 1986 providing room and board for that student and they keep the $410 grant. HON. J. STORIE: Essentially that. I believe the member is correct. However, the school divisions, again, are certainly at liberty to make up any other arrangements with parents providing there is a mutually satisfactory arrangement made. MR. L. DERKACH: But in a case of French immersion, for example, the parent has the right to demand from the school division special transportation, even if it's for one student, from that division to a division where French immersion may be offered? HON. J.

STORIE: Well, recognizing tha t includes vocational arts and it's not a question of French immersion, it's a question of whether the division has the program or whether it's available elsewhere. So it's not just a question of for a specific program. MR. L. DERKACH: If a school division were to have a couple of students who - well, let's say I had three or four students who were wanting special transportation to take special programs such as French im mersion.

If th at school division appl ied to the department to begin a French immersion in their division, would they be allowed to start that French immersion program with a teacher or do they have to have a certain number of students? HON. J. STORIE: The normal provisions are that there would be 23; that would be the point at which the department would start providing assistance. MR. L. DERKACH: In which area - there's a cost - the Minister hasn't provided me with the per-pupil cost for division-owned buses as yet. I'm hopeful that's coming very soon. But can he indicate to me what all is entailed in that figure?

Is it the cost of the bus, the cost of the driver, the maintenance of the bus, capital costs of garages? HON. J. STORIE: Did we not provide the member with some information? I believe he asked the last time and I indicated that there were 13 divisions. MR. L. DER KACH: I'm still waiting. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, I have a list of all the school divisions. I was quoting from it when I referred to the number of school divisions where they had exclusively contract, joint contract, and division-owned buses.

I can provide the member with a copy of this sheet which gives the cost per pupil, the cost per kilometre, loaded kilometre, and the cost per kilometre in total. I'll provide that information for the member. But the capital costs of the bus have not been included in these costs. They are basically transportation per kilometre or straight per-pupil costs. MR. L. DERKACH: Can the Minister tell me then, in the costs - he said he has the per pupil cost for loaded kilometre and cost per kilometre - in that cost, what is all included?

Is it the cost of the gasoline, the maintenance of the bus, the bus driver or any of those things? What is included in that? HON. J. STORIE: lt would be the total costs, administration included and so forth for each division. MR. L. DE RKACH: lt still doesn't answer the question though. If you're talking about total costs, then you have to be including the capital costs of the vehicle? HON. J. STORIE: Other than capital costs; I should have clarified that. MR. L.

DERKACH: Can the Minister then indicate or give me a breakdown of the costs, including the capital costs, the per-pupil transportation costs, including the capital costs? HON. J. STORIE: We don't have that information. The member is looking for a per division, would that be? Mr. Chairperson, the member, I think, recognizes that the bus purchases, capital cost for buses this year was some $6 million, so I think the member can infer from that what the capital costs of carrying that are. However, that's not something that is normally calculated.

We could talk about our universities as well in terms of their capital costs and the costs of maintaining them. I'm not sure it's a useful figure. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked for that cost - and I would like it yes - is because the Minister's Department of Transportation's personnel have from time to time gone to school divisions and have indicated how efficient it is to run buses on a division-owned basis.

As a matter of fact, just recently there was a presentation made to the only school division in the rural areas which has contracted buses, and the school division was given the low cost of transporting students by division-owned buses. However, in the contracted bus situation, it must be noted that in that per-pupil cost there's also the capital cost of the buses. Included in that, the contractors must put something in for maintaining the bus at their garages, which is not included in the division-owned buses.

That is why I think it is a distorting figure when the department sends out the information to school divisions and says, here's what it costs to transport pupils on a per-pupil basis and yet there's nothing in there for the capital costs of garages that have to be maintained in a school division and the capital costs of the buses and replacement of same. So yes, I would like to have the breakdown of what it is on a provincial basis even. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, we can certainly provide an indication of what the capital costs of the purchase of school buses would be on a provincial basis.

