Manitoba Hansard — 1 March 1993 (Sitting 16A, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-16a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session -T hirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 41 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No. 16A -1 :30 p.m., MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky GARST AIRS, Sharon CERIL LI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEW AR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIED GER, Albert, Hon. DUCH ARME, Gerry, Hon. EDW ARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonar d S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIE SEN , Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKE S, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDE AU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE , Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITC HELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCH ARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darr en, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFAN SON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant CONSTIT UENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste.

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

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, March 1, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: Pur suant to the authorities and practices of the House, I now report that I have examined the petition and find that the petitioners have not complied with the set authorities and practices in the following respects.

According to our Rule 81 .(8): "No petition shall be received if it prays for expenditure, grant or charge on the public rev enue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys to be provided by the Assembly." Therefore, I regret to advise the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that her petition is out of order and cannot be received. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minis ter of Rural Development): Mr.

Speaker, first of alii would like to table the Annual Report 1991-1 992 for the Canada-Mani toba Partn ership Agree ment on Municipal Water Infrastructure for Rural Economic Diversification (PAM WI). I would like to table the Annual Report 1991-92 for the Manitoba Water Services Board. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, fir stly, Volume 3, Public Accounts 1991 -92,

Summary Financial Statemen ts and, second ly, the Mani toba Hydro-Electric Board Quarterly Report for the nine months ended December 31, 1992, and the Report of the Provincial Auditor to the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year ended March 31 , 1992. House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the government, at this time, would like to waive the two-day notice of motion, with the perm ission of the House, and introduce four bills at this time. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I understand the government House leader is asking for leave.

I think we already have a significant amount of business. We would like to know when the second reading committee hearings will be held on the Sunday shopping bill. After the government has decided when they are going to do that, we might get down to the rest of the business- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to allow the honourable government House leader to introduce said bills? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, I would request leave ofthe House to introduce Bill14, The Personal Pr oper ty Sec urity Act and Co ns equ ential Amendments, for first reading. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Attorney General have leave? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied. • (1 335) Ms.JudyW asylycla-Lels(St.Johns): May I have leave to introduce a bill for first reading? Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to revert to Introduction of Bills? Leave? (agreed] INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 21 0-The Plain Language Act Ms. Judy Wasylycla- Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr.

Doer), that Bill 210, The Plain Language Act;

Loi sur Ia langue courante, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Speaker, Bill 210 , The Plain Language Act, would see all consumer contracts and all government statutes, regu lations

621 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 and publications written in plain language. This legislation arises out of the growing concern that many contracts, laws and regulations are often unreadable, packed with legalese and written in language that is hard to understand. The absence of plain language, Mr. Speaker, contributes to a fear of the system and deters many from pursuing their rights. This bill would make laws and legal documents understandable. It will help ensur e people can comply with their legal obligations and obtain the benefits to which they are entitled.

It will help Manitobans to clearly under stand the full intention of government actions without the help of a dozen lawyers, and finally, it will help ensure fairness and equal access to the law for all of our citizens. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon forty Grade 9 students from the Chief Peguis Junior High school. They are under the direction of Mr. Barmeier.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Cul ture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Budget Child Anti-Poverty Programs Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have raised the issue of child poverty and its alarming rate of increase in the province of Manitoba with the government before.

In fact, on December 13, 1991, the Premier, in answer to a question we raised in the Chamber, said: We will work co-operatively with all levels of government to work on any programs, whether they be education, whether they be social program s,. whether they be health care programs, any programs designed to eradicate poverty with respect to children of our province. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a series of budget decisions from this Pr emier's (Mr. Filmon) government dealing with all those three areas affe cting the poor in Manitoba.

There have been reductions in the welfare payments for families with children of over $200 a month for a family with three children. There have been reductions in the funding to the public education system, inconsistent with the comments made by the Premier for eradicating poverty. Further, Mr. Speaker, there was a reduction in the social welfare benefits and health benefits last week of some $3 million out of a $20-million fund that will affect again children living in poverty, particularly those with teeth that need care that will not get it with the cutbacks of this provincial government.

I would like to know how these budget decisions that have been announced by this Premier's government will erad icate poverty for children in our province. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, over the last three years, we have announced a number of initiatives that have enhanced the social allowance system in Manitoba.

We have annually increased the social allowance rates; we have created a new program called Income Assistance for the Disabled; we have introduced the Supplementary Benefit; exempt to children's trust funds; we have given assistance for school supplies; we have passed on the goods and services tax. There are many, many other areas. We did make an announcement last week that we felt we had to make some adj ustments to the benefits for social allowance recipients. We still have left these benefits in place that are comparable to what other provinces have.

The adj ustments are necessary because of the tremendous increase in the Social Allowances line, some 65 percent over the last three years. Program Reduction Criteria Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to again ask the Premier (Mr.

Rlmon), whose comments were that we will do these three things, education, health care and social pr ograms, to help eradica te child poverty, everything he has done in the last two months in terms of the budget decisions have been kicking the poorest in the teeth, have been kicking the poorest children in the teeth and those are the Tory priorities in this province. I would like to ask the Premier how he, in his tough budget decisions, can square the choices that his government is making. On the one hand they are increasing their revenues by tens of millions of

March 1 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 622 dollars with the undebated expansion of video lottery terminals in the city of Winnipeg. On the other hand they are cutting back on social benefits for food for children living in families on municipal assistance. How does the Premier square the value system that comes into play in terms of making those kinds of budget decisions on the people of Manitoba? * (1 340) Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the fact that governmen ts have to make choices. Governments across this land are making choices.

Every government in this country is making those tough choices at this time. The member is making some reference to Bill70 which was enabling legislation that was brought about through the recommendations of the SARC committee. This gove rnmen t consulted with members from the City of Winnipeg, from the rural municipalities, from the urban municipalities, who recommended that we bring in legislation to provide equity across the system so that the provincial government is responsible for paying the same amount on social allowances in all jurisdictions.

We did allow jur isdictions to exceed that amount if they so wished. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speak er, this is absolutely indefensible, indefensible to have the children in poverty in this province in terms of the Province of Manitoba's action, be the ones who suffer the most from the government cutbacks from the Tories opposite. Budget Program Reduction Criteria Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): would like to ask the Premier, in terms of his commitment in this Cham ber a year ago in eradicating poverty, how he can defend having millions of dollars going in grants in lieu of taxes for training to places like Keystone Ford, $10,000; Kingswood Golf and Country Club, $9,000; Linnett Graphics, $7,000; Wardrop Engineering, $1 0,000; lots of grants, Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars in grants going to corporations. At the same time, they are cutting the benefits to children living in poverty. How does he defend this in the House? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, as the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has indicated, there have not been cuts throughout the years that we have been in government, and we have been in government fo r almost five years. During that period of time, the Department of Family Services, and particularly those lines that pertain to Child and Family Services, daycare, to foster parents and so on, have been receiving over that period on an annualized basis increases that have averaged in the range of 9 percent, over that period of time of five years. So we have not been reduc ing those areas, that is No. 1. Number 2, Mr.

Speaker, the grants that he talks about are for training people for jobs. That is a very key priority. That is absolutely for training. Not a nickel can flow without that money going to pay for training. So when he talks about it, he is absolutely misleading the public. [interjection] Yes, absolutely. This is, of course, the problem that you have with New Democrats, is that they are dishonest when they talk about these things. They will not tell people the truth- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, this is our first day back after the recess, and I would have thought that perhaps the Premier of all people might have taken the time when we were in recess to assess the way we behave in this House, and in particular not talk about dishonesty. I mean, coming fr om this government, its actions, it is horrid for members of the opposition to take comments like that, and I would like to ask you to have him withdr aw that comm ent unequivocally. Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order. The honourable Premier did not refer to any specific member.

The honourable First Minister, to fi nish his response. *** Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, it is that lack of honesty that, of course, has left the New Democrats in the position they are, with no credibility. Every nickel of payroll tax dedu ction is based on the dollars that are spent on training of their employees for jobs and that is exactly what we need in this province, is to have well-trained, capable employees for the jobs that are there in our society.

623 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 The New Democrats speak out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they say, spend more money on training; they say, encourage the private sector to spend more money on training, and when it happens they criticize it. Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both ways and the public knows why they have a lack of credibility in this province, and that is why they are where they are. * (1 345) Throne Spee ch Education System Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the public knows that there is total neglect of children in this province by this government.

That is what they know, and nowhere has it been exemplified bener than by the cuts by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) of 2 perce nt, not the 2 percent she announced, but three, four, five, six and higher cuts to divisions across this province. All this, when in November in the throne speech, the government said, my government realizes that education and training are the keys that unlock a world of opportunity and a future of economic growth and pr osperity. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Educat ion, what has happe ned to this world of opportunity and economic growth and prosperity, and will the minister now admit that her government has failed only two months later to live up even to the words that she included in the throne speech? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely what the member has said.

Let me tell you that this government maintains its commitment to education and its commitment to students, and we are making sure through what we have put forward and have offered to school divisions in terms of options that students and their programs will be protected. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, how can this minister reconcile her callous actions now with her position of December 2, '92, when she said: I am very pleased with what this government has put forward in relation to education in this throne speech, especially when the Antler River School Divis1on states, in the area- Mr.

Speaker: Does the honourable member have a question? The honourable member for Dauphin, kindly put your question now, please. Mr. Plohman: I say, the failure at the school levels-we see increased violence and I have to ask this Minister of Education, how can she stand in her place in this House when there are cuts being made right across this province, the many divisions in the province, how can she reconcile the position she took in the throne speech only two months ago? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I would remind the member that there is a fiscal issue relating to all Canadians that this province is not immune to the fiscal position and that this province has had to make some very difficult decisions. Those are only the decisions that we are now asking school boards to make, and we expect that they will make them in good faith. I would also like to remind the member what I hear d the Leader of the Opposition (M r. Doer) say in the Budget Debate of 1988, when he said if you are not willing to make the tough decisions today, you will not have the money to deliver the services tomorrow.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Some things never change. Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin has the floor. * (1 350) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, she just admined they are not delivering the services. I ask, how can this minister stand in her place and defend the economic mismanagement of this Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness), total economic chaos which is the result of the cuts in education? How can the minister justify the position in light of this economic minister, this Minister of Rnance, who has failed totally in regard to management of the economy in Manitoba? Mrs.

Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I will remind the member of the fiscal position of this country and this province and to say that this government has made every anempt to make very fair decisions, very fair decisions across government. We recognize the importance of education, and in doing so, we have made recommendations to school divisions so that the integrity of programs and the programming for children will be protected.

Ma rch 1, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 624 School Divisions Budget Reduction Alternatives Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. While pe rform ing ma jor su rger y to our educational system, this government continues to payJip service to the importance of education as we have seen in this House today. Not only have we seen the minister take a cut at public school funding, but we have seen her come up with unrealistic ideas and suggestions to school boards.

Can this minister enlighten the House today as to what options she has suggested to the school divisions that have to come to grips with these awful cuts? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I did outline several options which were put forward to school divisions. One was an option similar to the option that we in governmen t ha ve put forward to our own employees. We did suggest that school divisions might look at work week reduction.

In addition to that, we have asked them to look at adm inistrative costs in the same way that we in government have and to make sure that we protect the interests of children in the classroom and current programs. Department of Education and Training Administration Budget Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if she will in fact be cutting her own administrative budget 20 percent as she has asked the school divisions to cut? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, that information will come forward with the budget.

Education System Reform Report Tabling Request Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary for the Minister of Education. Can the minister tell us and is the minister pre pared to table a framework to deal with educational refo rm? The MTS and school trustees are waiting for this. She indicated to us before that in fact the process had been under way, but it was news to most of the edu cational officials and organizations. Is she prepared to table that today, or is her reform simply cut and slash? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): The process of educational reform has been very important to us, and it is proceeding, Mr. Speaker, in a very organized way. In that organized way we have had focus groups, we have had discussions with all of the represe ntative groups in education. We have spoken with the teachers, the trustees, business, industry and the MFL. We have made sure that in beginning to design our process of reform we have included all of the partners, including the public. St. Boniface Hospital Pediatric Bed Closures Mr.

Dave Chomlak (K IIdonan): My question is to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). On Februar y 18, the head of the minister's own hand-picked reform team, Bernar d Blais stated, and I quote: All bed closure decisions are made by the deputy minister and the minister. Now that this minister has completely closed the children's ward at St. Boniface Hospital, which changed from his original announcement that some beds would stay open and some day surgery would remain open, can the minister advise this House when and why he made the decision to completely close the children's ward at St. Boniface Hospital? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I am very pleased to welcome my honourable friend to the important position of critic in the ministry of Health, and I hope that my honourable friend brings to his responsibility on behalf of the New Democratic Party, some of the policy they might bring forward in terms of health ref orm. Possibly they might want to share with us the progressive initiatives in other provinces that they may or may not be familiar with. I know that my honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr.

Chom iak) will app roach his new responsibility with the kind of enthusiasm that he has shown in the past, and I hope, Sir, that he does not fall victim immediately to what I describe fondly as the Leader's disease, although he has fallen victim to that already, Mr. Speaker. To qualify, so there is no confusion, not my Leader's disease, the Leader of the Opposition's disease.

625 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear that answers to questions should be brief and relate directly to the matter raised. If the minister wants to debate health care policy in this province we are more than willing anytime, anyplace, but he should not waste the time in Question Period and should answer the question raised by our new Health critic. Mr.

Speaker: I would remind tine honourable minister, the honourable opposition House leader does have a point of order, and I would ask the honourable minister to deal with the matter that is raised. "'* * Mr. Orchard: Indeed, and I certainly look forward to the New Democrats debating health policy. It will be a refreshing change in the five years I have been here. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend asked the question when and why and what was the process around decision making in terms of consolidation of all inpatient services for children in Winnipeg to the Children's Hospital.

That decision was made and was announced following recommendations from a number of study groups, including the Urban Hospital Council. I want to indicate to my honourable friend that the latest recommendation which arrived on my desk approximately the end of November indicated that when government was consolidating services the Urban Hospital Council recommended complete consolidation of pediatric bed services to the Children's Hospital. * (1 355) Mr.

Chomlak: My supplementar� to the same minister: Will the minister at least consider keeping these beds open for a period of 18 months to two years to allow for a time period to find out whether the consolidation which would result in only one children' s hospital being avai lable to 600,000 people?-because la st year on at least two occasions, He alth Sciences Ce ntre was overcrowded and St. Boniface was alerted as a bac kup. We will have no more bac kup, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, at least in the interim period, allow an 18-month to two-year period to see if a backup is infact necessary? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I know my honourable friend does not always have all the information before him, and certainly the opportunity to receive full and complete information is not av ailable, but I want to indicate to my honourable friend that one of the pieces of incorrect information that he may have been predicating some of his observation on, the consolidation of inpatient services to Children's, is the fact that this was the plan as envisioned by governme nts in planning the Children's Hospital since 1975.

Now that is a long time to achieve a goal of consolidation of pediatrics into one hospital, but it was the plan in 1975 and will be expedited. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my honourable friend that since the Chi ldren's Hospital opened to accept children for inpatient services in approximately 1982, a number of beds have never been opened at Children's Hospital. With the complete confidence of the profes sionals, Dr.

Aggie Bishop as head of pediatrics, we are assured that we can provide the inpatient needs of children in Manitoba at Children's Hospital, utilizing only a portion of the yet unopened beds at Children's Hospital. It is with that integrity that we have approached this decision. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, I just do not listen to focus groups. We have been listening to the patients; we have been listening to the parents and the nur ses. Health Care System Francophone Community Services Mr.

Dave Chomla k (KII do nan): My final supplementary to the minister: Will the minister at least attend the public foru m being sponsored tonight by the Societe Franco-Manitobaine and explain why his gove rnment is ignoring the community, is ignoring the safety needs of children and is ignoring the Francophone community? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is reg retful with the first series of questions my honourable friend has put out that he has not told the exact truth. Now that again is a problem my honourable friend had-{inte�ection] Well, I hope he tells the truth- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

March 1, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 626 Point of Order Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Health indicated that I am not speaking the truth. I object to that, and I am rising on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: For clarification, the honourable member did say he is up on a matter of privilege? Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the minister apologize for indicating that my comments were dishonest. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order, but I would caution the honourable Minister of Health to pick and choose your words very, very carefully. * * * Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I accept your caution. Sir, that is the caution that I am giving to the member for Kildonan, because in his

preamble to the last question, he did not have his facts straight. We have not ignored the Francophone community. We have not ignored the concerns of children and families in Manitoba, contrary to the information put on the public record by the member for Kildonan wherein he said that the St. Boniface Hospital will close completely to children. That is a false piece of information. Little wonder that fa milies are concerned when the critic for the NDP is putting falsehoods on the public airwaves. CN Rail Employee Layoffs Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, today we learned that CN Rail has announced that it will reduce its workforce by 1 0,000 people over three years in Canada. Of that, 3,000 jobs will be lost this year, 1993. Manitoba stands to lose 351 of those jobs and possibly another 350 plus more. My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transpor tation. Considering the historical significance of railway jobs to the province of Manitoba and to my community of Transcona, what action is this Minister of Transportation taking to protect these jobs for these employees and for their fam ilies? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, la st year CN announced the potential layoffs of 1 0,000 positions. Presently, they have 32,000 employees in Canada. Unfortunately, today, the announcement was made that there would be 3,000 employees laid off this year and 3,500 in the year '94 and 3,500 in the year '95. I got in touch with the senior people from CN this morning.

Just to clarify, based on the news release they had-1 was not sure exactly what the impact would be-and regretfully have to confirm the fact that there will be 350 actual layoffs at CN, plus there will be 184 positions affected by a four-day work week. There will be another 62 that will be affected by attrition reduction and cutback on summer hiring. Mr. Speaker, also, they have indicated a further 323 positions that are going to be laid off in western Canada during the course of the year. What bothers me most is the fact that Manitoba is getting a bigger proportion of the layoffs than the other provinces.

Ours is over 7 percent. I have raised it with the officials of CN. Our position has always been that it should be fair and equitable across the provinces if there are going to be reductions. This has not happened. It is my intention to later today meet with the president of CN as well as the CEO to discuss the fairness aspect of it, that in the future, if there are going to be further reductions taking place, that we get dealt with in a fair way. * (1 400) Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for making my point for me. CN Rail Retraining Programs Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Will the Minister of Labour explain, since two years ago I asked him and his department to intercede in this process of retraining for these employees who are facing layoff and for those who are now finding themselves laid off, what his department, the Department of Labour, is doing to provide skills upgr ading for the employees who are laid off and those who are now facing layoff and an uncertain future, Mr. Speaker? What actions is his department taking to provide these- Mr. Speaker: Or der, please. The question has been put. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, fi rst of all, I indicate to the member for

627 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 Transcona that the rai lways fall with in the jurisdiction of Labour Canada. Having said that, there was a particular concern that the member brought with respect to the trade certificates of those people working at the railr oad in that they were not transferable to other areas. At that time we put him together with our director of the Apprenticeship & Training branch and I believe several of the officials from the unions who were involved to develop a plan that could be used to upgrade those skills.

I understand there were some complications and difficulties in that particular process. I indicate very clearly to him, within the budgets and the available resources that I have in our department, we are always prepared to work with those groups to overcome those difficulties, but again one of the major problems of course was it being in federal jur isdiction. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, these employees are still waiting for this minister to act. CN Rail Retraining Programs Mr. Daryl Reid (T ranscon a): My final supplementary is to the Minister of Education.

