Manitoba Hansard — 22 July 1991 (Sitting 90A, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-90a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature ofthe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis c. Rocan Speelcer VOL XL No. 90A ·1:30 p.m., MONDAY, JULY 22, 1991 Printed by the Office of the a- Printer, Province of AlanJtoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB - Liberal; ND - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conse rvative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARST AIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEE MA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONN ERY, Edward 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. FIN DLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN , Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHA MMER, Harold, Hon.

HARPER, Elijah HE LWER, Edward R. HICK ES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayt on, Hon. MARTIN DALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold , Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. 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 WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWC HUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste. Rose Seine River Roblin- Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur- Virden St einbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolse ley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossm ere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St.

Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY. LIB ND ND LIB LIB ND LIB ND PC PC PC PC ND ND PC PC PC LIB PC PC ND ND PC PC ND LIB PC ND PC ND LIB ND PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NO PC ND PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC ND ND

4936 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, July 22, 1991 The Hc·use met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Je 11n Fries en (Wolsele y): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Linda Hnatiw , Glen D. Walker, Neil Chambers and others, requesting withd rawal of fu nding and the prevention of construction of the Pines Project and to prevent projects similar in nature from destroying the commu nity. REA.DING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. SJteaker: To the honourable member for TransC4)11a (Mr.

Reid), I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it conforms to the privileges and practices of the House and complies with thE• rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Mr. Cltt rk (William Remnan t) : To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth: THAT the Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines," In its current location, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport.

THAT to risk the jobs of the hundr eds of people who ar•e employed at the airport is not in the best interes1:s of the community. THAT "The Pines" project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public. THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pines" project will give a foothold to commer cial development which i:s incompatible with the residential nature of the nei!}hbourhood .

WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Le�tislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbourhood by requesting the provi ncial government to withdraw prov incial funding of "The Pines" pro ject. AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. *** Mr. Spe aker: 1 have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members : Yes. Mr.

Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the prov ince of Manitoba , humbly sheweth: THAT the Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines," in its current location, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport. THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are employed at the airport is not in the best interests of the community. THAT "The Pines" project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public.

THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pines" project will give a foot hold to commer cial development which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighbourhood. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respectthe wishes of the neighbourhood by requesting the provincial government to withdraw prov incial funding of "The Pines" project. AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. *** Mr. Speaker: To the honourable member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett), I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it conf orms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

4937 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 Some Honourable Members : Yes. Mr. Cler k: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the pro vince of Manitoba , humbly sheweth: THAT the Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines," in its current loca tion, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport. THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are employed at the airport is not in the best interests of the communi ty.

THAT "The Pines" project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public. THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pines" project will give a foothold to commer cial development which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighbourhood. WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbourh ood by requesting the provincial government to withdraw pro vincial funding of "The Pines" proj ect. AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. * (1 335) PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs.

Louise Dacquay {Chairman of the St anding Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Comm ittee on Mu nicipal Affairs. Mr. Cl erk {Will iam Remn ant) : Your Standing Comm ittee on Municip al Affairs presents the following as their Second Report. Your committ ee met on Wednesday, July 17 , 19 91 , at 7 p. m.; Thursday, July 18 , 19 91 , at 10 a.m . and 7 p.m .; and Friday, July 19 at 1 :30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred.

Prior to clause-b y-clause consideration, your comm ittee passed the following motion at its Friday, July 19 , 19 91 , meeting: THAT the comm ittee hear those people who were listed yesterday, but who were not called a second time, that is Mr. Goldspink, Ms. Jean Miller-Usiskin and Councillor Greg Selinger on the condition that they limit their presentation to 1 0 minutes, and that anyone else who had registered after the close of the meeting early this morning be not heard. Your comm ittee heard representation on bills as follows : Bill 35--The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg Mr. Wally Rooke - Hardy B. B. T. Ltd. Mr. Gary Wilton - Gre at-West Life Insurance Company Mrs. Elizabeth Fleming - Winnipeg in the Nineties Mr. Gordon Makie - Private Citizen Mr. Ken Guilford - Private Citizen Councillor Glen Murray - River-Osborne Ward (City of Winnipeg) Ms. Susan Ekdahl -C o nsumers Association of Canada (Winnipeg) Councillor Mike O'Shaughnessy - Chairperson of the Riverbank Management Comm ittee (City of Winnipeg) Councillor Ernie Gilroy - Daniel Mcintyre Ward (City of Winnipeg) Ms.

Jenny Hill ard - Manitoba Environmental Council Councillor Greg Selinger- Tache Ward (City of Winnipeg) Councillor Shirley Timm- Rudolph - Springfield Heights Ward (City of Winnipeg) Mr. Harold Taylor - Private Citizen Written Presentation: Mr. Gary Simo nson - Winnipeg Real Estate Board Biii 68- The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modi fiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg Councillor Lillian Thomas - Elmwood Ward (City of Winnipeg Ms. Theresa Ducharme- PEP (People in Equal Participation) Mr. Paul Moist and Mr. Greg Mandzuk - Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 500 Mr. Brett Lockhart - Private Citizen Mr. David Wayto wich - Private Citizen Mrs. Charlotte Hozumi - Private Citizen Mr. Patrick Daly - Private Citizen

July 2��. 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4938 Mf;. R. M. Goodman - Private Citizen Mfl. Deborah Smith - CHOICES Mrs. Julia Boon - Private Citizen Mr. George Marshall - Private Citizen Mr. Doug McGiffin - Winnipeg in the Nineties Mr. Ken Guilford - Priva te Citizen Councillor Roger Young - Pembina-Riverview Ward (City of Winnipeg) Councillor George Fraser - Private Citizen Councillor Peter Diamant - University Ward (City of Winnipeg) Mfl. Shirley Lord - Private Citizen C+uncillor Glen Murray- River-Osborne Ward (C ity of Winnipeg) Mr. John Harrison - Private Citizen Mr.

David Brown - Private Citizen Cc•uncillor Mike O'Shaughnessy - Jefferson W1:ard (City of Winnipeg) Mr. Glen Hewitt - St. Boniface-St. Vital Re•sidents Advisory Group Dr. Jim Shapiro - St. Germain Residents Association Mr. Kenneth Emberley - Private Citizen Cc•uncillor Shirley Timm- Rudolph - Springfield He•ights Ward (City of Winnipeg) Cc•uncillor Allan Golden - Glenlawn Ward (City of Winnipeg) Cc•uncillor Greg Selinger- Tache Ward (City of Winnipeg) Your comm ittee has consider ed: Bill ��The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modi fiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg and ha:s agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTIC•N: THAT the proposed

section 19 5.1 , as set out in

section 11 of the Bill, be struck out and the following su bstituted : Counc il may limit busin ess tax Increase 195 .1 !Notwithst anding a provision in this Act or any other Act to the contrary , council may by by-law limit the aml:>Unt of increase in business tax that council deter m ines has resu lted from business re-asse•ssment or the annual rate of business tax prescribed under subsection 18 0(2), and council may limit the amount of the increase for any year or years for a class of business or a group of businesses, on such terms and conditions as council may set out in the by-law . MOTION : THAT the proposed su bsection 488(7), as set out in

section 16 of the Bill, be amended by adding "the city" after "described in the no tice, and". MOTION : THAT the proposed subs ection 492(4) , as set out in

section 16 of the Bill, be deleted and the following substituted : Discharge of L.T .O. charge 492( 4) On repayment to the city of an amount referred to in subsection (1 ), the city shall register a notice of discharge in the Winnipeg Land Titles Office in the form prescribed under The Real Property Act and, on application of the owner, the clerk of the city shall provide a certificate of repayment to the owner. MOTION : THAT the proposed clause 494.81 (1 )(a), as set out in

section 17 of the Bill, be amended by adding "494.2(6) or" after "under subsection". MOTION: THAT the definition of "deve lopmen t" in the proposed

section 57 4, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by adding "or material" after "stockp iling of soil". MOTION : THAT the proposed

section 57 4, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by striking out the definition "Planning Appeal Board" ; and (

b) by adding the following definition in alphabetical order within

section 57 4: "board of adjustment" means the board of adjustment established under

section 650; MOTION : THAT the proposed su bsection 589(3), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "After first reading and before second reading of a proposed development by- law, council shall refer the proposed development by-law" and substituting "A proposed development by-law shall be referred". MOTION : THAT the proposed clause 591 (1 )(f), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out the

4939 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 semicolon at the end of subclause (f)(ii), su bstituting a comma, and adding the following after subclause (f)(ii): that are beneficial to or necessary for the development, or to serve the development; MOTION : THAT the proposed subsection 596(3), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out •a comm ittee of council or the Planning Appeal Boardw and substituting "the board of adjustment or, on appeal, by the committee of council designated by by-laww. MOTION: THAT the proposed

section 597, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "the development permit and development by-lawsw and substit uting •a by-law passed or an order made under this Parr. MOTION : THAT the proposed subclause 600(2)(c)(i), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill be amended (

a) by striking out "or secondary plan by-laww; (

b) by striking out "within the 90 daysw and su bstitu ting "before the expiry of the 90 days". THAT the proposed subsection 600(3), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "Where council passes a development by-laww and su bstituting "Where a Plan Winnipeg by-law, secondary plan by-law or development by-law comes into forcew. MOTION : THA Tt he proposed su bsection 607(1 ) , as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out •, a comm ittee of council or the Planning Appeal Boardw and substitu ting "or the board of adjustment". THAT the proposed subsection 607(2), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out •a committee of council or the Planning Appeal Board" and substitu ting "the board of adjustment". THA Tt he proposed subsection 608(1 ), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out •, the commi ttee of council or the Planning Appeal Board det ermines that, in its opinion," and su bstitu ting "or the board of adjustment is of the opinion that". THAT the proposed su bsection 608(2), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substitu ted: Conditions applied to variance 608(2) Sub jec t to a by-la w passed under subsection 607(1 ), the designated city administrator or the board of ad jus tment may appro ve an application for an order of variance subject to any condition that the designated city administrator or the board of adjustment considers necessary to ensure that the proposed development conforms with su bsection (1 ). MOTION : THAT the proposed

section 609, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be str uck out and the following su bstituted : By- law on condH ional uses 609 An application for a conditional use or to amend an approved conditional use shall be referred to the board of adjustment. THAT the proposed

section 61 0, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "committee of council or the Planning Appeal Boardw and substitu ting "board of adjustment". MOTION : THAT the proposed

section 61 1 , as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by striking out "comm ittee of council or the Planning Appeal Board" and su bstituting "board of adjustment"; (

b) by striking out "is not detrimental to" and su bstituting "does not create a substantial adverse effect on". MOTION : THAT the proposed

section 61 2, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "The commit tee of council or Planning Appeal Boardw and substituting "The board of ad justment". MOTION : THAT the proposed subsection 61 7(3), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by striking out "Notwithsta nding

section 629" and su bst ituting "Notwithsta nding subsection 629(2); (

b) by striking out •under

section 629" and su bstituting "under subsection 629(1 )". MOTION : THAT the proposed subsection 61 9(3), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by adding "61 9(1 )(

b) orw after "the condition relates to clause". MOTION:

July 2��. 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4940 THAT 1the proposed subclause 620(1) (f)(iii), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by adding "at such rate as is agreed uponw after "including interes·r. MOTIC•N : THAT the proposed

section 622, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by str iking out "within 18 0 daysw and substituting "within one year of the clayw. MOT IC)N: THAT the proposed

section 628, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out. MOTION : THA Tt he proposed subsection 629(1 ), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by adding the following after clause (d): (d .1) requirements for giving notice of a comm ittee report or decision made under this Part, including giving notice where a written representation is made by or on behalf of more than one person; (

b) by striking out clause 0) and substituting the following: m the right to appeal a decision, in addition to any right to appeal provided under this Part; 0.1 ) procedure for appealing a decision, including time periods for appeal; 0.2) procedure for hearing appeals; MOTIC>N : THAT :the proposed subsection 630(2), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "Pianniing Appeal Boardw and substituting "board of adjustrnenr. MOTION: THAT the proposed clause 633(2)(e), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted : (

e) in any other manner council considers ne,cessary or advisable. THAT the proposed subsection 633(4), in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted: Exe m1,t1on to news paper notice 633(4) Where a designated employee det ermines that an application that is subject to a public hearing affects only a specific building or building site, a notice of the applic ation shall be posted in accordance with subsection 635(1 ), and the posti ng of a notice may, subject to a by-law passed under su bsection 629(1 ), su bstitute for publ ication of the notice in a newspaper under clause (2)(b). MOTION : THAT the proposed

section 634 , as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "Planning Appeal Boardw and substituting "board of adjustrnentw. MOTION : THAT the proposed clause 635(1 )(b), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "not less than one metre from the lot linew and substituting "not more than one metre inside the lot linew. MOTION : THAT the proposed

section 637, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "Planning Appeal Board" and substituting "board of adjustrnenr. THA Tt he proposed subsection 641 (1 ), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "Planning Appeal Boardw and substituting "board of adjustrnenr. MOTION: THAT the proposed

section 642, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be renumbered as subsection 642(1 ), and the fol lowing added after subsection 642(1 ): Conduct of combined public hearing 642{2) A public hearing authorized un der subsection (1 ) shall be conducted (

a) by the board of adjustment, where the public hearing is in respect of a variance and conditional use; and (

b) by a comm ittee of council, in all other cases. MOTION : THAT the proposed subsection 643(4), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "in respect of the tie vote w. MOTION : THAT the proposed subsection 644( 1 ), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by add ing "in accordance with a by-law passed under

section 629,w after "give notice by mail,w; and

4941 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 (

b) by striking out "and the right to file an objection to it, in accordance with a by-law passed under

section 629,". MOTION: THATthe proposed subsection 644 (2), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted : NoUce of decision by board of adJustment 644

(2) Where the board of adjustment makes a decision respecting an application for a variance or conditional use, the secretary of the board of adjustment shall as soon as is practicable give notice by mail, in accordance with a by-law passed under

section 629, to the applicant and any person who made representations at the public hearing, of the decision and the right to appeal the decision to the comm ittee of council designated by by-law . MOTION: THAT the proposed subsection 644 (3), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by striking out "Planning Appeal Board" and su bstit uting "the com mit tee of cou ncil designated by by- law"; (

b) by striking out clause (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) in the case of a variance granted under subsection 607(3), in addition to the notice requirements set out in a by-law passed under claus e 629(1 )(e), to the owners of land adjoining the property in respect of which the variance is granted, where the variance exceeds 5% of the requirement set out in the development by-law . MOTION: THAT

section 18 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection 644 (3): Referral of report to board of adjustm ent 644 .1 Council may refer the report of a comm ittee of council respecting a secondary plan by-law or development by-law , or an application for approval of a plan of subdivision, to the board of adjustment, which shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with a by-law passed under subsection 652(1 ), and submit a report and recom mendations to counc il. THAT the proposed subsection 645(1 ) of the Act, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by striking out •, any objection filed with respect to the report,"; (

b) by striking out "subsection 647(2 )" and substit uting "section 644 .1 "; and (

c) by striking out the comma after "stated reasons". THAT the proposed subsection 645(2) of the Act, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "or filed an obj ection under subsection 647(1 )". MOTION: THAT the heading "OBJECT IONS AND APPEALS" preceding the proposed

section 646 of the Act, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and "APPEALS" be su bstituted . THAT the proposed

section 646, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by st riking out "Planning Appeal Board" and substituti ng "board of adjustment" . THAT the proposed

section 647 of the Act, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be st ruck out. MOTION : THAT the proposed subsection 648( 1 ), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) by adding "conducted by the board" after •a public hearing"; and (

b) by striking out "the board" and substituting "the comm ittee of council desi gnated by by-law" . THA Tt he proposed subsection 648( 2), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) in the heading preceding it, by striking out "board" and substituting "committee"; (

b) by striking out "Where the board" and substit uting "Where the comm ittee of council"; (

c) by striking out "subsection 652(1) " and substit uting "subsection 629( 1 )" . THAT the Bill be amended by adding the following after subsection 648( 2): Application of provisions to committee 648 (3) Subsections 608(1) and (2), and sections 61 1 and 612 apply to a decision of a committee of council made under subsection (2). THAT the proposed clause 649(f) , as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and the following su bstituted: (

f) a decision of a comm ittee of council under subsection 648(2). MOTION:

July z�. 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4942 THAT the heading "PLANNING APPEAL BOARD" preceding the proposed

section 650, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and "BOARD OF ADJUSTMENr be substituted. THAT the proposed

section 650, as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "Planning Appeal Board" and substituting "board of adjustment". THAT1the proposed subsection 651(1 ), as setout in

section 18 of the Bill, be amended (

a) in clause (a), by adding "subject to a by-law pe:ssed under subsection 607(1 ), n after "(a)"; (

b) by.striking out clause (

b) and renumbering clauses (

c) and (

d) as clauses (

b) and (c), re:spectively. MOTIC>N : THAT the proposed clause 652(1)(d), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substiMed: (

d) ruiEts of practice and procedure. MOTIC>N : THAT

section 21 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted: Secti CJ•n 688 rep. and sub. 21 Se,ction 688 is repealed and the following is substituted: Conditional approval of subdivision In addltl c,nal zone 688 \1\lhere before the repeal of provisions of this Act reiJpecting the additional zone by The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (3), S.M. 1989-1990,

chapter 52, council approved subject to conditions a proposed plan of subdivision in the additional zone, the approval is deemed for the purposes of a subdivision that was not completed by January 1 , 1991 to be a conditional approval under clause 64(2)(

a) of The Planning Act and is subject to the provisions of that Act. MOTIC)N: THAT subsection 24(3) of the Bill be deleted, subsec�tion 24(2) of the Bill be renumbered as subsec,tion 24(3), and the following be added as subsec,tion 24(2): Subsection 95(1) amen ded 24(2) Subsection 95(1) is amended (

a) by adding •a municipality or" after "upon the application of"; and (

b) by striking out "clause 112(3)(g)" and substituting "clause 117(6)(g)". MOTION: THAT clause 27(6)(

b) of the Bill be amended by striking out "(objections and appeals)" and substituting "(appeals)". THATthe following be added after subsection 27(6) of the Bill: Retroacti ve :

section 21 27(6.1)

Section 21 is retroactive and is deemed to have come into force on January 1 , 1991. MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Your committee has also considered: Bill 68-- The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT subsection 3(3) of the Bill be renumbered as subsection 3(5), and the following added after subsection 3(2): Subsect ion 5(5) amended 3(3) Subsection 5(5) is amended by striking out "Where' nand substituting ·subject to subsection (6)' where". Subsection 5(6) rep. and sub. 3(4) Subsection 5(6) is repealed and the following is substituted: L.G.

In C. may appoint person to act 5(6) Where a person referred to in subsection (5) is unable for any reason to act in place of a member of the commission referred to in subsection (3), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint a person to act in place of the member. MOTION: THAT the proposed subsection 63.1(1), as set out in

section 17 of the Bill, be amended by striking out clause (

a) and adding the following after "report to council on": the annual financial statements of (

a) the city; or THAT the proposed subsection 63.1(2), as set out in

section 17 of the Bill, be amended

4943 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 (

a) in the heading preceding it, by striking out "Persons" and substituting "Accountants"; (

b) by striking out "No person" and substituting "No accountant"; and (

c) by striking out "the person or a person in the partnership" and substituting "the accountant, or an accountant employed in or by the partnership,". All of which is respectfully submitted. Mrs. Dacqu ay: I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agre ed to. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Garrison Diversion Project Premier's Discussions Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, we know the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) is, of course, meeting with the Premier of Saskatchewan, other governors from the United States and allegedly people representing governments of states of Mexico in the central area of our continent. We hope the discussions go well in terms of the issues that are of importance to the province of Manitoba. A couple of years ago and in subsequent questions in this Chamber, we have raised the issue of the Garrison Diversion Project coming back in different forms. One of the forms that we thought was curious with the U.S.