As I said, I'll provide the member with this information about the breakdown of costs by division. it's certainly interesting in that, of course, some of the highest costs relate to those divisions which contract their services or which share contracting. But again, it requests again differing transportation needs within the divisions. Obvio usly, the most expensive are urban divisions. 2278

Monday, 28 July, 1986 MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Member for Roblin-Russell, last Thur sday I took under advisement a reference by the Honourable Attorney-General that an unparliamentary remark had been made by the Member tor Springfield. Upon perusing Hansard, I find no such remark in Hansard, and I therefore deem the matter as being dealt with and closed. Does the Member for Springfield wish to comment? MR. G. ROCH: Mr. Chairman, I would request that the Att orney-General withd raw his accusation and apologize. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know whether or not such is necessary.

The Attorney-General referred to the Chair what he thought he heard, which I said I would peruse Hansard to see whether or not that was the case. I perused Hansard; there was no such remark. I have now informed the committee that there was no such remark made, and I see no reason for further action. That is my decision. I don't think it's a reason for apology. If the Attorney-General felt he heard something and it had been reported in Hansard, it would have been reason tor approp riate action. He felt he heard something.

There was no such reference in Hansard, so no action is being taken . lt was to me a misund erstanding and Ha nsard reported no such statement. So if we can move on, I think that should clear the matter. MR. G. ROCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that's sufficient. The Attorney-General definitely made an accusation of something I did not say. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the Member for Springfield, I just explained the reason for the ruling. lt was not a point of order brought up by the Attorney General.

He made a reference to the Chair, which I said I would take under advisement, peruse Hansard and report back. I have done exactly that. There was not a point of order made, so I am suggesting I've made a ruling that the item is dispensed with. lt is over. There was no such reference made; there was no accusation. lt was something that was heard. I perused, and there was nothing there. If the member is wishing to challenge the Chair, it is appropriate for him to do that. I have given my ruling and given my reasons for the ruling. MR. G. ROCH: Mr.

Chairman, I am saying that the Attorney-General made a personal affront to myself, an accusation which was not true. MR. CHAIRMAN: I will explain for the third time to the member. If the member will peruse Hansard, the Attorney-General stated, he said he heard the member say something. I said I would peruse Hansard to see whether he had stated, the Member for Springfield, such a remark and report back. I would take it under advisement. I am reporting back that no such remark was reported in Ha nsard, therefore the Attorney General misheard what he thought he heard, and the matter is closed.

Now I have stated that for the third time. I see no reason for an apolog y. I see no reason for any further action on this matter. I would suggest the committee continue. If you wish to challenge the Chair, that is appropriate to do so. However, I am telling the member the ruling of the Chair. MR. G. ROCH: Okay, well, based on that ruling, Mr. Chairman, would the Attorney-General then withdraw his allegation that I made that remark? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that the Chair is ruling there is no reason for a withdrawal. He reported to the Chair, and asked the Chair to take appropriate action.

The appropriate action, the Chair said, is I would review Hansard. If such was reported in Hansard, I would take appropriate action. There was nothing reported in Hansard. Obviously to me the Attorney General misheard the Member for Springfield. I am reporting that back to the committee and saying the matter is closed. MR. G. ROCH: May I reserve the right . MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member wishes to have a point of order ... MR. G. ROCH: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order? MR. G. ROCH: On a point of clarification, may I reserve MR.

CHAIRMAN: I don't know if there's any such point. MR. G. ROCH: . . . may I reserve the right to bring this up as a Matter of Privilege at a later time? MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think that is your right in the House at the appropriate time and circumstance, yes. The Member tor Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DE RKACH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In his last remarks, the Minister said that the highest per-pupil cost divisions are those who have contract buses or who have a combination of both and my point to the Minister was, those costs are higher because of the fact that in those costs is reflected the capital cost of the buses, the capital cost of maintaining those buses at garages, which is not reflected in division owned buses and, therefore, the figures are distorting.