Since the De partment of Educ ation has anticipated that Manitoba will lose 1, 700 railway jobs this decade, what action or plans does this Minister of Education have , or a.ny member of her government for that matter, to retrain the laid-off employees from the railway and to restore some sense of security for their fam ilies? What adjustment strategy does this Minis ter of Education have, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this serious situation? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, I think the members in the House probably are well aware that the severance packages that the unions have negotiated with CN and CP are second to none in this country. My biggest regret is that these jobs are going to be lost because the people, by and large, who will be laid off or terminated- there are tremendous severance packages that they have worked out. In fact, my under standing is that anybody working eight years or longer will receive over 80 percent of their wages until age 65. They also have severance packages. My und erstanding from C�nd I am not defending CN's position.

I am just saying that the employees who are affect ed, by and large, are not the ones who are raising the biggest concern, because the un ions have looked after their employees well in that regard. CN has also assured us thatthey are trying to look for placement with these people. A lot of the positions that are being lost are basically through attrition. Mr. Speaker, I think CN itself was looking to see whether they can place many of these people aside from what training they can get. Universities Funding Reduction Impact Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, since this governmen t came to office they have worked steadily to transfer the costs of education off the government and onto the debt loads of students attending our universities and colleges, and the trend continues. They clawed back $2 million from the universities, a 2 percent cut in the support coming this year. They have increased the fees to international students by more than 75 percent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education a very simple question. What will be the impact of all of these decisions on students currently in programs at our universities? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, let me start with the failure to flow the anticipated funds, and let me assure the House that was covered by the un iversi ties with their surplus. In fact, the universities still retain a surplus therefore there was no effect on students in that regard. Universities were only required to share what other Manitobans have also had to share when anticipated funds did not come into Manitoba. In terms of visa students, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that action was taken to bring Manitoba in line with every other province across Canada.

Student Financial Assistance Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Perhaps this minister should do some focus group with students. Can the minister assure this House that we will not be moving to a loans only program in student aid this year? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I can certainly tell the member I

March 1 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 628 spend a great deal of time with students and making sure that I speak to them and that their interests are represented in the planning of this governme nt. I believe that is evident when we acted on behalf of students and we capped tuition at 5 percent this year. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the question is a serious one. Can students expect the same level of grant support this year as they have received in the past? Mrs. Vodrey: The issues of student support are serious ones.

I have spoken with the honourable member several times in terms of the Canada Student Loan Program because that is the first Joan that students are required to take when they need assistance. In addition, the provincial support will be considered in the context of our budget. Universities Quality of Education Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Students in every survey and in every interview indicate that they are very concerned about the quality of the education that they are receiving in Manitoba.

I want to ask the Minister of Education, who has assured Manitobans that the quality of education in our universities will not suffer under the cuts she has proposed, could she tell the House whether she measures quality in class size, in library service, in Jab times and assistance, in counselling and guidance services, in the number of assignments and evaluations, or does she have some definition of quality that includes none of these, perhaps a focus group definition of quality? Will she tell us how she intends to monitor the quality of education in Manitoba's universities? *

(1410) Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Again, the quality of education is the most important thing that we are dealing with in terms of students on our K-12 side, students on our post-secondary side, whether they are in our colleges or our universities or our training programs. Theref ore, when the announcement was made to the universities, we also made recommendations to the universities so that we could preser ve progr amm ing for students .

We have asked universities, in the same way we have asked ourselves in government, to look at a version of the work-week reduction so that any reductions will not affect students and student progr amming. Budget Consultations Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks that reduction in hours of the staff on services is not going to affect students. I have no idea where she gets these ideas from. I want to ask the minister in fact where she does get these ideas from. Did she talk to students, faculty, parents, boards of governors or the UGC?

Who advised her that her million-dollar clawback and the reductions to universities next year will not affect the quality of education, and will she table those opinions? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the member again. When the decision was made to not flow the funds to universities, it was because there was an under standing that those universities did have surpluses and the shortfall was covered by surpluses with surplus remaining.

In addition to that, in this announcement, as I have told the member already, we have asked the universities to examine ways to not affect students and to not affect progr amming. I would wonder what the member is getting at. Is she asking us to continually increase on the backs of students so that others can continue to get increases while other Manitobans continue to take reductions? Capital Budgets Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, will the minister confirm that, in addition to the clawback, in addition to the cuts to next year's budget, she intends to dra matically cut the capital and renovations grants to the universities as well? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speak er, I informed the universities when I met with them last week that the capital budget will be announced when the budget is announced in this House. Social Assistance Child Tax Benefit Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, last year the federal minister of health and welfar e met with his provincial counterparts in Charlo ttetown to discuss the new federal child tax benefit. After a pub lic protest on the steps of the Manitoba Legislature, the Minister of Family Services finally announced that there would be no clawing back of this new benefit to people on social assistance.

629 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 Can the Minister of Family Services tell the House if he agreed in Cha rlottetown that Manitoba would not claw back the new child tax benefit, especially the new $500 benefit for families who are working but with children? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that there was a recognition amongst the social services ministers across this country that we have to look at all of the programs that we have in place across this country.

I indicated in a previous answer that we have seen a 65 percent increase in the Social Allowances line over the last three budgets. Other provinces, including Ontario, have seen a greater increase. We have to look at the manner in which government relates to social allowances recipients and make some difficult choices. I would say to you that over the last numbers of budgets in Manitoba, Family Services has seen consistent increases and that the recipients that this department is responsible for are aware of the many reforms and changes we have made to their benefit. Mr. Martindale: Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately the minister misses a very simple point, and that is, when the federal government improves a progr am , is the provincial government going to penalize people and cut it back? Will the minister assure worfdng parents with children in the daycare system that the new $500 child benefit will be excluded as income so that children, and not his government, actually do benefit from this initiative and will not once again be penalized by this governmen t's actions. Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr.

Speake1r, I can say that if the member wishes to discuss daycare , this is an area of our budget that has doubled over the last five years, and there is a tremendous amount of provincial resources that flows into the daycare system. The daycare system has been well served by the changes that have taken place. Mr. Martindale: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the minister will not answer the question. Does he agree with the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who said on December 13, 1991, that his government would work co-opera tively with the fede ral government on any program designed to eradicate poverty with respect to children?

If so, will he promise not to penalize children and allow working parents to keep the child tax benefit and not claw it back through decreased child care subsidies? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, in fact we have worked co-operatively with the constituents who access this department.

I say to the member that if you want to under stand the realities that are out there, I would suggest that you look caref ully at what Premier Bob Rae is saying these days about the treatment of social allowance recipients and the structural changes that we are going to have to make in this country because of the tremendous increases in volume. I also would have him reference new-President Bill Clin ton and the statements that he has made on this.

I could tell you that the mood across the country, with the ministers of the social al lowances department, recognizes that there have to be fundamen tal changes in the system. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. Chairman's Salary Increase Mr. Leonard Evans (Bran don East): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are in the process of paying exorbitant increases in their Autopac premiums even though they were misled by the Conse rvative Party back in 1987 and 1988 that a Con servative government somehow magically would roll back the rates or at least freeze them.

Manitobans have had a rude awakening and are now particularly offended by this governme nt's decision to increase the salary of the new chairman from $20,000 to $35,000 a year, a 75 percent increase. Will this government reverse this decision, this unconscionable increase, today? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, we are expecting of the new chairman a considerable increased workload, which he has committed to.

Under the ND P, of course, there was a minister who was the chairman of the board, the very thing that caused the downfall of the NDP management of Crown corporations, the continua l political interference. Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to reference costs of chairmen in similar positions, I suggest he should look at ICBC. It seems to me that the chairman there receives something three times the rate of what the Manitoba chair does. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, how can this 75 percent increase be justified in light of the massive

March 1 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 630 cutbacks to schools, to hospitals, to people on welfare, to universities, plus all of the people who are being laid off? How, in all fairness, can this increase be justified? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, at the very time when we are looking to put some very serious changes in the MPIC program-Autopac 2000 is coming forw ard- the member should look at his colleagues to the west, where they increased Mr. DeVito from not $10,000, to $90,000. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister, to finish the response. Mr.

Cummings: Mr. Speaker, let not the member be too sanc timonious. We are looking for · leaders hip and expertise at the corporation. The retiring chair ind icated that the workload was exceeding the amount of time commitment that had been expected. We are expecting an increasing time commitmentfrom the new chair, and we believe we are getting good value for the dollar. *

(1420) Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. Chairman's Salary Increase Mr . Leonar d Evans (Brandon Ea st): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, does the Pr emier approve of this unconscionable increase, because I noticed this Order-i n-Council is both recommended by the Minister of MPIC and then he signs it twice? He approves of it. Mr. Speaker, will this Pr emier now repeal this unacceptable increase that is occurring while others are being asked to take a cut? · Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I will repeat so that the member for Brandon East can understand that the new chair has been asked to increase the time spent in the position to between three and four times what the former chair was spending there. The new chair is a former corporate secretary of a major insurance company so has extensive background, a corporate legal counsel, a corporate secretary.

Under other circumstances in British Columbia, the New Democratic government has increased the salary for their new appointment to chair from $10,000 to $90,000 a year with an individual who does not have half the qualifications of this chairman of the board, so let not the hypocrisy of the New Democrats lead us into misinformat ion, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House prior to recogn izing the honour able member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray ).

During Question Period on December 16, 1992, the House leader for the official opposition party the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) rose on a point of order regarding the uttering by the honourable Minister of Cu lture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) of the words "those are racist comments." The words in question were used in reference to the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Ceril li). I took the matter under advisement. On November 1, 1990, I ruled in a similar matter that the phrase "potentially racist attitude" was unparliamentary.