Corps of Engineers providing some money a few years ago, 1988-89, was in a project called the Mid-Dakota Project. We raised those questions with the former Minister of Natural Resources a couple of years ago, and we have raised with the Premier our concerns about the Garrison Diversion Project coming back under different terms but with the same potential impact on Manitobans, the effect of biota being transferred from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin, the effect on quality of water and quantity of water to many communities in Manitoba that rely on the present water system. Mr.

Speaker, we note that the Premier has announced an environmental meeting in Manitoba. Yet we have heard of no discussions dealing with our water environment in the province of Manitoba. I would ask the acting Premier, has the Premier put on the agenda the various alternatives to the Garrison project? Specifically, has he asked the governor of the State of North Dakota to cancel all plans dealing with water transfer to the Hudson Bay water transfer system and specifically the Mid-Dakota Project and its impact on Manitobans? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premi er) : Mr.

Speaker, I will leave it for the Premier to report on his return from the Governors' and Western Premiers' Conference. I want to make it- An Honourable Member: Perfectly clear. Mr. Downey: -perfectly clear-1 thank the member for his coaching-the position of Manitoba has not changed. That is, we have not and never will support a transfer of the Missouri water from the Missouri water system into the Hudson Bay system. Our position has not changed. •

(1340) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I recall last year when the western Premiers got together and they all went to Lloydminster for the New Realities meeting. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) came out of that session with a nice press release saying we had co-operation, peace in our time, with the other western Premiers. At the same time they were at that meeting in Lloydminster, Grant Devine with this so-called co-operation was building the Rafferty-Alameda dam without any concern at all for Manitobans. I am not interested in the press releases that usually come out of these meetings.

I am interested In what we are taking to the table and whether we are getting any resuhs. Has the Premier asked specifically that the governor and the government of the State of North Dakota, in light of the risk assessment material in the technical documents, which state the highest biological waiting factor was associated with the Mid-Dakota Reservoir, the lowest biological waiting factor was associated with the present Garrison Diversion, the system that is in place now-is the Premier placing that on the agenda?

Will we get a decision from the governor of North Dakota, or will we get another press release talking about co-operation? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more confidence in our Premier meeting with the Premiers of wester n Can ada than the Lea der of the Opposition meeting with Audrey Mclaughlin and

July 2��. 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 4944 the Premier of Ontar io, where they do not know what the ree1lities of this country are. The people have been o,vertaxed, ov erburdened with taxation, with debt that has been put us in a financial situation that is hurting every Manitoban and every Canadian. As far as the report from the Premier, Mr. Speakor, I will take that under advisement for him to report c>n his return. Mr.

D4:>er: Well, only the Deputy Premier can applaud a co-operation and peace in our time with Saskatchewan as they are building the dam that will affect the long -term water impact on the Rafferty-Alameda dam. No wonder we are in so muchclifficulty, Mr. Speaker. Great Whale Project Government Position Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the OpposH ion): I have a final question to the Minister of Environment. We took a very, very strong stand on the Oldman River, Mr. Speaker.

We decided to intervene and we could not decide whose side we were on, the federal government or the provincial government, in terms of downstream water impact We raised the issue of Conawapa. We raised the issue of sewage treatmtmt plants. We raised all these issues, but we are no't siding with the federal government or the Alberte1 government with the strong position the Manitoba government took in its intervention on the Oldman River.

I would ask the provincial government: Has it taken e1 similarly strong position on the Great Whale Project:, the project before the courts now affecting the CrEIEI in the province of Quebec and the federal government? Are we taking a position that we are in favour of federal jurisdiction here to look at the total impact on the total ecosystem of the Great Whale Project, or ar e we not taking a position as we did on 'the Oldman River? Hon •. James Downey (D eputy Premier) : Mr. Speaktfr, I will have the Minister of Environment answer the specific questions.

I just want the membors opposite in this House and the people of Manitoba to know, when that member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) was the Minister of Natural Resources , when the Rafferty-A lameda dam w:as started, what did he and his government do during that period of time when all the develo1Jment plans were taking place? Absolutely nothin�J. Workers Compensation Benefit Payment Changes Mr. Steve Ashton (Thomps on): The antiworker agenda of this government is becoming increasingly clear, first with 8111 70 and now with changes to The Workers Compensation Act, Mr. Spe aker.

Surprise, surprise-at committee hearings, the Chamber of Commerce supports the changes to the bill, but every employee organization, every organization representing injured workers and practising medical practiti oners all said this would negatively hurt Individual workers compensation claimants. My question is to the Minister of Labour.

Given the fact that for every $1 in increased benefits, the minister by his own statistics today shows there will be a reduction of $4 in benefits to injured workers and their families, how can this minister justify dealing with the books of the workers compensation system at the expense of injured workers and their families? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, the member for Thompson's comments about the change in payment of benefit package, I am not sure whether the member supports the principle of going to a payment on net or supports the continuation of the present method which is a payment on gross wages that results in considerable overpayment, up to 13 0 percent of take-home wages. I am not sure which side of the issue the member is on. Mr. Asht on: Mr. Speaker, I know what side of the Issue I am on. I am against this government cutting benefits to injured workers and their families. • (1 345 ) Occupational Diseases Definition Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson) : Mr. Speaker, it affects not only current workers but, in particular, future workers. My question to the Minister of Labour is: Why has he ignored the presentati ons to the committee by practising medical practitioners and others who pointed out that his definition in the bill of occup ational diseases and other sections of the bill will result in future claimants being denied workers compensation? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, again, the member for Thompson has not

4945 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 indicated whether his party supports the principle of going to net payment on net wages as opposed to gross, and from what he says, one can only assume that the New Democrats believe in paying people more on compensation than what they take home, because that is the logical conclusion of his comments.

With respect to occupational disease, as the member knows, the definition put in our act enshrines the status quo, the current definition, anyone who has an occupational disease which the substantive cause-and the presenters at the committee indicated that occupational disease is the result of multifactors, many included in the person's lifestyle, the air we breathe, et cetera.

The current definition enshrines the status quo, allows people to know what is and what is not covered, and the kind of definition that the member is supporting would indicate that the common cold obtained from someone at the workplace is an occupational disease. I know it is a very difficult set of

definitions to work with, but the member oversimplifies that whole issue. Injured Workers Rights Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final question to the minister, as well, is in regard to some of the other changes on the employers' wish list, all of which this minister has granted, that has a deterrent fee for appeals, that has contracting out to employers of the handling of cases and has medical records available now to employers for the first time. My question, Mr. Speaker, of the minister is: Why has he gone so far?

Why has he bent over backward to accede to every single one of the Chamber of Commerce's major, major requests at the expense of injured workers and their rights here in Manitoba? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the member for Thompson, both at committee and in this House, continually tries to paint a picture in which that proposed package is somehow way out of line with (

a) what the vast majority of other jurisdictions are doing in this country, or (

b) that they do not represent substantially the kind of consensus that was arrived at at the King commission. Mr. Speaker, of 178 recommendations made by the King commission under their administration, 140 have now been either totally or partially complied with either administratively or in this act. If this type of legislation is so wrong, then I think they should raise it with their colleagues in Saskatchewan who brought in exactly the same type, or virtually the same type, of administrative scheme as this government is now bringing in along with six other provinces in this country-so get off their high horse.

Seech Gajadharslngh Government Representative Mrs. Sharon Carsta lrs (Leader of the Second Opposi tion) : My question is to the Deputy Premier. Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, we have been in touch with a businessman, based in Los Angeles, by the name of Mr. Justin Ding. This individual attended a meeting In Winnipeg with Claro Paqueo and Seech Gajadharsingh to discuss the potential purchase of Wescott Fashions in this city. This person told us that Mr.

Gajadharsingh introduced himself as a government official and distributed his government card which identified him as a special advisor to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). Given that Mr. Gajadharsingh was clearly portraying himself as representing government at this meeting, can the Deputy Premier tell us exactly what role he played at this meeting? Did he also play this role at the meetings attended by Mike Bessey? Hon. James Downey (Dep uty Premier ): Mr.

Speaker, the member is well aware of the fact that there are two fully independent investigations being carried out, one with the Civil Service Commission, which I would invite the member opposite, if she has additional information, should be forwarded to the Civil Service commissioner in charge of the work being carried out. Number two, there is an RCMP investigation which, if there are illegal activities being carried out, I would invite her to provide that information to the RCMP directly. Mrs. Carst alrs: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, this area is not an RCMP-type investigation. *

(1350) Seech Gajadharslngh Civil service Waiver Mrs. Sharon Carst alrs (Leader of the Second Opposition) : I have a supplementary question to the minister for the Civil Service Commission.

July 2:2, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4946 In that Seech Gajadharsingh is a civil servant employed by the Province of Manitoba, and given that hE' was employed by Red River Community Colleg4� all through the last academic school year, can th� minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission tell us today if he received a waiver from the Civil Service Commission which would have made it possible for him to have collected the $1,000? Hon.

l) arren Praznlk (Minis ter respo nsible for Th e Civil Service Act) : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that as notice. I do not have that inform1:ttion for the member at this time. Seech Gajadharslngh Civil Service Waiver Mrs. !;haron Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Oppotl ltlon): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to enforcing The Civil Service Act, we seem to have a disagn�ement with regard to specific ministers. We know, for example, that Ama�eet Warraich has been asked to repay a double payment which he receivtKI. We have been told by the Minister of Energjf and Mines (Mr.

Neufeld) that Charlie Curtis will not be asked to repay, that he will be given a retroac:tive waiver. My question to the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission is: What will be their decision with regard to Seech Gajadharsingh? Will he be !given a retroactive waiver as with Mr. Curtis, or will he be asked to pay it back like Amarjeet Warraich? Point of Order Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Le ader): The question is hypothetical and speculative. Indeed, the fact has not been established that a waiver has not been provided.