When tho se presentations are made to school divisions, there should be some com pensation or something done to reflect the capital costs of buses, garages and the maintenance of them where buses are owned by school divisions. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, just for the record, it's inaccurate to say that. The maintenance, of course, is reflected in the cost. The capital purchase costs of the buses is not, and the member makes a point. Now how a contractor resolves that difficulty in terms of providing a service, of course, is up to the contractor and school divisions obviously from time to time have 2279

Monday, 28 July, 1986 looked at th e pros and cons and made some determination about what was in their best interests. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that we, at this point, take a five-minute recess, and come back in five minutes. The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: One final question for the time being. I would like the Minister if he could get his department to work out the figures again so that - because for some reason we're not getting the figures to match what the press release said. He's given me some different figures here that he's based his increases on.

Could you get your department to give us those figures the next time we meet? HON. J. STORIE: I gather that - I'm not sure what kind of discrepancy the member is referring to. lt may work out to more than 3.8 percent. Is that it, it works out to 4 percent? MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, if I could try to come to some understanding of it. In the sheet that you gave us 1986 Categorical Block and Equalization Support Program, the gross sum is 525, almost 526 million.

Yet the press release refers to 607 million, a portion of that is ESL, but even if it is the Minister used the number of 58 1 million as being the total sum. So what is the correct figure, how was it arrived at and what is the amount of the ESL? HON. J. STORIE: The current figure is 611 ; it was 607 in the release but, obviously there were some additions as we got far more figures. Remembering that the 58 1 referred to the 19 85 total funding to school divisions. The 607 that he refers to, talks about total funding to school divisions.

One's for the year 1985, one's for the year 19 86. it's actual in 19 86, it will not be 607 but 611 . Okay it was estimated earlier to be 607. MR. C. BIRT: But on the sheet your staff just gave us when we started estimates show a gross sum of 526 million. HON. J. STORIE: There are lots of figures. That is block, categorical and equalization. MR. C. BIRT: Okay. HON. J. STORIE: Okay. That doesn't include capital for buses, 37 million, whole additional sums of money, private schools, other supports. MR. C.

BIRT: Then there's one's tract, you now use the figure of 611 million, 525 million, the difference being 80-odd million, 90 million perhaps, and that 90 million is broken down for capital and other grants? HON. J. STORIE: Where does the 525 come from? Oh, that's the block equalization. MR. C. BIRT: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, could we start over again. HON. J. STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: Or get them for us. You talk about 61 1 million. HON. J. STORIE: Right. That's total ... MR. C. BIRT: Part of that is the ESL formula, how much? HON. STORIE: $1 86,904,940.00. MR. C.

BIRT: Now, do I take it then that the gross sum of categorical block and equalization is 526 million? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, the 526 that the member refers to there is part of block categorical and equalization. Our estimate is 533. That's what's budgeted in the school division. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, I don't care whether we use last year's figures, this year's figures, whether they be estimates or final. Let's just pick one starting point and follow it all the way through. You told me that there was $6 11 million this year going to provincial schools, school divisions. HON. J. STORIE: That's right. MR. C.

BIRT: 18 6 of that was the ESL. HON. J. STORIE: Right. MR. C. BIRT: The balance, which I believe is, you now say it's maybe slightly higher, but 526 million, as per this sheet here, but if you take that ESL figure of 18 6 and the 526 you come to 712 million. The Minister just referred to 611 million. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nister of Education, maybe you want to clarify it. HON. J. STORIE: You take 187 million rounded off from 611, what have you got? Then you take another 4 million off, which was a surplus of previous years and you're left with a figure of 420. MR. C. BIRT: 4 million was surplus? HON. J.

STORIE: Yes. MR. C. BIRT: Surplus in the departmental account? That's not school division, that's department? HON. J. STORIE: That's the surplus in Public Schools Finance Board, which will get you to the government's share of funding, which is 420 million. MR. C. BIRT: 420 million. Yet the estimate on 3.(

a) refers to 40 1 million if we round it. Where is the other 19 million? HON. J. STORIE: The other would be capital referred to in 8.(b)(2), that's the 19 there. 2280

Monday, 28 July, 1986 MR. C. BIRT: But some five or ten minutes ago the Minister said that in that amount there were other sums, such as, bus purchases of 37 million and all of that. HON. J. STORIE: That's capital. That is debentured and not shown in here, but it is nevertheless funding provided by through the Province of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member clear? I think this item was discussed, the matter of capital funding when we passed 8.(b)(2). HON. J. STORIE: I appreciate that you're trying to get all the pieces together. Unfortunately, we don't have the same pieces put together as the member. MR. C.

