Manitoba Hansard — 25 March 1993 (Sitting 34, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-34

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session ·Thirty-Fifth Legislature oflhe 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. 34 -1 :30 p.m., THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfteld Wolseley St. Boniface Mimedosa Crescentwood Glmli 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 Ain Flon 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

1342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 25,1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDING S PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Rosann Wowc huk (Swan Riv er) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of S. Gessner, D. McA dam, B. McAdam and others, requesting the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) consider holding public hearings on wide-open Sunday shopping throughout Manitoba before March 31 , 19 93, and requesting the Attorney General uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are held and the Legislature approves changes to the law.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Wow chuk). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the provincial government has without notice or legal approval allowed wide-open Sunday shopping; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has not consu lted Manitobans before impl ementi ng wide-open Sunday shopping; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has not held public hearings on wide-open Sunday shopping; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legis lative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Labour to consider holding public hearings on wide-open Sunday shopping throughout Manitoba before March 31 , 19 93; BE IT FURTHER resolved that the Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General to uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are held and the Legislature approves changes to the law. *** Mr.

Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Dewar) . It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed) Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigenous People: a new partnership"; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and

WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged, families in crisis, educatio n, recreation and cultur al programming, housing relocati on, fine options, couns elling, court assistance, advocacy ; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to conside r restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed) Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigenous People: a new partnership"; and

1343 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993

WHEREAS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and

WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth pro�ramming, the socially disadvantaged, families in cris is, educa tion, recreation and cultur al programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advoca cy; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba. •

(1335) Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans) and it complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and it complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the United Nations has declared 1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigenous People: a new partnershipw; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and

WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged, families in crisis, educa tion, recreation and cultur al programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advoc acy; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the Sta nding Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. Mr. Clerk (William Remn ant) : Your Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as its Third Report: Your comm ittee met on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Communities Economic Development Fund for the year ended March 31, 1992. Ms. Loretta Clarke, General Manager, and Mr.

Gordon Wakeling, Manager of Finance, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of the Communities Economic Development Fund. Your comm ittee has considered the Annual Report of the Communities Development Fund for the year ended March 31, 1992, and has adopted the same as presented. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the commit tee be received. Motion agreed to. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Sunday Shopping Standing Commmee Referral Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey ). We were quite surprised today to see on the Notice Paper a new bill dealing with The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment Act, in light of the fact the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism just recently stated, and I will quote: It is expec ted that the com mittee dealing with Sunday shopping will be called very, very shortly.

Obviously, they did not mean what they said in this House and to the people of Manitoba on March 2, when they made that commi tment, because for the last three or four weeks, we have been calling for the public hearings on that bill. We have not received assurances from this government to have the public have a chance to have input into this very important issue of opening up Sunday shopping as proposed by the Conservatives.

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1344 I would like to ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey): Why have we not had the Sunday shopping hearings? Why has the government not allowed the public to speak up on this issue? What is the government going to do in terms of public input before the trial period ends in a week and a half? Hon. James Downey (Deput y Premier ): Mr. Speaker, this bill will be open to the public through a legislative hearing process in the Legislature as all other bills that go through this Legislative Assembly. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government promised to have public hearings.

I will quote the minister, the minister's own words on March 2: "It is expected that the comm ittee dealing with this matter responsible will be called very shortly." Why did the government break its word to the people of Manitoba and to the members of this Legislature? Why is the government not having public hearings on the existing Sunday shopping law? What is their long-term policy dealing with Sunday shopping, the bill which expires in some two weeks from now? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, there has been no commitment broken.

When legislation is prepared for this Assembly, there is a process which it goes through in which the public have an opportunity to make full and complete representation to. The process has not changed for this bill as it has not changed for any other bill. •

(1340) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I guess the one thing that has not changed is the words of this government, this Conservative government, in this Chamber mean nothing for the people of Manitoba, because they do not intend on keeping it. Sunday Shopping Standing Committee Referral Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, this government received maximum co-operation from the opposition. We agreed to pass a bill in December to second reading so the public would have a chance to speak out.

We agreed to co-operate with the government, because we knew they had no legislative authority to tell the Crown attorneys of this province not to prosecute the existing Sunday shopping law which was passed by this Legislature in 1987.

I would ask the government: Will they give their commitment today to have public hearings on the bill at second reading stage, that has been passed to second reading stage by this Legislature; will they allow the public to speak out before the trial period expires on April 4, or are they going to just totally disregard the public and the public input in terms of their position on the opening up of Sunday shopping by the Conservative government? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, we will not ignore the public, and the public will have a full opportunity to mak e representation on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was planning after Question Period to enter into dialogue with the opposition House leaders, at which time I will provide to them the plans around the new bill on Sunday shopping. As a matter of fact, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition whether or not he would grant leave either today or indeed tomorrow and certainly Monday the 5th, that we might do a second reading of that particular bill. Point of Order Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I find it absolutely galling that the government House leader, after getting full co-operation from the opposition to pass a bill in December of this year, would ask us to give him leave in terms of having public input when he has totally denied the public the right to speak- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader does not have a point of order. ·Home Care Program Equipment/Supply Costs Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, we have been told today that the government is cutting dramatically the home care equipment program serving 24,000 people, most of them sick, who will now be forced to pay out of their own pocket for medical necessities like walkers, gauze dressings, bandages, needles, catheter equipment and forcing people who have had a colostomy as a result of bowel cancer to pay much of the cost of their own equipment. Why is this minister making these changes? How does it fit in with commu nity-based health reform? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I know my honourable friend will patiently

1345 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 await the budget on the 6th of April in which my honourable friend will understand some of the planned initiatives in my ministry as well as across government in general. I would encourage my honourable friend maybe to be a little patient and not to necessarily try to feed information out that may or may not be part of future health care initiatives. •

(1345) Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary: Why is this minister doing this? He obviously admits he is, when his own annual report about the program says, and I quote: The mandate of the program is to support the care and independent living of physically disabled individuals within their own comm unity environment. In addition, when the increase to people who have bowel cancer of the program is 13.3 percent, accor ding to the minister's own annual report, why is he cutting that program out? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is making a series of allegations from whatever source he may choo se.

I simply am saying to my honourable friend, be patient. There is a budgetary process coming down. But above and beyond all, let me tell my honourable friend that the ability and the support from government for people to live independently with assistance from the Continuing Care Program and other initiatives of the Ministry of Health and other departments, will continue, Sir, because it is an appropriat e response of government to foster independent living. Health Care System Americanization Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary to the same minister, and it is quite simple: Why are we moving from a universal program that helps the elderly, the sick and the infirm and moving to an American pay-as-you-go system? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend the critic for the New Democrats has a very favoured word. He calls it Americanization with everything that he says. When I welcomed my honourable friend to the critic portfolio of Health, I had hoped he would tell us what he stands for. So far, all we have heard is what he stands against.

At this time in government, I think that all Canadians, all Manitobans and all elected people are being encou raged to stand for what they believe in and where they believe the system can go. That crosses political boundaries because in provinces governed by my honourable friend's political party, they are making difficult decisions.

I suppose, Sir, it follows on the quote that my honourable friend might avail himself of that his Leader said in 1988 after he assumed the leadership and the would-be Premiership of the party of Howard Pawley: Doer also hinted last night, after he won the NDP leadership, that the NDP under his leadership may look at doing away with the universality of some government programs that apply to all Manitobans, regardless of their income level. Health Care System Nurse-Managed Clinics Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Department of Health is conducting pilot projects at our Municipal Hospitals with respect to nurse-managed clinics. Mr. Speaker, can the minister give this House an updated list of all projects, whether they do in fact relate to health care reform and whether on completion of these projects the minister will be providing in this House a

summary of the findi ngs? Hon. Donald Orchard (llnlster of Health): Mr. Speaker, so that we are familiar with some of the projects my honourable friend is describing, if my honourable friend is referring to the transfer of fu nction fr om the Health Scie nces Ce ntre Emergency over to the Health Action clinic in which nurses will assume a greater role in terms of management of nonemergency patient care , yes, we have that proposal under active implementation, Sir.

We believe that it is a very effective way of delivering patient services and care services, utilizing a team approach to health care delivery issues and attempting to get away from maybe the over-reliance on emergency departments for nonemergenc y servic es. Mr. Speak er, that process is well under discussion now, and the success of that we will share as we have results. Mr. Cheerna: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell this House if there has been any ongoing

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1346 consultation with the Municipal Hospital in regard to the nurse-managed clinics? Mr. Orchard: With Municipal Hospital specifi cally? [interjection) Well, as far as I know, the process of change-and my honourable friend is going to have to give me a little more detail, but the Urban Hospital Council, Municipal Hospital being part of it, they have been part of discussions which involve their changing role or opportunities for change within the system. As far as I know , they have been part of discussions which affect their operations. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Speaker, I will read my question again. At the Municip al Hospital, there are pilot projects going on in terms of the nurse-managed clinics. I am asking the Minister of Health if he would share with us the results of those nurse-managed clinics. Can he tell this House whether those clinics are in fact in keeping with the health care reform policy in Manitoba? Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr.

Speaker, yes, they are part of the shift that we are attempting to implement, which takes the focus, if I can be so simplistic as to say, away from a physician-point -of-entry system that we have today primarily to one which has a broader care provider team approach, including the ability of nurses to provide increasing amounts of primary care . That is certainly part of the envisioned shifts that we are attempting to undertake in this province. *

(1350) Manitoba Foster Family Association Funding Elimination Impact Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in

Section 52(

e) of The Child and Family Services Act, it states that, and I quote: "Any person who (

e) interferes with a child who is placed in a foster home or other place, or interferes with the foster parents of the child in a manner that detracts from the ability of the foster parents to care for the child; commits an offence punishable on

summary convict ion.ft Mr. Speaker, the cuts by this government to the Manitoba Foster Family Association clearly constitutes a grave interference in the ability of foste r parents to provide care to children. We wonder why the Minister of Family Services is breach ing his own act with these cuts. Will the minister admit that in cutting training, support and funding for foster parents, that this affects the ability of these parents to care for children, in di rect contrave ntion of his own act? Hon. Harold Gllle shammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, clearly it is the foster parents who provide that care, and while he is busy reading the act, I would refer him to

Article 6(1 8): "The minister may fix rates payable for services provided under this act.ft Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services admit that through these cuts, he is interfe ring with the ability of foster parents to provide care , since the minister has reduced per diems by 1 0 percent and eliminated the grant for training, education and support to the Foster Family Association? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr.