I think the minister took the question as notice, and until the minister has an opportunity to determine the fact, I would say the question is out of order. Mr. SJie& ker: On the point of order raised, I would ask thE' honourable Leader of the second opposition party t1:> rephrase her question. It is hypothetical. *** Mrs. C:arstalrs: Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple. What is the government policy with respect to double payments to members of the Civil Servic,e? Are they to be asked to pay them back, or are they to be given retroactive waivers? Surely there is a policy of government on this issue. Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there is very much a policy of government and that is 12(4) of The Civil Service Act. That is put in place very clearly so that officials in one department will know fully well whether an individual who may be paid for some activity rendered within that department, whether or notthey are also receiving pay in another department. That is put into place in a very literal translation to make sure that one department of government knows what the other department is doing in paying out double pay. That is differentfrom

Section 12 of The Legislative Assembly Act which, of course, causes us as legislators to make sure that we do not take any more than one salary very specifically. Thirdly, when it comes down to using their example, Mr. Curtis, in this case, the world knew as of June 1988 that Mr. Curtis was drawing two salaries. It was published in the Estimates. The Provincial Auditor was aware of the scene. In that case, indeed if the members wish to maintain their questions, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) will more fully reply as to what is the case with respect to Mr. Curtis.

Port of Churchill Advisory Committee Mandate Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan Rive r): Mr. Speaker, the old Port of Churchill Development Board, which had a broad mandate to deal with development of the Port of Churchill to attract business to the port had broad representation. This board has been replaced by a local advi sory committee with a much narrower focus dealing basically as a Chamber of Commerce. The Port of Churchill is important to many people, particularly people in the agricultural industry in the central part of the province who could save a lot of money if this port was developed.

Will the minister responsible for the Port of Churchill renew his government's commitment, increase the level of support and broaden the mandate of the new board that has been put in place, so that we can have the service that we need from that port? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the member is somewhat

4947 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 confused. Exactly the opposite has happened. The old Port of Churchill Development Board was very much specifically working on behalf of the port itself and the shipment of product, grain particularly, through the port. In the establishment of the new Port of Churchill Development Board, it has been broadened to include tourism, to include all those economic benefits that can be added to Churchill, not just the shipment of grain but to broaden the range and, to be quite blunt, to have more local involvement rather than have the government so much involved.

It is more local involvement with a broader mandate than under the previous administration. Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, we have local involvement so that the government can wash their hands of it. *

(1355) Advisory Committee Funding Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): When the announcement was made for the new board, included in the announcement was that Mr. Don Figurski would be appointed as an interim executive director. Can the minister responsible tell us whether funds have been put in place for Mr. Figurski to do his job, or is this just another empty announcement by this government? Hon. James Downey (Minis ter of No rthern Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, first of all, there have not been any empty announcements made by this government, unlike the previous administration that, unfortunately, took this province into rack and ruin financially with the spending of some $27 million in Saudi Arabia, with the building of a $30-million bridge without a road to it-rack and ruin of the financial picture of this province. There are funds for the Po rt of Churchill Development Board to operate to develop the Port of Churchill and all other economic activities in that region of the province. Ms.

Wowchuk: Well, at least the prev ious government could sign an $83-mlllion agreement for the Port of Churchill which this government has not been able to do. Port of Churchill Promotion Ms. Ros ann Wowchuk (Swan River) : My final question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. This province has an office in Ottawa with three staffpeople who are supposed to promote Manitoba. Can the minister tell this House what instructions he has given to Mr. Blackwood that will help promote the Port of Churchill? Has this office attracted any business to the Port of Churchill? Hon.

Eric Stefa nson (Minister of Indus try, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa office actually employs four individuals, and it is Mr. Blackwood who is the manager of that operation. Certainly we have provided direction on a various range of fronts in terms of promoting Churchill, most recently the utilization of Churchill for activation of a rocket range. Clearly, we are extr emely concerned and interested in the future of Churchill, the opportunities that Churchill represents. Our Ottawa office is well aware of that. They are doing everything to promote Churchill to the federal government.

Churchill Rail Line Protection Mr. Daryl Reid (Transc ona): Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation if he had discussions with his federal counterparts to have the bayllne route to Churchill declared in the national interest. The minister replied that he had pursued that some two years ago.

I would like to ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation, now that some two years have passed, for this minister to tell the House today what success he has had in having the Churchill rail line declared in the national interest and to table any supporting documentation that he might have. Hon. Al bert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Transpo rta tion): Mr. Speaker, I have had no success. Mr. Re id: That is an honest comment, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for that. Port of Churchill All- Party Committee Mr. Daryl Reid (Transc ona): Mr.

Speaker, since every day waited is a day lost for Churchill's shipping season, how long does this Minister of Highways and Transportation plan on waiting for letters to cross in the mail before he takes this matter seriously and convenes face-to-face meetings

July 2:�. 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4948 betweEtn an all-p arty Manitoba delegation and the federal minister responsible for the Wheat Board? Hon. Jl'lbe rt Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Trans,)() rtatl on): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whethEtr the member was aware that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board was on the radio last weekend and made some comments which I do not necessarily agree with. He took exception to some of the comments that I have made regarding the movement of grain throu gh the Port of Chur chi ll. Mr.

Speaker, I indicated in this House before that we are pressing as hard as we know how in terms of getting a commitment out of the Wheat Board to have grain movement through the Port of Churchill. I am i:Jtill hopeful that this will happen. I also indicated that if I could not get a positive response that I would come back to the members of the Legislature asking for their support. I am still hoping to meEtt with the federal minister somewhere in the very n1�ar future, hopefully, to continue discussions and t4> continue to press for action in grain movement through the Port of Churchill. *

(1400) Promotion Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) : Mr. Speaker, the peoplE• of Manitoba want to know when these meetings are going to take place because as we wait, the shipping season is dwindling away in this provin1;,e. Since this provincial government has failed miserably in its weak efforts to have the Canadian grain shipped through the Port of Churchill, will they at least lend support to the efforts of The Pas-Port of Churchill Promotion Committee who are actively pursuing American wheat shipm ents for Manitoba's port? Hon. Al bert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportati on): Mr.

Speaker, I ju st want to indicate that I have always shown support for the Hudson Bay Route Association and all their activities. I have had the occasion to be out there with my colleagues at the same time and went down to Vegreville, taking members from both parties along down there. Mr. Speaker, this is not a political issue among ourselves in this House. It is an issue that we have with the federal government, with the CN and with the Wheat Board.

As far as the position is of all members of this House, I think we are all supportive and would all like to see a firm long-time commitment for the Port of Churchill. That is what we are working for, and if there is any way that I can enhance, that will enhance the support of all members of this House, I certainly am not adverse to doing that. Atthe presenttime, Mr. Speaker, I wantto indicate that I am still hopeful that we are going to have grain moving through the Port of Chu rc hill.

I was encouraged by the comments by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board on the weekend that he is hopeful also that something will be happening. I can only at this present time do what I am doing, which is pushing hard, and be hopeful that a commitment will be made. Deputy Minister of Finance Civil Service Waiver Mr. James Carr (Crescentwo od): Mr. Speaker, my question is either to the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission or the Minister of Energy and Mines. Last Friday in the House, we asked the Minister of Energy and Mines if Mr.

Charles Curtis, the Deputy Minister of Finance, had received a waiver allowing him to receive remuneration paid out of the Consolidated Fund for his work as chief executive officer of the Manitoba Energy Authority. On Friday, the minister was not sure of an answer. We wonder if he can enlighten the House today. Hon. Harold Ne ufeld (Mnlster of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 1988, we received a legal opinion that a waiver would not be necessary, and the waiver therefore was not received. Pension Benefits Mr.

James Carr (Crescentwoo d): Well, we would like to know whatthe argument was that was passed on to the minister, because it is very clear in The Civil Service Act,

Section 12(4), that you cannot receive two incomes from the government unless you receive a waiver from the Civil Service Commission, which was not done in this case. We had a difficult time looking at the press release and the Order-in- Council of June 1, 1988, determining exactly the salary paid to Mr. Curtis. We would also like to know if there are any pension benefits which go along with the responsibility of the

4949 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MANIT OBA July 22, 19 91 chief executive officer of the Manitoba Energy Authority. Hon. Harold Ne ufeld {Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, the only benefits the Deputy Minister of Finance received as the executive director of the Manitoba Energy Authority was a parking stall at the Energy Authority offices. He did get pension payments the same as any other employee would get but no other benefits. Civil Service Commission Waiver Polley Mr. James Carr (Crescentwo od): Mr. Speaker, we are left wondering what the policy of the government is. It is clear that there is a

section of The Civil Service Act that requires a waiver. We now have at least three examples where the government is treating its employees differently. Let me ask the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, what is the government's policy? Hon. Clayton Manness {Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, just to clarify this matter, the Provincial Auditor, who looked at the June 1 order in '88 and who called it into question, not because of

Section 12 (4) of The Civil Service Act, but because it did not spell out a level of remuneration, and who also took into account that the government was not trying to hide anything, was laying out clearly for the people of Manitoba that Mr. Curtis would be drawing salary from two sources, sensed that the intent of

Section 12 (4) was in no way violated. We have legal opinion as a result of the Provincial Audit or wondering why there was not a remuneration amount spelled out in the June 1 order. We have a legal opinion from legal counsel which clearly spells out that 12 ( 4), the intent of that, was not in any way violated since the government first of all publicly stated that Mr. Cur tis was receiving payment from two sources. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and then the amount in the January '89 order laid out clearly how much Mr.