BIRT: If we could have your pieces it might help. HON. J. STORIE: Well, I'm giving them to you one at a time. MR. C. BIRT: That's why we're wasting time. MR. L. DERKACH: Can I ask the Minister to, because this is so incoherent right now . . .. HON. J. STORIE: To go here and defy it? MR. L DERKACH: Would he do that, and then he can also define his terms . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Point of order. I would really like him to clarify that word. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's really not a point of order. HON. J. STORIE: lt is pa rt of my presumed expendability of the English language. MR. L. DERKACH: Mr.

Chairman, as I said, this is very incoherent at the present time, and I would appreciate it if we could have some clarification of this on a sheet or several sheets and then be given the opportunity to go back over it again, because I think we're talking about several figures . . . HON. J. STORIE: No problem. I'll get you one sheet dealing with all of the items and show the relationship to the amount of funding that goes directly to that which is debentures, in other words, to capital - the $37 million. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind the member that, even if we finish with this item, you could always bring it up on the Minister's salary and you can review those positions. The Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: I just want to clear up any misunderstanding, remembering that in January, that all of the figures, essentially, are estimates. We're dealing with very preliminary figures from school divisions, preliminary assessments. Obviously, throughout the next several months, there are adjustments, both on our part and their part.

Consequently, those figures don't jibe, but I will get you an accurate set representing the questions that the Member for Fort Garry and the Member for Roblin-Russell have asked. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr . Chairman. I suppose I would begin by saying that I am somewhat surprised that the Minister and the Assistant Deputy wouldn't have provided to this committee a review in a summa ry fashion as they have the last two years where indeed these figures were laid out in, I believe three or four pages, and they made sense.

Because to not have that before you is really to make this whole area totally . . . HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairperson, I had actually asked staff to prepare that and they did. I just forgot when we started this to hand it out. Apparently they do have that stuff prepared. Although, obviously, there are some differences between the figures, but people will understand that this is the more accurate representation of what's . .. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, we've reviewed this material in the last few years, you know, the cross reference from sheet to sheet, but it does become evident over a few minutes review as to where the numbers rightly belong. If you would have that, I would suggest ... HON. J. STORIE: We'll have copies for this evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might suggest, do you want to hold this item for this evening and move onto another item, so you will have the information this evening, as the Minister said? The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, I always reminded the chairman in the past, the chair people, whoever was sitting in your position, that this is a $400 million item and one tha t shouldn't be ha ndled too expeditiously . MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. I was not suggesting we deal with it expeditiously, but that we could move on to some other items under this before we pass it, based on information th at everybody would seem to understand. MR. C. MANNESS: Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Chairman. I would like to again make a few general comments if I can, Mr.

Chairman, because, as was said by the former acting critic of Education some six years ago when the Lyon Government brought out their ESP Program, the then Acting Minister who is now the present member for St. Vital said that program was one that was conceived in panic and borne in haste. Of course, we were led to believe that once the new GSE Program came about after some considerable study by Dr. Nicholls that indeed we would have a 2281

Monday, 28 July, 1986 formula in place that would not be conceived in panic and borne in haste, one that would be with us for some period of years, one that would give school divisions what they wanted and that was basically an opportunity to plan forward for a number of years knowing what degree of funding they could expect given their various cir cumsta nces wit hin th eir school divisions, also knowing where they would stand vis-a-vis other school divisions, a formula that would treat them in a fashion similar, Mr. Chairman.

Not one, of course, that would provide the same level of support, but one that would allow each school division to look at rules and know how they stood compared to other divisions. Of course, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that attempt has failed and it has failed miserably. I would just like, again, for the purpose of the Min ister, who I'm ho ping, and I'm expecting, qu ite frank ly, Mr. Chairman, will more deeply attempt to become involved in the financial matters of his department than his predecessor. I would expect that he will do so, Mr.

