Manitoba Hansard — 20 May 1993 (Sitting 67, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-67

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 42 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No. 67 • 1 :30 p.m., THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thlrty·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, Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HEL WER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant 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 Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Rin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River Rossmere 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 NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

3221 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, May 20, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Richard Macaire, Ada Macaire and Emile Macaire requesting the Manitoba Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to consider conducting a plebiscite of Manitoba farmers as soon as possible on the issue of removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. * * * Mr. John Plohman {Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Glenn Hosea, Phyllis Tolsma, Grace McConkey and others requesting that the Manitoba government consider increasing its funding to education so that the children of this province receive the quality education they deserve and need. *** Mr. Conrad Santos {Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Odette Sabourin, Robert Coope r, Tony Rodrigues and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-1994 budget. Mr. Cllf Evans {Interlake): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jo-Anne Bolduc, Dale McKinnon, Mervin Young and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. Mr. Jim Maloway {Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brenda Palmer, Doug Gray, Sandra Pearce and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms.

Wowchuk). 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:

WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and other grain products since its inception in 1935; and

WHEREAS the federal Minister of Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board; and WHER EAS this is another step towards dismantling the board; and

WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11-member advisory co mmittee to the board or the pro ducers themselves; and

WHEREAS the federal minister has said that there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Manitoba Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to consider conducting a plebiscite of Manitoba farmers on this issue as soon as possible. * * * Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Chomiak). lt complies with the privileges and the 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:

3222 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993

WHEREAS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and

WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost-effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and

WHEREAS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and WHER EAS preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Lathlin).

It complies with the privileges and the 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 Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and

WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost-effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and

WHEREAS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and WHER EAS preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to. the 1993-94 budget. * (1335) *** Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.

Clif Evans). It complies with the privileges and the 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 Canadian Wheat Board has played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and other grain products since its inception in 1935; and

WHEREAS the federal Minister of Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board; and WHER EAS this is another step towa rd s dismantling the board; and

WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11-member advisory co mmi ttee to the board or the producers themselves; and

WHEREAS the federal minister has said that there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Manitoba Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to consider conducting a plebiscite of Manitoba farmers on this issue as soon as possible. *** Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3223 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 Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and

WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost-effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and

WHEREAS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and

WHEREAS preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Maloway). lt complies with the privileges and the 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 Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and

WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the Children's Dental Program; and

WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost-effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and

WHEREAS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and

WHEREAS preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Minnedosa Collegiate, fifty Grade 11 students, under the direction of Ms. Jean Taylor and Mr. Daniel Kiazyk.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Student Social Allowances Program Elimination-Cost Benefits Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on March 16 the government announced, among many other program cuts, the elimination of student social allowance. We asked the government on the cost-effectiveness of this issue.

They stated in the House on March 17 that many of these young people would be able to finish their high school; they could remain at home with their parents, that others can have access to other support programs within the Department of Education and other sources. Two months after the cut, we are already aware of estimates from the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 , that some 500 of the students affected in that school division alone will not be able to complete their education and will not be able to complete their education and training program, Mr. Speaker,

3224 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 contrary to advice given to this Chamber by the minister. The school board has asked the government to reco nside r, and I quote, their short -t erm cost-savings in terms of the long-term costs to our society. I would like to ask the Premier whether they are going to consider the long-term costs of their short-term thinking on these budgets. Hon. Gary Fllmon {Premier): We, like all provinces and provincial governments, think about the long-term impact of the things we do.

We do not have the luxury of being in opposition where, from a position of irresponsibility, we just simply say, spend more, tax more, place a greater burden of deficit on the people and crush their opportunities and future by leaving that-[interjection] Mr. Speaker, the opposition obviously do not want to hear the answer. Mr.Doer: Mr. Speaker, itis thefirsttimethe Premier has risen on this issue, and I am glad to say that he is trying to answer the question, because we asked him before on cost-benefit studies.

What we are looking at is the short -t erm costs of a federal-provincial program, and the long-term cost implications. So if the Premier is now saying that they are considering in all their decisions the long-term implications of these programs, I would like the Premier to table that in the House so we can see the data that he utilized to cut this program. Mr. Speaker, there are now 500 students who must withdraw from the program in the Winnipeg School Division No. 1. The City of Winnipeg has now written the province saying 850 of these people will now go onto municipal social assistance.

I would like to ask the Premier: How many people will have to go on social assistance, totally, in this program, through the cutbacks that are made by the province, and what have they really saved by denying education and training and increasing costs in social assistance in the province of Manitoba? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, nobody is being denied education and training. That remains freely available in our public school system throughout Manitoba to all Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, as I started to say earlier, we, like all provincial governments, have to look at the long-term implications of every decision we make.

We do not have the luxury of those members in opposition, who, from a position of irresponsibility, say just simply spend more, spend more, spend more. When we look, along with every other province in Canada, we find that no other province in Canada provides this kind of particular financial program. The reason is that they say the education is provided free of charge.

The opportunities are there for people to either take part-time work, or, as well, to seek the resources of others in their community, their families, the other support networks in their community, to ensure that they can continue to live while they go to school. These are the things that are done by every single province in the country. We are acting in no different manner than any province in the country-New Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, they are all following exactly the same policy. *

(1340) Funding Reinstatement Mr. Gary Doer {Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the social assistance numbers in the city of Winnipeg-and this is not unique to Manitoba have grown from some 7,000, when the election was called, to over 17,000 people in the city of Winnipeg alone. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the cost to the City of Winnipeg, which is cost-shared by this government and the federal government-and this government reminds us, and we agree, that there is only one taxpayer.

The social assistance budget has grown to $125 million from some $55 million when the government was running for re-election, more than doubling the cost to the taxpayer. Programs that get people off of social assistance have been pioneered in Manitoba. There have been education and training programs to get people off of social assistance. There have been work programs created in Manitoba, a program now that has been picked up by New Brunswick, and picked up very modestly on Dutch elm disease by this government.

Will the government now agree to reinstate this program and to also look at the City of Winnipeg's request that the existing students, while the gov ernment is re-evaluating this program hopefully, they are-the existing students not be cut ott of this program, halfway through their courses, halfway through their education, halfway through their training, and halfway through their attempts to

May20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3225 get jobs and opportunities and dignity in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member opposite does not do any research into what is happening elsewhere in the country, so I will inform him that in places like Toronto, there have been even higher increases in the numbers on social assistance. Ontario has had huge increases under a New Democratic administration in the number of people on social assistance.

That is a factor of what is happening in our economy, both a recession that lasted longer than most people expected it to, and a restructuring from an industrial economy to an information economy. Those are the reasons behind that, Mr. Speaker. We, like everyone else, are doing whatever can be done within the bou nds of what we have available to us from the people, the taxpayers, who work hard to earn the money that they entrust us with. Those are the circumstances that we face like every other province, and we make responsible decisions to ensure that we spend those dollars as wisely as we possibly can.

Adult Basic Education Programs Red River community College Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative policy in education is to take from those who have the least and for whom there is no alternative. The list of such policy choices is getting longer. In 1991-92, at Red River Community College, adult basic enrollments were cut by 211. In 1992-93, they were cut by a further 271 .

Yesterday I asked the minister for an estimate of the cut for this coming year and got no reply, so I am asking her again toda y: Will she tell us whether her grant to Red River Community College this year will increase or decrease the number of students in Adult Basic Education programs? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, many of these programs receive funding from the federal government and there has been a decrease in funding from the federal government that has affected the courses which are available at our community colleges.

However, I would remind the member, as well, that we do provide for Adult Basic Education in addition to programs at our community colleges through our literacy program s and also in our high schools. *

(1345) Program Reductions Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why Red River Community College has chosen to cut Adult Basic Education at the St. Norbert Foundation and at Headingley, those other support networks that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) talked about, and will she tell us whether her department supports this policy of cutting such community-based programs? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, again, a number of decisions have been made, and I believe that other ministers may also be able to add to what will be occurring in some of those areas, but in terms of the college and the programs being offered specifically through the college, the answer does remain the same. The federal government has changed the way in which it is funding and where that funding will flow. The community colleges then have had to make decisions. We conf1nue to offer support for adults who wish to receive an education through our literacy programs and also through programs available in our high schools.

Alternative Programs Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this minister funds those college s. These are Manitoba citizens. Will she tell us what alternatives there are for those students with families who next year will not be able to get that basic ins truction which could set them on the path to enter high school which might give them the opportunity to find a job? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, again, yes, we do provide funding to our community colleges.

However, the community colleges also have received funding which flowed from the federal government through the provincial government to not only fund tuition but also to underwrite the cost of courses. Now the federal government has made a change in how it will be funding those programs. The community colleges are now able, Mr. Speaker, to negotiate directly with the federal government to see if it is possible to reinstate any of that funding directly

3226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May20, 1993 funded to the community colleges. That is one option. Because the colleges have moved to governance, that is a benefit, that they can make that negotiation themselves. In addition, I have explained to the member the other kinds of programs which we do offer as a provinc e, literacy programs, which are community-based, Mr. Speaker, which are offered at times of the day which are convenient to community members who would like to take

part in them. We also offer programs within our high schools. Bankruptcy Statistics Provincial Comparisons Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today the consumer bankruptcy statistics were released for Canada. It shows that, in fact, for the nation as a whole, consumer bankruptcies from March to March, '92 to '93, have gone down 13.6 percent. In every other province, with the exception of P.E.I., the number has decreased significantly-28.1 percent, for example, in Nova Scotia; 14.6 percent in New Brunswick; 17.3 percent in Ontario; 28.5 percent in Saskatchewan.