Cur tis was to receive, that 12 (4) in no way was violated, because, again, even our Supplementary Es tima tes that come down in two departments clearly lay out that fact. I do not know on what course the Liberals are bent on following. It seems to be they are trying to besmirch the back ground and, indeed Mr. Curtis, by way of this continuing question. Everything that the government has done is within the intent of

Section 12 (4), and furthermore, we have legal opinion to support that. I say to them, shame. Oakville, Manitoba Water Quality Ms. Marianne Cerllll {Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I attended a meeting in Oakville on Friday night where the residents there who are concerned about the potential hog operation had a number of guests from other areas of the provi nce, and it showed that it is not a local issue. It is a provincial issue. I saw some pretty fright ening things there. I saw photogr aphs from one area of the province where dead pigs had been allowed to go into a river where people get their drinking water.

I saw photographs where lagoon effluent was being sprayed into the air in high wind. I heard one woman describe her fight to not allow effluent to pass down a municipal ditch and go into her yard, and one other resident described how residents in Whitemouth had gotten kidney disease from drinking contaminated water. My response was, how can this happen? I would ask the Minister of Environ ment to explain to the House how can this happen. Hon. Glen Cummings {Minis ter of Environment) : That is a pretty wide-ranging question, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, if the member has evidence of the allegations that she just made, then she better give them to this department so we can prosecute. The question regarding the meeting that the member went to is a proposed hog lagoon. The question that was raised last week by the concerned citizens in the area is whether or not the human effluent lagoon is in fact leaking. There are a number of reasons that could explain the problems, if there are problems, with that lagoon. There is no evidence of problems. There are only suspicions. We said we would investigate to confirm if that lagoon was, in fact, intact.

We would investigate to make sure that there was no pollution. Allegations do not make the parti es guilty. Ms. Cer llll : Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister or one of his staff had been at the meeting, and he would have the evidence he is asking me to provide him with.

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4950 Sewage Lagoons Regulations Ms. Marianne Cerl lll (Radi sson) : My supplementary question deals with the obvious fact that there is a need for more regulations to deal with waste lagoon proximity to drinking water, to deal with pumping of lagoons and to deal with the spread of livestock waste. What is this government doing to deal with those regulations as well as the enforcement of those regulations? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment) : Mr.

Speaker, if the member is asking If they need additional regulations to control agriculture, let her put that on the record. Perhaps she should look at the regulatory controls that are there today. There is no way that effluent from livestock operations could be allowed, should be allowed or will be allowed to flow into water courses. If she has evidence of dead animals that have been dumped into a water course, then let us have that evidence and we will prosecute.

I am concerned that the member, in good sta nding, such as this member, would bring allegations like that to this Chamber and suggest that in any way there is a desire on her part to have additional regulation to control this when, in fact, what it takes is evidence, not allegations. Agriculture Land Designation Ms. Marianne Cerl lll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, since this issue is not only an environment issue, but is also a zoning issue for agricultural land, my third question is to the minister of municipal affairs.

Will he make the necessary changes in designation of agricultural land for specific purposes like an intensive hog operation to ensure that the land and the environment in the surrounding area can sustain the size and the type of the agricultural proposal that is being made? Hon. Jame s Downey (Minis ter of Ru ral Development) : Mr. Speaker, the member should be made aware of the fact that there is a process which has to be followed before there is the establishment of livestock concentrated operations. There is a planning act, planning districts for which regulations apply.

There is a process that all municipalities-not all, but the majority of them where they are in heavily concentrated areas-are part of. I would invite her to make a presentation when, in fact, there are hearings taking place to express her objections to the development of livestock operation. There is a process which has to be followed. • (1 41 0) Economic Growth Provincial Comparisons Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East) : I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Stat istics Canada has just released figures on the retail trade for May, Mr. Speaker.

This report shows that Manitoba's retail sales are down by 5.7 percent from last May on a seasonally adjusted basis, ranking us nine out of 10 provinces. Even P.E.I. is better than us. Also, after three consecutive years of decline in urban housing starts, Manitoba is experiencing a phenomenal 65.5 percent decline in the first half of this year compared with the same period in 19 90, and as such, we are ranking 10 out of 10 . I want to ask this Minister of Rnance who has given us four budgets: Why is Manitoba's economy performing so poorly? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) : Mr.

Speaker, I categorically reject the member's conclusion of his summation of his facts. I do not deny that our retail sales are anything but robust, but I can indicate to the member that the sales tax revenue, which directly mirr ors the activity in sales, certainly does not show a 5 percent reduction. They are not increasing, but they certainly are not decreasing either for that month, so I would say to him that the more accurate measurement still would be the tax revenue generated, and at this point, we are more or less flat with last year.

I say the hypothesis to his whole question is entirely wrong, and I think then he should go back to his statistics and recompile them. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting a report issued by Statistics Canada today, showing us nine out of 10 , and as I said, and the minister did not respond to this one. In our housing industry, after years of decline, we are still 1 0 out of 1 0.

4951 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 Manufacturing Industry Provincial Comparisons Mr. Leonard Evans {Br andon East) : Mr. Speaker, my other question to the minister deals with manufacturing. I want to know from the min ister: Why is Manitoba's manufacturing industry continuing to shrink? In the first five mon ths of this year, our manufacturing shipments declined by 17 .9 percent over the same period last year, the largest decline of any province, ranking us 10 out of 10 .

I note employment is now averaging 55,000, the first half of 19 91 , but in 19 88, when this government took office, it was 63,000. My question then to the minister is: Why is manufacturing in Manitoba doing so poorly relative to the rest of Canada? Hon. Clayton Manness {Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware, I believe, that there are basically only three or four provinces that have a high manufacturing sector in Canada. We are one of those. Recession obviously hits those provinces with a manufacturing sector the hardest.

It is without question then that Manitoba, because it has a large manufacturing sector, will be hit harder than some other provinces. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there seems to be a stability now taking place within that sector, and furthermore, we do not expect to reach the all-time low in terms of jobs within the manufacturing sector, which it seems to me was in 198 7, in January, when it dropped to 51 ,000. We do not expect to attain that in this present recession, and we would have to drop another 4,000 jobs to hit that . I would think that right now we are setting a new base.

We are hoping and expecting that we are through the recession. We expect we are on a gentle incline. We know the growth out of this will not be incredibly str ong, but it is better to be at a moderate rate than to jump up quickly and then fall off again. That is the great fear now for the economists to whom I speak, is that this may or may not be a false start. I am talking in Canada, and I am not talking about Manitoba, because again, 70 percent of our well-being as a province-the members know this fully well, particularly the member for Brandon East-is as the nation does, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, the nation seems to be slowly coming out of the recession. I would think the member would be happy to hear that Manitoba also is sharing in that. Thank you. Weekly Wages Provincial Comparisons Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East) : We have been doing poorly on retail trade, urban housing, man ufactu ring. Can the minister explain why Manitoba ranks 1 0 out of 1 0 in terms of increases in average weekly wages? In the first four months of this year, we are the lowest in Canada. Even Prince Edward Island has a greater average increase in average weekly wages.

Prince Edward Island was 5 percent; Manitoba was 3.5 percent. Why, Mr. Speaker, are we at the botto m of the heap? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, you know, that is the member's way. He likes to zero in, focus in, on very selective stati stics. I know that we have the sixth or seventh highest average industrial wage across Canada, as is our economic wealth as a province. I do not think the member would find anything untoward in that statement. It would seem to me that the numbers he would point out today, which focus into a month, would not have us changing our rank at all.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, if we are to become competitive as a province in the North American context, certainly in the U.S.-Canada context, it would say that we-and the government is doing a great job in holding back inflationary trends in this province, and that bodes well for economic prosperity in the future. I would think he should be congratu lating us. Decentralization Status Report Mrs. Sharon Carst alrs (Leader of the Second Opposition) : Mr.

Speaker, during the Estimates of the Minister of Rural Development, we were told that 14 6 positions, Civil Service positions, had been moved from Winnipeg to rural Manitoba. During the Esti mates of other departments, however, we were told of a number of layoffs of Civil Service people living and working in rural Manitoba. Can the minister tell the House today how many new jobs are in ru ral Man itoba under this government when he subtracts all the layoffs from the now newly decentralized positions?

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4952 Ho n. James Downey {Mini ster of Ru ral Development) : Mr. Sp eaker, I will take that question as notice. Mrs. Cars talrs: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has told us in Esti mates that there will be 61 fewer positions in rural Manitoba as a result of the government' s budget. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Rndlay) told us that there were eight fewer jobs. The Minister of Rural Development told us there were 1 3 fewer jobs, for a total of 82 fewer positions.

Can the minister tell us what the number is for all of the other departments, excluding those thr ee? Mr. Downey : Mr.

Speaker, for a member who just about a week ago to two weeks ago indicated that there were not enough people in rural Manitoba to carry out a bond development program , new initiatives, has made an about-tu rn and is now showing some interest in rural Manitoba in what one would consider a positive way, I will provide tha t information for her, but I am extremely disappointed in the member and her att itude towards rural Manitoba in saying no one is capable there to carry out the kind of work activity under a rural bond development progr am. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr.

Edward Helwer {Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as follows: Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Con nery) for St. Norbert (Mr . Laurendeau), Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for Morris (Mr . Manness) and St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. Mr. Ge orge Hl ckes {Point Doug la s) : Mr .

Speaker, the following changes were moved by leave during the July 19 meeting of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, and as was agreed to at that meeting, the same changes are now moved in the House. Moved at 1: 40 p.m., Friday, July 19 , 19 91 , by leave, the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Mr. Speaker, the following were also agreed to in comm itt ee. Industrial Relations, The Pas (Mr. Lath lin) for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), Wellington (M rs. Barrett) for Radisson (Ms.

Cerilli), in accordance with the changes made during the July 22, 19 91 , meeting of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations. * (1 420) Mr. Speak er: Agreed? Agreed. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux {Inkster) : Mr. Speaker, with a committee change, I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that the composition of Standing Committ ee on Private Bills be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. House Business Hon. Cl ayton Manness {Government House Leader) : Mr.