I noted in that ruling that in our own House the phrases "smacking of racist" and "it is almost a racist assumption" had been voluntarily withdrawn by the member who spoke them. Further, in a very similar situation in Janu ary 1987, Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons ruled that a member withdraw the words "racist comments." I am, therefore , ruling that the honourable member for Thompson did have a point of order, and I am calling on the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship to rise and withdraw the unparliamentary language, without qualification. Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation as we start a new year in this House and according to your ruling, I will withdraw those statements. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Madam minister. MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a matter of urgent public importance. I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carst airs) , that under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to

631 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 1993 discuss a matter of ur gent public importance, namely, the crisis in education funding in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Before determining whether the motion meets the requirements of our Rule 27, the honourable member for Crescentwood will have five minutes to state her case for the urgency of debating this ma tter today. A spokesper son for the government and the other opposition party will also have five minutes to address the position of their party. Ms. Gray: Mr.

Speaker, I rise today on this matter of ur gent public importance to indicate to you that in fact this is the first opportunity that we have to raise the issue on the crisis in education funding. We heard announcements from the minister last week and the week preceding talking about the severe cuts that are coming to education in this province for this year, and given that this is the first day that we are now resuming sitting in this House, it is very, very im portant that all members of the Legislature have an opportunity to discuss the issues here. Mr.

Speaker, there is no other opportunity to discuss this matter since we do not have a budget before us and we do not know when that budget will be here. We have had no Estimates scheduled. There are no committees, or there are no other occasions to explore this very serious matter of education funding. I believe this is a very urgent matter because school boards, as you are aware, require to submit their budge ts to the city by March 15 , and to municipalities. Therefore they are required to make very significant decisions which will affect their students and the parents in the divisions in which they work.

Further, the minister has arbitrarily slashed out a percentage of school division budgets based on the bottom line. This is not true reform . We definitely have a crisis here in education funding. I think it is very important to each of the members of the Legislature, patrticularly those in rural Manitoba, because this is not a crisis which is only peculiar to Winnipeg. In fact, it will probably affect some of the rural schoe�l divisions more significantly than even some of the school divisions in Winnipeg. It is very important that each member has an opportunity to discuss this crisis in education funding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion here this afternoon. I am sure that not only my caucus colleagues and the Liberal opposition who has moved this motion, but also children, parents, students, trus tees, superintendents, everyone involved with education across the province has been shocked by the move of the government at the present time, this minister and this government as a whole who have taken the unprecedented step of cutting the funding for public education in this province in an unprecedented way.

We do not have another opportunity in the deba te with the bills before us in this House to discuss this issue and raise the ur gency that is being felt by people across this province in rural Manitoba as well as in the city of Winnipeg and the city of Brandon, the kinds of cuts that have been taking place by this government, Mr. Speaker. We see that the quality of education, contrary to what the minister says, is being impacted on in a dramatic way by the cuts that she has announced.

She has entrenched the inequities that have existed throughout the system from division to division by her actions and the gov ernmen t's efforts to introduce a bill later on in the session that will come before this House, entrenched inequities in the system, across the system. She has ensured, contrary to what she said, that there will be massive cutbacks in services to children. I was attempting, Mr.

Speaker, during Question Period to relay the message from the Antler River School Division, a small school division in rural Manitoba, when they said to me, at the school level we are seeing increased violence, problems with alcoholism, an increase in abuse and problems in family and peer relationships. In one school we have had two student suicides in six years-a Grade 6 student and a Grade 8 student-both from the same class. This is the kind of impact that we are seeing in our schools as a result of the inability of the education system to cope with the problems being thrust upon the system.

This government is taking no actions in the area of reform, Mr. Speaker, to reduce those dem ands on the system. Instead, they are choosing to ignore them, to increase the class size, to cut the number of programs and teachers and let them go their own way, and if they survive, they survive, and if they do not, they do not. This is a callous attitude toward the public education system. It is an issue of the utmost importance in this province, one that concerns us

March 1 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 632 deeply in the opposition, and all Manitobans. I believe that they would want us to raise this issue and speak to this issue and debate this issue in the House on an ur gent basis here today. I urge all members, the governme nt, to listen to what the opposition has to say, to listen to what people are telling us about their draconian cuts, their deep cuts unprecedented in the public education system, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule in favour of this ur gent debate at this time so that we can get on with bringing forward these concerns to the govern ment. Hon.

Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have called for the set-aside of the ordinary business of the House. Mr. Speaker, certainly their argum ents around ur gency, even with an attempt with all the bombast associated with their calls, still have not been able to build a case for ur gency. Educ ation funding is an important issue; all of us acknowledge that. But, Mr. Speaker, decisions have been made and rendered by the Minister of Educ ation (Mrs. Vodrey), school boards are budgeting, and will be expected to do so, within the realm of those decisions. There is not a crisis.

This is reality. The member jus t opposite said that it is unprecedented. He should know that a year ago Saskatchewan announced that there would be a 2 percent reduction. That was announced a year ago in support of '93 funding. So the member, when he says it is unprecedented, is wrong. He is wrong in every element of his contribution, so I would say to you, the rules interpreted in any respect would not allow for a debate. Other opportunities include Estimates, coming up, budget, Interim Supply, which all flow once the budget is presented, so there will be plenty of time to debate the issue. However, Mr.

Speaker, the

schedule today probably could allow for some debate. We say that because, although there are a certain number of bills before us that we could debate, given that we are coming into a period of time when one day could possibly be directed towards debate on important issues, I would say that the government is prepared to engage in debate. I want it fully understood that this is not to be precedent setting, that certainly no

interpretations of the rules would allow for a debate on this issue, given the fact that the opposition has failed to establish urgency, but given that this is not to be taken as a precedent case, the government is prepared to debate this important issue. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable members for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Cresce ntwood (Ms. Gray) should be debated today. The notice required under our subrule 27.(1) was received. *

(1430) Pursuant to our Rule 27 and Beauchesne's Citations 389 and 390, there are two conditions required for a matter of ur gent importance to proceed. First, the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought on early enough. Second, it must be shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention. In reviewing the Order Paper, I do not see any other opportunities in the near future for debate on this subject matter.

However, while I am aware that some members view the matter to be a pressing one, I am not persuaded thatthe issue is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not considered today. I unde rstand that changes to the education funding form ula will not be implemented before the start of the upcoming fiscal year, therefore, I am ruling against the motion. However, despite the procedural shortcomings, which I have pointed out to the House, I note that there appears to be desire of members to debate this matter today.

Beauchesne's Citation 387 as well as past rulings of Manitoba Speakers take this into account. I will then put the question to the House. Shall the debate proceed? [agreed] Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this issue. It is actually a day of sadness that we must stand in this House and debate a crisis in education, because in fact if this government had been managing the Department of Education since they came into power in 1988 we would not be in this crisis today. The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) spoke about the fact that tough decisions had to be made.

Well, if the then Minister of Education and the government had in fact started making some

633 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 1993 reasonable decisions in 19 88 and 19 89, we would not be in this difficult situation we are today. This government has promised us education ref orm. We have yet to see any document, any shred of information, any shred of evidence that would show us that in fact there is a reform process that is underway.

What should have happened in 19 88 and '89 is that this government should have decided to go into partnership with the education officials, with the school division trustees, with the Man itoba Tea cher s' Society, parents, parent councils, universities and decided on what is the strategy of education in this province of Manitoba. Let us look toward a five-year plan. Let us look toward a 1 0-year plan. They failed to do that in '88 or '89 and so today they are faced with a huge deficit, and their answer to education reform is to cut and slash. That is totally unacceptable to Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.

Since Thu rsday, all of my colleagues in the caucus have been bombarded by· phone calls from people from across Manitoba, teachers, parents, school offi cials, people who are very, ver y concerned about what is going to happen to our education system in Manitoba. We have seen from this government no idea of a framework for edu cation ref orm.

The minister spoke in the fall about how reform was underway, yet when we speak to the very officials whom she supposedly met with, they in fact said it was a nonmeeting, and they were embarrassed for senior bureau crats because it was obvious that the senior bureau crats knew nothing about what this education reform was supposed to be. The minister today has spoken to us about the many options that she has given school boards. Well, Mr. Speaker, the two options that she has talked about are, decrease your adm inistrative budgets by 20 percent.

We have some school divisions where they are so small that in fact we have very few staff. There may be two or three staff in that school division. How does one cut that administrative budget 20 percent? We asked the minister today in the House: Is she prepared to cut her own administrative budget 20 percent? It was very obvious by the rote answers that she was giving us today that in fact she probably is not prepared to do that. How does she expect school divisions to cut their administrative budgets 20 percent? I will look forward to the minister's comments today on this particular issue.

I would like the minister to be able to tell this House and to be able to tell all Manitobans what other options she has for the school divisions to deal with the salary cuts. Some of these cuts are not 2 percent. Some of the school divisions will be faced with a 5.9 percent cut. [inte�ection] Now, I hear the minister say, salaries. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things and one of the difficulties in the education system today is when school divisions are forced to make cuts on salaries or are forced to lay off teachers.

What happens, and the principals will tell you this and the superintendents will tell you this, is that seniority does count. They will tell you, in a school division, it is good to have a mixture of teachers, teachers with years of experience and new teachers, teachers with new ideas, with fresh blood, new ideas brought into the division. What happens when we are forced into layoffs is in fact many of those new teachers are laid off.

You are left with experienced teachers only, and you do not get the same quality of education that you might have if you were allowed as a school division to ma ke those best decisions as to having a mix of teachers. Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the crisis in education funding, we cannot forget the funding to post-secondary education at the univers ity level. Now this government and this minister have an unusual way of dealing with issues to organizations and agencies, and they did the very same thing with Child and Family Services. They have done the same thing with hospitals.

What they have said is we are going to cut your funding. You make all the decisions. You have to deliver the service, but you cannot do a, b, c and d. So they have taken away their autonomy to make decisions. They have taken away the authority that they have. This minister has said, you cannot cut programs, you c&nnot lay off univers ity professors, you cannot raise your tuition fees more than 5 percent, but you must grapple with these funding shortfalls, and it is your responsibility to make sure that you have a quality education delivered.