Can the Premier (Mr. Rlmon) explain why it has increased in the province of Manitoba by 4.5 percent? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in terms of bankruptcies in total, I think the honourable Leader of the second opposition party is well aware when we talk about business bankruptcies that we have the second lowest rate in all of Canada, that the statistics over the last many months show that business bankruptcie�s an example, in March of 1993, this year, they declined by some 23.1 percent, the second-best performance in all of Canada.

Dealing with consumer bankruptcies, obviously, to take one month, again, selective statistics, there is not necessarily a fair and realistic comparison. I think we will see, as the year performs, how well Manitoba will fare, particularly when you look at the amount of additional disposable dollars being left in the hands of consumers in Manitoba. The information we put on the record before, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of what the Conference Board of Canada indicated, by freezing personal taxes, not increasing taxes for six budgets now, that over the next two years there will be significant more dollars in the hands of consumers here in Manitoba, which obviously will impact their performance and reduce the number of bankruptcies. •

(1350) Bankruptcy Statistics Provincial Comparisons Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second OpposHion): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that it shows three months of declining rates of bankruptcy in the province of Manitoba, while it is showing-or growth in bankruptcy in the province of Manitoba, where it is showing declines for other provinces across this nation. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Where were you in '92 when we were leading the nation in that statistic? Mrs.

Carstalrs: Well, obviously the Minister of Finance would like to answer this question, so I will ask the Minister of Finance: How does he explain why Manitoba is in a trend which is not duplicated any other place in Canada? They are seeing downward spirallin g; we are seeing upward spiralling in the number of bankruptcies. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the

preamble from the member, I question her, why, in 1992, when our trend was the most favourable compared to every other province in the nation, there was not one question with respect to bankruptcies? So I can ask the very same question in reverse, Mr. Speaker, and again, the member now is starting to fall upon the same course of action by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) in the selective statistics at the particular point in time, to try and give her an opportunity to ask that type of question. She has found one and she is going to ask it today. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, throughout all of 1 992, we heard from this government that this was a terrible recession, that this was not quite the "D" word, but almost the ·o· word, that this was tough economic times, and look how well Manitoba was doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in which every other province seems to be coming out of the recession, and we are not. WiU the Minister of Rnance explain clearly to the members of this House why the other provinces are

May20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3227 seeing an improvement and we are seeing a downward slide? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I have not analyzed all the sectorial input that would be necessary to come to the final point, but again, I would refer the member to the Investment Dealers' Association, who were in Winnipeg yesterday and who had some of the strongest words of support for the course that we have been following over the course of the last four years. I would refer her to the Dominion Bond Rating Service in Montreal, and a report they have put out in the provinces. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, when one wants to look at the reports, the report cards, when one wants to look at the economic forecasts and when one wants to look into account, the support that we put into still maintaining our capital level of spending with a government and vis-a-vis across the land, I dare say that this province has been given the highest marks as any prov ince in Canada with respect to its economic and fiscal plans. Jury Duty Dally Per Diems Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, according to The Jury Act, every person who is summoned or who is selected for jury duty is eligible to receive a daily per diem and reimbursement for certain basic expenses. Recently an individual who was called for jury duty received a letter from the deputy sheriff, which I will table, stating that payment of daily fees for jury duty has been discontinued. Will the Minister of Justice tell the House when The Jury Act was amended to eliminate this payment or when the regulations were changed to eliminate these payments? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, The Jury Act has not been amended. No change has been made. In looking at the requirements of the Department of Justice in preparation for the budget, every single expenditure made by government was examined. As a matter of fact, the letter that the honourable member refers to has gone out in error. The issue of jury fees is still, as a matter of fact, being looked at. That decision has not been taken. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, according to the information we have, individuals who are on jury duty now are not receiving per diems or reimbursement for expenses that are under the regulation supposed to be being given. Will the Minister of Justice tell the House today that not only is the letter in error, but the actual actions that his department is undertaking with regard to jurors is in error as well? Will he change that immediately? Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the letter to which the honourable member refers is in error.

If any action is being taken pursuant to that letter that ought not to be taken, that will be addressed just as soon as we can to ensure that those who are presently serving as jurors will receive that to which they are entitled. The Jury Act Amendments Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Justice today guarantee that any deliberations his department is undertaking with regard to cutting expendit ures will not include rescinding or making changes to The Jury Act, so that people in Manitoba who have no choice but to undertake jury duty at an enormous expense to themselves will not suffer because this government has no economic- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. * (1355 ) Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The matter raised by the honourable member is being looked at.

There are people who serve on juries and, through their collective agreements or through their relationships with their employers, their wages continue. Those who--[ interjection] Yes, many. Those who do not enjoy that kind of relationship or protection from their employers are the ones that we would be most concerned about as we look at these issues. We see jury duty as a very noble public duty that citizens in our country provide for their fellow citizens. We do not want to see people punished by virtue of having to serve on a jury. The issue is being looked at by my department and by the government.

The honourable member seems not to understand that there are many people in our society who, through collective agreements, or whatever, with their employers, are indemnified for time spent away on jury duty. So those people

3228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 do not need jury fees, but others may well need that from the government. Arnl Thorstelnson Property Holdings- Mortgage Payments Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing stated, and I quote: We do not care whether Mr. Thorsteinson or anybody else makes money or does not make money. Now, this was his reaction after sitting on the $6-million debt that the PC Manitoba fundraiser has had now for three years.

I want to ask the minister: Why did the minister allow the head of the PC Manitoba Fund to collect over $55,000 a month rental payments during this period when he was not making his mortgage payments? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, that occurred because it was the former NDP government that entered into the contract- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister does not think that over $663,000 a year is a minor sum of money. When did this minister finally seize the rental payments? Mr. Ernst: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable friend yesterday, the situation occurred where, in this instance, CMHC is the guarantor of MHRC's mortgage. CMHC has a National Housing Act insurance fund which insures all kinds of mortgages, from single-family homes in Vancouver to apartment buildings in Winnipeg to all kinds of other housing properties across the whole country. That fund funds these situations. So, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we take direction from that insurer. When that insurer tells us to act, we act, and that is exactly what we did.

Arnl Thorstelnson Property Holdings-Prov incial Audit Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister will never answer this question, and with that in minci- Mr. Speaker: What is the question? Mr. Maloway: Will the Premier agree to refer this issue to the Provincial Auditor so that we can get full and complete details on the transactions of this issue which this minister refuses to give to the public? •

(1400) Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier): Firstly, I can assure the member opposite that everything that should have been done under the circumstances was done under the circumstances, and the Government of Canada, through CMHC, has taken possession of the building as its asset in response to the failure of the owner to pay. Mr. Speaker, a legal process has to be followed. That legal process is set out in these matters, and the legal process was followed.

In addition to that, if there is any shortfall between the value of the property and the mortgages that were granted to it, that is not the responsibility of this administration. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) who, when he was Minister of Urban Affairs, signed the agreement to place those federal and provincial government monies in that building. We have the asset; we followed the process; we followed the foreclosure procedure, and, if there is any shortfall, it is that person who-[interjection] No problem, no problem. You did not take enough security.

Firearms Control Acquisition Information Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer questions taken as notice by the Premier from the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) last Thursday, regarding access to information on firearms acquisition certificates. The honourable member asked if information on FACs is available to police officers in Manitoba through access to the CPIC system. As I am sure the honourable member is aware, the CPIC system centre is a national system.

The CPIC National Advisory Board determines what will and will not be allowed on the CPIC system. We have struck a committee with representatives from my department who have been working with the federal government to adapt the CPIC system to allow restraining order and FAC information to be available directly to the police. This should be

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3229 accomplished by the end of this year. In the meantime, the poli ce can obtain this information through the Law Enforcement Services division of my department. The honourable member also asked what progress has been made to ensure that information that police require to perform their jobs is accessible through current availabl e technology. My department is currently developing a court registry system for police to access this information 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We hope to have this system operational by midsummer.

The database will include in formation on restraining orders, nonmolestation orders, peace bonds, recognizance and probation orders. It will provide police with the capability of searching for the offender's name, conditions of the order, effective date of the order, and the names and/or addresses of the complainant, as well as any other conditions which may be relevant to noncommunication or firearms restrictions. I can assure the House that this government is taking all possible steps to protect the women and children of Manitoba to the greatest extent possible.

We remain committed to the policy of zero tolerance and are striving towa rds that goal, using all possible options. Hemophiliacs HIV Compensation Package Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. I understand the minister has met with the Canadian Hemophilia Society this morning. It is a positive step, but we will ask the minister if he will take another step and make a commitment for a compensation package for these 25 patients who have contracted HIV through no fault. These families are asking desperately for help.

Can the minister, on a compassionate basis, make sure that these families are being taken care of? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, my honourable friend is correct; I did meet with the Manitoba division of the Canadian Hemophilia Society today. I simply want to indicate to my honourable friend that we had a very wide-ranging and full discussion. Mr.

Speaker, to give my honourable friend the assurance he seeks, I can, because we are currently and will continue to provide whatever supportive assistance we can, through my ministry and other government departments, to assist those unfortunate Manitobans who contracted AIDS through the provision of blood-clotting agents. But, Mr.