Spe ake r, I clearly indic ated last week and this week that the funding that is required for legal services and for insurance purposes and for the training of foster parents is in place. Child and Family Services Agencies Services to Foster Families Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, does this minister speak for his department or does the chief executive offi cer of Winnipeg Child and Family Services speak for this department, since Mr.

Keith Cooper said: I am concerned about the impact this is going to have, and I am concerned about how we are going to continue to provide services with an already stretched staff group? The implication of the compulsory days off will be 3,000 less hours that his staff will be able to provide. How will Child and Family Services agencies provide education and training and support to foster families when they are already understaffed and their staff are being forced- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services) : Mr.

Speaker, I indicated to the member yesterday in our discussions during Interim Supply that I have met with the presidents of the agencies, the Western Manitoba agency, the Cen tral Manitoba agency and the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency, as well as their executive directors , and indicated the changes that we were bringing about and that we would work in partnership with them to be able to deliver this service .

1347 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 Universities VIsa Students-Differential Fees Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Educa tion. I want to ask her to clarify for the House the governmen t policy on diff eren tial fees for international students. The minister's press release of February 25 says, and I quote: Visa students, except those exempted by existing agreements, will be required to pay a 75 percent premium on tuition to bring Manitoba's universities into line with other provinces. The Premier (Mr.

Rlmon), as we know , on Friday said that universities are not forced to introduce these differential fe es, that they can, and I quote: choose whether or not to do it. Yesterday, while trying to clarify this in the House with the minister, the minister said: "Yes, the universllies do have the autonomy to apply this surcharge to visa students. We announced what the level would be. H universities wish to apply a level less than 1 .75 orthe .75 surcharge ... they wil l make that decision .· It seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that there is still a great deal of confusion around this, so I want to give the minister the cha nce to confirm to this House that no university in Manitoba is being required to introduce differential tees. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, previously there had not been a position or a policy taken by government on the issue of differential fees for visa students. This year, in making the funding announcement to universities, we did announce such a policy. However, there is a recognition that universities are autonomous bodies.

Therefore , in the letter that was sent to the chairs of the boards, there were two comple tely separate paragraphs, one paragraph announcing the 5 percent cap which government did impose upon student tuition fees, and that is tied to a penalty if universities do exceed that 5 percent cap. However, in a completely separate paragraph, not tied to a penalty, was the announcemen t of diffe rential tees policy. *

(1355) Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will certai nly have to read that because I did not understand it as the minister said it. So I will take the question a step further. Will the minister assure the House that should any Manitoba university choose not to introduce differ ential fees, there will be no financial penalty to the university, no contingent withdrawal of funds by the government? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I have just said to the member that the contingency and the penalty rests with the 5 percent cap on student tuition, and there has not been a penalty tied to the imposition of the diffe rential fee. Ms.

Fries en : Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain to the House why she expects international students on fixed grants from their home country, why does she expect that they will remain in Manitoba under differential fees when the Univ er sity of Saskatchewan does not charge differential fees? I know that the minister does not believe that. She has raised it in the House before, and I want to table copies of a transmittal sheet from the University of Saskatchewan registrar's department which indicates, as I said, $1 00 international tee just like the University of Manitoba's $50 fee.

Why would they stay here under diff erent- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, first of all, because universities across this country do have the ability and do impose differe ntial fees; however, some universities do not impose them at the graduate level or some universities do not impose them at the professi onal faculty level. When the member looks at what is offered atthe University of Saskatchewan, I think she will see that there is some difference. Then, Mr.

Speaker, the main reason I think that people will still attend universities in Manitoba is because of a sense of pride that we have in Manitoba that you do not have, because we believe that people do want to come to Manitoba. We still believe this is the best province in Canada. Universities VIsa Students-Differential Fees Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Education, now that she has cla rified the position on differential tees, could explain to us the reason for their moving towards this policy.

Was this policy decision by gove rnment something that was requ ested by Manitoba universities of the government?

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1348 Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training}: Mr. Speaker, in making policy we did look across Canada. We did see that there was no statement on behalf of our government in terms of differential fees. There were policies across Canada and other provinces. This was an effort to bring Manitoba into line with other provinces across Canada. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, my question I think needs to be reframed slightly. Did a single university in this province approach the minister and ask her for a policy on diff erential fees? Mrs. Vodrey : Mr.

Speaker, in meetings with the university, we discuss a wide variety of issues. Some of those issues are revenue-producing issues. Some of those are expenditure-related issues. Others are matter of policy relating to decisions that universities themselves will be making. Therefore, we have a wide variety of discussions with univ er sities repr esenting Manitoba. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I am not asking about a wide variety of issues.

I am asking the minister: Can she table a single piece of correspondence from any university, a students' union, any group within the university that is empowered to make such a request, that makes the request about a differential fees policy? Is there a single piece of correspond ence? Mrs. Vodrey : Mr. Speaker, as the member has spoken about before , universities do have the power to make this kind of a decision and now with government having established a policy, we will look to univ ersities to decide how they will then implement this policy.

Department of Agriculture Agricultural Development and Marketing Ms. Rosann Wowc huk (Swan River} : Mr. Speaker, each time we ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, he responds that we must look to the future, that our farm economy must diversify and we have to examine new options to adapt to changing times.

Given the minister's emphasis on change, will he tell this House why he has cut $600 ,000, nearly 6 percent of the Agricultural Development and Marketing branch, a branch which provides resources and support for research into sustainable agriculture, a branch that supports the 4-H clubs, provides agriculture and training and is supposed to enhance our agriculture and food industry? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture}: Mr. Speaker, these are not the easiest of times financially for this government or any government of this country.

We are going through a process of establishing priorities, and the priority in the eyes of the Manitoba far mer is heavy expenditures on stabilization, where two-thirds to three-quarters of our budget goes. Last year, it was $90 million and this year it will be a similar proportion, two-thirds to three-quarters of our budget on stabilization for the farm community. Yes, marketing is an important mission for our department and that mission will continue to be carried out. The elements as to why those dollars are less, we will talk about in the Estimates. I am ready to get into them anytime. *

(1400) Ms. Wow chuk: Mr. Speak er, this just goes completely against what the minister has been saying earlier about change. University of Manitoba Grant Ms. Rosann Wowc huk (SWan River}: How does the Minister of Agriculture justify reducing the grants to the University of Winnipeg, a grant which accord ing to the minister's own information allows the university to conduct research in enhancing productivity and income for the agricultural sector? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture}: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to remind the member that research in the Faculty of Agriculture is done at the Univ ersity of Manitoba, not the Un iversity of Winnipeg as she just said. I would expect her to get her details straight before she asks the question in this House. I think the member recognized she made a grave error. The budget of the University of Manitoba was reduced some 2 percent, a very small reduct ion. They source research funds from a wide number of other areas and we con tinue to work with them. Yes, research is important and a 2 percent reduction is not a significant reduc tion. Ms.

Wow chuk: I apologize to the minister for making a mistake on Winnipeg, instead of Manitoba.

1349 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 Wild Rice Research Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River) : If this minister is supportive of diversification in enhancing the rural economy, can he tell us that he is also in support of cutting the grant to the university on Wild Rice Research ? This is supposed to be one of the areas that people on our lowest income are having additional income from wild ric e production and this government has cut down the research on this. Why does this minister support this kind of a cut? Hon. James Downey {Minister of Northern Affairs and responsible for Native Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I want to indicate to the member that the wild rice industry is extremely important to this province. There has been considerable support given to the wild rice producers" co-op in The Pas area, of which there has been substantial funds advancf'd through CEDF on a loan program. I can assure that it is an important acti vity, which the research that has been done to this point will not be in any way jeopardized by the decisions that this government has made. Racism Hate Uterature Investigation Ms. Becky Barrett (We llington): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, the president of the National Black Coalition of Canada received a-well, I do not know what to call it-a piece of hate literature, I think, is the nicest word I can use. An Honourable Member: Garbage. Ms. Barrett: A piece of garbage-thank you, Mr. Minister-threatening not only his life, but the life of all black citizens in Canada and casting horrendous aspersions upon the multicultural communi ty, the lesbian community, the gay communi ty and a number of other individuals and groups in this province. Mr.

Williams, who received this missive, has called upon the Minister of Justice to launch an immediate investigation not only of this issue, but of the other instances that have happened in this province recently of other hate literature. I am asking the Minister of Justice today if he is planning to initiate an immediate investigation into this latest in a whole series of horrendous events like this. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) : Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The garbage that was sent to Mr. Williams is disgusting in the extreme.

It is contrary to everything we as Canadians and Manitobans stand for and is obviously the product of a sick mind. Mr. Speaker, that infor mation, as soon as it came to my attention, I brought to the attention of the assistant deputy minister for Public Prosecutions who has made the Winnipeg police aw are, if the complain ant has not already done that, so that we can investigate the matter. I guess we can hope that the investigation will bear fruit. Ms. Barrett : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the minister has undertaken that. This is something that cannot be allowed to continue.

I would just like to ask the minister if he would undertake to keep this House inf ormed, within of course the rules of jurisprudence, of the ongoing investigation so that we can all understand what is happening. This kind of material jeopardizes all of us in Manitoba, and that there is one individual, even one individual in the province, who is disseminating this kind of material is unconscionable. I would just ask the minister to keep us informed of the ongoing investigation. Mr. McCrae: To the extent that I can do that, I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

This is not the first time this particular comp lainant has been singled out. The honot.l'able member's colleague for Radisson has been singled out in the past, and a reporter for the Winnipeg Sun has been singled out in the past. Yes, I will do what I can to keep the honourable member and honourable members informed. In a way, what happened here makes it all the more reason why the anllOll'lCement made today about a bumper sticker program, why that program is important. It is a program sponsored by the Canadian police race centre here in Manitoba.