They have said the very same things to school boards and the very same things to school teachers. They have said, you do not have the tools, you do not have the resources. It is like telling a carpenter to build a house, and you have to make sure you

March 1, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 634 have the essential features in the house, but we are not going to give you any hammer and nails to do the job. It does not work that way. It cannot work that way. This minister and this government should have been in partnership with these universities, with the school divisions, with the school trustees years ago to say, how are we going to deal with education here in Manitoba? Where do we want to be in five years? Where we are now in 1993 is, we have no education refor m, we have no strategy, we have no plan.

We have an idea in the throne speech about education reform , and now we hear the minister today talk about focus gr oups and consultation. If, in fact, her government is out there doing that, then it is unbeknownst to all of the individuals who work in the education system. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that the government reconsider their position on education funding, that they sit down again with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the school divisions, that they go out and talk to these trustees, that they talk to parents, and that they find out what people want to see in education, because unfortunately the real tragedy of these cuts will not be seen this year. They will not be seen next year or the year after, but the real tragedy of these cuts will actually be realized in five and 1 0 years when it is far too late.

We are talking about a generation of children here who are not going to see the type of education that we here on this side of the House feel that these children should get, so we are not going to see the worst results this year or the next, but it is going to be down the road. I would also like to say, in response to the education crisis that we have here in Manitoba, that there are major problems out in rural Manitoba. We have school divisions that are calling in and saying they do not know how they are going to deal with the cuts to funding: Antler River, Pine Creek, a number of school divisions.

And what ofthe members of the Legislative Assembly who represent those areas? What is their response to those school divisions? What suggestions and options do they have for those school divisions? * (1 440) Twice this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I have hear d the word "reality" used, and "reality based," and the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) talks about, this is reality. The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) says they base reality on what happens in Ontario and Bob Rae.

Well, I feel very, very sorry for Manitobans and the education system if, in fact, the real ity of this government is based on what happens in Ontario. We are our own province, and we have to make our own decisions. I would ask that the cabinet and the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) reconsider their shor tsightedness in regard to edu cation funding, reconsider the draconian cuts, reconsider the regressiveness of their policies in regard to education and that they look towards other options.

If they feel that dollars are short and that we have to be more efficient, nobody is going to disagree with that, but you have to plan and decide over a period of time as to how you are going to ensure that those reforms do occur. So I would ask this government to reconsider, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the comments of the members of this House, particularly those who represent rural areas. Thank you. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau , Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Plohman: This is an extremely grave situation with regard to public education in this province.

We have seen, over the last numb er of year s, a reduction in the comm'itment to the public education system, and we have seen instead an increasing priority being placed on private, elite schools in this province. One of the reasons why this government now is short of money for the public education system is because they have been providing increasing amounts to elite schools in this province at the same time that they are decreasing their commitment to the public education system.

It has happened continuously over the last number of years with the elite schools receiving sometimes as much as 1 0 times the increases of the public education system under the former member for Roblin-Russell when he was Minister of Education and carrying on to this minister at the present time.

It is an insidious attack on the public education system, and it has resulted in many inequities developing throughout the province, particularly in many of the smaller rural school divisions who are not able to offer the same quality of education that they can in some of the larger divisions, because a greater and greater bur den is being borne by local taxpayers. So if a school division is poor in terms of

635 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 their ability to raise taxes from property, they are not going to be offe ring the same quality of education, the same vari ety of courses avai lable and experiences for the students in their area. That is the regrettable part of this whole lack of commitment to the public education system.

I guess we can say we should not be surp rised by the government actions here this year, because they have shown us, over the last number of years, that they do not place a high priority on education, regardless of what they said in the throne speech, regar dles s of what they said in speeches, regardless of what this minister said in speeches and this First Minister, this Premier (Mr. Rlmon), because iri fact their actions speak louder thai"' words. This year that is extremely evident in everything that has been done so far, Mr.

Acting Speaker -s moke and mirror s announce ment designed to leave the impression that the cuts were not as deep as they were. In fact, we have seen many divisions having cuts in the 6 percent ran ge. not 2 percent, as the minister said. Many will suffer even greater reductions because of the fact that they have gone through a collective bargaining process with their staff and have agreed to reasonable settlements very close to inflation, and they will have to pay those as well.

This government seems to have no regard for negotiation or consultation or collective bargaining process that has been in place historically in this provi nce. They want to rule by decree. This Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is known for that. He has done it before with the civil servants. It is just a matter of who he has decided the scapegoats will be for his economic mismanagement and his fa ilur e in this pr ovince. Who will the next scapeg oats be? It was the civil servants, the nur ses.

Now it is the teachers they determined who are the fat cats in society and shall be singled out for huge discriminatory personal tax increases. Who are they trying to kid, Mr .. Acting Speaker? They say they do not increase personal taxes. Of course, we know they have offl oaded the taxes onto the property owners, offloaded their responsibilities and tried to save face on their election promise, but have they kept their promise insofar as the personal income taxes of individuals and groups in society? No, they have not. Their scapegoat that they identify is never big business.

No, they will give tax decreases, tax break s to big business, but never will it be to the average working per son in this province, and whether it be in the public sector or in the private sector, but particularly in the public sector, where they have singled out what they call fat cats for discriminatory tax increases, huge tax increases by this Minister of Finance and supp orted in an apologetic way by this Minister of Education. She is, I think, not carrying out her responsibility as Minister of Education at all. It is the Minister of Rnance making the decisions for her.

I think that is regrettable, because the public education system in this province needs a minister to stand up and say we cannot do this to the children in Manitoba, we cannot cut back the education quality that they are receiving. The demands are being increased year by year by society on teacher s and students in the classroom. Students are lining up to see their teachers for special help that they require because there are too many of them in classr ooms. They cannot meet the needs physically of all the kids in their classrooms.

This minister stands back and allows the Minister of Rnance to make these kinds of callous deep cuts that bite deep into the quality of education for our children. We have to put our children's future first. I found it rather ironic that the Rrst Minister would talk about that, and the government, in the throne speech this past year when they talked about the need for priority to be placed on education. In fact, there has been no priority placed on education.

When they said in the throne speech, my government realizes that education and training are the keys that unlock a world of opportunity and future of economic growth and prosperity; when the minister said she is pleased with what was in the throne speech; when the Premier on December 10, 1992, just a few short months ago, said we have been hailed for bringing forward not only a fair and reasonable, but a sensible, way of funding for the public schools in Manitoba; what has happened to this sensible funding model that they talked about? It was not sensible in the first place. It was inactionable.

The school divisions have told us that, and I refer to the Antler River School Division. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) should know if he would meet with his constituents there, Mr. Acting Speaker, exactly what this has done to a small division in southwestern Manitoba. They cannot

March 1, 1993 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 636 offer near the same course choice that the larger school divisions can offer. They are finding that program choice may mean two or three programs offered in the same room at the same time by the same teacher, two or three programs going on at the same time. In order to ensure large enough numbers for courses-they offer them to Gr ades 11 and 12 students together, chemistry, physics, math-they are only off ered every second year. * (1 450) The minister says it is not affecting the quality of educ ation.

The minister said the qu ality of education will not be sacrificed. She said it again today in Question Period in response to a question that quality of education will not be sacrificed. We will protect programs. That is not true, Mr. Acting Speaker, because they are not doing it, and we see evidence of this right across the province that the children in schools are suffering in terms of the education quality and opportunities because of this government's cut. Let them talk about Sask atche wan . Saskatchewan has over double the declining enrollment rate that Manitoba has.

They did not mention that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) stood up in his statement and said, oh, well, look at Saskatchewan, they have done it, unpr ecedented. We are talking about Manitoba. We are talking about Manitoba's situation. We are not talking about the unpr ecedented cuts in Sask atchewan . We are talking about unprecedented cuts in Manitoba. These are the custodians here. These are the decision makers. These are the actions that we are concerned about here in the province of Manitoba.

Sure, Roy Romanow inherited a ma ssive mismanagement similar to what this Minister of Finance is in the middle of in Manitoba at the present time. There is no dif ference with this look-alike Devine that we have here in Manitoba. He is doing the same thing. He is following in the same path. Even with these drastic cuts that he is putting in place for education, he is still heading down that trail of doom as Devine did in his province. That is why Roy Romanow was faced with the situation, but we cannot juxtapose that situation in Saskatchewan on Manitoba here. Let us deal with the situation in Manitoba.

We do not have those cuts in enrollment that they have had in other provinces. We see this government moving in a callous way towards the destruction of the public edu cation system. I would asser t and my colleagues would assert that the public education system is at risk with this Con servative government. It is clear. The evidence is clear over the last number of years. Many small school divisions have received less and less from the province, while the local taxpayers have tried to hike it up.

Now they did not like the message they were getting for that, and they have decided that they are going to now move into the area of local decision making. They are going to tell trustees what to do. They are going to make the decisions for them. Even though they were elected on a platform of education policy and administration in their communities, this big brother government is going to move in and tell them what is good for their communities and what is not. That is unprecedented, Mr. Acting Speaker, in Manitoba, as well as an infringement of local decision making. Mr.

Acting Speaker, this is an ur gent matter; this is of deep concern. The government must change its position on this funding of education and ensure funding of inflation which their Premier (Mr. Filmon) said they would do; they promised. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The honourable member's time has expired. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this very im portant issue. My friend, my colleague the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), of course, has just provided us one of his typical speeches.

What is the old saying: heap big wind, but no rain; or lots of smoke, no fire? An Honourable Member: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Mr. Manness: Lots of fury, but there certainly was not much provided in substance to that particular presentation. Mr. Acting Speaker, I too was disappointed with the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gr ay) in her lead-off presentation on this issue. I listened very closely to both presentations, and what is obvious is that nothing has really changed. Both carp on and on.