Speaker, I had to inform the members that the commitment or the position of the province had not changed since we took that position at a federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting some three ago; however, Sir, I was able to indicate that we intend to have discussions around that issue this September at the annual ministers meeting. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Nova Scotia has made a commitment for the compensation package. The Province of Quebec has done the same thing.

Can the Minister of Health tell us, why not make a similar commitment to make sure these patients and their families, who have no support system, should be protected because they have contracted disease by no fault of their own? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is correct in that Nova Scotia, just prior to the election, indicated that they were undertaking negotiations. I do not think anyone has knowledge as to how those are proceeding. I was info rmed that Quebec has undertaken a similar initiative. I am unaware of the details of the Quebec proposal as we speak. Mr.

Speaker, the issue is not one in which I can currently change the positio n that I agreed to some two and a half years ago. To my knowledge, the other provinces that were present, with the exception of Nova Scotia, are awaiting a September meeting of ministers this fall. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speak er, I will request the minister again. In the meantime, what are these patients supposed to do, and their families? They have no other support system. There are about 25 families who have to protec t their families, and their time is very limited.

Can the minister tell this House, why not make some kind of compensatio n package available on the condition that the federal government will put some money to make sure these people are protected? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend might well know that the reason behind the provincial ministry's decision taken some three years ago, or two and a half years ago, was just that the federal government had provided, at the time,

3230 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 the most substantial compensation package to hemophiliacs that was then in existence in any country. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's suggestion that the provinces ought to move in collaboration with the federal government is an intriguing one. My honourable friend must also be aware that one of the conditions the federal government placed on their compensation package is that they then wash their hands of any further assistance.

I am not certain, although my honourable friend makes a reasonable suggestion, that the federal government has any particular interest at this stage of the game. Pharmacare Revisions Mr. Dave Chomlak {KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, last year the provincial government fundamentally changed the Pharmacare program by no longer including in the formulae all drugs that were approved by the federal Department of Health and Welfare and the agency.

Given the significant effect that this is having on the public of Manitoba and senior citizens in particular, who have been hard hit by this government's budget, can the minister explain why he changed the system the way he did? Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, in his

preamble, is not exactly being totally accurate. With regret I say that. Mr. Speaker, yes, we made changes to the Pharmacare program. Those changes in terms of formulary and policy were on the advice of the Pharmacare Advisory Committee composed of professional pharmacists, physicians and others. We made those decisions to protect the integrity of being able to supply needed drug therapy to Manitobans. Despite the changes, our program remains amongst the most generous program in Canada to assist the citizens of this province.

It is significantly more generous, Sir, than provinces to the east and to the west of us who have made similar changes and the changes have made the programs in other provinces much less supportive of families in Manitoba and seniors in Manitoba who need some financial support in terms of maintenance of drug therapy. Mr.

Chomlak: Can the minister explain why the public was not consulted prior to these changes, and why were these changes not put in place with a time frame that would allow for the changes to adequately work their way through the system so the public was aware of the significant effect that this change has had on the whole entire Pharmacare program? Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend brings up the issue of notification.

Is my honourable friend suggesting that the information package that was developed around the decisions recommended by the Pharmacare Advisory Committee should have been sent to every household in Manitoba? Because, Mr. Speaker, the package was significant and it was sent to pharmacists and others who have a direct interest in the program and a direct responsibility for service provision in the program. Had I sent that out to all Manitobans, my honourable friend would have been standing on his hind legs complaining about waste of money. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. •

(1410) Mr. Chomlak: They may not care, Mr. Speaker, but the public certainly does. Can the minister explain why the Registrar, at the last annual meeting of the pharmacists said, quote: No other event in the past year has caused as much controversy. In these times of fiscal restraint our predictions of chaos were ignored. Now, almost a year into the program, many physicians are either ignorant or contemptuous of the rules and the pharmacists are caught in the middle. Can the minister explain why all the professionals in this field had to hear this at a public meeting last month? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I am quite intrigued with my honourable friend's--again I have to, with all due respect, conclude-inaccurate conclusion as to what he has just stated. Sir, I had the privilege of speaking to the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association annual meeting this week, and I presented--a nd I want to thank the second opposition party for giving me the pair so I could be there, the official opposition chose not to do that. I want to indicate to my honourable friend that the comment that consistently comes from pharmacists across Canada to me following my presentation is that they would find it refreshing to have the

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3231 openness of process in their province that we have in Manitoba. One pharmacist in particular said, I just wish that we could get to meet with our Minister of Health. That comment, Sir, was from a pharmacist in the province of Ontario, not Manitoba. Grain Transportation Proposal Method of Payment Ms. Rosann Wowchuk {Swan River): Mr. Speaker, during the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture last week, the minister said that he was concerned about transportation issues, and he is in favour of anything that will reduce farm costs.

He believes branchline abandonment and other efficiency proposals will reduce farm costs. He also said he has taken a position on the method of payment; however, farmers have not heard his position. Can the Minister of Agriculture, today, state very clearly in this House his position on the method of payment? Is he standing with Manitoba farmers who are opposed to the change or is he supporting the method of payment as is? Hon. Glen Findlay {Minister of Agriculture): In case the member cannot read Hansard, I will tell her again what the answer was. I said that in 1989, I realized this was a significant issue.

I formed a minister's advisory council with broad representation from the Pools, UGG, KAP, Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, and I continue to work with their information that they fed into me over a course of four years. In case the member does not remember what she said in Estimates, and I will read from page 3042, May 17, 1993: "I believe, yes, farmers and the provinces are backed into a corner now where they have no choice" -this is the member for Swan River speaking- "but to accept changing the payment to the farmer because of the actions ... n of the federal government. "It has to come.

"-as she refers to the method of payment being changed. She has now said that her official position is, the method of payment must be changed to the farmer, and I thank her for that. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speake r, farmers are blackmailed and this minister will not stand up against Charlie Mayer on this. How can the Minister of Agriculture support a change to the method of payment or acceleration of rail line abandonment?

How can he say this is going to save farmers money when a secret response by the National Transportation Agency analyzing the western grain transportation's efficiency, which I will table, indicates that changes, if implemented, will increase farmers' costs by $500 million over the next eight years. It will not reduce farmers' costs. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the member says the status quo should remain.

I want to tell her what the status quo is, the status quo for the last 12 years that farmers' costs have doubled in terms of elevation costs, transportation costs to the shipper, costs on the Lakehead, terminal costs. Those costs have doubled, and the value of the commodity the farmer gets at the farm gate is cut in half. She says that is acceptable, that should stay the way it is. It has happened in the last 12 years, but she says it should happen again in the next 12 years. So she says over the next 12 years farmers should have halfthe value of the farm gate they have today, and she says that is acceptable.

I do not dream of that. I say it is unacceptable and everybody from the farm gate on must reduce their costs so the farmer has a chance to survive. I do not concur with her that the status quo should remain in the future because the farmers will not survive with that approach. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this is a report by the NTA, and I quote: Many of the efficiencies proposed are not workable if it is changed to pay the producer. How can the minister say that this is going to improve things for farmers? The NTA is saying farmers are going to pay $500 million more, not less. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member has put her question. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, that member wants to take a hysterical position. Four years ago, as I have told her, I set up a proces s-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I really think the use of the word "hysteric al " is absol utely unacceptable. Certainly in the 1990s, I really wonder if the member would have used that if he had been referring to a male member of this House.

I consider the word to be offensive and sexist, and I would ask you to have that member withdraw that word immediately.

3232 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20,1993 Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I feel badly that the member has to rise on the guise of some phony point of order to make some-[interjection] The most hysterical member in this House for the last number of days has been the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I do not know what gender he falls into, but I think it defeats his argument. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): On the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance's use of the word "hysterical" for the member for Thompson in order to, quite frankly, gloat over the inappropriate use of that word by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, "hysterical" is a word that is used almost inevitably in refere nce to women and only in refe rence to women. If the Minister of Agriculture did not mean it as a sexist comment, I urge him to stand in his place and to indicate it was not meant as such. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, if it is bothering anybody that I used the word, I would withdraw it. Mr.

Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Minister of Agriculture. *** Mr. Findlay: In terms of this very difficult and broad question that is affe cting grain growers in western Canada and Manitoba, we set up a process in '89, and I have listened very carefully to that process. It is people that are very well-trained in the issue, certainly expert on the issue. I will listen to their wisdom. I have continued to do that and will continue to do it. I want to remind the House that the member has very clearly put it on the record. On May 17 she says it is time that the method of payment must be changed.

I want to give her all the confidence in the world that we have gone through a very elaborate process to do it constructively for the province of Manitoba, as she now wants to have it done. Civil Service Audit Implementation Committee Chairperson Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, this government received the civil service audit, which outlined serious concerns in the civil service on fair treatment of women and racism, to name two.

Although there was an untimely death of the chair of the implementation committee, this minister has had ample time to select another chair and to get a plan of action in place. Can the Minister responsible for the Civil Service tell this House, who is the chair of the implemen tation committee and when can we expect a plan of action? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for The Civil Service Act): Mr.