Speaker, the parties may also want to change their members on committees because I intend to call also, committee on Statute Law Amendments to consider just one bill, that is Bill 65-1 am sorry-Law Amendments-to consider Bill 65. I would like to do that at roughly 3:30 or right after -(i nterjection)- Right after Private Bills. Mr. Speaker, I will get back on that one. That is not an official- that is not an announcement. Mr. Speak er: Okay. Mr. Manne ss: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Private Bills will, though, sit at three o'clock this afternoon. Mr.

Speaker, I propose to call Report Stage on the bills listed. Would you begin on Bill 2. ORDERS OF THE DAY REPORT STAGE Bill 2- The Amusements Amendment Act Hon. Cla yto n Mannes s {Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mi tchelson), tha t Bill 2, The Amusements Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les divertissements) , reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to.

4953 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA July 22, 19 91 Bill 4- The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportati on (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 4, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (L oi mo difiant Ia

Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 3� The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act Hon. Cl ayton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) , that Bill 35, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg), as amended and reported from the Standing Committ ee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable government House leader (M r. Manness), seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that bill number- An Honourable Member: Thi rty-fi ve, with the leave of the house, Mr. Speaker. Sorry. Mr. Speaker: Oh, okay, that is it. Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) have leave that Bill 35, the City of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg, be reported in? Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. It is agreed. Motion agreed to. Committee Changes Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for The Maples (Mr. Cheema); Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Ge orge Hlck es (P oint Douglas) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett) , that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as follows: St. Johns (Wasy lycia-Leis) for Wellington (Ms. Barr ett); Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Radisson (Ms. Ceri lli); Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for July 22, 199 1 at 3 p.m . Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Committee or Law Amendments be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) forThe Maples(Mr. Cheema), Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Hlckes: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as follows: St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) for Welli ngton (Ms. Barrett), Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), for July 22, 199 1, at 3 p.m. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Glmli (Mr.

Helwer) for Min nedosa (Mr. Gillesh ammer ) ; Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh); Lacdu Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for Pembina (Mr. Orchar d); Fort Garry (Mr s. Vodrey) for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. 81114� The Securities Amendment Act Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh), that Bill 45, The Securities Amendment Act ; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les valeurs mobilieres, as amended and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. 811147- The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of High ways and Transportation (Mr.

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4954 Driedger), that Bill 47, The Hi ghway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route et d'aut res dispositions legislatives, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 50-The Liquor Control Amendment Act Hon. Cla yt on Manness (Government House Lead er): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh), that Bill 50, The Liquor Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia reglementation des alcools, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 51-The Pharmaceutical Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchar d), that Bill 51 , The Pharmaceutical Act;

Loi sur les pharmacies, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 61-The Communities Economic Development Fund Amendment Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Lea der): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey), that Bill 61 , The Communities Ec onomic Development Fund Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur le Fonds de developpement economique local, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 63-The Northern Affairs Amendment Act Hon. Cla yt on Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey), that Bill 63, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les Affaires du Nord, as am ended and repor ted from the St anding Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Committee Change Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): I move, seconded by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for Lac Du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 64- The Energy Rate Stabilization Repeal Act Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Min ister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 64, The Energy Rate Stabilization Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur Ia stabilisation des emprunts d'Hy dro-Manitoba a l'etranger), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 68-The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, to stay in order, I would ask for leave of the House to move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) , that Bill 68, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg), as amended and reported in the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in. Motion presented. Mr. John Plohman (Acti ng Opposition House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, this was done-req uest is being made by the government House leader for leave to do this. I would like some time before leave is granted on this bill until I have had an opportunity to discuss this with our House leader. Mr. Speaker: Okay. We will not even bother putting the question. We will wait till we give this back to the government House leader. Bill 69-The Manitoba Medical Association Fees Repeal Act Hon.

Clayton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchar d), that Bill 69, The Manitoba Medical Association Fees Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur les droits de !'Association

4955 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 medicale du Manitoba), reported from the St anding Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable gove rnment House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 69, The Manitoba Medical Assoc iation Fees Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur les droits de !'Association medicale du Manitoba, reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Agreed? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is that Bill 69, The Manitoba Medical Association Fees Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur les droits de I' Association medicale du Manitoba, reported from the Standing Commi ttee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. All those in favour will please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed , please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. * (1 430) Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Ms. Ju dy Wa sylycla-Lels (St. Johns): On division, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: On division. Bill 71- The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Act Hon. Cl ayton Manness (Government House Lead er): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 71 , The Mineral Explor ation Incentive Program Act;

Loi sur le Prog ramme d'enc ou ragement a !'expl oration miniere, reported from the St anding Comm ittee on Law Amendments be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 73- The Rural Development Bonds Act Hon. Cl ayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey), that Bill 73, The Rural Development Bonds Act;

Loi sur les obligations de developpement rural, reported from the St anding Comm ittee on Law Amendments be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 75- The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Leader) : I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.

Ernst) , that Bi11 75, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi constituant en corpor ation le Fonds de partici pation des travailleur s du Manitoba et modifiant div erses dispositions legislatives, as amended and reported from the St anding Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 68-The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Cla yton Manness (Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, again I ask you to ask the House whether or not there is a willingn ess, with leave, to call for Report Stage Bill 68. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to have Bill 68 reported ? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is agreed. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) , that Bill 68, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2); Loi no. 2 modl fiant Ia Loi de Ia Ville de Winnipeg, as amended and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to. Committee Change Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Mr. Speaker, I have to first rescind the Private Bills comm ittee where I had moved St. James (Mr. Edwards) for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and in its place, I move, seconded by the member for St. James, that the compo sition of the Standi ng Commi ttee on Private Bills be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). Mr. Speake r: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. House Business Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, before I call the motion of Estimates, I would like to indicate that we- well, first of all, ask whether or not there is a willing ness to waive private members' hour.

July 22, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4956 Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed? Leave has been granted. Mr.Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the House to resume Estimates at eight o'clock tonight.

I would ask leave of the House that the comm ittees decide at some hour, whatever time it is appropriate, that they not close off the sitting of the House, that indeed we recess Commi ttee of Supply until som e time tomorrow morning, as determined by the House leader s and the Ch airman of those comm ittees, so in essence, today's sitting will stay open until tomorrow some time before one o'clock , with the leave of the House. Mr. John Plohman (Act ing Oppos Hion Hous e Leader) : Mr.

Speaker, on the matter of House Business, I understood that the House leader for the opposition had agreed that since the committ ees would be starting tomorrow morning at nine o'clock , I believe, there would be not need to go after twelve o'clock tonight. That is my understand ing. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the Committee of Supply to, by some determined hour this evening, come back and sit tomorrow morning at a predetermined time? Is there leave of the House simply to recess this evening until tomorr ow morning? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Spe aker: It is okay? That is agreed.

Mr. Man ness: Mr. Speaker, there is only one other bill of the House that has not had committee set for it. That is Bill 65. Tomorrow then, at the sitting of the new House, we will ind icate then som e time tomorrow afternoon at which time Bill 65 will be heard by the Statute Law Amendments Committee. Mr. Speaker, Comm ittee of the Whole tomorrow afternoon will cons ider the Finance bills and any other new bills that are brought forward . I am thinking mainly Appropriation Act and Loan Act which will be introd uced mostly likely tomorrow. Mr.

Spe aker: I would like to thank the honourable gov ernment House leader for that informa tion. Mr. Manness: Of cou rse, the Amendmen ts Taxation bill will also be considered in Comm ittee of the Whole tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, with that understand ing, I move , seconded by the Min ister of High ways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into a comm ittee 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 Family Services; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Environment. CONCURRE NT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY-F AMILY SERVICES Mr. Deputy Chairman (Marcel Laurendeau) : Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this

section of the Com mittee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Family Services. Does the honourable Minister of Family Services have an opening statement? Hon. Harold Glll eshammer (Minis ter of Family Servic es): Mr. Deputy Chairman, I do have an opening statement and I have copies for my friends in the opposition . I am pleased to present to this comm ittee the 19 91 -19 92 spending Estimates of the Department of Family Services. In our governmenfs budget previously tabled, the department's allocation for the 19 91-1 992 fiscal year is a total of $571 ,1 1 8,800.

That is an increase of nearly $37 million or a 6.9 percent increase over the 19 90-91 Adjusted Vote . From this the Department of Family Services will provide for the funding and delivery of vital social servi ces and income secu rity measu res to strengthen and support Manitoba families. This funding represents the largest increase of all gove rnment departments and, during a time of zero growth in pro vincial revenue, demon strates the priority our go vernment places on Family Services.

Largely because of the economic recession and federal cutbacks, the Department of Family Services prog rams are facing increasing caseloads and demands for service. As a consequ ence, we have redirected or refocused our limited resources to ensur e that services are maintained for individuals and families most in need. We are confident this approach is the best possi ble method

4957 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MANIT OBA July 22, 19 91 for protecting and assisting needy and vulnerable Manitobans during tough economic times. This budget reaffirms the fact that strengthening and supp orting Manitoba families and helping Manitobans help themselves are among our govern ment's hig hest prior iti es. With this commitment in mind, we have increased the budget allocation for income maintenance programs in 19 91 -92 by $30.5 million or 12. 2 percent. This large increase is required to ensure social assistance is available for Manitobans unemployed as a result of the national economic recession.

At the same time, we will be introducing a more timely and effective method of payment of annual tax credits to social allowance recipients. Starting January 19 92, social allowances rates will be increased to include a regular monthly payment of tax credits. This will also provide a deterrence to income tax discounters who will no longer have access to those tax credits .

Our government has also restructured daycare funding to reflect a continuing commi tment to child daycare with a 2 percent funding increase and a refocusing of our priorities from funding spaces and centres to assisting Manitoba families who can least afford daycare. The department's funding for communi ty living and vocational rehabilitation program s will increase by $2 million or 5.4 percent in this fiscal year. We have initiated consultation on a new act for the mentally handicapped to replace

Part 2 of The Mental Heal th Act. This action will provide interested individuals and organizations with an opportu nity to make their views known before a bill is finalized for introduction in the Legislature next session. We will take steps to increase the number of spaces for Manitobans with mental handicaps in supervised apartments, commu nity residences and day programs. Funding for the department's Child and Family Services Division will increase by $8.9 million or 8 percent this fiscal year over the 19 90-91 adjusted vote .