We are the first province to have our police agencies displaying a bumper sticker which calls attention to the issue of police race relations. I was pleased to be part of that announcement over at D Division Headquarters today. An incident like the one the honourable member brings up makes it all the more reason why we should do those kinds of things.

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1350 Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, notwithst anding the importance of a bumper sticker campaign, the best way to avoid these kinds of incidents happening in the future is making sure that there is a successful concl usion to these investigations. I want to urge the minister and ask the minister if he will do everything in his powe r to see that this investigation comes to a successful conc lusion, unlike the last one which was unsuccessf ul. Mr. McCrae: My department and the police authorities will indeed do everything in our power.

The honourable member has to remember, howev er, that people who commit crimi nal-and that is what this is-criminal activi ties, do their best to escape detec tion. That has been a problem with other in vestigations wher e pe ople have anonymously sent out hate literature. They do not write their name and address at the bottom and that is the unfortunate part about it, but we will do everything we can to try to find the source of this garbage. • (141 0) National Transportation Agency Airline Merger Hearings Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, on Monday of this week the National Transportation Agency meetings started in Calgary to review the terms of the Pacific Western Airlines agreement with American Airlines. This agreement also includes the withdrawal of Canadian Airlines from its part nership in Gemini Reservations. Gemini employs approximately 17 5 people in Winnipeg. These me etings will also in volve air line transportation in our province in general.

I want to ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation: Considering that Manitoba has many hundreds of airline jobs at risk on top of the 17 5 Gemini reservation jobs, has Manitoba and has this minister's department asked for standing at the hea rings in Calgary, and have we sent representatives to attend those meetings, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportati on): Mr. Speaker, the member is right that the hearings have started on the issue with American and Canadian. We have not taken a formal position at these hearings. Howe ver, we have observer status there.

We are monitoring what is happening so we know exactly what is going on. The sensitivity of the position for ourselves as Manitobans is that we have jobs at stake in the amalgamation to some degree. We also have jobs at stake with Gemini. So we are playing an observer role at the present time. National Transportation Agency Airline Merger Hearings Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I take it from that, Mr. Speaker, that we do have observers at those meetings. Can the minister tell me, Mr.

Speaker, what policy or what position we will be taking should we have the opportunity to make a presentation to those hearings, with respect to the Canadian Airlines International and American Airlines agreement and, as well, the 175 Gemini jobs? What position are we taking with respect to those jobs? Hon. Eric Stefa nson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, as I responded in this House not long ago, in terms of the same issue that the honourable member is raising today, we con tinue to work with the officials of Gemini. We have met with them.

We are in constant commun ication with them to be sure that we do everything possible to maintain the presence and maintain those jobs in Winnipeg, in Manitoba, either in a combina tion of their current function or respo nsib ilities and/or ot her functions or responsibilities that we anticipate they can take on. Gemini Reservations System Manitoba Job Losses Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) : Mr. Speaker, my final sup plem entary to the Min is ter of Transportation.

Has the minister's department done any studies to determine, if PWA and American Airlines receive permission from the NTA and the competition tribunal to terminate the Gemini contract and to sell 25 percent equity to American Airlines, how many Manitoba jobs will be lost as a result of this agreement being allowed to go forward, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Eric Ste fanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, that is part and parcel of the kinds of discussion that we have had with Gemini, is obviously taking into consideration all factors of what might occur. We are pursuing a

1351 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 series of initiatives in terms of what can be done to maintain those jobs right here in Manitoba. Sunday Shopping Public Hearings Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, time after time, we see clearer demonstration from this government that they do not have a plan, in fa ct, they do not know what it is that they are doing when it comes to budget, when it comes to legislation. In fact, if we go back to Bill 4, where it was passed into comm ittee back on December 16 , the government made a commitme nt to go into public hearings.

I can recall the debate at that time, when the government was trying to encourage the opposition parties to allow it to go into committee so the government could in fact call it into committee, allow for that public input. That public input has not occurred . My question to the government House leader is: Why did he not have public hearing on Bill 4? What he has done is he turned the whole process into a farce, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, a Jittlebitof revisionist history has been presented by the member in his

preamble. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we said at the beginning and we continue to say through the process, and we continue to say today, that Manitobans will have an opportunity to present their views on any issue dealing with Sunday shopping. The member may have liked to have had the hearings sooner. I am here to tell the member that as was promised by the minister, there were indices. Indeed, there is an opportunity to look at some quantifiable analysis. That had to be developed and indeed had to be performed before open hearings would be of meaning. Legislation Justification Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, how does the government House leader, how does the government justify changing a Jaw or ignoring a Jaw by introducing a bill, turning that bill into a farce and now they introduce another bill? How do they ju stify even bringing in Bill 4, because this government had no intentions whatsoever to have- Mr. Speaker: Order, please . The honourable member has put his question. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member is bordering on impugning motives of the government, and I do not think he would wa ntto do that.

He is an honourable member and would never want to be thought of as that type of individual. Mr. Speaker, I will full y explain to the Liberal House leader, hopefully some time today, as to the course that the government wishes to take on this whole issue. Public Hearings Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Mr. Speaker, can the gov e rnment House leader gi ve some assurances that he will bring into comm ittee public hearings on Bill 2�r Bill 4? When can we anticipate that the government will be introducing the bill? He made reference to requesting leave.

Something that we were not going to do was give the government House leader leave, because once again, it demonstrates that he did not have a plan. Mr. Speaker, will the government House leader assure the Chamber that in fact we will have the comm ittee hearings on Bill 2�n Bill 4, my apology-Mr. Speaker? What is his definition of soon, because- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Hon. Clayton Mannen (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier has presented the answer to that question, and I have also in my reply. There will be full public hearings.

Let me say to the member, our intention is-and I am troubled that the Liberals would choose not to grant leave. It was our intention to try and have second reading on the 5th so that we could- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is not appropriate for the government House leader to revisit the fact that the opposition parties, after waiting three and a half months for this government to bring in public hearings on Sunday shopping, are now asking leave to bring in another bill-Sunday shopping, the sequel.

We want the original bill in committee. We are prepared to deal with tha1- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1352 *** Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). As we are approaching break and another important family time, I am disappointed in his approach today. I say to the member that Bill 4 will be dealt with in a fa shion that-[interjection] No, the Leader says it will be subsumed. No, but we might like to put into tandem both bills. I can assure that all members and indeed all members of the public will have an opportunity to make representation on one or both of the bills if they so choo se.

John Howard Society Restorative Restitution Project Ms. Becky Barrett (We llington): Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Court Chief Judge, the Honourable Mr. Stefa nson, stated there is a growing recognition and acceptance that punishment through jail is failing to rehabilitate a great number of offe nders, and no one can doubt that alternative to jail proposals are worth a very serious try. Mr.

Speaker, the John Howard Society has submitted a restorative restitution pilot project to implement commu nity-based sentencing to both the federal Solicitor General, the federal Department of Justice and the provincial Department of Justice. The federal government is willing to match any funds that the provincial government is willing to put forward to this pilot project. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is prepared to commit the funds for this 18-month pilot project as requested most recently in a draft budget by the John Howard Society. Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) : Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Corrections division of my department and of the John Howard Society have been discussing the program proposal the honourable member raises in the House today. My latest report is that those discussions had not resulted in a proposal to me at that point. It may be that the department is ready to make a proposal to me which I can then review, and I can bring the honourable member up to date on the progress of this matter. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. *

(1420) Nonpolitical Statements Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minist er of Sport): Mr. Speaker, may I please have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, building on some comments made recently in this House by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), today it gives me great pleasure to rise before the House and on be half of the gov ernmen t ex ten d our congratulations to Winnipeg Jet rookie forward Teemu Selanne.

Those of us who follow the Jets and professional hockey closely have watched Teemu Selanne with amazement throughout the entire season and as credit to his abilities, one record afte r another has come his way. Afte r surpassing Mike Bossy's record earlier this month for goals in one season by a rookie, Teemu Selanne on Tuesday recorded two goals and an assist to pass Peter Stastny's mark of 1 09 points and establish a new NHL record for points by a rookie in one season. With a little more than two weeks left in the regular season, Mr.

Speaker, there is little doubtthatTeemu Selanne will be named the NHL's Calder Trophy winner as the rookie of the year and should rate serious considera tion, as well, as a candidate for the Hart Trophy as the NHL's most valuable player. A native of Finland, Teemu Selanne has quickly become one of our most recognizable and leading citizens and one of the most popular players in the National Ho9key League amongst his peers and amongst fans.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing the remarkable feats of Teemu Selanne in his record-setting rookie season and for the contribution he has made to our co mmunity and province and to further extend our best wishes to Teemu and to the Winnipeg Jets as they prepare for the Stanley Cup playoffs, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speak er: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I join with the New Democratic Party to welcome the words of the minister. Again, the point I want to make is it is Tamu (phonetic) not Teemu.

1353 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 *** Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask for leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Fina nce have le ave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Manness: Thank you to members of the House. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend March 19 to 21 , hockey teams from all across Manitoba came together at Lundar for the Peewee A Age 13 Provincial Championships.

I am delighted to indicate to the House that a team from my constituency, namely, the MacDonald Kernels won the championship with a four to one victory over Stonewal l in the final game. The boys on this team come from the hamlets and towns of Sanford, Brunkild, La Salle, Starbuck and Domain. The team incl udes: Rejean Lagace, goalie, Mark Bain, Andrew Kaminsk y, Drew McD onald, Gavin Harrison, Ryan Reinsch, Ryan Chodachek, Kevin Goossen, Kevin Schn ell, Russell Erb, Alan Manness, Chad Brick, Robert Elliott, Eric Qually and Matthew Moroz. Of course , a good team like this has to have good coaches.