Speaker, certainly the death of the former chair, a former minister in this House, Gerrie Hammond, made things somewhat difficult for the work of the committee, but the work of the committee has continued during the period since she passed away and the work of the committee continues. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture. COM MITTEE OF SU PPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afte rnoon. Will the Comm ittee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Comm ittee of Supply me eting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1. (c) (1 ) on page 34 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we were last together we spoke extensively about the issue of surveys. There had been a request to look at the kind of surveys that the department sent out, so I would like to table today some surveys. The first

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3233 I would like to table is a staff survey, staff ref erring to staff of a school. When this staff survey is done, when it is developed, it is also developed with the assistance of school staff itself, not simply by our own staff. The second is a survey for school demographic information for students at risk, which is done by our Student Support branch. A third is a language dev elopmen t program survey. It is a parent questionnaire, a way for parents to take

part in a survey. The next one is a teacher questionnaire for readi ng assessment Grade 4, teacher questionnaire reading assessment Grade 11, and a Grade 4 teacher survey results handout as well. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I thank the minister for this, but could I just request which question these are supposed to answer? Were these from John, or were these ones from the memb er for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)? Mrs. Vodrey: They were in response to questions from the member for Crescentwood. Ms. Friesen: Thank you because I had been asking for evidence of resea rch repor ts in the post-secondary area.

The minister had mentioned some, and I thought that there might be others. We had also talked last time about some ACCESS -not surveys-but material that the department collected. ! wonder if that was available. Mrs. Vodrey: I understand the question that the member asked was some information regarding rural and urban students and their attendance at post-secondary educational institutions. In that one we are still compiling the data, and we would expect to have it for her by next week. Ms. Friesen: Actually, it was ACCESS ones that I was mentioning.

You had said that there were certain num bers that you compiled in ACCESS, vis-a-vis nonaboriginal students, and that you did not obviously have them with you, but that was something that was-it is too bad that we do not have Hansard on that yet; otherwise, I could- An Honourable Member: Do you want Monday's Hansard? Ms. Friesen: I do not know if it will be in there, but maybe I will borrow it, and we will look at it. Mrs. Vodrey: Our recollection of that question was that we would be looking at that in detail when we reached that line. Ms. Friesen: It is not crucial now.

I just thought we were getting reports and business carried over. * (1 440) I wanted to continue with the questions I was asking in the House which are about the Adult Basic Education policy, and I know the minister has talked about a study that she has underway. Yet, as I proceed to find out more about what is happening in Adult Basic Education at Red River and hence in the Winnipeg region, it seems more and more to me that it does follow that policy of taking from those who have the least and have no alternative.

So I wonder if the minister, in view of the questions I asked her in the House, could perhaps elaborate on it. Why are these cuts being made now when there is a policy document in process? It seems to me that, at the rate we are going, in two years from now there will be no Adult Basic Education at Red River Community College, certainly, if we continue cutting in the same proportions that you have over the past two years. Now that I see, with the two examples I gave of St.

Norbert and Heading ley, the essentially commu nity-based programs that serve, I would guess, predominantly aboriginal population, it does again seem to me that another policy decision has been made there. So I am asking the minister: Why are these policy decisions being made in advance of the report? Mrs. Vodrey: I have answered in the House a number of times some of the reasons for the changes in the funding. There has been a change in the way the federal government does provide its fundin g and also the federal gov ernmen t's commitment.

With that change, that was a very significant factor in terms of what was available for progr amm ing and this federal gover nmen t's reduction of direct purchases and the federal government's change of focus or, perhaps, an ongoing development of their focus in emphasis on supporting the skills training programs over the Adult Basic Education and the high school completion. So what we have had to deal with is the fact that the federal government has signalled its change and has changed the way it is funding and the kinds of programs that it had been willing to fund the old way.

So what we had to do was then look at the amount of money available, and when we looked at where the federal government was not able to continue

3234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 support, we had to look at if we could step in and completely take over what the federal government had withdrawn. So we are, in fact, very committed to improvements in the support and the delivery of Adult Basic Education over the long term, and we do recognize how important high school completion is, and we have made a number of short-term adjustments to match our level of program support but to do that within the realities of the fiscal situation of Manitoba.

So, as I said in the House earlier, we do attempt to offer for Manitobans first of all literacy programs as another type of support. The literacy programs would be in support of the basic education at the more basic levels, those people who needed readiness and skills training in terms of reading and numeracy. Then we also offer through our high schools continued programs within the individual's home division that individuals are able to attend. So we did have to look at some fiscal realities and we also had to look at how we could continue to provide support, but the member is right too.

We are in the process of continuing to develop our policy for Adult Basic Education, and I have spoken about that. I think it is important to look at the plan as an evolving one, as one which is continuing to be shaped. It is not one in which there is nothing being done and then we look for something to be done. In terms of the development of this plan, as I said before , the next step is for the department to develop a framework for the basic education policy. We are looking through a review, and we are looking at the information that we have available.

With that, along with other relevant issues and recomm endations that come from our other departmental initiatives such as legislative reform and our Distance Education Task Force, then we will be looking to further develop the policy and the actions in the area of Adult Basic Education. So the part of the policy is an ongoing process of development, but we were also faced at the same time with the reality of a change in the funding by the federal gove rnment.

So at this point, Red River Community College in particular-that is the one that we were speaking about earlier today-had to also ma ke some decisions, but Red River Commu nity College, now that it is board governed, is now able to approach the federal government and to negotiate directly with the federal government, with the Canada Employment and Imm igration in particular, who look at the skills training, to decide if perhaps they can in fact have some funds directed to the college under their new governance model.

So there are several issues at work at the same time, and that is, at this point, the information from the several fronts that are involved. Ms. Friesen: Well, can we start at the back and work forward ? The minister says that the federal government, that the colleges are now able to negotiate with the federal government for these types of programs should the colleges decide that that is what is significant, yet the minister on the other hand just said the federal government is moving to skill training and to the senior high school levels.

So presumably, that policy is going to be no different in dealing with the college than it is with the government. So what is the point in arguing that? This college is going to have no greater success than the government would. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the differ ences also that is at work here is that the federal government does not wish to go through the province at this time, wishes to negotiate and will have the opportunity now to negotiate directly through the colleges.

They will also be able to negotiate whether or not they wish their students to be part of a fee-payer system which looks only at the tuition or whether or not they will in fact underwrite the real costs of the course. Though the federal government has indicated that they wish to move towards more skills training, it is still possible for the community college to negotiate with the federal government and to look at how this kind of a course might be paid, how it might be paid for and how they might wish to underwrite it.

In addition, the CEIC, or the Canada Employment and Imm igration offices, may also approach the colleges where they determine that there is a need to negotiate directly with the colleges rather than through the provincial government. So there is a two-way possibility in terms of whether or not these courses may still be made available, depending on the requirements that present themselves to the Canada Employment and Imm igration offices. I should just say that the federal government does still have direct government to-government purchases for skills training in areas such as apprenticeship.

That is not completely gone. Howeve r, with board governance, there is now the opportunity in some of

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3235 the other skills trainings or market-driven training courses for the commu nity colleges to negotiate directly with CEIC. The feds are going, as I said, to more indirect and other training courses rather than Adult Basic Education. It has been the indication that we have had, but again, that is still open for negotiation. * (1 450) Ms. Friesen: Then what would propel Red River Commu nity College to even initiate discussions for Adult Basic Education? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chair, well, one of the reasons that might prompt the colleges to speak directly to CEIC regarding funding in the area of Adult Basic Education would be first of all as a source of revenue. It would provide some revenue to the colleges, and they might also want to tie this to their mission. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The committee will have to adjourn for just a few minutes. We are being called in for a form al vote in the Chamber. * * * The comm ittee recessed at 2:52 p.m . After Recess The committee resumed at 3:27 p.m . The Acting Deputy Chai rperson (Shi rley Render): Order, please.

Will the Comm ittee of Supply please come to order. This afte rnoon this

section of the Comm ittee of Supply me eting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1. (c) (1 ) on page 34 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Ms.

Friesen: I was trying, before we were called away, to reconcile what seemed to me the irreconcilable, the min ister's statement, on the one hand, that the federal government is withdrawing from Adult Basic Education in fav our of skill training and high school education with her statement, on the other hand, that Red River was perfectly free to negotiate and indeed might have some success I gather, in her mind, in negotiating Adult Basic Education courses. I had asked what might propel Red River to do this and her answer was I believe the price, essentially.

The fed eral government is not prepared to pay for courses. * (1 530) I wonder if she could still answer the irrecon cilable, why, on the one hand, they will not do it with governments and, on the other hand, she thinks they can do it with commun ity colleges. Is there evidence from other jurisdictions where there has been community college negotiation with the federal government in the past year where they have moved to basic education courses? Is there any hope? Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I left off in our discussion, there may be, in fact, some demand from Canada Emplo yment on their side, because Canada Employment is able to make some decisions regarding the kinds of courses which they would like to offer. They do have, I am led to believe, some flexibility in how they would like to use their funds.

I understand that during 19 93-94, Canada has indicated the funds will be decentralized to the individual Canada Employment Centres, who will then be able to sponsor students in existing training programs provided by the colleges or to fund project-based training.

With that ability now of the Canada Employment Centres to have some decision making around how that funding will flow, and with the colleges now on a governance model able to negotiate with Canada Employment directly, and this not having to come through government-to-government process which is somewhat more time consuming as well, then there certainly may be the opportunity and the desire on the part of Canada Employment to flow some training funds, depending on the demand that has been presented to the councillors, there.

The member asked about the colleges and why they might continue to be interested in this area. They may continue to be interested because their mission does encompass issues such as equity and access. They may decide then, if approached by CEIC, thatthey wish to offer the courses or they may approach CEIC in order to look at the demand. In terms of the governance, just to speak to that side again, the pu rpose of governance is to strengthen the flexibility and the responsiveness of the colleges within the commun ities and the regions thatthey serve. They will look atthe demand on their side.