Chairman, and, hopefully, he'll begin immediately after this Estimates process, although I know he's been visited by the school divisions trying to convince him over the last several months as to the shortco mings of the formula in place. But, Mr. Chairman, for the record, and some of this has been said before, but I'll quickly go through it. When the new program came in place, I remember basically a year ago asking the then Minister how long it would take before all school divisions would come on to the new GSE Program.

The Minister as much as said to me that there would be a grandfathering required for one year and at that time she expected then that all divisions would be part of the new formula. Mr. Chairman, I accepted that, as I believe most school divisions did within the Province of Manitoba. At that time, I was not terribly critical of the GSE for what it attempted to do and, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is well aware, it attempted to take into account some other factors which were very important at the time.

Arbitra ry weightings were given to those, very subjective, but I can understand why in time that they may have to be changed. We spent considerable time last Es tima tes a year ago going th rough th ose categories and in some cases discussing the weightings placed upon them. Mr. Chairman, I don't quarrel with an attempt to try and make a formula near perfect, but I really think something basic was forgotten when this formula was drafted. Since that period in time, we've had ad hoc decisions applied.

The announcement was made at the beginning of this year that there indeed would be a third formula, one updating one by 1 percent, and I say to the Minister again that there will never be harmony unless there is one in place, unless there are specific benchmarks, unless every division appears to be treated fairly. Right toda y, that is failing.

I'm glad to see that the Minister is prepared to review the system, but he really can't do anything meaningful at all, unless he, himself, is prepared to fully understand how education financing works, indeed, almost as well as th ose key players wit hin his depar tment th at understand it on a daily basis. Mr. Chairman, I look at the attempt to equalize and I would ask the Minister, as one of the questions I will pose at this time: is it the government's intent to equalize special levies across the province?

Because everything I can see coming forward out of this program would suggest that that basically is the goal, that special levies throughout the province should be to some degree equalized, taking that right, so to speak, that historic right, away from the local elected trustee. Mr. Chairman, the Minister talks, because he uses in many cases the mill rate arguments, the varying special levies throughout the province, and he talks about the hig h-cost divisions. Mr.

Chairman, there are divisions in this province who are trying to carry out two and three programs, some of them related to language, most of them related to languages in many cases. Of course, there is extremely high cost associated with that. Mr. Chairman, when the Minister, through this formula, is expecting other divisions, through increasing their special levy to help offset that, then he is causing, and I say creating, a monster. He's not only creating a monster, but he's creating a formula whereby again all the divisions will not be coming on and will not, therefore, be treated equally.

I think when the Minister says that the Brandon School Division, and I may be paraphrasing him - I think I do have his quotes down here - he said they decided to take the action it did. What he was saying intuitively is that they decided not to increase their special levy because that was to support more expenditure because, he said, that was a decision they chose to take. Mr.

Chairman, if these low-cost divisions who have put their house into order, are going to see really the benefit of increased local taxation being sim ply funnelled to other divisions that are spending high, for whatever the reason, whatever the merit - in a lot of cases, again, it's because of additional langua ge programs - then in the long run, if the Minister doesn't fully understand what is happening, then there will be a bitter backlash. I think a failure to acknowledge what has happened, in trying to make it so complicated by way of numbers and formulae, is really doing it a disservice. Every formula, Mr.

Chairman, has to be basically understood. it's of no value to the democratic system if we have trustees today who are dealing with a formula which they don't have an understanding and principle as to how it works. I suggest that's what we have in place toda y.

We have treasurers, secretaries or chief executive officers of school divisions which, in many cases, are in themselves working hand-in-hand with the department and taking whatever the formula, by way of the words of department staff, is giving to them and imparting this information to trustees who are having then to make policy decisions within their own divisions. Mr. Chairman, that system can't work. lt just can't work for the good of education.