They are Jason Manness, Jeff MacDonald, Cliff Harrison and myself. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader: Mr. Speaker, would you call second readings, Bills 19 and 20. SECOND READINGS 811119-The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Atto rney General}: Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the honourable Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 19 , The Court of Queen's Bench Amen dment and Co nseq uen tial Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Cour du Bane de Ia Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second time and be referred to a commi ttee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speak e r, the pr oposed amendments to The Queen's Bench Act deal with the payment of post-judgment interest and the periodic payment of damages in act ions involving personal injury and death. The amendments affec ting post-judgment interest will replace the Interest Act of Canada, which will be repealed once Manitoba's legislation comes into force.

These amendments will allow for the payment of post-judgment interest at the same rate as the pre-judgment interest rate. The rate is currently based on the rate at which the Bank of Canada makes short-term advances to the chartered banks. The purpose of the legislation dealing with periodic payments is to give the court the ability to make a judgment that allows for the payment of damages arising out of a personal injury claim or death by way of periodic payments as opposed to a lump sum payment. Under the present system, the court could only award periodic payments with the consent of both parties to a lawsuit.

These amendments will allow the court to make a periodic damage award when an application is made by one party and the court feels that a periodic payment system is appropriate. The benefits of a system of periodic payments have been recognized by numerous studies outlined in the Manitoba Law Reform Commission report, as well as by the Supreme Court of Canada. The present system of lump-sum awards often results in awards that are inaccur ate, especially when a large portion of an award represents comp en sation for futur e losses.

These high-damage awards are often attributed to the management fees and gross-ups for future taxation as part of the lump sum. Periodic payments help to reduce the size of awards by eliminating these two elements. Reducing the size of awards will also help to reduce liability insurance premiums in the Mure. At the same time, periodic payments will result in improvements to the accuracy of awards , because the courts will no longer have to calculate gross-ups for future taxation liability. This kind of prediction on Mur e returns on investment and Ml.Ke rates of taxation is very specula tive in nature.

I am pleased to note that Manitoba will be the first juris diction in Canada to giv e the court this discretion to award periodic payments. We are convi need that granting the courts this discretion will improve the existing system by which damages for personal injury and death are calcu lated and paid.

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1354 Mr. Speaker, with these brief rema rks , I rec ommend this bill for second reading. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak today to this bill. I want to have it noted that I am speaking immediately after the minister has spoken because I want to indicate early on, and I will be the only speaker for our party on this bill, that we wholeheartedly support this piece of legislation. I do look forward to speedy passage of this legislation, and I recommend it to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.

As the minister has said,-there is a problem in the current state of the law in having courts have the ability to structure settlements over periods of time. When people are injured, their injuries cause damage into future years, oft entimes a lif etime. The result of that is that the court at a fixed date, at a moment in time, a snapshot, has to try to assess what the damages are going to be for decades into the future. It is a very, very difficult speculative task.

One has to only participate in one of the trials of this nature, as I have done many times, to understand how difficult it is and how much at the end of the day it ends up just being a shot in the dark as to what the actual amounts are. Judges acknowledge that and have been asking, and the Supreme Court has made comment, about the need for structured settlements. This act, by giving judges the ability to allow for payments over a period of time, works to the benefit of plaintiffs in those cases as well as the insurance company, the insured public. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this bill come forw ard.

There will be some questions on the specific wor ding of the bill at the committee stage, but I think it is importantthatthis piece of legislation, as soon as possible, be passed in this province, because it is high time that we allowed our courts to structure settlements for those future damages. One other point I want to make is that MPIC has rece ntly come under, of course-and it has in the past-criticism for having to inc rease premiums to Manitobans.

The fact is that, as has been pointed out often by MPIC personnel, it is often attributed to the personal injury claims which are made and are often contested in the tort system in courts.

I want to just indicate that in my experience and in my discussions with people at MPIC, learned people at MPIC, the lawyer s in the Legal department, they will tell you, they will tell the minister that there are all kinds of ways , including this type of legislation, to provide for more eff icient, more effective service without going to a system where we are reducing the benefits per se, but we are simply getting better at defining exactly what the damages are. Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of things like double indemnity for wage loss, which is often paid in this province.

People who are claiming on insurance claims oftentimes get almost or close to double their actual wage loss. Why? Because of glitches in the legislation. Because MPIC is not a fund of last resort. That type of thinking can save the motoring public in Manitoba millions and millions of dollars. I just lay that groundwork as a caution to this gove rnm ent and in parti cular the min iste r responsible for MPIC that the move to no-fault, the phrase "no-fault" should not be seen as a panacea when, in fact, if it is going to mean no benefits , nobody is going to be happy.

The truth is, what we have to look for when we are looking at MPIC is getting value for the dollar. What we do not want to have is the motoring public led to believe they are insured for their full damages and then not even get a percentage of their actual damages if they are so unfortunate as to be involved in a motor vehicle acci dent. *

(1430) There are all kinds of interesting things that I think we can do to reduce the cost. This is an important piece of legislation, I believe, to move tow ards the ability for structured settlements. I only wish that it had been in place earlier. I acknowledge what the minister says. We are moving before most other jurisdicti ons, if not all other jurisdicti ons. That is good, and I look forward to further discussions at committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Becky Barr ett (We lling ton) : I move , seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowc huk), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

Bill 20- The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.

1355 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 Downey), that Bill 20, The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act (Loi validant un reglement d'application de Ia

Loi sur l'aide sociale), be now read a second time and be referred to a comm ittee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to clarify regulations under The Social Allowances Act. The policies enshrined in these regulations have been adhered to in practice since the 19 70s and this legislation will ensure that the regulations are clearly defined and consistently interpreted. The social allow ances program regulations define sources of income and levels of assets which are excl uded from consideration when determining eligibili ty for benefits under the program .

The exclusions apply to payments such as Manitoba cost of living and property tax credits, the federal child tax benefit and the federal goods and services tax credit. For the past 20 years the social allowances program has held that income from these sources is exempt upon receipt but becomes an asset after a reasonable period of time. The usual guideline for this grace period is about four months. The Social Allowance s Act and regula tions have been interpreted and applied in this fa shion.

Howev er, following a recent review it was felt that the regulations should be amended to clearly specify that for social allowance recipients, income from exclUded sources will, after a prescribed period of time, become an asset to be considered when determ ining eligibil ity for benefits under the program. The amendments to the regulations will ensure that income from exempt sources will be excluded from a recipient's income when determinin g eligibility for social allowance benefits in the month it is rece ived.

Furthermore, the regulations provide for an extension to this grace period at the discretion of the director of social allowance for a period not exceeding twelve months from receipt of the exempt income. This legislation has the effect of applying the amended regulations under The Social Allowances Act retroactive ly. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that decisions made when administering The Social Allowances Act prior to the amendment of the regulations are validated as long as they meet the criteria of the amended regulations.

In other words, if the amended regulations had been in force at the time, these decisions would have been approved. This validation is consistent with the way The Social Allowances Act and regulations have been interpreted and applied with respect to the treatment of exempt income. With those brief remarks I will rec ommend this bill for second reading, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Becky Barrett (We llington) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylyci a-Leis), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr.

Speaker, would you move the Supply motion as we continue along, the Interim Supply. I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Aff airs (Mr. Downey) , that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a comm ittee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair.

SUPPLY-I NTERIM SUPPLY COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Ways and Means please come to order. We hav e been considering a resolution respecting the Interim Supply. Is the comm ittee ready for the question? Ms. Be cky Ba rr ett (We llin gto n) : Madam Chairperson, the comm ittee I believe is hardly ready for the question, but I understand the need for you to ask it. I have a question or two for the Minister of Family Service s, if I may. The minister has taken a second and maybe even more devastating swipe at the child care system in the province of Manitoba.

He has made some

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1356 major changes to the funding arrangements that not only daycare centres and child care centres but also individual families have to pay for in the child care system in the province of Manitoba. Madam Chairperson, I found it interesting that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) issued a press release late in the afternoon of the same day that the government announced the elimination of grants to 56 comm unity organizations.

I would imagine the timing of that was very caref ully chosen so that the comm unity was focused mainly on the 56 commu nity cuts. Maybe the minister expected that the broader commun ity would ignore or not be made aware of the problems that were going to be as a result of his changes to the child care funding system. Madam Chairperson, I would like to ask to begin with a quite specific question of the minister, that is in regard to the fact that there is a cap being placed on the subsidized spaces in the province of Manitoba.

Currently, there are approximately, my understanding is, 10 ,000 subsidized spaces in the Province of Manitoba child care system, and the cap is going to be 9,600 spaces. My question is to the minister, dealing with those 400 space s. Can the minister explain the proced ure by which those spaces will be lost to the child care syst em? Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minist er of Family Services) : Madam Chairperson, I want to start by saying that we released the press release after we tabled the Detailed Estimates here in the House so that members such as yourself and your colleagues and the members from the third party would have an opportunity to have those Detailed Estimates, because we thought we were going into the Estimates process. That was tabled at around 1 :30 in the aft ernoon. I am really puzzled as to what time of the day the member would like us to make announcements. *

(1440) I remember making one at three o'clock one day and her Leader and others portrayed it as midnight or in the middle of the night. If we do it in the morning, then we get accused of not doing it while the House is open. I would be willing to take some instruction from my honourable friend to indic ate what time these announc emen ts would be preferable for whatever purposes she has. There is going to be a cap on the number of subsidized spaces so that we can maintain our expenditures within that given budget.

We have annou nced that we would be withdrawing something like 400 spaces from the system, and we would do it by attrition. Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, I would be delighted to discuss in a different venue with the minister the most appropriate time of the day to issue a press release. Howev er, the specific question I have-and the minister has begun to make an answer to the question about the elimination of subsidized spaces when he states that it will be through attrition.

My next question on this issue is: A daycare with 50 subsidized spaces, should a subsidized family leave one of those spaces-and we can discuss the potential reasons for that family leaving those spaces later. Should a subsidized family leave a single-their child leave that space in that particular child care centre, will that space then be lost to that centre ? Is the attrition based by centres or is it going to be spread out throughout the province? How do those 400 spaces get eliminated? Mr.