CEIC will look at the demand on their side.

3236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May20, 1993 CEIC is now able to determine how the funds will flow. Ms. Friesen: CEIC is already decentralized. They alrea dy have those in this past year, that considerable flexibility. I do not quite see how the evidence the minister has put down so far would give us any expectation. Where we have already decentralization and when we have had three years of consistent cutting at Red River Community College, where is the basis of evidence that would lead us to expect that there is going to be restitution made in that area of Adult Basic Education? Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the information we have from the colleges is that the president of Red River Commu nity College is interested in sitting down with CEIC and having this discussion. It would be very difficult for me to speak for CEIC at this point. Although, again, from our side, I understand that there may be a willingness to sit down for some discussion. In terms of the information that I have, it is information based on our own localized area, our own regional area and the will of the people in that area to have some discussion on this matter. Ms.

Friesen: Why do we see a policy coming from the commun ity colleges of decreasing Adult Basic Education in the Red River College region and to some extent in the Brandon region out of Assiniboine Commun ity College, but KCC has not diminished its Adult Basic Education? We are seeing three different policies, different degrees of policies from the three commu nity colleges. Now why is this? Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the numbers may vary based on the number of programs which are funded, which have been funded by CEIC at the communi ty colleges.

Then, with that number of programs which are being funded and with the indication of the change in the way funds would be spent, then obviously it will be somewhat different for each of the colleges. Ms. Friesen: Yes, but the point I am making is the relative change over a series of years. I am going from a high point in 1 989 for just about every college to a rapid decrease of minus 21 1, minus 271 . I cannot get from the minister what the projection is for next year at Red River Commu nity College. A lesser decline at Assiniboine Commu nity College and no decline, in fact sort of an up-and-down line, at KCC.

What are the diff erences in those community college policies over the past two or three years and how does that reflect what policy the government has? Where does that fit with the study that the government is supposed to be doing on Adult Basic Education, and why are these decisions being made in advance of that study again? Mrs. Vodrey: The federal gove rnmen t has indicated over a 1 0-year period that they would like to move to a strategy from direct pur chase to indirect purchase. That, first of all, is the first matter which has affected how many of the courses may be available.

Secondly, I am also informed that the federal government has indicated that there is a willingness on their part to speak directly to the colleges about some of these courses, and they will then look at the demand within their area. They are prepared to negotiate with the colleges directly and not to proceed through the previous method of going through the provincial government.

In terms of their withdrawal from the funding which came through the provincial government, the provincial government cannot continue to pick up where the federal government has made these changes, and also where the federal government has indicated that there is a willingness on their part to have some discussion with the communi ty colleges directly. • (1 540) Ms. Friesen: But I still do not see how it matters who is speaking to whom and through whom if the federal government is moving away from Adult Basic Education. I mean, that is the basic issue, is it not?

Whether they are doing a whole changeover of variety of policies in 1 0 years, if their basic policy is to move away from Adult Education, why does it matter who is speaking to them? Mrs. Vodrey: Let me clarify then in case there was any confusion around an answer that I gave earlier. The federal government has indicated that they will be moving away from this indirect purchase for the Adult Basic Education programs. They will be maintaining a process of direct pu rchase through skills training programs, and so it is a matter of how the funding flows to the particular program.

So in the area of direct skills training, that will still flo w thr ough the pro vincial gove rnmen t,

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3237 government-to-government purchase. ln the area of the Adult Basic Education, the federal government has indicated that it would like to work through the indirect pur chase mechanism and that they are prepared to speak to the colleges directly about that particular type of program, not the skills training program, but the Adult Basic Education program. Ms. Friesen: So the federal government is not withdrawing from Adult Basic Education then? Mrs. Vodrey: I cannot speak for the federal government in terms of their long-range plans.

Howeve r, I can give you the information that has been indicated to us. The indication that has been given to us is that the federal government would be willing to enter into some discussions directly with the commu nity colleges. There may be a number of factors which would influence whether or not the federal government in each region would be interested in funding Adult Basic Education specifically. However, as I have said, they have indicated that they are willing to speak to the colleges.

In addition to that, I have explained that the president of Red River Community College has spoken about his interest in coming together with the feds to talk about this as well. Ms. Friesen: Thank you. There are quite a few other questions I would like to ask on that, but I think that other people want to ask questions, so I will leave it for now. Mr. Plohman: I wanted to ask the minister about an area of policy that has just come into her department and, hopefully, she will have some of the information on it. That involves the Human Resou rce Opportunity Centre.

We will have an opportunity under Employment Enhancement to discuss this in more detail but, from a policy point of view, I want to ask the minister whether she has access or has read the analysis that was done by the Policy and Planning Branch I guess of the Executive Council-1 am not sure, and perhaps she can clarify-a report that was done on Nove mber 5, '92 , on the Huma n Resour ce Opportunity Program centres in the province. (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair) The report was done by, I believe, Prairie Partnership, but was done for Policy and Planning branch of Executive Council.

I do not think it would have been done by the Department of Education at that time because the minister was not responsible for this program, unless it was the Policy and Planning branch of the Department of Family Services. In any event, I have a copy of the report. I want to know whether the minister has seen that report and analyzed it, had her staff analyze it since she has taken over responsibility for the Human Resource Opportun ity Centres and programs. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

De puty Chairper son, my department is in the process of reviewing that particular report, but, as the mem ber knows, there has been a reorganization now of those programs. Those Employability Enhancement Programs have moved from the Department of Family Services into the Department of Education and Training. That does put those programs now within a spectrum of programs where we can look at a series of training kinds of programs for Manitobans.

I have explained to the member on a number of occasions that we are now, through this reorganization in our department, looking at exactly what the areas of availability are and the areas of need are. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Well, the minister is a part of a cut to a program while she is busy re-evaluating the program, which seems like it is a backward process in terms of how things should be done. We had a very successful Human Resources Opportunity Program and centres in place in the province of Manitoba for many years, and the cuts have been made.

Is the minister telling us now that she does not have valid repor ts or statistical information to support the cuts that were made? Mrs. Vodrey: I know that the reductions were made and this particular reduction, as with reductions across all of government, were very diffic ult. They were extremely difficult decisions, and they were made with a great deal of difficulty but also, again, consideration and thinking.

The member will know when he looks at the budget line, now that this has moved into the Department of Education and Training, we have made every effort to preserve some of the service which is available, and we certainly have looked at providing it in a number of places to make sure that this particular program does continue to exist. Mr. Plohman: I know they were diffi cult, the question is were they arbitrary? Was there justification for the cuts, or was it simply a matter of finding it somewhere in an arbitrary decision without

3238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 any study or analysis to determine what should be a high priority and what should be a low priority? Mrs. Vodrey: In looking at the decisions that have been made across all of government, they were made looking at ways to continue to preserve service to Manitobans and also to look at trying to manage the deficit and the debt that we have in Manitoba. That will not be a surprise to the member.

In looking at that, we did look and maintain our commitment to a number of these services and to also a level of service, that these programs were not completely eliminated, thatthere is still a budget line which indicates support for these services. Mr. Plohman: That would indicate, that last comment by the minister, that the minister is even less familiar with what is going on here in this area than I had hoped. Our critics were unable to get any definitive information from the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) on this area, because he said it had been transferred to the Department of Education and Training. Theref ore, he is no longer responsible. So we are going to have to give the minister notice that we need to have in-depth answers from this minister, who is now responsible, on this program, whether it was her analysis at the time or not or her recomme ndation or not at the time to have these programs cut.

She will have to explain and defend them, because there is no other minister that is prepared to do it, and under the system we have, she is responsible. * (1 550) Why I said I was concerned about the last comm ents was that the minister said we have maintained the service. So she is looking at an across-the-board viewpoint to it and saying, well, a 10 percent cut, we have maintained a considerable level of service. The point is that there is a certain area of the province that has been eliminated completely from service.

The minister on April 16 said that, and this is a quote in Hansard: "We are now looking at how we can best assist the people of the Parkland area ... .w They are the recipients of a cut that eliminates the program completely, not what the minister said about maintaining. So I ask what the justification for that kind of a cut was from that area. Was it an arbitrary cut or was it done after careful study and analysis? If so, I would like to hear from the minister what study and analysis was done, if she is not familiar with the report that was done. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Dep uty Chair pers on, the member's questions focused on service in general. He is now speaking about a specific area of the province, but his questions until this time have focused on the service in general and if it is being offered within this province. My answers have focused on the fact that we have been able to maintain service in this province in a number of areas. I know when we get to that particular budget line, we will be able to talk very specifically about the human resource programs which remain available and also the centres which continue to be available.

So, in that way, the answers have been to say that, yes, there has been a continued commitment, and there has been an effort to continue to address these needs across Manitoba. The member wants to speak about the Parkland area in particular. In the Parkland area, as he knows, we have maintained in terms of Em ployability Enhancement Programs a single-parent job access program.

We have also said that support from the Human Resources Opportunity Program will be provided on an itinerant basis from the Brandon area, but that there will still be at least a level of service which will be available to people of the Parkland area. So it has not cut that particular area off completely from the services of Emp loyability Enhancement Programs. In addition, I make the point again that I made when we spoke about the reorganization.

We are looking at our reorganization and we want to, as we look at all of our programs and we organize them, and I have been using the term spectrum of programming, because It is a spectrum. It is a series of programs which involve, at one end, literacy programs, literacy being the communi ty-based programs which do provide people with some basic skills, and it is available to them at generally various times of the day with a great deal of flexibil ity and support.