They say that reform has been promised by this government in the whole area of education, and they try to paint the picture that nothing substantive is changing within that area. Let me say what they do not say. What they do not seem to say or acknowledge is that reform from

637 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 their viewpoint cannot happen with a lesser amount of money. That says to me that, to a Liberal and to a New Democratic Party member, reform can only happen if there is more money to spend. That seems to be the presentation as I hear coming from the opposition benches. Mr. Acting Speaker, if that is their view, then obviously there is not going to be a common sharing of the view as to how reform should occur.

For 30 years now, governments throughout the land and in the western world, reform always meant more resources being spent, but the reality is today we do not have more resources to spend in support of reform, or even in supporting some of those good areas of public service in the public sense that require the same level of support. Why not? Well, reform today is happening in many households and many businesses because the reality of the times is pushing reform and that reform is going to have to occur within finite budgets. I say to you that education is no different. It cannot be looked at in isolation.

Our Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) under stands that. Every member of this Treasury bench, ever y member of this caucus under stands that, and a growing numb er of Cana dians and Man itobans today are understanding that, but not the dinosaurs over across the hall here. An Honourable Member: Old-think. Mr. Ma nness: Old-th ink. Old small "c" conservative-think. What that means is spend, spend and spend some more. Keep pushing back the wall. Mr. Acting Speaker, I heard a new term, and I am going to label--every time I hear the members opposite speak, I am going to use it on them.

We hear, and it is tragic, and I am probably going to be chastised for using it, but today there is tremendous sensitivity around the term "child abuse" and there should be, but do you know what the members across the way are practising? It is fiscal child abuse; in every one of their requests, it is that the government of the day spend more, disregar d what is happening with respect to these deficits and this growing accumulated debt.

What they are saying to the children of today is, tomorrow we are going to steal the fru its of your labour, and we are going to steal all of the energies you put into earning those fruits. I say to the members opposite shame, because it is old-think, it is out of step with the realities of today. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I hear the dinosaur from Dauphin talking and talking and yipping and yapping, and all of the taunts are not going to be able to change the reality of our bottom line and are not going to be able to help one dollar in dealing with the interest on the $4 billion that the members across the way accum ulated in such a period of time. Mr.

Acting Speaker, what I find interesting is, in our budgets between '90 and '93 we devoted on a yearly basis an additional5.5-6 percent every year, $22 million every year, to Education--Q percent a year, more or less, in the last four budgets, year over year over year over year. By the way, the Liberals voted against every one of those budgets and so did the NDP. How did we do this? Well, this is how we did it. We had some decent success on the provincial debt side. We changed some borrowing around. We had some favourable interest rates. With those savings, where did they go?

Did they go into the Department of Natural Resources? No. Did they go into Highways? No. Did they go into the Department of Northern Affa irs? No. Did they go into Urban Affairs? No. Where did they go? They went into Health. They went into Education. They went into Family Services, Mr. Acting Speaker. That is where those savings went--$1 00 million a year increase into Health, $20 million a year increase into Education. The member says that is wrong. Well, I guess it must have been, because they voted against it-voted against it.

So the issue today is not that we have not put enough money in, because we have put every dollar in that we could. The issue today is sharing. Who should escape ? Now the member for Dauphin said that teachers should escape. He is saying to Peter Olfert, no, you take it on the chin, and the civil servants, you take it on the chin, but the teachers should escape. How real is the problem? Well, I look around in the business community today and I know two things. I know that the corporate tax when we inherited government was $200 million.

Today, the business community is contributing in corporate tax around $100 million. So who is paying the tax? I know also that there are individuals working for private business today who are voluntarily rolling back their wages. Why? Because they want to make a contribution to the bottom line, not like

March 1 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 638 the-oh , I canno t say this term , Mr. Acting Speaker-not like my honourable friend the member for Dauphin. Mr. Acting Speaker, had we wished to attack school divisions and had we wished to attack the teaching community, we could have done so in Bill 70, because the powers were there. The powers were built right into the legislation. We chose not to because, in fairness, we said to the education community, particularly the public school system, you have these powers, you are autonomous with respect to your ability to tax and so we chose not to.

No, we certainly did have the legislation built into Bill 70, I say to the member for Kildonan (M r. Chomiak). * (1 500) Mr. Acting Speaker, we will attack nobody but, in fairness to Mr. Olfert and the Manitoba Government Empl oyees' Union, we will ask everybody to share. As far as we can push our model, we will push it. We will push it into the public school system to the extent that we can, in fairness to everybody who is carrying such a portion of the load. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker-and I only have a minu te left-1 know wha t is happenin g in Saskatchewan and I give them credit.

I understand the situation they inherited, and I throw no criticism at the Romanow government for announcing a year ago that they would be reducing support to public schools by 2 percent-no criticism meant. My involvement in reaching the decision and the NDP portrayal that I am the bad guy is OK with me. I have thick skin, I can take it, but I think it is terribly unfair to the Minister of Education, our minister, who in all respects has been reaching out to the education community, who is so sincere in her attempts to have everybody work towards the common good. So I welcome this debate, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and I hope I have an opportunity over the course of many other speeches to lay out for members opposite the reality of the situation today in education and, indeed , in the fiscal standing of the province as a whole. Thank you. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): I would like to start maybe by thanking the Minister of Finance for one thing, and that is encouraging this debate, because I think it is a very important debate. I think, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to start by trying to frame this one in a slightly different way. These are tough times. Nobody denies that.

Nobody denies that a gov ernment has to make tough choices but, when you make those tough choices, you do it by looking carefu lly at your resources and preserving those priorities that are of paramount concern to your government if you believe that. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, in throne speech and budget speech over and over and over again, this gove rnment has talked about the pr iority of education. They have used words about quality and accessibility, equity, flexibility, responsiveness.

In the budget speeches, this same Minister of F1nance has talked about that it is one of the government's primary priorities to preserve high standards of education. Yet they have failed their own test. Mr. Acting Speaker, I attended, along with other mem ber s of the House , a workshop by the technology council, the new flagshi p of the economic program of this government. What was the discussion there over and over and over again? It was to strengthen education. It was to build a base so that we could be competitive internationally in knowledge-based industries.

That is what this government was proposing in those workshops as well as in this House and that was the position that this government had chosen to place education in. So what are their activities? Since they have come to office, they have worked steadily to transfer the costs of universities onto the debt loads of students. They have allowed tuition fees increases that have totalled more than 80 percent since they came into office. They have reduced the support available through grant programs to students so that students, if they are going to be able to go, have no choice but to assume a higher debt load.

They have held their support for universities to the 2-2.5 percent range despite what the Minister of Finance said in this House. The facts are very clear, Mr. Acting Speaker. As a result, students are picking up more and more and more of the burden, and we all know what that does. It means that fewer students go and only certain types of students can go. Only students who have the financial capability to withstand those tremendous increases can go to university. That is unfortunate, because we all hurt. We all lose when we fail to look to the future.

The Minister of Finance made lots of brave statements about the

639 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 1993 future and our children's future. Our children's future is predicated upon a strong and creative educational process in this province, and that is the ver y thing that they are attacking and have been attacking in post-secondary education for five years. This is not a new thing. This is more. It is a little harder, it is a little deeper, but this has been going on since this government came into office. Mr. Acting Speaker, they took back at year-end over $2 million from the universities. Now how does a university make that up in the final quarter of its year?

That means a very huge cut in its ability to provide services, in its repair and renovations programs. In the University of Manitoba there are buildings falling down around the students' heads. There is a basement dropped out of the architecture building there, and rats and mice are coming into the library steadily. This government knows about it, but it has refused to provide the support to do the capital repairs necessary. Also, this government this year-it will be very interesting to see what they do with capital because the belief is that there will be no capital this year, zero.

Where are the universities going to find that $3 million? Are they going to continue to take it out of the mythical sur pluses that this Minister of Finance keeps identifying? Are they going to continue to find it by reducing the fat? There is no fat in these universities anymore. That fat left a long, long time ago. I would invite the minister or any member of the government to go in, as I have done, and sit down with the students there and talk to them. Sit with the students in the Tache residence as I did the other night. In fact, a great many of those students are from rural Manitoba.

They come from the communities that these ministers used to represent and now have chosen to ignore. And what do they say about it? They talk about sitting in lecture halls that they are so crowded into because of the need to cut back on classes, because of the cuts that have taken place, that they are sitting two and three at a desk. They are sitt!ng in the aisleways, they are sitting on the stairways. They talk about an increase in machine marking of papers because there are no longer the teaching assistants to help out.

They talk of complete absence of seminars or any kind of discourse among students because there simply are not the resources available to do it. They talk about it taking an increasingly long period of time to get feedback from their professors, feedback that is so desperately needed if they are going to improve, because the professors simply do not have the time to give individualized feedback. They do not have the teaching assistants to do it, and it is all they can do to keep up with teaching a class when class sizes are moving to the 200, 300, 400 1evel.

It is absolutely disgraceful that a government that puts forward as a major plank in strengthening this pr ovince, puts forward education, puts forward knowledge creation, and then not only does not do anything to support it, but in fact undercuts it, in fact plays cheap political games over and over again. This Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is more interested in the response to her focus group and public opinion and her political management than she is in the educational man agement in this province, than she is for the development and support for our universities.

I want to talk about something else that I just found so incredibly appalling in the discussions or in the announc ements in the last little while. This government has played the game of hiding behind the Universities Gr ants Comm ission for some time, but it came out from behind that cloak when it said, and you will raise the fees fo r international students 75 percent. It cast aside any pretence that there was an independent arbiter making these decisions and ordered the universities to do something.

Between the 5-percent cap that it is allowing on student fee increases and the 75 percent it is ordering for international students, they will face an 80 percent increase. I would like you just to stop and consider that for a minute from a couple of perspectives. Major universities in this world work hard to get a mixed student body. They work extremely hard because they know that part of the educational experience takes place in the classroom, and part of it takes place in the discussion groups among students outside of the classroom.