If the Minister is genuine in his suggestions that he's going to try to work toward a formu la which will, first of all, be mo re easily understood; which will be with us for some period of time; which will lend itself to a better understanding over time, then I'm prepared to give him some more time. I warn you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister's predecessor sat in that chair, or the chair in the Main Cham ber, for four years and indicated some understanding of where we were headed in this matter. Quite frankly, as I was for the last two years, I am more strongly convinced now she had no understanding whatsoever. 2282

Monday, 28 July, 1986 My conclusions, Mr. Chairman, are simply these. I believe the present formula is unworkable. It'll just lead to disharmony between school divisions. I'm glad to see that the Minister is prepared to review and possibly bring in a better system. I hope he will take great care and great time in understanding for himself the system, the formula in place, so that he does not have to turn, each time we pose a question, to his assistant deputy for an understanding as to the principles and beyond them, some of the basic workings of the formula.

I hope the Minister will take some leadership in this respect because just to continue year after year to allow a 1 percent increase, particularly on the eve of an election and convince school divisions that, really, they're not going to receive less, well, in monetary terms, no; in absolute terms, yes. Of course, they are receiving less. Mr.

Chairman, again, that type of action just does a total disservice to all people within the education community, and particularly those representatives of parents, trustees, who really should have a better understanding and I think, in a lot of cases, would want to have a better understanding of the formulas and the funding provisions in place. Mr. Chairman, there was one qu estion in th at commentary.

I would also ask the Minister to indicate to what degree the Department of Education has underwritten the costs associated with transferring students from a home division to the City of Winnipeg in support of secondary language instruction, the costs associated with particularly board and room. So, two questions. Mr. Chairman. HON. J. STORJE: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I would just like to make a few general comments about the Member for Morris' suggestions. I guess what I see here, in essence, is a desire by the Member of Morris, and others, to have it both ways. I hear two concerns being addressed.

Num ber one, I can hear a concern about the ever-increasing spiral, the escalat ion of education costs based on the assumption that GSE will lead to that kind of escalation by its very nature, and then in 1986, on the basis of its block support to school divisions being based on supportable expenditures. On the other hand, I hear the concern and the desire expressed to fund school divisions to an appropriate level.

So, on the one hand we have, yes, we need to increase the spending and attempt to better meet the needs of school divisions, and I assume by that, he means increase our spending, provide ad ditional support to those divisions; and at the same time, a concern expressed about the cost of education and the escalation. He mentioned two others things. He said school divisions wanted to know essentially where they stood and where they would be standing over the next few years. I suppose, in that regard, the current guarantee which is in the act provides some certainty.

Clearly, every other funding formula, including ESP, has had its shortcomings and would have or did require a change. lt was not that well received. All I can tell the member is while, yes, I've said I'm not opposed to looking at the formula, I have received some input from low-cost divisions, I would not want the Member for Morris to interpret that as some type of mutiny with respect to GSE or the funding formulas now in place.

By and large, while there is some concern about the block aspect of it, and that being tied to supportable expenditures, there has been a fairly broad acceptance for the principles that were outlined when the Government Support to Education Program was introduced. Those principles were fairly straightforward. We wanted equality of education opportunity across the province.

I'm not satisfied that you can do that without causing some concern about the level of funding in some areas unless the answer is simply through more money and more money and pay no attention or have no regard whatsoever for the ability of school divisions to manage the differing needs that school divisions have and, I guess, our own ability to provide a flexible formula that meets individual needs. The second goal was to provide equity for Manitoba's taxpayers; provide some measure of local autonomy for school divisions and provide accountability in funding and expenditures.

So I don't think that there has been the kind of revolt that the Member for Morris seems to imply. There have been specific concerns. I've indicated that there is no simple solution. lt seems to me the request is indeed for more money and that alone. 1t is not so much a question of the complexity of the formula or the characteristics of the formula. lt is the expectation on the part of all school divisions that the province will be funding a greater proportion of the costs of education and will increasingly pay a greater proportion of the costs.

So, I think that there was a point made by the member and that is that school divisions, in perhaps all too ch aracte risticall y human a fashion , do com pare themselves to other school divisions. They look over and say I only got 2 percent and they got 6 percent; I got 0 percent and they got 5 percent; without perhaps a serious reflection on the differing historical educational realities tha t those divisions face, do draw some comparisons. Those comparisons were drawn in some measure at the time that the low cost school division brief was presented to me.