As previously announced, we have restructured Winnipeg's Chil d and Family Services agencies as part of a broad strategy of system reform . We are confident that the st eps we have recently under taken and the future initiatives we are considering will improve the services available to Manitoba's vuln erable children and families. • (1 450) The department will develop a Manitoba program for three deaf, blind rubella victims during 19 91 -92. In addition , we are finalizing our review of funding models for wife abuse shelters supported by this department.

The Department of Family Services is very aware of the tough economic times currently facing Manitobans and the zero growth in revenues. Howeve r, we have been able to maintain and actually expand by 6.9 percent our support for social assistance and social services through what we believe to be a realistic recognition of priorities and allocation of resources. This department has also launched several major reforms in a variety of areas, including daycare and Child and Family Services.

These fundamental changes will address problems in the existing services and ensure that our tax dollars are focused to providing the best service possi ble. This budget and its proposals demons trate our gove rnment's comm itm ent to sust ain and pr otec t those Manitobans mo st in need. Mr. Deputy Chairman, I look forward to any questions and comm ents from other members. Mr. Deputy Chairman: We thank the honourable Minister of Family Services for those comments. Does the critic from the off icial opposition party, the honourable member for Wellington, have any opening comments? Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chair, I most certainly do. I thank the minister for his introductory remarks. I think that, by the time we have comple ted our discussion of the Estimates for his department, we will have addressed , at least in one form or anothe r, most of the issues and the areas that he has talked about in his opening remarks. I do have a fair number of comments that I want to make at the beginning of this Estimates process. I beg the indu lgence of the Estimates committee, the minister and the other critic while I make those commen ts.

At the end of the last Estimates period early in December, when we figured we would be back here fairly quickly, !, in my closing com ments, made what I believe are several, in retrospect, prophetic statements, and I would like to, for the record , read them into Hansard.

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4958 The first one: "I anticipate that this department, which I think of as a living thing, will cont inue to change and evolve over time and would anticipate there might even be some changes between now and the next time we meet." The second statement that I made at the end of my remarks at the end of the last Estimates was: " . . . the next budget Estimate process will probably be different than this one." I would suggest the actions that the gove rnment has taken in severa l major areas this sessio n-a ctually the actions, the planning for, which probably was underway as we spoke last ti me, certainly reflect major changes in this department.

I think they will form the basis certainly of the issues that are mo st important in this department for me at this time. I would like to start again by saying that this department, as I stated late last fall, is in many ways the most important department in the gove rnment. There will be people who would disagree with me, and I am sure every single department would have its sponsors for that role. The reason I say that is that it deals with issues, people and problems that are, by definition, the most intractable that we as society have to face.

It deals with these issues, problems and people when they have become the most problematic. We have tried to work-1 am speaking of all governm ents over the past years-<: ertainly talk about prevention and talk about helping people with problems before they become really difficult problems, but in reality we are still dealing with, in this department more than any other one I believe, those situations when they have become critical and crisis.

Much as we would like to make a change in that regard, the reality is that we are still dealing at that part, at that point, in the process very far along, and I am including all governments in that context. I think that in the last six months that has become even more clear that, not only the department, by definition, at least at this point in our society's history, deals with critical situations, but also the gove rnment's ac tions in the last six months have made that even more so the case than was before . I will get into that later on in my commen ts.

I think that we would all agree- well, I would assume that we would all agree- that the two areas this department deals with that have had the largest changes in them since last December have been the areas of Child and Family Services and the areas of daycare. The minister talked about both of those changes-! refuse to call them reforms as he does-ha ving taken place since the last Estimates process. I am going to talk in my opening remarks about those two areas.

Not that I say that the oth er areas in the department are not important and vital in their own way, but given the actions of the gove rnment and the process tha t the government has undertaken since last December, I believe those are the two major areas to be dealt with. To get a little philosophical here, if I may, when I started to think about what I wanted to say today and what I wanted to put on the record as this very important Estimates process begins, I started to think about the fact that humankind is a social animal.

We, generally speaking, function best when we function in groups, when we work toget her as a unit, either a dyad or a family or a cultural group or an ethnic group or a comm unity of interest or a club or a political group such as a province or a city or a nation. I think that one of the things that we do as a social animal is that we give up some of our individual rights for the collective greater good, so that we agree that when a red light appears on the street corner that we sto p. Most of us agree to that.

Sometimes it does not happen, but we have agreed to give up our individual right to just carom down the street for the greater collective good of being able to have traffic flow more or less expeditiously. That is a very small example of the kind of thing that we as social animals have worked on. We also Interact. We spend most of our time interacting or thinking about interacting or trying to deal with the positive or negative outcomes of interactions. Because we are social animals, we live togeth er, sometimes well and sometimes not so well.

A couple of things that I think are very important in that regard are a couple of concepts that facil itate our abil ity to work, li ve and play together -our trust in commun icatio ns. I think what trust is, is when one partner in the social interaction says something, there is a basic underlying trustthat what they say will actually happen, that what they are talking about is true. If a statement is made that something will happen, it will happen to the best of everybody's ability, and if something is not stated, then it is not part of the interaction.

4959 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA July 22, 19 91 The other thing is communi cation , and that is when the two partners or two parties to an interaction say a word or use a word that there is agreement, tacit or explicit, that the words mean the same thing to both parties. Those two basic elements, I believe, hold true or need to be followed if social interaction on any level, individual group or societal , is to function properly. They are even more important.

They are important in any kind of relationship, but I think they are even more important when you are dealing with an unequal relationship, when one party to the partnership, if you will, has more authority and power than the other party does, then it is even more important that commu nication and trust be clear, that they be followed and that they be understood, especially by the partner that has the influence and the authority . * (1 500) We all know about power differentials and power problems in personal interactions, in busin ess interactions and in interactions between parents and children.

Every relationship that we as humans enter into has that basic power differential in it. There are very few relationships that are completely equal, where the parties are completely equal. We can try and work toward that, but there usually is always an inequality.

I would suggest-1 think the minister probably knows where I am leading-that in both the cases of the Child and Family Services and the daycare, the government, in its role of su perior in po wer posit ion, has mi sused, undermined and com pletely gone against those two basic concepts that we need as social animals in order to fu nction in our society, and that is commu nication and trust.

The things that the minister said in Estimates and in Question Period last fall and up to as recently as three weeks ago, as far as Child and Family Services are concerned, have been proven to be inaccurate and knowi ngly inaccurate. The situation is the same for the daycare concept, that there was an interaction that took place where there was trust and a sense of good will and an understanding on the part of one part of the equation that was not followed through on the part of the go vernment.

In those cases, if I may have some time, I would like to put on the record some of the gove rnment's statements in this regard. First of all, I would like to talk a little bit also about something that has been mentioned before and that is the change in the gove rnment's actions from the time, the two and a half years, when they were a minority gove rnment to the behaviour on the part of the government once they became a majority not quite a year ago.

In the area of daycare, the govern ment instituted , in response to the day of protest, a working group In 19 89 to hop efully work togeth er with the government and the various components of the daycare commun ity in Manitoba to try and figure out how best, in a co-operative effort, to make the daycare system or conti nue to have the daycare system be a model for North America, as it had been up to this point. The short-term recomme ndations of the working group, which were made public again while the gove rnment was st ill in a minority situation , have been very much followed.

Howeve r, once the gov ernment no longer required the assistance of the two opposition parties, the child care working group commu nication and trust had a sea change. There was a major switch . In particular, I would suggest that the whole concept of commu nication has been completely turned on its head when It comes to the long-term recommendations brought forward by the working group, and I will get into that in a few moments. The meanings have been twist ed.

The concept of the long-term recomm endations that the minister, in his announcemen t of the major changes to the child care system, made public on April 18 deliberately, in my mind, misconstrued what the working group felt that they were in all good conscience all about. I do not think it is coincidental that this happened after the government had a majority, that It would not have happened had the government been required to work with the opposition parties. Just one example-there are several, actually, examples that I could quo te from in the press.

The Free Press editorial of April 20, shortly after the announcement was made, that the go vernment, when it was in a minority, stated their commitment to affor dable, accessible quality child care. They worked with a working group on fee increases. They worked on salary enhancement grants. They worked on all of these issues as a minority government. Even the Free Press states that clearly that changed in April, quote : The message is clear. The gove rnment does not regard the cost

July 22, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4960 of good care for young children as much of the taxpayers' business. It goes on to talk about the impact that the child care rate increases and fee increases would have for families. We will, I am sure, get into that in much greater detail later. On February 27- this is prior to the changes announced on April 18- the Manitoba Child Care Association issued a press release that was hea ded: Conside red cuts to child care unacceptab le. Based on a budget document that was made available to the media and the Child Care Association and the opposition

part ies, looking towards decreased funding and major changes to the system. The Manitoba Child Care Association at that point was beginning or maybe continuing to feel that since the government had a majority things were not as they had been earlier in a minority situation . The Child Care Association and others have been very consistent in their comments and their concerns about the child care program in the province of Manitoba and the need for a commitment on the part of the government to continued quality daycare.

It became more and more obvious as the time wore on that the government, while continuing to say they were committed to quality daycare, their actions gave the lie to those stat ements. The actions of the government in daycare are certainly not reflective of either of the working gr oup s reco mmendations nor of the government-appointed child care task force, the recommendations in that document as well. I would like to quote the executive director of the Manitoba Child Care Association in the June 28 edition of the Free Press.

She stat ed: "We bargained in good faith and the government turned against us and ignored us." That is a very good example, to my way of thinking, of the communication and trust elements that I was speaking of earlier, how the government in a position of superiority, as far as power is concerned, once they had that position of superiority in a majority government did not communicate properly, did not commun icate in good faith . Certainly their actions would not give anyone a sense that in the child care situation that they could trust the government to do what they said they could do.