Those discussions and those experiences and that learning is enhanced if you have a range of opinions and a mix of experiences, and if you can get an international mix, so much the better.

March 1 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 640 Harvar d University, one of the best universities in the world, works very hard to ensure that in all of its programs there are students from all over the world represented, because it believes that is the way you give a very high-class, a very world-class education. What are we doing? We are attacking the very people who do that.

We are launching an attack on those students who not only do not take jobs away from Manitobans because they cannot work when they come to this country as a condition of their visa, who bring in large sums of money to pay for the fees and their living expenses and everything else, they bring cash into this province, who provide us with linkages back into their home countries and we talk about it, at least we give lip service to the fact that we want to be international exporters and we want to develop strong links and play in the global economy. What are we doing now?

We are rejecting 1 ,400 people who have the ability to do that. This is the most shortsighted, stupid decision I have seen this government make since it came to office, and they have made a lot of them. * (151 0) I am in a sense sort of at a loss as to how to deal with it, because when you listen to the language that comes out and the statements that are made about how you pro duce stre ng th within your community-and sometimes this government likes to deal with some more folksy analogies.

I mean, if you think back to how the West was settled, one of the fi rst things people did once they got their communities built was build a school to educate for the future, because they knew that it was by giving people an education and giving them skills to be competitive and giving them skills to grow with that we built a stronger community. This government, instead of prioritizing, instead of saying, look, we have to make some hard choices and here is an area that we are going to protect because it is so important to our future, has chosen to attack it.

That has to be an unacceptable decision in this province. We simply cannot allow a government to act in that fashion if we are to remain strong as a province and if we are to grow and become competitive internationally in the way that this government says it wants to be. They ought to read their own throne speeches, their own budget and act in accordance with them instead of spending all their time in their focus groups listening to the opinions of those people and only those people who they believe will vote for them. I do not believe any Manitoban will support this decision. Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Acting Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to enter into this debate on education finance as the opposition has chosen to raise the issue. Frankly, this is one of those issues that grips government probably more closely than any other. We all have children, we all recognize the value of education and the importance of maintaining that quality education in this province and across the country. Mr.

Acting Speaker, to hear the kind of criticism and debate that we are getting from across the way does nothing more than indicate that they are totally bereft of ideas. They have been able to criticize because they think there are dollars that should have been spent in a different way in different areas, but not once have they raised the issue of where those dollars would come from or why there may not be enough dollars available to expand in the way that we would probably want to spend. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I have spent a number of years as a trustee in a school division, and if there is one thing that is very near and dear to various commu nities acr oss this province, all the communities across this province but particularly in the rural areas where we have seen a drop in population, where we have been faced with difficult decisions as have some divisions in the city where they have actually had to contract their number of schools, they have invariably found that in dealing forthrightly and fairly with the problem that faces them that they are able to bring forward a plan that indeed probably strengthens the edu cational opportunities within their divisions after they have taken a look at their priorities and reorganized their affairs.

When one asks the question, what are the options that are available to the school divisions today, what are the opportunities that they can use to strengthen and underpin the quality of education which we believe is an expected standard across this province, it really comes down to the recognition by this government that local authority and that close local input of the trustees is what makes the difference in terms of decision making around edu cational opportunities within the various divisions.

We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the problems that have been associated with educational finance as we see a shrinking revenue base and as we see long-term results of passing on educational costs to property.

641 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 Mr. Acting Speaker, the local municipalities for years have talked about the accountability of school divisions. They raised that issue with me a number of times when I was responsible for making these decisions at the local level. They said, how many times do you as a trustee get a call about the education taxes? They asked, how often do you really feel that you have been held accountable for the decisions that you have made?

You know, as long as those decisions were being made without regard to where the dollars were going to come from and without regard to the reality of some of the costs that we are being faced with, as trustees, we did not receive a great deal of criticism, but as soon as we were faced with the reality of having to contract some of the services because the students were no longer there, we were faced with some very severe questions and some difficult options.

We did not always have the support of the government in providing options in how we might deal with those situations, because in the minds of the opposition and in the mindset over the last 20 years, Mr. Acting Speaker, the only problem with decision making around educational finance has been whether or not each level of government has been putting forward enough dollars to cover what the expected costs are.

We have to make sure, as we deal with the educational program in this province, that we remember that we are protecting the future of our leaders, protecting the futures of our thinkers, our workers, our managers. The young people and the minds in this province are our most important resource, but they have to have a future to look forward to.

When we look at the impacts of continuing to pass on funds beyond our ability to bring in revenue, we know that we cannot continue to add the equivalent of a half a billion dollars worth of debt annually without recognizing what the real cost, just of the interest, will be to those people who are presently in the school system. We are robbing from our children, and we cannot continue to do that. · When we look at the alternatives, we know that we have some very resourceful and very capable administrators out there in the school divisions.

We have alre ady seen the reaction from a number of them that they believe they can deal with the funding that has been presented them, that they know within their own organization that they have options. They know that they have the support of this minister and this govPrnment when they go forward to decide what are the best and most viable options within their division. When they look at the options that are available, Mr. Acting Speaker, it does not mean that this government has given them a template.

What it means is that we have given them the choice that they may choose which direction to place their emphasis, which are the most important aspects in their school division that they ar e prepared to support and make ad justments. While it varies from division to division, there has been a number of divisions that have indicated that they do have some surplus. I know personally of one school division that has a surplus left from their transportation budget. Mr.

Acting Speaker, that goes back to decisions, albeit efficient decisions that they have made, but decisions that they have made to suit their community and properly serve the students of that community. I think that is the emphasis I want to put on my comments. The relative ability of school divisions may vary somewhat from division to division to respond, but there have been adjustments made in the formula that recognize those nuances between divisions.

I have had a number of school divisions that have said to me, it is about time that somebody recognized those differences and induded them in the form ula, because now, even given the restrictions that we now are being faced with in this province, we have a better ability to react, and we are being recognized for some of the specific situations that arise between school divisions. That indicates there is a willingness and there is an understanding and there is an ability out there on the part of the school division leadership to be able to work with us in dealing with this public funding issue. • (1 520) Mr.

Acting Speaker, it comes down to the simple questions that the public ask from time to time as they look at the school system. Each area has its nuances, as I said, but when we look at some of our rural divisions and we see that 30-passenger buses are empty, virtually empty until they arrive within a mile or two of their destination and they start to pick up some of the rural subdivision students, when we look at situations where we have dassroom sizes that have to be offset by the realization that tremendous distances are involved in travel, school

March 1, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 642 divisions will be wrestling with these demons the same today as they have done before. Mr. Acting Speaker, the decisions that have been made and the funding proposals that have gone forward are made with an eye to making sure that we have a supportable system in the futu re, because we cannot look at our children and tell them that they will have to pick up the cost of our excess. We have to make sure they have the underpinning that is required for their educational opportunities. We have accomplished that.

I believe that when this year has finished this government and this Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) will be given considerable credit for the fact that they have been able to, in very tough economic times, establish a funding regime and a support mechanism that means that our children will get the very best education within our ability to raise funds to deal with it. Mr. Acting Speaker, let not the opposition say that this is a situation where you have to fund more, because the opportunities are now reduced, and the taxpayers, who are expected to pick up more, are no longer able to produce those dollars.

Thank you. House Business Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave just to make a House business announcement. It will take 20 seconds. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Does the honourable Minister of Finance have leave to make a House announcement? [agreed] Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to formally announce that the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Tuesday, March 2, 1993, at 7:30 p.m., to consider the 1992 Annual Report of the Manitoba Energy Authority and the 1992 Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Elec tric Board.

Also, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on Thursday, March 4, 1993, at 10 a. m., to consider Volume 3 of Public Accounts '91, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of Public Accounts '92 and the Report of the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1992. Mr. Acting Speaker, I would also like to announce that informally I had indicated that the Standing Committee on Economic Development would meet on Thur sday, March 4, at 1 0 a.m., to consider the '92 Annual Report of the Commu nities Economic Develop ment Fund.

Unfor tunately, I have to postpone that meeting, and I will try and arrange a date for next week for CEDF. Thank you. Committee Changes Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): May I have leave to make a committee change? The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Does the honourable member have leave for committee changes? [agreed] Mr. Hlckes: I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Tuesday, March 2, 1993, for 7:30 p.m .

I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Accounts be amended as follows: Concordia (Mr. Doer) for Elmw ood (Mr. Maloway) for Thursday, March 4, 1993, for 1 0 a.m . *** Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Acting Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution, and I intend in my few minutes that I am allocated to explain why very clearly to this Assembly.

The government of course is wont to use rhetoric in support of whatever action it might take, but the government needs to be reminded from time to time about the commitment it made on many occasions to the people of Manitoba. Earlier today in Question Period my Leader read back into the record the comments of the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) when it came to the gove rnm ent's commitment to education, to health, to services that were going to protect the children of this province. Mr.

Acting Speaker, although we all recognize that the gove rnmen t is facing some uncer tain financial times, there are many of us and many Manitobans who believe that those circumstances are in the main of their own making, that they are not hapless victims in this circumstance, that they have to take some responsibility-! am not saying all responsibility-they have to take some responsibility for the circumstances we face in this province.

They have to take responsibility not only for their own fiscal mismanagement of the affa irs of the pro vinc e of Mani toba, they have to take responsibility for their philosophical approach to

643 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 1993 government, to economic development and the delivery of services. Mr. Acting Speaker, we have heard time and time again members of the front bench and the Rrst Minister talk about standing aside, talking about letting the private sector be the engine of growth. We know that they have supported philosophically and practically on many occasions initiatives of the federal Conse rvative governments, governments who are philosophically the same as this government, whether it is deregula tion-! see the Minister of Highways and Transpor tation (Mr . Driedger) smiling.