Gllleshammer: Madam Chairperson, we will do it in the fairest way possible so that we are well aware that we would not want the impact of that decision to reside on any one or a few centres. I think we will work within the Child and Family Services in daycare through that office to try to minimize the impact on both the fam ily and the centr es, but we are going to by attrition downsize the number of subsidized spaces by about 400. Ms. Barrett : Madam Chairperson, I was able I believe to hear most of the minister's responses, but not all of the .minister's responses potentially. No, I believe I heard it.

I was ac tually making a comment more to the upper benches than I was to the minister. None of the upper benches, of cour se, were paying any attention to me, but then- Madam Chairpers on: Does the honourable member for Wellington wish me to call the members to order so that, indeed, your question can be heard by the Minister of Family Servic es? Ms. Barrett: Yes, Madam Chair person, the honour able memb er for We lli ngton woul d appreciate that greatly. Madam Chairperson: Order, please.

May I please have the co-operati on of all honourable members to ensure that the honourable member for Wellington may pose her questions and, indeed,

1357 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 hear the response from the honourable Minister of Family Services. Ms. Barrett : Thank you, Madam Chairperson. My understanding from what I could hear of the answer the minister gave me is that the minister and his department have not yet determined the actual implementation of the attrition of those 400 daycare spaces. If my under standing is correct, I would appreciate a clarification. If not, could the minister clarify it for me and have me understand that? Mr. Gllleshammer: Well, I will certainly try and have you understand it.

We are going to, as I have indicated, downsize the number of subsidized spaces by some 400. We are going to do it by attrition, and we are going to work with the daycare providers, whether they be centres or homes, to try and ensure that we minimize the impact on any one centre or any one home. Because we have in excess of 400 homes and centres, our plan is to try to manage it so that the impact of the subsidy reduction does not impact any one centre or home to any great degree. Ms.

Barrett: Madam Chairperson, I believe that my first reaction was correct, that the minister does not have a specific formula or outline that he could share with a particular centre saying, this is how we are going to implement the attrition. I am getting calls, as I am sure the minister's office is, as the Child Day Care division is, as my caucus colleagues are, from child care providers both in homes and in centres, particularly in centres where there is a high degree of subsidization.

Theso centres are legitimately worried about the impact that this attrition and ultimate elimination of 400 subsidized spaces will have on their centre's ability to operate, as well as the impact it is going to have on those individuals, but I would like to focus particularly on those centres. Centres are getting less and less of their money from the government through operating grants. They are being asked to rely more and more on parental fees. The subsidies are going to be capped.

The subsidy amounts are not expanding, and as a result of the restructuring of the formula two years ago, centres have no surpluses. They are to the bones. They have nothing to shield them from the impact of these reductions. I would like to make another comment. I see the minister shaking his head when I commented about centres having no subsidies.

I am not, for a moment, suggesting that all centres in the province have eliminated all of their surpluses, but many of the centres, over the past two years, have been forced, by this government's fee restructuring and narrowing of its operating grant to centres, to put themselves in a financial situation where they have no additional resources. They are budgeting based on 100 percent, their centres being fully occupied all of the time. When they have the vast majority or all of their spaces currently subsidized, they cannot afford to lose those spaces.

When they do lose those spaces, they want to know-and I think they have a legitimate right to know-what the impact is going to be on their particular centre. Is there a formula in place where the government says, 90 percent of our subsidized spaces are in child care centres, if that happens to be the case, and 10 percent in family daycare, so we are going to take 90 percent of our reduction or elimination of subsidized centres from daycares and 1 0 percent from family daycares?

Are they going to say, we have done an investigation region by region and have decided that 300 spaces will come from Winnipeg, and 25 will come from the Parkland and 25 will come from Southwest, et cetera? What is the formula whereby those spaces are going to be eliminated? If there is no formula, how is a centre supposed to know what kind of operating budget they are going to be dealing with? Mr.

Gllleshammer: Madam Chairperson, just to go back to the member's initial remarks when she indicated that the grants had decreased to the centres, of course, she is quite correct, but there has also been a tremendous increase on the subsidy side so that centres can gain their income through grants, subsidies and parent fees. Many of the centres have full fee-paying parents, and the restructuring that we did two years ago had a balance to it. As the grants went down, the subsidies went up, and we determined the daily cost of care and thereby set a parent fee. •

(1450) There is also an additional dollar a day that some of the centres charge to clients, as well as the fact that many centres do some fundraising and also access grants through community services council and the Community Places grants. So there is a variety of income, and the member has to app reciate that each centre board has a

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1358 variety of decisions to make. [interjection) Well, I am sort of surprised by the member's reaction there because there are boards in those centres and they do make decisions. If it is different from that, I am sure she will have an opportunity to tell me during her next opportunity to ask a question. All of those various sources of income and all of the expenditures they have, the board has to manage that, and, yes, some of the centres and some of the parents have called looking for information that was provided last week on the new fees and changes in daycare.

We have been providing that to the individuals who have been phoning. As well, I met rece ntly with both the MCCA and the home-based organization that looks after daycare homes, and we have talked about some of the restructuring and some of the changes that were going to come about. I have indicated to them, because of a dramatic increase in the amount of dollars that have been spent on daycare, that certainly this next year would be a pause in the amount of government dollars going into the daycare area.

As a result, we would be freezing the licensing, and we now have also indic ated that we are capping the number of subsidies. The latter part of her question was to do with the distribution of those subsidies that are given to daycare homes, daycare centres; she also asked a question on the geography of the location of these centres, whether it would be based on that.

We have just passed the changes in the regulations which will be coming into effect, and what we have been saying to daycare providers, whether it be daycare homes or daycare centres, is that we would try our best through the attrition process to minimize the impact on any one centre or any one home. Of course, the next part of this process will be that we will also have to use a waiting list for centres and homes that are going to have cli ents who want to access that service and if we are at the maximum.

Of course, as we approach the summer season, there is often a graduation that takes place as children who are currently accessing daycare homes or daycare centres will be moving into the school system. We are going to make every effort to work with the unions that represent the daycare workers in the centres to manage the change that is going to take place. It is my hope that any centre will not be impacted or any home will not be impacted by more than one position. Ms.

Barrett: Madam Chairperson, my reaction, as the minister spoke about earlier, was it must have been the 40th time, and I am being ver y conservative in my estimates here, that the minister has stated in this House and in Estimates over the past three years that boards, whether they be of Child and Family Services agencies or child cares or other organizations, have to manage and have choices to make and have the authority to do so.

The reaction that I have is that, of course, the boards have those decisions to make and they have in the past made them based on very sound decisions and a knowledge and understanding of their local situations. What this gove rnment is doing is not only offloa ding its responsibility for the funding of the child care system, but it is also saying that boards have dif fi cult decisi ons to make when the government is not giving them the resources with which to make those decisions.

Then it points to the board saying, the board made that decision when we all know, Madam Chairperson, that it is not the board that is making that ultimate decision. It is the government which says, there will be no operating grants. Ultimately, it is going to be a volume-driven, market-driven child care centre. Instead of being the best in North America, it is rapidly becom ing the worst. (Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair) The minister says that he hopes that daycare centres and staff will not be unduly hurt by these changes, and he hopes they will be able to manage the change.

How can a daycare centre manage the change whe n they do not know how the change is going to affect them? Obviously, this government has decided we need to cut X number of dollars from this line in our budget. Treasury Board has stated you shall do this, and the government says, the minister says, fine, we will make this change. We will freeze licensing of spaces. We will cut back 4 percent, which seems to be the general operating change in many ofthese situations. We will cut 4 percent. We will do it by attrition, but we do not need to worry about planning how we are going to implement that attrition.

We will let it happen and then we will do it-a clear case of total lack of understanding about the implicat ions these changes have on child care centres and on child care parents.

1359 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 Mr. Gllleshamrner: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering how the member describes an incr ease in the budget from $26 million to $50 million as offloa ding? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Ac ting Chairperson, I would be delighted to answer the question in a general manner because I do not have the specifics about each year in front of me. Almost exactly two years ago, April 11 I believe it might have been, well into the new fiscal year, the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) made an announcem ent at three o'clock in the af ternoon after Question Period so that the opposition would not have an opportunity that day to ask questions about the announcement. He made a major announcement about restructuring the fees and funding of child care in Manitoba. The basic impact- An Honourable Member: You are supposed to answer 1he question. Ms. Barrett: I am answering it a lot more directly, sir, than the minister answers my questions.

The impact of the original fee restruc turing and the impact of this fee restructuring and changes to the formula for funding child daycare in the province of Manitoba has been to change, as the minister himself says, the focus of funding child daycare from a mix of operating grants, subsidies and salary enhancemen t grants to a much less, we say, fair mix of an incr ease in the focus on parental-{inte�ection] I am getting to the offloa ding. The change has be�n from that mix which recognized a range of funding abilities to a funding formula which places far more emphasis on the fee component.

The fee component is made up of the fees when parents are eligible for subsidies on a sliding scale- although we can talk about the unfairness of the sliding scale as opposed to the fee structure itself-a sliding scale of subsidies and fees that centres can charge to parents who are not eligible for any subsidies. The focus is moved far more to the fees that parents or the government through subsidies are paying and far less to the operating grant and salary enhancemen t grant component. *

(1500) That, Mr. Acting Chairperson, is the crux of the off load. It is offloadi ng the gove rnmen t's responsibility for participa ting in an active fas hion with funding of child care centres in an operating grant formula, as well as fees, and putting far more of that funding onto either the subsidy program or to parental fees. Now, the other part of the offload is that when the government made the change in the fee struc ture, the government increased the fees for infant care by almost 50 percent and for preschool by almost 20 percent. There was not, Mr.

Acting Chairperson, a concomitant increase in the subsidy form ula. So, No. 1, two years ago, we have a major offload . If your family income was eligible for a subsidy on April 10 , you had virtually no increase in your family income for the subsidy level on April 11, 19 91 , except that your fees went up by 50 percent if you had an infant in care . Now, if that is not an offload , I would like to know what is. The second component of the offload is that the formula, as I have stated before, is geared far more to the parents , eith er the subsidiz ed or the uns ubsi dized fe es.