I pointed out a couple of the extreme examples of the differences between the costs that those divisions face and the costs that some other school divisions face in the province. lt is dramatic and one only need take a walk through some of the schools in inner-city Winnipeg to recognize the full implications of the euphemisms "special needs." Clearly, there are some ho rrendous problems th at school divisions are attempting to address. lt requires additional funding and it requires dramatically increasing expenditures from time-to-time.

Finally, the only conclusion one can draw is that while we would all like to have something simple and easily explainable, given the complexities of the system and the differing views that boards have across the province about the needs and what is reasonable and how much it is reasonable to attempt to meet those needs, we can't have a simple formula. I'm not suggesting that means we shouldn't continue to look at finding some means of finding a core that is equivalent across the province; I think we've tried to do that.

In essence, that's what the block part of the funding formula provides. 1t is arbit rary in some respects and the member referenced that. Nonetheless, I have not heard from 2283

Monday, 28 July, 1986 any school division sugges ting that the ma jor com ponents of the GSE are unacc eptable or unworkable. MR. C. MANNESS: Can the Minister tell me when all the divisions will be on the GSE? HON. J. STORIE: No, I cannot say. Unless the member is asking me to force them on, they obviously have their own particular needs. That's one of the reasons why we have, in essence, three formulas. it's simply been a recognition of the differing needs of school divisions and a willingness to accomm odate them. The member may focus on the fact that not all divisions are on the GSE.

I would refer him to some of the information that's been handed out and referenced before; that is, the increases that have gone to school divisions across the province. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr . Chairman, the Minister is now part of a government which - this government, partly I think, because of some of the electioneering that took place in 1981 - I don't want to belabour that, Mr. Chairman, but you may or may not remember - the old formula was criticized very heavily for a number of reasons.

One; it didn't have a large enough equalization factor built into it and it was, of course, chastis ed for not taking into account changes in enrollment, particularly declining enrollment . . . But it was also severely criticized for using the previous year's expenditures as a base for increases in the following year. And of course, Mr. Chairman, the NDP at that time lobbied very heavily saying that was reason enough for that old ESP formula to be changed. Now, I only place that on the record for one reason, Mr. Chairman, because, believe it or not, I'm trying to help the Minister. HON. J. STORIE: I believe that.

Thousands wouldn't. MR. C. MANNESS: I wasn't here the other day, Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing policy areas. By the Minister's own internal surveys that were done in his Planning Branch, if he's read them - the ones that were done at least two or three years ago - he'll find that when a survey was taken, that most Manitobans don't believe the quality of education would improve if you had more dollars to throw in. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further. people were asked if there were additional monies that government had, what area of government should they be directed into?

The Minister might be interested to know and find that Education was fourth or fifth. I believe there were four or five other areas that ranked ahead of Educa tion. Mr. Chairman, I say that because I honestly believe that the people of this province don't believe that the quality of education would improve greatly if there were additional sums of money. Secondly, the Minister being a member, of course, of Cabinet, is well aware that dollars are tight. We are many years away from the government's 90 percent pledge under today's economic circu mstances. Mr. Chairman, I dare say we're a decade away.

I would think that times being what they are, if ever there was a time when the Mi nister and the government wanted to be able to say to school divisions that they were being treated fairly and under the same rules, that this would be the time, Mr. Chairman, because although maybe only four or five divisions showed up at the Minister's door early in the first three months in 19 86, I say what I think I know what is happening in the financial sense; many, many more will be showing up a year from now.

And one of their main reasons for showing up will be the fact that they believe that they are not being treated fairly because they are for some reason on one of the different formulas. I think therefore it would be incumbent for the Minister to bring them very quickly to the same set of rules, and convince them then why it is that they would all be treated more fairly during these difficult times that are obviously going to come ahead. So, Mr.

Chairman, I throw that just to make the Minister's job a little bit easier, not to unduly criticize the GSE formulas that now exist, although I honestly believe it deserves major criticism. HON. J. STORIE: Well, I appreciate very much the member's comments, and I have certainly never taken anything that the Member for Morris has said in other than, I believe, its face value as an

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-55a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 55a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	29ae4311dca2f0220346c79a5881bfb0863deb74

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