So we provide, starting at that end, and then a series of programs through the spectrum right through to the skills training programs and our college-level programming. I would like to stress, first of all, the picture across the pro vince, that this service is not bein g withdrawn, has not been totally withdrawn. There has been an effort to, even in these difficult times,

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3239 make sure that there is at least a level of the service maintained. In the Parkland area, as I have said and will remind him again, the Single Parent Job Access Program does remain available, and we are looking at servicing the people of the Parkland from the Brandon office. Mr. Plohman: We will see how this spectrum assists the people of the Parkland and other areas that have been cut.

It is clear that that spectrum has not been in place, because the program was in place and served very well the people of the Parkland for over the last 20 years, as it has throughout the province. Does the minister have any justification for the cuts that were made on the basis of data and statistical information and evaluations that would support what her government has done with regard to this program? Does her Planning and Policy Development branch provide her with any of this kind of information that would justify what we have seen represented in her Estimates book in this area? Mrs.

Vodrey: The member is asking for some very detailed information on a particular Empl oyability Enhancement Program in a particular part of Manitoba. That very specific type of question would best be answered when we actually reach that budget line, when we have all of the information available. I can tell him again that in this budgetary process, we did look carefu lly, and we had to make very difficult decisions. When I look at the service being offered from the Westman Human Resource Opportun ity Program, their client assistance budget was slightly increased, and we will be watching their budget situation.

We are looking for that to also assist in providing service to the Parkland. He is also asking us specifically for statistics, and I am not sure whether he believes that is the only way a decision may be made, strictly based on statistics, or if he believes that perhaps, also, some of the discussion held within communities and also among service providers may also be of assistance in looking at how the service may be provided. Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister is just waf fling on the questions, because I just asked her about either statistical or any other supporting evidence that would justify the decisions made.

So it was a broad question, not just based on statistical information. If she feels that she is in a position to answer that from that point of view, I would certainly welcome it. The minister would have to admit, I would think, and I would ask her if she would at this point, that there is no spectrum of services or continuum of services in this area available in the Parkland or any other area of the province at the present time. She has indicated she is going to be doing that by co-ordinating all of these services through the department. Will she admit that it does not exist at the present time? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Dep uty Chair pers on, the spectrum of service does exist. We are looking, however, through our integration of our department, which has really been quite extensive, at how we can now make sure that that is the most accessible to Manitobans.

There most certainly does exist-and I point to literacy programs specifically as a starting point, because a number of the individuals who may in fact wish to use the Human Resource Opportun ity Program may be individuals who need assistance with a skill level or may be individuals who need assistance in re-entering also a program where they will have confidence to enter into the workforce . We do have literacy programs around this province which look attrying to help individuals take advantage of additional types of training or a re-entry into the educational system.

Also, we do have prog ram s at our Parkland campus of Assiniboine Commu nity College, which is at the other end of the spectrum. There is an extension centre in Neepawa which offe rs day and evening programs. We have agriculture and rural enterprise division, and that is planning to offer approximately 44 programs to 1 ,260 students in about 58 Manitoba commu nities. So there are a number of programs from both ends of the spectrum which are, in fact, available to assist people. In addition to that, we have made sure in the Parkland area and in Dauphin that the Single Parent Job Access Program has also remained.

I do believe that the spectrum of programming is available. As we look atthe reorganization within my department, I look to make sure that there is the mo st accessible kinds of pr og ram ming for Manitobans. • (1 600) Mr. Plohman: The minister talks about a spectrum and then talks at the beginning with literacy and the other end of the spectrum, the community colleges. She mentions one program dealing with Single Parent Job Access, which now will not have access

3240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 to the progr am, the Human Resource Opportunity Centre in the Parkland region, so they are going to have to go to Brandon or somewhere else. She talks about both ends of the spectrum. What we have seen though is the middle of the spectrum being lost. The continuum is gone, is ripped apart by the arbitrary decision to cut out of it a major program.

I wonder how the minister can talk about a continuum of services if, in the middle of that spectrum, a large part of it has been eliminated by way of the cuts that were made in at least one area of the province and the reductions in the other areas of the province. What justification can she have to do that prior to an evaluation to see how it fits into this so-called continuum of service? How can she justify a cut prior to the kind of evaluation that would see where this fits in and whether it is needed or not? Is the minister saying that it is not needed? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Deputy Chairp erson, if the member thinks back on the answers that I have given this afternoon, he will also know that I have spoken about the commitment from the Westman area of itinerant service into the Parkland area, so the area is not completely without service, and the people of the Parkland are not being asked in this way to completely go into the Westman area, into Brandon. They are looking at having itinerant people go from Westman into the Parkland area so that there is still some level of availability of that service. I do not think that can be overlooked.

So when we look at the continuum of service which is currently available, then we do look at literacy programming, we do look at Single Parent Job Access programming, we do look atthe itinerant service being available for the Human Resources Opportunity Program, and we do look at the service available through the Parklan d campus of Assiniboine Community College. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we could use the minister's argument and she could have all of the programs provided from Winnipeg. Is that satisfactory?

Using that argument, she could have itinerant people coming out from Winnipeg to serve all the areas, if that is so satisfactory. It is absolutely ridiculous. Mrs. Vodrey: Well, again, the member really does not seem to have understood. We have made sure that there is service to the Parkland area by Assiniboine Commu nity College.

We have also arranged itinerant service for the Human Resources Opportunity Program into the Parkland area, so we are making every effort to make sure that there is an availability through what was a series of very diffi cult decisions, but we are making an attempt to make sure that there is an availability and there continues to be through the itinerant workers, and those workers are based out of Brandon. Again, I must point to the Parkland campus of Assiniboine Community College also.

Then I also point to the tact that the Single Parent Job Access program continues to be offered from the Parkland area and we look to, as we examine the service and the integration of service within my department, serve Manitobans as well as we are able with this continuum of service which is available. Mr. Plohman: Is it the minister's position that the com mu nity colleges can of fer the kind of programming that Human Resource Opportunity Centre was offering in the Parkland region and throughout the province? Is that what the minister is saying? Mrs.

Vodrey: The Parkland campus example was used, again, when we were discussing the continuum of service which is available, so I wanted the member to know that when we look at service from one end of the spectrum to the other, there is service available. We could go back over the list again. Mr. Plohman: So what the minister is now saying is that it is an irrelevant argument to the issue about Human Resource Opportunity Centre. That is what I said in the first place. Do not give answers about other services. I want to know about this service.

What is going to replace the service she has cutfrom the Park land region, the Hum an Resou rce Opportunity Centre and the services that they were giving? Mrs. Vodrey: The Human Resources Opportunity Program service has been reduced. The service will be available on an itinerant basis from Brandon. Therefore, there is still an availability for that service. In addition, Single Parent Job Access programs are still available. That has not been closed in the Parkland area. That is still available in the Parkland area.

I add to those two areas which the member has been asking about two others, at either end of the spectrum of service, which are also available to the people of the Parkland area, so that the member

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 3241 un der stands tha t at wh atever en try level Manitobans and particularly Manitobans in the Parkland area might wish to enter into a program, there should be an availability, and we are looking to provide that availability within the Parklands area. Mr. Plohman: Surely the minister is not serious about that when she talks about itinerant workers providing this service in the Parkland from Brandon. I mean, it reflects a lack of knowledge about the geographic size of this province and the features that make this very difficult and almost remote to Brandon.

Riding Mountain Park in the middle ensures that the travel distance is almost doubled in terms of what it would be in a comparable distance on flat prairie. I mean, it makes a great difference in terms of the distances involved. Anyone who has been through there knows that. If you are driving in the mountains you talk in terms of hours, you do not talk in terms of distance even. It is totally impractical.

Is the minister saying it is satisfactory to have single parents who are going to be referred for training to now be referred from the Parkland area, to leave their homes, uproot their kids and go to Brandon for this training? Is that practical? Mrs. Vodrey: The member had asked for examples of a variety of service, and so what I have been providing him with in the past several answers that I have been giving him is a variety of service which we are providing through the Dep artment of Education and Training.

Also when we look at the reorganization and the integration of these programs into our department, we are looking at strengthening the program complem entarity. We would also like to have a better co-ordination of the continuum of programs. That is the objective of the reorganization. As I have said all afternoon, the staff in the program of the Single Parent Job Access Program do remain in Dauphin, and they are looking after their active cases there.

From the Huma n Resource Opportunity Programs they will be dealt with, and the clients will receive counselling and placement and follow-up services, and there will be an itinerant service which will come into the Parkland area. When we look at the work experience programs from the Human Resource Opportunity Centres, those placements are being organized from the Westman region. Howeve r, we will look at the needs of the particular client, and where there would be need for an itinerant service to follow up, then we will look at how to accommodate that. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Brandon- Dauphin. Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Actually, they are quite close together, about a 45-minute drive. * (1 610 ) Mr. Plohman: It is interesting that the Liberal critic says, actually they are quite close together, about a 45-minute drive. Now there is another example of a person who does not know what is going on in rural Manitoba just like the minister here. We are not talking about adjacent commun ities. We are talking a couple of hours when you go through the Riding Mountain or around it, either way.