So those are the two components of the offload , and now the government is capping the number of subsidized spaces at a reduction of 4 percent. What this means is that the government is saying, we will only pay for X number of subsidized spaces. If you as a daycare or a family daycare cannot get nonsubsidized, full fee-paying parents to come into your child daycare , then you have to find money from elsewhere. That is offloading onto the daycare centres.

The child care system in the province of Ontario prior to 1990 was used by many child care experts, not only in Canada but in the United States, as a picture of the exact opposite of the child care system in the province of Manitoba. While Manitoba's was considered a model to emulate, Ontario's was considered a model of what happens if you do not have a balanced mix. You have child care centres with enormous waiting lists for subsidized spaces, which the minister has agreed will happen here, and empty spaces in the same child care centres because parents cannot afford the fees.

This is the kind of two-tiered privatized child care system we are going toward in this province largely because the Province of Manitoba is abrogating its ultimate responsibility for the child care system in this province and putting it onto parents and child care centres. That is what I mean very concisely by offload .

----------- - Ma-ch 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1360 •· .............. : Mr. Acting Chairperson. I am 8111 having some dfftculty undemwdng how a1 00 peroent increase In f\nlng Is an oftloadlng. What the member is saying Is 1hat 1he money, ln her mind, is going to 1he wrong people. The member must realize that a grant Is a subsidy to everyone who aocesses 1hataystem.

What you.,. saying Is that you want al .,..ms subeidind 1he same way hough the grant system so 1hat thoM paren1s who cannot atbd daycare would not get a subsidy and those who haw two incomes 1hat go into 1he hundreds of1housands ofdolars should get government money for their children to be in daycare. The restructuring that we cld reduced 1he gran1s but cbma 1icaly increased 1he subsidies so that the money was targeted for-(in tefjection] We i, 1he former member for Elice wants to get Into the debate, and I am surprised. because I do not 1hink 1he Ubenlls have a position on daycare.

I have not heard anyone from her party ever speak on 1he daycare issue . The policy 11hough t that 1he Uberal Party was suppot1ing, at least most recently, was that the mone y should go to people and that that money should be in subsides and not in grants. In fact, I am sure 1he member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), probably while practising some recreational sports, might want to speak to some body who Is quite involved in setting up 1he position of the government on the daycare position. Again, 1he offloading 1he member for Wellington speaks of does not make sense.

She would seem to be saying that we shoukl withch.w 1he money from subsicles and not haw daycare aocesslble to low-income families so that we can spend that money supporting daycare for 1hose people who can afford to pay for it. The member talks about the in crease in fees. Those fees were set in consultation with the community to dete rmine what the actual cost of care was beca use, through the many, many grants that existed before, no one could pinpoint what that cost of care was.

So that committee, supported by all of the unions and people involved in the daycare review at that time, worfi:.ed together to dete rmine what the actual cost of care was. Now what we find, of course , is that cost of care is not as high in some of the rural centr es. When the member was speaking yeste rday, I am sure if she had more time she would have got around to that, that in many of the smaller � --- -... .. cen11M, 1M ........ .. actualy chwglng somewhat ... than 1M.., cost of� and. at 1M aame time , gMdng leea on 1he sub8idy ... but managing--� ... U att.ndanoa.

The member � 1he fact that we have floan1hespac.s. ,.._. ... no longer longwaNng 1st:s. In fact. 1he MCCA atMcl ua to ""- 1M ...- tastun mer, which we cld�. and we .. golngtodoagaln . lam U'etha twewl have an opportw.ity to hear from the �Mmber for c..sc.ntwood, becaUM we ... al rMiy lnt.t"Ht.ci to know what 1he poahton of 1he Liberal party Ia on daycare. What the m•mber Is saying in criticizing gowmment for capping 1he aubslr:he and hHing 1he spaces Is. It Is okay to CMfspend your �t.

The budget that we wll print this y.w wll be higher, and1he member probably hastilreadychecked1ha t, 1han 1he budget we printed last y.w . So there Is an inctease In 1he amount dedlcat.d In 1M print to daycare. If spet dtg $45 milan, $SO million on daycare is not enough, I am wondering if the member might be bold enough to say how much we should spend on da� to put In place 1M vision she has. ShWd It be $75 mlion or $100 mllon?

We have seen that very dramatic lncnaae in that budget line, hlgher1ha n q other budget bin this department, higher 1han any other �t 11M in gove rnme nt, and what 1he member Is saying Ia 100 percent Increase over five budge1s Is not .nough. I am wondering if st. would voluntMr to tell us how much It should be. Some Honourable .......... : Oh, oh. The Acting Chalrptnon (a. Sftlnaon): The honourable member for We lngton. [int.rjectlon] Order, please. I am having trouble hearing the honourable member. (Madam Chairperson in the Chair) Ms.

Barrett: My concem with the funding for child daycare has consistently been not with 1he amount. There is never going to be a total satisfaction on 1he part of any government or any opposition with any budgeted figure. There is always room for mote. My conoem has never been with 1he amount. It is the way the money has been apportioned, and l am not going to go into another expl anation of our conoems about this. *

(1510) 1361 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 I wanted to put one small correction on the record and then get into another area of his changes in the funding for child daycare. The minister said that there wa� believe he was referring to the working group when he was talking about a group that was making recom mendations to the minister about the actual cost of care.

I just want to remind the minister that the working group-many members of that working group, just like many members of the social assis tance group that advised him on the harmonizing of rates provincially and municipal ly, came up with a series of recomme ndations. The working group on child daycare never recomme nded a 50 percent increase in fees for infant care to be implemented in one step. They recommen ded that there be a recognition of the actual cost of care, Madam Chairperson, the concerns that have been raised by members of the working group in the last two years and by family daycares and parents.

Because he has been at enough of those meetings and heard enough of those concerns raised, the minister knows that this increase took place from one night to the next day. It was done not phased in but done immediately with virtually no corresponding increase in the sliding scale for subsidies. The next area that I would briefly like to get into with the minister is his rationalization for the additional $1 .40 a day that daycare centres must charge their subsidized families. I will be brief-two parts. One is the $1 .40-where did that figure come fr om?

Two, what was the rationalization for making that $1 .40 a requirement that daycares must charge their subsidized parent that rather than giving the daycares the option to charge or not to charge, as was the earlier practice with the dollar? Mr. Gllle shammer: Madam Chairperson, I am pleased that the member for Welli ngton (Ms. Barrett) has stated the position of her party on the budget line and indicated that the amount we dedicate to daycare is sufficient. I think we are making good progress here, that recognition that the amount is enough, it is just that you do not like the way it is distributed.

Our belief and our philosophy is that the money we dedicate to the daycare line, the majority of it should go into the subsidies, and as a result the grants are lessened. What the member is saying is that she would prefer high grants to all of the centres and institutions and homes, and lower the subsidies. The grant, however , is a subsidy to everyone who accesses daycare. When you have high-income parents, the member for Wellington is saying they should get a high subsidy. We do not believe that is correct.

That is why we have lowered the grants and we have targeted the daycare money to those families that really need the financial assistance. I am pleased that we have agreement here that the budget line is sufficient, because 1- Ms. Barrett: Oh, do not be ridiculous. You know we do not have agreement on that. Mr. Gllleshammer: You cannot agree to it once and then not agree to it the next time. Point of Order Ms.

Barrett: On a point of order, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services, when he is respondng to a question, and a comment is made by any member of the oppositiOf'H am trying to be parliamentary here, Madam Chairperson, with great dHficulty-that he not put- An Honourable Member: Do you want some parliamentary words ? Ms. Ba rrett: Yes, I know a numb er of unparliamentary words-that the Minister of Family Services, when he speaks, when he says what a memb er from the opposition says, that he accurately reflect what was stated.

The Minister of Family Services, for almost three years has time and time again inaccurately reflected the words and the statements of not only myseH but every other opposition member who has ever asked him a question. Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Wellington does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Gllleshammer: Madam Chairperson, if I have misinterpreted the member, ! will read Hansard and just check and see what it is she said. I was sure there was agreement that the total budget line was sufficient.

H it is not suffic ient, I am sure she will indicate what it should be and whether it should be $75 million or $100 million. I would point out in the province next to us that is governed by the member's fellow travellers they have one-third the budget that we have in Manitoba dedicated to daycare. So I am sure I was reflecting what the member was agreeing to, that that budget line is suffic ient.

March 25, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1362 The member also indicated that the member opposite I think- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Chai rper son: Order, plea se . The honourable Minister of Family Services to com plete his response. Mr. Gllleshammer: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for getting members opposite under contr ol, because I think this is really important that they understand that the member is saying that the subsidy scale is not wide enoug h. We giv e subsidies for children in daycare to people with a net income of almost $60,000.

What the member is saying is that upper limit of the subsidy should be further expanded and that subsidies should be given to higher income earning families. I can tell you that is not the vision that we have over here. The member opposite did make comment on the development of the act ual cost of care. This was a very important work that came out of the daycare discussions in '88, '89 and '90 where it was important to determine what the act ual cost of care was for a child.

It was determined that the cost of care for younger children was greater than the cost of care for some of the older children who are in daycare. It was a very important step in budgeting and assigning subsidies and grants to determine what that cost of care per child is. I would remind the member that the cost of care in daycare for children under two where either the parent or, through the subsidy process, government is involved, the cost of care for a child of that age can be over $8,000 or $9,000. So it is important that we know what that cost of care is when we do our budget deliberations.

If the member wants to expand the subsidy scal e, that would indeed add more cost to the subsidies as more parents would be eligible for subsidy and, of course, they would pay less of that parent fee themselves. So I think while that subsidy scale may not be perfect , if it has to be changed, probably it should be shrunk instead of expanded so that the money is truly targeted for those who have a lower income. Now the member did ask a couple of questions there.

On the question of the $1 .40 a day, we felt because of the cost of care, because of the cost of the subsidies and the grants, because our daycare budget has escalated, that we would ask those parents of children who were being subsidized- some of them completely, some of them partially-that they would contribute $1 .40 per day towards the cost of that subsidized space. Again, we still will be spending additional money from what we printed last year.