Of course , the Minister of Highways and Transportation knows better than most in this Ch amb er how dama ging, how destructive federal transportation policy has been for the province of Manitoba and this country, whether it is deregu lation of the airlines, deregulation in the transportation sector, whether it is the abandonment of our national transportation institutions. We have lost thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs. What is the connection? What is the connection between the destruction of the industrial base of our country and the problems the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) and his government and that group are having financing education and health care and the social services Manitobans have come to rely on? What is the connection? The connection, Mr. Acting Speaker, is the fact that if Manitobans are not here working, if they are leaving this province, if they are fleeing this province, if our population continues to decline, if Manitobans are not working, if they are not contributing through the tax system to revenue to the government of Manitoba, the province goes broke. Mr. Acting Speaker, that is the problem that the Minister of Rnance and his government have.

That is the problem that conservative , right-wing governm ents have had for the last decade and more in the industrialized world, the simplistic fixa tion on reducing spending as a means of solving the deficit problem or creating new economic activity. I have just spent the last two, three months meeting people in Chamb ers of Commer ce, economic development groups, small-business people all over the provin ce. I have been in Brandon and Russell and Dauphin and Gimli and Steinbach and Eme rson and Carman and other places-[inte�ection] Not in Emerson. I am sorry. I meant Carman, not Emerson.

I will clarify that-in Lac du Bonnet as well. I was in Portage Ia Prairie not more than a couple of weeks ago meeting with repr esentatives of the R.M. and the town. The turnout in Portage Ia Prairie was thin, Mr. Acting Speaker, but I want to say that the turnout in Lac du Bonnet and the turnout in Carman was exceptional. What I want to say is that this government is not a hapless victim. It has been for the last five budQets the master of its own destiny. The problem is that no conservative government in the world has ever reduced the deficit by cutting spending as its sole means if that is all it did.

It did not work for Maggie Thatcher. It did not work for Ronald Reagan. It did not work for George Bush. It did not work for Brian Mulroney, and it has not worked for Gary Rlmon. Gary Rlmon inherited a surplus and now has the highest deficit. If the Minister of Rnance wants to get up and contend that the Provincial Auditor is lying or misleading the House, this government inherited a surplus. That is what they inherited, a surplus.

The Provincial Auditor of the Province of Manitoba will confirm that to any member who doubts that-any member. • (1 530) An Honourable Member: We chopped $1 50 million out of your spending, out of that budget. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Speaker, there is the only thing the Minister of Rnance fixates on: We cut another $150 million. I have just told you, show me a government where cutting spending alone solved the deficit problem. There is no such thing. Brian Mulroney's Conserva tive government in Ottawa came into government promising to control the deficit. They controlled the deficit by cutting spending.

I ask you the question, is the deficit in Canada lower today than it was in 1984? Just like in the province of Manitoba, deficits continue to escalate, debt continues to escalate. I ask you to refer to the Minister of Rnance's Third Quarter Report. This province is a billion dollars deeper in debt on general governm ent programs today than it was nine months ago. March 31, 1992, the general debt of the Province of Manitoba was approximately $5.2 billion. As of December 31, 1992, the provincial direct debt was approximately $6.1 billion. Mr. Acting Speaker, this fixation is not working.

It is not working in the economy. The more diff icult,

March 1 , 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 644 the more alarming circumstance around this is the impact it is having on our education system, on our health care system, on our daycare system, on the unemployed, on the people on welfare lines across the province. Those institutions and those groups are feeling the impact of this particular government's policies and its complicity when it comes to federal government policies which are unfortunately in the same vein. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to relate the education cuts to my own constituents.

When the previous Minister of Education announced the new formula and the sort of transition grants, I got calls from divisions all across northern Manitoba. The community of Leaf Rapids is perhaps the best example, but I refer the Minister of Northern Affairs to his own constituency, the Antler River School Division, where they noted that they were losing some $800,000 out of a $4.5-million budget as a result of this governme nt's new education finance progr am.

What galled them more than anything was the fact that during the same period this governmen t has been in office, pr ivate school funding has increased 150 percent. Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not fair. It is not honest and it is not honourable for anybody on that side to suggest that there is not money available to support the public school system. As Brian Mulroney said to Pierre Trudeau in the debate in 1984, you, sir, had a choice. This Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), this Minister of Education (Mr s.

Vodrey), this government had a choice, and they chose to support private schools as opposed to the 195,000 students who attend public schools. Mr. Acting Speaker, what is going to be the damage? The damage is to the children of Manitoba, and that is the problem. Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): I am pleased to be able to participate in this very important debate. I listened to the member for Flin Flon's (Mr. Storie) normal diatribe, patterned very closely after the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who spoke earlier in this debate. Mr. Acting Speaker, neither one of them are in the real world.

Both of them have had their heads stuck in the sand ;I think, for the past five years. They do not unders tand what is going on around them, and they have not paid any attention to it. They still think that simply throwing money at something is the way to solve the problem. They think that simply putting more money against an education system is going to solve the education problems of this province, and it is not. For the edification of both of those members, I would like to point out that things have been changing in the world around them. They may not have noticed, Mr.

Acting Speaker, but there has been not just a recession but a global restructuring of economic activity in every country throughout the world. They may not have noticed, but there have been major plant closings and layoffs . They may not have noticed that, but the fact of the matter is, major restructuring has been going on in the world within the private business sector of every economy. Certainly within the free world at least and even within the Eastern Bloc countries, major changes have been occurring.

The fact of the matter is that we have had employee groups come forward and say to their employers, look, we understand that there is global restructuring going on. They have recognized it, and they have said, how can we get involved in this process so we can preserve our jobs? Simply saying, no, we are going to live up to the letter of our collective agreement-they have come forward and said, look, let us participate, let us help you; let us help the business survive so that we can survive, so that we can have those jobs that we want so desperately. Mr.

Acting Speaker, we have seen employee groups come forward and do that. It is happening today in the provin ce of Alber ta, wher e the employees of Safeway recognize that Safeway is in a major competitive war with the Superstore, and they have come forwar d and said, we want to preserve our jobs, so let us participate in this process. Mr. Acting Speaker, the private household has also gone on that sam e track. The private household today has to look at how it can restructure itself because of the taxation load that it faces, reduced incomes that it faces.

We had during the '70s 14-15 percent growth rates in income. In the '80s that dropped by half to about 7 percent. In the '90s it is down around 2 percent. We have to recognize those days of simply spend, spend, spend, spend, spend are no longer with us and that we have to try and make due with either more innovative ways of spending the money that we have or trying to find other ways around the fact that we are not going to have the kind of level of growth,

645 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA March 1 , 19 93 , the level of incomes that we experienced in the '70s and the '80s. Unfortunately, the public sector cannot escape the fact that restructuring is required. Restructuring in the public sector has lagged considerably behind what has been going on in the priva te sector both on a personal basis and on a business basis over the past five years or so.

The public sector has to recognize also that restructuring is required if we are going to survive, if we are going to provide the basic services that are required by the people of this province in some reasonable measure. Even the Leader of the national NDP party has recognized that, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Interestingly enough, the members opposite have not yet, but their national Leader at least has now come to recognize that simply ignoring the deficit, ignoring the huge legacy of debt that is being loaded upon the rest of the people in this country, has recognized now that cannot be simply ignored, has recognized now that we have to deal with the deficit and you cannot spend your way out of this particular problem and that artificial stimuli in the economy simply increase the debt. Even the national Leader of the NDP has recognized that.

So I am hoping that eventually the members opposite here will also come to their senses and understand what has gone on. Mr. Acting Speaker, as indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), there has been more money spent on education over the past 1 0 years, year by year by year, than ever before. Yet, go out and talk to the public and see if they say they have a better standard of education today than they had five years ago or 1 0 years ago or 15 years ago. Ask them if their kids can spell better.

Ask them if they really think they have a better quality of education today, and I suspect that a great many of those people would say no. I certainly get lots of complaints about the level and the quality of education that their children are receiving. That is in spite of all the money that has been thrown against it, in spite of the hund reds of millions of dollars that have been spent on education in this province.

If throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at it has not solved the proble m, then maybe there is something else we need to be doing, not necessarily throwing money at the problem, which is the answer of the members opposite in this House. The fact of the matt�r is, we have to look at different ways of doing it, different, more innovative ways of dealing with it. Dealing with those innovative ways within the context of what we have available leads us to the current problem we have today, but we have to deal in fairness.

We cannot simply say to one particular sector, you should bear all the brunt of the fact that revenues have declined, that the entire world is restructuring in terms of its economy and so on. * (1 540) We should not say simply if Education is to go and receive more money, do we cut the grants then to the City of Winnipeg in half? Do we close up our provincial parks system? Do we abandon our highways infras tructure? Do we go and say, lay off 500 or 1 ,000 public servants? I do not think those are the answers.

I think we need to deal with the question of fairness, and that question of fairness is, how do you deal overall gove rnmen t expenditures? I have sat now through six budget processes for the provincial government since we came into office in 1980. I sit every week in Treasury Board dealing with the spending programs of the government. I have not seen one program that has come across my desk at Treasury Board that does not have redeeming value, that is not of some benefit to somebody somewhere. Bu1 the fact of the matter is we do not have the luxury of being able to do that anymore.

The fact of the matter is that we have significantly reduced rev enues. We had just an announcement last week from the federal government that says, we have already paid you $13 9 million too much, and we want it back-s pread over a period of time, I understand, and thank goodness for that. But the fact of the matter is that significant sums are also required to be returned to the federal government throughout the system, so that simply compounds the problem that we are facing here with our budgetary process. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) So if education is to receive more, who is going to receive less?

Who is going to lose their job because of that? Who is going to be unemployed and be able to go home and tell their fam ily that they no longer have a job because the government did not deal with it in a fair way? Our government has said we want to deal with it in a fair way, and we want to deal with it with provincial civil servants, bu1, Mr.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-16a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 16a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	35ae698c0ea256c11a9326b9ae7c749786b387ae

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