It is totally ridicu lous. [inter jection) Yes, longer than 45 minutes. It is like three times 45 minutes, two and a half times. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister does not seem to be familiar with how the program works when she talks about the Single Parent Job Access. Does the minister realize that Single Parent Job Access refers people for their tr aining, support counselling, and services to the Human Resources Opportunities Centres? Does the minister realize that? Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I do understand how these programs work. [interjection] Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

Could 1 ask the honourable member to wait till the minister has fin ished her answer before answering back. Mr. Plohman: Certainly, I will be very pleased to do that. I find it preposterous, though, that the minister says she understands, and she keeps talking about the program being maintained, Single Parent Job Access, but there is no place for them to go now in terms of the referrals. Is the minister saying that she understands how the program works, that they are referred to the Human Resources Opportunity Centres? Where will they now be referr ed? Mrs.

Vodrey: Again, in terms of the service which would be offered then by the Human Resources Opportunity program, we have maintained an itinerant service. An itinerant service wilf be able to work with the Single Parent Job Access Program. Mr. Plohman: Is the minister trying to say that there is somebody who is going to come out from

3242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1993 Brandon, and is going to serve the needs of the single parents who are attempting to break out of a cycle of poverty and social assistance and, in many cases, a lack of confidence in themselves, low self-esteem, attempting to break out of the cycle of despair and hopelessness, thatthey are going to get this kind of service from a travelling counsellor, who sees them--when? -once a month, once a week. What are we talking about here? It seems ridiculous. Mrs.

Vodrey: As I have said from the beginning, there are itinerant workers who will be coming to the Parkland area, and those counsellors will be able to work with the people of the Parkland area and, in particular, his concern to assist the Single Parent Job Access clients, and to act as a support. So we will look at how frequently the need is there, and we will be able to look at exactly what the needs are of the clients.

But I should also let him know that the Single Parent Job Access Program has developed a number of partnerships with commun ity-based and private and public education and training programs in the community.

They are also working together with this Single Parent Job Access Program to jointly develop and deliver training to meet the participant's need and also the 'local labour market conditions. ' There are close links that are established with local employers throughout all regions of the province to facilit ate program delivery and to promote the employment opportunities for the single parent job access trainees. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, where are the staff coming from and how are they going to be able to provide any degree of service if it is the same people that have been there servicing large areas of the province already up to now? Is the minister saying that they did not have a full load, there were great inefficiencies, too many staff and not enough work for them so now she is finally going to give them a full workload? Mrs.

Vodrey: First of all, I know that it is the responsibility of individual counsellors to organize their caseloads and to organize their time among their clients and how they will look to provide the best service that they are able to. I would say that those counsellors who are working now on an itinerant basis to the Parkland area will look at organizing their caseloads to providing the service to make sure that they provide the service to the people of the Parkland area.

Having worked in a field where I did have to organize a very large caseload on a regular basis I know that it is done and I know that you look at those people who are part of your caseload for a long time. You look at incoming people in your caseload and you look at those people who then move off your caseload.

So I know that the counsellors will make every effort to organize their case load as effecti vely as they can and also to deal with the itinerant needs of their clients, and we will see how it is that those can be most effective ly managed, because the counsellors themselves may have a way in which they believe that they can best service the needs. As the member may know, counsellors do operate in different ways. Some counsellors like to work in blocks of times. Other counsellors work with their clients better on an intermittent basis.

So we will have to look at and those counsellors will look at how they will provide the service to their clients in those areas. Mr. Plohman: So in other words the minister is saying she is centralizing the service in Brandon. Is that the minister's version of decentralization? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as the memb er well knows that there were, again, and I go back over it again, a number of very difficult decisions and in the process of those diff icuh budget decisions we did make a very strong effort to certainly maintain service.

In this particular area that we are now having the counsellors-yes, they will be working from the Brandon area, but they will work on an itinerant basis with their clients who are in the Parkland region. Mr. Plohman: So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is saying that this reflects the government's and her, as part of this government, commitment to decentralization. This is the kind of decisions that we see.

If the people are cynical about the government's commitment to decentralization, I guess this is one of the best examples we could pointto about this government's commitment or lack of comm itment to decentralization. How does the minister reconcile that policy that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has stated so loudly over the last couple of years, and her colleagues? How does she reconcile this decision with that policy? * (1 620)

May20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3243 Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Dep uty Chai rpe rson, the government policy of decentralization has been spoken about several times by my colleague the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach). It does fall within his area, and I know that during the process of his Estimates he will have some very strong figures which support this government's position on decentralization and the action on decentralization. Certainly, the Department of Education and Training has also been doing their share in terms of supporting the decent ralization initiative.

Our record, I believe, is very good, and we will certainly be able to talk about that further as we reach other budget lines, if that is what the member would like. Howeve r, the one centre, which the member has been speaking about, again, was part of a series of very difficult budget decisions in this particular fiscal year. Howeve r, we have made an effort to make sure that the service is still available, and we have spoken about the itinerant service available. We are not asking people to make the trip from the Parkland area into the Westman area.

We are saying that we will make sure counsellors are the ones who are available on an itinerant basis. As I have said also, counsellors will look at organizing their caseloads to do the best and most effective job with their clients that they are able to. That is the work of counsellors in the field. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairp erson, I am absolutely positive that the counsellors and the staff are going to do the very best to make an unworkable situation work, because they have no choice. I mean, they have a job to do and they are going to try and do it. That does not make it any easier and any more possible.

It is up to the minister to determine and her senior management in this branch to ensure that there is a practical way of delivering these services, if she is committed to them. Otherwise, say we are banning them, we cannot afford them. If that is the case, then say that, but do not try and make out it is the same service. It is clearly not. Has the minister added staff to provide this service to the Parkland? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there has not been an addition of staff in the Westman area; however, as we have spoken about, I do believe that there will be an organization of caseload.

I am concerned that the member is only speaking about the negative view that he holds. He has not been able to look at any of the positives, which will be available and which we strongly believe will be available to the people of Manitoba under this reorganization. We have spoken today about the kinds of areas of programming and services to people which will be reorganized within the Department of Education and Training to allow that access.

In the past, this service of the Emplo yabil ity Enhancement Programs was offered in the Department of Family Services, and those clients did not always have the opportunity to know what the other programs were that were available within the Department of Education and Training. Now, through the reorganization, we believe that it will be a much more eff icient and accessible service for the people of Manitoba. Mr. Plohman: I cannot even believe the minister believes what she is saying.

This is so difficult for me to believe that the minister actually believes this is going to be a more efficient and a better service for the people of all areas of this province, when, in fact, if she has studied this report and has her staff studying the report, she would know that the report done by her own government, which should have been a basis for any decisions with regard to this program, says that the payback is $1 6 for every $1 spent on this program-- $1 6.

Is the minister going to design another method of delivery that is going to be more efficient than that, when there is a payback 16 times for every dollar spent? How can the minister say that seriously? It is in the recommendations and the review. Surely, the minister has looked at this.

Now she is in a position with her department, Planning and Policy Development group, to assess whether a mistake has been made, rather than talking about this continuum of service and all of the benefits that are going to accrue from counsellors running around from Brandon to try and serve the huge Parkland region of the province. l will show the minister a map, how large it is, so that she can get an understanding of how many communities are involved. It is a very cumbersome area to govern, even as a region, never mind adding it to the Westman region.

I want the minister to be able to retain some creditability in her statements here. Surely, she is not telling us, or did she not know there is this kind of payback done by her own report? Sixteen dollars

3244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May20, 1993 for every $1- a very efficient and effective and humane delivery of service for single parents in the Parkland, for probationary referrals, for many other people, native people, who have no hope in many cases of getting out of a cycle of poverty and despair and becoming productive citizens. Where are they going to go now? Mrs. Voc:lrey: The member is examining a report again not done by the Department of Education and Training.

That report is a single area he would like to examine in isolation, and with that report he would like to just completely look at a very narrow focus. That is the focus that we have heard all afte rnoon and there has been, as I have explained to him now that the Employability Enhancement Programs have been moved into the Department of Education, a need to articulate many, many programs, not just to look at a single program in isolation.

Through this new reorganization of this particular division, we do believe that we will be able to meet the needs of Manitobans better, because we will pro vide stronger link s bet ween the skills development that they need and the economic development strategies of regions. We do believe that there will be a better co-ordination of the skills training incentives. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now proceed to the Chamber for the form al vote. Thank you. AGRICULTURE Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Comm ittee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Chairperson, I rise on a matter of privilege and, in accordance with our rules, it will be followed by a motion and a referral to the House for consideration.

Madam Chairperson, it is with regret that I bring this matter forward, but it is not without precedent in this House as I shall explain in terms of the concern that I have, and members of our caucus have, about proceedings Monday night that relate to what we feel is the failure by the Chair to ensure the right of all members to speak. pnte�ection] For the Minister of Hi ghways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), this will be followed by a motion which is the appropriate way of dealing with such matters. I would like to outfine our concern in this regard.

As I said it relates to proceedings Monday night during which we had moved a motion. I attempted to be recognized to speak at the time. It was very clear the government's intention was to speak the matter out until afte; ten o'clock, at which time no formal vote can be taken. It has to be referred to another day. Despite repeated attempts to be recognized, I was ignored. I rose at that time on a point of order, an attempt to appeal once again to the clear tradition in this House of, in this case, allowing opposition members to be recognized at least as equally as government members.