Again, I have to say I am pleased that the member has indica ted that the budget is suff icient, and if she does have different ideas of how we should spend that $46 million, $47 million, we would be pleased to hear how it should be spent. *

(1520) Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, the minister, in his answer about the rationalization, has partially answered the question about the thinking behind the $1 .40 a day. I do not know if I asked it first, but I will ask it this time, why the figure $1 .40 was cho sen, and secondly, another subsequent question-and he did not answer why it is now required, rather than allowing the daycares to make the determination if their family should, or could, be asked to take that extra $1 .40 a day.

Thirdly, if the government is saying, as the minister said, that subsidized parents should be asked to pay some of the costs or additional costs of the child care fees, additional fees, why was the decision made that there would not be a sliding scale on that $1 .40? The impact of that $1 .40 increase will be felt in a negative way by all families who are subsidized. Howev er, it will be felt most negatively by those families who are currently fully subsidized, but they are going to be asked to pay the same $1 .40 a day extra as a family who gets only a partial subsidy is going to be asked to pay for.

Again, that appears to me to be a very regressive move rather than a recognition that families who are fully subsidized are, by definition, determined by the system to be unable to afford to pay for child care. So now the minister is saying, well, yes, we are fully subsidizing them on the one hand, but on the other hand, we can ask them to pay upwards of another $700 a year for child care . I do not understand the rationalization behind that determination.

Mr.GIIIeshammer: Madam Chairperson, what the member is saying is she would have preferred that we had a sliding scale, so that those at the top end of the subsidy would be paying more and those at the bottom end would be paying less. The way the numbers go within the subsidy range is that the majority of the subsidized parents are at the bottom end of that range, and I suppose go

1363 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 1993 upward in a pyramid, so those people who are making a net income , those families, of $50,000 who are sti ll getting subsidy , would have to pay considerably more to offset the fact of what the member is saying, that they should be paying less at the bottom end. It would have presented a more cum bersome way of implementing this cost to the parents. The $1 .40 per day was arrived at by studying the number of subsidized children whom we were currently responsible for.

We looked at the daily cost of care, and we wanted to be able to keep that figure low enough, so we felt that all subsidized parents could partici pate by paying that $1 .40 ada y, and, of course, lowe r the total amount of budget we dedicate to daycare. The member has agreed that the $46 million, going on $47 million, was sufficient. If we have to work within that global figure, certainly there could have b0en different ways of doing it, having the additional cost per day higher for some, but we do have 10 ,000 subsidized spac es. The majority of them are at the bottom end.

To make an appreciable differen ce at the top end, we would have had to put that fee up considerably for those who were at the top end of the subsidy. That is really inconsistent with what the member is saying about moving the top end of the subsidy even further. As a result, looking at the cost, looking at the income we wanted to minimize the impact on parents and at the same time give the daycare centres the same income.

I know that the member has aspirations of being the House leader of the opposition party some day and probably will be busy studying the Beauchesne to look at the lfarious lists of words that are acceptable and unaccept able. I know when she takes over that role from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that she will do just an excellent job. Point of Order Mr. Kevin Lamo ureux (Second Opposition House Leader) : Madam Chairperson, generally speaking, we have seen opportunity-4he offi cial opposition has had an hour and a half to ask questions, or however long it has been. We have been waiting quite patiently.

I do not mind if the member for Wolseley wants to ask questions. She is fully within her rights. I would suggest that the third party does have some questions too that they would like to get onto the record. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader) : Madam Chairperson, I would point out that it was the Liberal Party who did not want to get into Interim Supply. Perhaps if his Leader had not spoken for seven and a half hours and we had that additional time for Interim Supply, more members might be able to speak. Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.

There are no rules outlining the order in which members speak or question in Ways and Means comm ittee. *** Ms. Jean Frie sen (Wols ele y) : Madam Chairperson, I just have a few questions. I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier about a govern ment decision which the Minister of Education reminded me yester day was not a departmental decision , it was a government decision. I want to ask the Deputy Premier: What is the govemmenfs position on diffe rential fees for universities? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Chairperson, the decision that was made on behalf of the university funding and on behalf of the policy of visa fees and the differential fees for visa students is a government decision. I am not sure what additional information I can provide the honourable member with that will assist in the point that she may be leading to. Ms. Friesen : Madam Chairperson, my question really requires a yes or no answer. Is the government requiring Manitoba universities to introduce diff erential fee s of some kind, yes or no? Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as I have expla ined, government has set out a policy regarding differential fees. Now the universities will look at how they will implement that. As I have explained, the process of diffe rential fees for visa students is not tied to the penalty that exceeding the 5 percent cap is tied to. Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, can I then use the minister's own words again and to say, are universities in Manitoba being required to implement diffe rential fees of some kind, yes or no?

March 25, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 13 64 Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in explaining and in answering, I have given the same explanation to the honourable member, and I will explain it again. Government has set a policy. Universities have been informed, but we recog nize that universities will be making their own decisions regarding the application of the differential fee, and I understand that the presidents may also be discussing this. It is not tied to the penalty as the 5 percent cap on student tuition is tied. *

(1530) Ms. Friesen: The minister said the universities will be making their own decisions about the application of a diffe rential fe e. Does that mean that universities in Manitoba are being required to implement a differential fee, yes or no? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, again, I have said that the government has set out a policy. There has not been a policy that has spoken to the diffe rential fees on visa students, and there has been across Canada. Other governments have spoken to whether or not visa students might pay a differential fee.

Across Canada, universities have determined how they will apply the fee, and we expect Manitoba's universities to do the same. Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, then what I heard the minister say was that universities will determine how they will apply a fee which has been set and requiring them to be implemented by the universities. Again, I want to ask the mini ste r: Is the government requiring universities in Manitoba to implement a differential fee of some kind, yes or no? [interjection] Until I get an answer, frankly. Mrs.

Vodrey : The honourable member seems to be seeking some specific wor ding to her answe r. What I am doing is offering her the explanation, and it has been the same each time. Government has set a policy regarding the differential fees for visa students. That was not articula ted or in place in the past. We know that other provinces in Canada have done so. Government has initiated and stated the policy. This polic y has been com muni c ated to the universities, and now the universities, through their boards of governors, will determine how they will apply it. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Chairperson, as I understand the minister then, the universities have no leeway on whether or not to apply a fe e. They have only the opportunity to decide how much of a differential fee will be applied. Is that what the government is saying, yes or no? Mrs. Vod rey : Madam Ch airp erson, the universities will decide how they will apply the diff erential fee as it relates to visa students. Ms. Friesen: I do thank the minister for that. I think that is clear. It does take us a step further. The universities must then apply a differential fee. Do I understand the minister correctly ? Mrs.

Vodrey : Yes, the universities will decide how they will apply the fee. We have given a guideline. The universities will determine how they will apply it. Ms. Friesen: The government then is requiring universities in Manitoba to apply a diffe rential fee. Is that the case ? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, government has stated our policy regarding a differential fee to apply to visa students. However, we have not tied the applic ation of that differential fee to the penalty that we have tied exceeding the 5 percent cap.

Where universities exceed the 5 percent cap on student tuition, we have attac hed a penalty clause. The universities have been informed of that when the universities received in writing their information regarding the grants this year from the Universities Grants Commission. I stated this physical separation even in the letter when I answered a previous question for that member. In one paragraph, the 5 percent cap was stated and the penalty should universities exceed the 5 percent cap.

In a sepa rate paragraph, universities were informed of government's policies regarding differential fees for university students. Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, the minister is answering questions which I have not asked. I am not asking at this stage about the penalty. I am asking the simple question whether universities in Manitoba are required to introduce a differential fee.

The minister certainly, as I understand her today, has said, yes, they are required to introduce a diffe rential fee, and they have some leeway in how that will be applied and I believe that she has said a maximum up to the level at which that can be applied. Howev er, we are still left with the Premier's comment in the House on Friday which said that universities are not being required to do this.

13 65 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 25, 19 93 Universities are very much confused about what is happening. If you look, for example, at the Un iversity of Winnip eg newspaper which is published today, the entire front page is devoted to the introduction of differential fees at the rate of 75 pe rcent. Now, the univ er sity newspaper presumably was working on limited information. My job here is to try and clarify that for students, for their families and for the university administration, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.

I want the minister to say on record that, yes, this government is requiring universities in Manitoba to introduce some level of diffe rential fees. It is a very straightforward question. I have asked it a number of times in the last hour. It seems to me that in all respect for this House the minister and the government should answer yes or no. Mrs. Vodrey : Madam Chairperson, the answer to the member remains the same. Government has set a pclicy. The policy has been commun icated to the universities.

Howeve r, the applic ation of the differential fee is not tied to the penalty dause as I have exp lain ed to the memb er. Therefore, universities will make their decisions. They will make their decision as to how they apply the fee. Now, the member may now have to approach the universities and speak to them about how they wish to apply the fee, but they now have the decision-making process. We have commu nicated with universities, spoken with universities and now the universities will make their decision. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Chairperson, well, then as I understand what the minister said yesterday, she has now changed her position. Yesterday, I said to the minister and I am quoting, I said: "H I am to understand what the minister is saying now, it is that the universities are under no direction, under no compunction, there will be no penalty if they do not apply differential fees to international students; and the minister said that is correct. So what she has said today is somewhat different. She is saying that there is-{inte�ection] So let us follow up with some examples, if we can perhaps get at the answer that way.

As far as this government is concerned, is it within the policy that the minister and government have set for the universities now to apply a $1 differential fee; that is, they would be following the path of applying a diff erential fee and having the liberty to choose at what level it will be set? pnte�ection] I am asking a question. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Ch air person, I have answered the question several times. The member is asking me to specula te on what universities might do. I have told her that universities now will decide how they will apply the differential rate to visa students. Ms.

Fries en: So the only area of choice, of decision making to the universities is in the level of the fee. I understand what the minister is saying. Is it within the context of this government's policy for the universities to set a $1 diff erentiation fee for visa students? Mrs. Vodrey: The universities, as I have said, will decide how they wish to apply the differential fee. Mr. Kevi n Lamoureux (Inkster) : I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the Deputy Premier. Madam Chairperson, what has happened is the government did make a commitment to rural Manitobans when they introduced the VLT system.

What they did is they said that the VL T revenues would in fact be returned to rural economic development. They even came up with a program known as REDI. My question to the Deputy Premier is: Why has this government broken its promise and not allocated all the revenues that are being generated from the VL T machines back into rural Manitoba? Hon.

James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Chairperson, I think it is important that we step back just a little bit further than the position which the would-be Leader of the Liberal party is wanting to start from, and that is the commitment of this government, this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this party to rural Manitoba. *

(1540) I will put on the record many of the things that this government has done to maintain and to establish for this country an agricultur al-or maintain an established agricultural base that this country has depended upon for many, many years. The thousands of dollars in program funding that have been put in place through the GRIP and NI SA pr ogram , Madam Ch air person, canno t be disregarded-the amount of funds that are continued to be put in place and supported by this Premier and by this go ve rnment in decentral ization of government services throughout rural Manitoba, the programs that have been announced a year ago for

March 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 13 66 the mining industry to support the enhancemen t of mining activiti es, for the thousands of dollars that this government committed to the upgrading of the smelter in Flin Flon, millions of dollars which in fact will make sure that there is not environmental difficulty. That has been ongoing for many years, and it is in fact being upgraded. I could go on and on as to the commitment of this government to rural Manitoba.

As we ll, if the member wants to heed the information that he has been given several times, that we as a government have embarked upon the video lottery terminals for rural Manitoba, which would enhance the rural hotel industry-Madam Chairperson, the program has worked and has worked successfu lly. I have not heard the member stand up and in any way acknow ledge the policies of this government in the introduction of VLTs, to say, we appreciate the government of Manitoba introduci ng a program that would, in fact, support and retain rural hotels throughout Manitoba.

Not once have I heard him in a positive way say that, Madam Chairperson. Not once have I heard him stand up and give credit to the positive initiatives that have been introduced by this government, but he comes with the tack that he thinks he is going to gain some political support for his leadership, political opportunism, because he picks up on an issue that he thinks is in some way going to cause the government problems. I can tell you, I do not think he is on the right track.

Madam Chairperson, there has been a com mitment made, and there have been commitmen ts lived up to as it relates to-1 can add a few more: the rural water program under the Southern Development Initiative, where there are several millions of dollars that have been put into the sewer and wat er; for example, the program in Brandon where the Department of Rural Development put a million dollars into the upgrading of the Ayerst program for sewage treatment.

I could continue on, Madam Chairperson, but I know that members hopefully would like to pass this this afte rnoon, hopefully they would so that government could carry on with the business, rather than continually delay ac tivities of government which cost taxpayers money. I believe there has been a comm itment made and a commitment lived up to, as there will continue to be comm itments made and lived up to by this government to rural Manitoba.

The specifics of which he is asking, I will let the minister responsible further respond to, but I am not going to stand here, Madam Chairperson, or sit here, or this government is not going to sit here and take the kind of politicizing, the kind of lack of vision, lack of acknow ledgement of what really has taken place throughout our rural communities. There is a commitment to rural Manitoba, as there is to urban Manitoba from this government. There will conti nue to be a commitment and a commitment lived up to.

We will not sit down and take the cheap political posturing that a potential Liberal candidate has to better his career on the backs of people of rural Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Cha irpers on, I am absolutely amazed with the baf flegab that I just heard from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downe y). He talked about commitments that he made to rural Manitobans. What is very clear is that this government broke a commitment. They made a commitment that the VLT revenues would be returned to rural Manitoba. In fact, that commitment has not been maintained.

The Deputy Premier says , well, we have programs for the mining industry; we have a rural water commitment. Madam Chairperson, that has nothing to do the question I asked the Deputy Premier. The question I asked the Deputy Premier was, why did this government break its promise to rural Manitobans by not returning the VL T revenues back to rural Manitoba? Why did the government break its promise? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rur al Development) : Madam Chairperson, I am more than happy to stand in response to this question.

This is one that has been raised by the member opposite on a couple of occasi ons, yet he knows nothing about what is going on in rural Manitoba. As a matter of fact, he does not really care , and that has been evidenced by the statements that they have made, his party has made, his Leader has made, that have been recorded quite accurate ly in the press of late. Let me just, for his edifica tion, explain what has happened in rural Manitoba since this government has taken over and has introduced the video lottery terminals.

Madam Chairperson, first of all, with regard to the VL T revenues that are generated in rural Manitoba, the reason that the VL Ts were introduced into rural

13 67 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA March 25, 19 93 Manitoba was twofold; first of all, to assist in the revitalization, if you like, of the rural hotel industry that was dying in the province of Manitoba. It was a way for us to assist that industry to survive in many of the rural comm unities across this province that were suffering as a result of the lack of business in those establishments. I have to tell you that has been a success story because today we have the rural hotel industry in this province thriving.

I would have to say that there would have been at least a dozen hotels in this province that may have closed if we had not taken some action in that regard. The second purpose of that was to ensure that we could use some of that money to reinvest in Manitoba, to reinvest in rural Manitoba for economic opportunities. We had projected that in that first year, we would gener ate something in the neighbourhood of $5.3 million from video lottery termine.:s. In our Estimates last year, and the member may wish to check, we had allocated a substantial amount of those dollars to Rural Econo mic Development Initiatives.

Madam Chairperson, I have to tell you that, indeed, communities around this province have taken good advantage of the REDI program, of the Grow Bond program, of Partners with Youth, of the Green Team and of the initiatives that have been implemented to assist rural Manitoba get back on its feet. The member says, you broke faith because you said all of the money wos going to be returned to rural Manitoba.

Well, Madam Chairperson, I can tell you that if we check the recor ds, that money will be returned to rural Manitoba, and there is much more money being returned to rural Manitoba besides the video lottery terminal money. I have had the opportunity, as Minister of Rural Development, to visit comm unities all across this province, and I speak with people who are out there working and earning hard-earned dollars and are paying taxes.

If you ask them where they see priorities for money that this government spends, they will tell you that they are such issues as health in this province, as education in this provinc& [interjection] Yes, as agriculture in this province, as social services. I would have to tell this House that if you were to survey the public in rural Manitoba, I am sure that 70 percent plus would tell you that the monies generated from these video lottery terminals should be going to those initiatives and reducing the deficit.

Is that not a tremendous assistance to the rural inhabitants of our province, to lower the deficit, to indeed put money into health, to indeed put money into education and into the services that we may not be able to support if we did not have this kind of revenue generated from a variety of means? Now, Madam Chairperson, although the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who is running for leadership in the Liberal Party, tries to make a point of all of this because he is trying to garner some support out there in rural Manitoba.

He has not laid out any kind of a plan that his party has for any kind of revenues that would come from video lotteries if he were the Premier. As a matter of fact, he says give it back to the municipali ties; do not really have a plan but give it back to the municipalities. They do not have any priorities. They do not have any vision for this province; so therefore, his only recourse is to stand up and attack something that he knows nothing about. •

(1550) Mr. Lamo ureux : Madam Ch ai rpe rson, the minister did not make it very clear that this government did break their promise. Now, I want to quote a letter. I will be more than happy to table it after I go through it. This is what the letter says-and this is the initiative that I had nothing to do with. I did not ask for these letters even though a number of them were sent to me.

This is the fir st paragraph: Please let this letter serve as notice that we are extremely upset with the position that the provincial government has taken in regards to the distribution of revenues generated from the video lottery terminals in rural Manitoba. It appears that the funds will n ot be returned to rural Manitoba as initially promised. Well, Madam Chairperson, who did this letter come from? It came from mayors, it came from reeves.

I want to put on the record who sent these letters: the Town of Niverville, signed by the council of the Town of Niverville; the Town of Carman; the Village of Teulon; the Municipality of Bifrost ; the Rural Mun ici pal ity of La ke view; the Rural Municipality of Strathc lair; the Rural Municipality of Lawre nce ; the Rural Municip ality of Woodlands; the Local Government District of Lynn Lake; the district of Altona; the Village of Arborg; the Village of McCreary; the Rural Municipality of Winchest er; the

March 25, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 13 68 Rural Municipal ity of Woodwor th; the Rural Municipality of Miniota; the Town of The Pas; the Village of St. Claude; the Rural Municipality of Langford; the Rural Municipality of St. Laurent; the Town of Carman; the Rural Municipality of Gilbert Plains; the Town of Souris; the Rural Municip ality of Ste. Rose; the Rural Municipality of Arthur; the R.M. of Roland; the Town of Niverville; the Town of Snow Lake, town office-a ctually the Town of Snow Lake had another letter that went. Madam Chairperson, the letters go on.

A number of letters from rural Manitobans, mayors, reeves. Rural Manitoba knows that this government broke a promise and we are going to make that very clear. I have taken the liberty to ensure that in fact rural Manitobans are aware of it, because this government has taken rural Manitobans for granted far too long. This is a case which clearly demonstrates that this government does not have a plan in terms of VL Ts. It was interesting to hear the minister say that we do not have a plan in this party.

Well, I can say that I have a plan, or more of a plan, on the whole issue of gambling which has been tabled, Madam Chairperson, not in this Chamber but in other forums, on what it is that we believe we should be doing in terms of gambling. But gambling is another issue. What this government did is they brought in the VL Ts and tried to justify bringing in VL Ts to rural Manitobans by saying that all the proceeds that come from the VL Ts would be redirec ted back into the rural economy. Then they created this RED I program, and all of those monies were to go back to rural Manitoba.

A while back I heard, through representation, through a group of individuals who met with me with reference to daycare , that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) indicated to them that the VL T revenues, they are not too sure what the government is going to do with them, that, in fact, what the government might do is use it to help reduce the deficit . Madam Chairperson, the government was quick to say, no, no, that this is not, in f

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-34
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 34.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3be6000b0684190aecfeb7913996d8716681fbba

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