I, Madam Chairperson, in attempting to appeal to the House had no success with the government, which not only did not support the matter of order, but also refused to even show the courtesy of allowing me to speak at that point in time. For the purpose as a matter of privilege, I want to point out the sequence of events because our rules require this matter be raised in the committee of the House, not in the Hous e itself, at the first opportu nity. I point out that this matter rose at 10 :1 1 p.m. A recorded vote was requested. That recorded vote was held over to another day.

Obviously, if there had been a change in terms of the ruling and I had been recognized, the concern would not have continued, but what happened was we came back into the House on a vote on the Tuesday, when we convened again to Comm ittee of Supply. At that point in time, since there was a vote in progress, it was not an appropriate time to raise the matter of privilege. The vote was taken. The committee adjourned, since it was past five o'clock. This then is the first opportunity I have had, following the resolution of the point of order on the Monday, to rise on what I think is clearly a matter of privilege.

Madam Chairperson, this is not the first time that opposition mem bers have raised the matter of privilege in regard to concerns about activities by the Chair. I refe r, and some members of this House will recall Monday the 13 th of December, 198 2, in which the then-Leader of the Opposition Sterling Lyon rose on a matter of privilege in regard to a series of

May20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3245 proceedings that had involved accusations that the Speaker, at that point in time, had changed a ruling under pressure from government members. At that point in time, I would point out that after hearing submissions from a number of individuals in the House at the time, such as Roland Penner, Brian Ransom and Andy Anstett, Sterling Lyon, the decision of the Chair at that time was to accept the motion, put it to consideration by the House and indeed a vote was taken on the motion. The motion at that time was to express lack of confidence in the presiding of ficer.

Tha t is indeed the mo st appropriate way to deal with a concern related to this matter.

I would just note in speaking that Sterling Lyon was very eloquent in talking about the need for the House and for offi cers of the House to respect, not only the role of the majority, but also the rights of the minority, in this particular case, the opposition party, and was very clear in terms of his concern about what he perceived and what opposition members at the time perceived to be a clear case of lack of fairness being shown to the opposition and concern that there was an impact on the Speaker because of interventions by members of the government at the time.

My concern, Madam Chairperson, is indeed very much similar. I point out that in looking at the role of the Speaker, in Beauchesne, Citation 16 8, the Speaker's office in particular, it is indicated very clearly the need for impartiality of the Speaker. In deed , ther e are various citations. I have mentioned Citation 16 8, which makes it very clear that the office of Speaker in the House of Commons, which also applies to the Legislature, the key elements, the chief characteristics are authority and impartiality.

Indeed, if one also looks at Beauchesne, in the House of Commons, the tradition is very clear in terms of Deputy Speaker, that similar powers and responsibilities are vested in the Deputy Speaker.

While there are some differences in practice between participation, for example, of the Deputy Speaker in debates and in caucus affairs between the House of Commons, where there is generally limited involvement in political party functions by the Deputy Speaker, and limited involvement in debate; in this House, despite the fact that Deputy Speakers have traditionally participated in party functions and in debate, the requirement of impartiality of the Deputy Speaker, as indeed of the comm ittee Chairs, is fairly clearly established by precedent. * (1 430) That is indeed our concern in this particular case.

I would say that if one looks again at Beauchesne, it is unfortunate that we have to take the time of this committee, and indeed we will have to take the time of the House, when this matter is referred to the committee, as it will appropriately be done, that we deal with this matter. In fact, Beauchesne Citation 760 refers to a specific Speaker's ruling in which the Speaker felt it necessary to write to Chairs of committee at the time in regard to matters that were raised in terms of privilege and grievance related specifically to proceedings in committee.

It is unfortunate this has to be raised in this particular manner. Well, Madam Chairperson, ! feel, though, regret that we have to raise this particular matter. I feel that it was very clear on Monday that the question of impartiality and partiality became very apparent. I am very concerned, not only in terms of what happened, in terms of the failure, as I have indicated, to ensure the ability of opposition members to speak, but also the fact that it was so clearly tied into the concern of the government to avoid a vote at a particular point in time.

Madam Chairperson, indeed, that is very much in keeping with the precedent established in 19 82, where the matter was accepted for disposition by the House, and a vote was taken by the House on the matter of privilege moved by Sterling Lyon. Our concern is a serious one. This is not just a matter of simple procedure; it is a matter of privilege.

What can be considered more fundame ntal in this House than the ability of a member, regardless of their political affiliation-! want to emphasize that, regardless of their political affi liation-to be able to participate fairly and equally in the debates of this House and to be able to have the assurance that the Chair shall not be partial and shall not be influe nced to be partial? My concern in this particular matter relates both to the element of being partial and the element of the pressure on the Chairs to be partial.

That is why I really believe there is no question, as was clearly established in the precedent of 19 82, that this is a matter of privilege. The way to deal with this, Madam Chairperson, is to have this matter referred to the House. That indeed will be part of my motion. In fact, that is very clear in Beauchesne's Citations 822, 825 and 894

3246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May20, 1993 that such matters have to be referred to the House. I would suggest that it be referred to the House immediately, certainly today at the adjournment of the Comm ittee of Supply. But the Chair may wish to consider refe rring this matter immediately to the House so that we can deal with it in the House.

It is indeed with regret, given the circumstances which we feel on our side were clear evidence of partiality and attempts-! am not just talking here about the Chair-but in terms of the government to influe nce the Chair to be partial in terms of recognition of members, as is proven by the fact that three Conservative members were recognized in a row despite the fact-a nd I want to refe r to this in terms of the discussions that took place on the point of order-that I had made it very clear that I intended to speak. I had signalled from my seat repeatedly from the beginning.

In fact, I ended up with the Clerk of the House and the Page in the House coming over at the point in time because I was so visibly signalling the Chair and, at that particular point in time, making it very clear that I was trying to make sure that I had the opportunity to speak.

In fact , after the second Conservative speaker was recognized in a row, I made it very clear from my seat that I wished to be recognized, and recalling again that we are now in a situation in the House where we can speak from our seat and the way to signal in a committee, where one is able to signal in one's seat, is by indicating with one's hands, which I did on repeated occasions. Then after having risen on a third occasion-and recalling this is Committee of Supply, and that, for example, the member for Portage (Mr.

Pallister) could have given up the floor and could have spoken at another point in time without losing his place to speak. Those were very clear attemp ts , Madam Chairperson, and I feel there was a deliberate attempt by the government to prevent me from speaking because of concern that a vote might be taken on the resolution that was before the House on the Minister's Salary, and that that vote might be taken before ten o'clock, recognizing that the vote, if it was called after ten o'clock, would be referred to a subsequent day.

This is a very serious matter, and it is with regret that I move that this committee express its concern that the Deputy Speaker in Committee of Supply on Monday, May 17 , 199 3, showed bias in failing to ensure the right of all members to speak, and that this matter be repor ted to the Hous e for consideration. Madam Chairpers on: In accordance wi th Beauchesne's Citation 10 7, this committee has no power to deal with a matter of privilege. Such matters can only be dealt with by the House itseH on receiving a report from the committee.

Theref ore, I am prepared to entertain a motion to report the matter of priv ilege to the House. Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On a point of order, yes, I fully understand that ultimately this point of privilege may have to be referred to the House. I have no trouble with that, but, Madam Chairperson, certainly the Rules of the House, when a memb er rises on a matter of privilege, other parties are given an opportunity to make representation. If the mem ber is saying that has to be done in the House as compared to being done now, then I did not take the

interpretation of

Section 1 07 of Beauchesne to mean that we were prevented from making our representation as other parties at this point in time. Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order to the government House leader, indeed all the parties and all members wishing to make representation on the matter of privilege will be able to do so upon the report of the committee. The Comm ittee of- Madam Chairperson: No. Order, please. On the point of order, I was about to read the motion to the committee.

That motion is debatable and indeed all parties in the House will have an opportunity to speak to that motion once the motion has been read into the record in this Committee of Supply. *** Madam Chairperson: The motion before the committee is that this committee express its concern that the Deputy Speaker in Comm ittee of Supply on Monday, May 17 , 199 3, showed bias in failing to ensure the right of all members to speak and that the ma tter be repor ted to the Hous e for consideration. Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Chairperson, a matter of privilege is a very serious nature, and I think that none of us in this Chamber should take it in a fri volous way whatsoever. The memb er for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has indicated that he

May 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3247 believes that his rights as a member of this Chamber have been violated. * (1 440) I have been in this Chamber since 19 86. When I came to this Chamber in 19 86, I was a lone member. My experience at Estimates was quite different than what has been related by the Finance minister in his response to the member for Thompson's point of order on page 31 11 of Hansard. At no time have I ever experie nced anything except a rotation between members of this Chamber, even when I did not have official party status.

It was clear that a member of the government would be recognized, or a member of the official opposition would be recognized, but so, too, was a member of a third party, even though that third party had no status. So to recognize in the Estimates process in Com mittee of Supply, one, two and three representatives of one political party when it is clear that oth er political parties want to mak e representation, I think, quite frankly, is in violation of the rules of this House.

I think that as a matter of privilege there is a legitimate matter of privilege here, and I would recommend that it go speedily to the Chamber. Mr. Manness: I want to indicate that I could not be in further disagreement with the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) and, indeed, the House leader for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Ashton). Madam Chairperson, I take seriously also the motion brought forward and, indeed, the

preamble leading to the motion by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I do not feel for one second that he does not personally feel aggrieved with respect to events of the other night. But I must protest, as I said just briefly the other evening, that hav

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-67
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 67.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	44596379b20064de79802fdd36b1955a19b258f1

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