Far from continuing to support accessibility and quality child care, which the government still states its objectives are, it appears that the government Is determined to fundamentally alter the child care system. Instead of making it accessible, it will be more costly. Instead of making it affordable, it will be less accessible. Instead of ha ving it be largely delivered out of nonprofit centres and family homes, it is going to be driven by the profit motive. The quality of care is, I would suggest, not even gradually but rapidly going to deteriorate.

In this case, as is often the case with actions taken by this government, the people who will suffer are the people who can least afford to suffer, and that will be the children and families of our province. In the child care situation, I think this is a good example of the lack of trust and the lack of honest com muni cation that has taken place by this government. The second major area of concern in this department is, of course, the Child and Family Services debacle, if I can use that word.

I would like to put on record a bit of discussion about my sense and my feeling of the context of what has happened in the last month. * (15 10 The Children's Aid Society in the early '80s had some major problems, and I do not think anybody in this room who was around or who knows any of the history would disagree with that.

The government of the day understood that there were major problems and spent over two years working with the agency, where it could, working with workers, publ icly con sulting, publicly discussing the problems and what could be done about it and finally made a decision after years of open public consultations to decentralize, based, I might add, on a lot of studies, theory and work that had been done that showed that decentralization was a legitimate and probably the best way to go for the Child and Family Services agencies in this context.

The decentralized Child and Family Services agencies, the six of them, which by the way went from three to six, the Child and Family West was an independent agency, Child and Family Services of Eastern, as we all know, is an 86-year-old independent agency and CAS-those three agencies became six. Since the decentralization took place, I think everyone would also agree that there have been a

4961 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 22, 19 91 number of creative tensions that have arisen, areas where the agencies and the government, the agencies and staff, the agencies between themselves did not always agree, had very different views of the problems and how to make the changes. Much of that, we believe, was due to an und erfunding of the new system from the very beginning. That was, I think, largely based on the fact that it was a new system and people were not sure what we were going to find.

What we found out was the system actually ended up being a victim of its own success, tha t becaus e of the decentralization, because people were commu nity based, because the service delivery was very localized, because the boards were brought in from their own com munity, because people in the commu nity felt more at ease with dealing with the agency than they had the old CAS, the caseloads and the probl ems just mushroomed. The funding, under either of the last two governments, did not keep pace-n o question about that.

Again, a major difference between what the government of the day did in its first two and a half years when it was a minority go vernment and what it has currently done. The government up until early this year even was talking about maintaining the decentralized syst em, working with the agencies. I would like to put on the record , in one spot here, several comments and quotes from the minister in that regard. The first quote is 0ctober 17 , 1990 , from Question Period, when I asked the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) to provide a list of mandated services to the children of Manitoba that should be cut as a result of the inadequate funding all ocatio ns. The minister's response was: "Mr. Speaker, the department is actively working with Child and Family Services agencies on their progr ams and budgets and service agreements, and there should be no reason to cut any services. The agencies are working with the department to work within a balanced budget." Co-opera tion, the order of the day. Commun ication and basic trust were still present one would assume.

On Nov ember 8, again, in Question Period, in response to a question of mine about debt payments on the bank loans that the agencies have been forced to take out, the minister respo nded: "Mr. Speaker, the agency boards are responsible for making numerous decisions. At the present time they are working with the department to set these priorities, and the funding will be forthco ming as the service and funding agreements are signed. Again later, in response to a question from the member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock), the minister states, the agencies • ... are working in concert with the department to set these priorities at this time," again working with, working between the agencies and the govern ment. On Nov ember 16 in Estimates, the last time we were here in Estimates, the minister: "I would hasten to point out that we are working in a facilitative manner." Again: "I can tell you that we are working with the agencies. I met with the agency presidents and their director some two weeks ago. We had a very good meeting in terms of working out some partnerships.

I think that the Member has to know that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes between the department and the agencies to resolve this probl em." I would sugg est from the first part of that, • ... that there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes," was more than accurate and that the second phrase, "bet ween the depa rtm ent and the agencies," was less than the full truth. November 20, again in Estimates last year, quote, Mr.

Gilleshammer: • ... the Agency Relations Bureau and, more appropriate ly, the branch that deals with Child and Family Services agencies is right now in the process of examining the workload and working with budgets for the coming year with the prospect of putting in place service and funding agreements that both the Government, as the funder, and the agency, as the delivery vehicle of the service, can both live with." Again, we are working together with the agencies. Finally, on No vember 20, the minister, in response to a comment from Mr.

Alcock, said, and I quote: "So I would ask him to con tinue to be patient as we put more of these service and funding agreements into place, and I think you will find that they indeed will be successful." November 20, yet again, the minist er: "We feel that part of the service and funding agreements that is going to make this department more accountable to the public and more successfu l in the long run is to ensure that balanced budgets come forward ... and that we sign appropriate service and funding agreements . . . based on the budgets that will be discussed between this department and the agencies."

July 22, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4962 Finally, in Estimates on Novem ber27, quote , from the minister again, and this is one of my favo urite quo tes: "I think again that if you give the department and the agencies an opportunity to work togeth er on these service and funding agreements over the next few weeks and months, we will be able to have these put in place." I would like to -(interjection)- I am sorry, I did not realize there was a time limit. Mr. Deputy Chai rman: There is a 30-minut e time limit. Ms. Barrett : I am sure I will have ample opportunity to put more com ments on the record.

We all know what happened on June 24 of this year with the Child and Family Services agencies.

I would jus t sugges t tha t in the areas of commu nication and trust that this government, the Minister of Family Services and his cabinet colleagues, knew in November that they were not going to sign the service and funding agreements, that they had no intention of signing the service and funding agreements, that work had already begun on the restructuring and the recentralization of the Child and Family Services agencies. * (1 520) The minister, when he stated in the media as late as mid-May that we will look at various option s, by that time certainly knew that he had no intention of looking at various opt ions, that it was a done deed by that time, and I would just close my opening remarks with the statement that in both of these cases the majority government of the day has proven itself to be nontrustworthy and not caring about the people whom it works with and is su pposed to provide services for and that the gove rnment will soon er or later be held accountable for its actions.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair. Mr. De puty Chairman: We thank the honourable member for Wellington for those comm ents. Does the critic from the second opposition party, the honourable member for Osb orne, have any opening comments? Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborn e) : Mr. Deputy Chairman, I will just put a few brief comm ents on the record just to frame the discussion that we are going to have this Estimates.

I am a little disappointed that Family Services has arisen so late in the Esti mates period and that we have so little time to deal with the many important questions that arise from this department. · I think, thou gh, I want to frame the discussion I want to have in a couple of ways.

In part, the feelings that I have about this minister and about his stewardship of this department are, in some ways, summed up in the speaking notes which he distributed at the beginning of this session, in which he points out that the department has received nearly $37 mill ion in financial support in the most recent budget and then goes on to detail $41 .4 million in increases. It is that kind of deception and du plicity that we have come to expect from this department under the stewardship of this minister.

That is something that I hope we can use the time available to us in this Estimates period to sort out, that we can perhaps, although given the constraints of time and the difficu lty in extracting quality information from this department, I expect that it is going to be a difficult and less than fruitful process.

I want to start by saying, I think that in many ways I have been naive and too trusting with this gov ernment in the area of Family Services, that I have suffered under the belief that this, with the possible exception of the Housing department, is the only service of gove rnment, the only department of government, that really reaches out to provide something to a relatively small portion of the population who need something from the entire commu nity. It is the only department where we say we are going to allocate a portion of our provincial wealth to support some people differently than we support other people.

I think that is a feeling that most Manitobans hold very strongly. I know when I surveyed on the budget, despite the fact that the majority of people who I surveyed received no services from Family Services, they were very strongly supportive of the department and very much wanted to see the department receive the kind of resources necessary to provide the supports that it delivers. I have suffered from the belief that the issues that confront this department should not be political, that they really should not be driven by political philosophy.

I suspect that I am too trusting and too naive when I do that because any time you are allocating scarce resou rces, political considerations arise. I am surprised, frankly, at how clearly they have arisen, how quickly they have arisen and how stark they are with this particular government, this particular government which seems to hav e-a nd I have to tell you, I did not hold this-1 welcomed the arrival of this minister.

4963 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MANIT OBA July 22, 19 91 In fact, I welcomed the arrival of this minister in the House, in the Estimates and in the communi ty, and felt that we had a minister in charge of the department who was prepared to work with the communi ty to make decisions about services that were based not on some kind of political ideological position but were based on some kind of analysis, some understanding of what was really occurring with people in the commun ity and that therefore we would get program decisions that reflected an intelligent solution to the very complex and difficult problems that confront peopl e.

What we received are a series of decisions that seem to suggest that women should be at home raising kids, children should be at 4-H and people who are on income support are the authors of their own misfortu ne, that we have taken a system-now , I am not one to suggest that previous governments have been completely apolitical in their approach to the services. I think it is something that all gove rnments should strive to be, but the previous government, as the member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett) mentioned in her opening remarks, did strive to base its decision on extensive consultation and interaction with the affected commun ity and broad public debate. That is something this gove rnment seems completely com mitted to avoiding, that rather than discuss these extremely important issues in public, they are doing everything they can to quiet debate, to reduce dissent, to shut off the access of the people who provide these services to those organs that allow people to have some discussion in this commu nity. I really feel very badly about that.

I think it is because we are dealing with such a relatively small portion of the popula tion that it is necessary we debate these things publicly, that it is necessary we have that discussion, that if we run into the kinds of problems we have run into in Family Services, the com munity should be faced with the fact that child abuse is increasing at a tremendous rate and, yes, we want to get involved with those cases, and, yes, we want to intervene, and we want to take respo nsibility. The commu nity has asked us to do that.

We should confront the commu nity with those decisions, not try to pretend it is not happening, not hide it, yet every action this minister has taken, across all of the services he provides, has been to stifle dissent and to cut off legitimate criticism of government policies. I think, in framing the discussion, I want to try to lay out some things for the minister and for the department so that perhaps we can move more expeditiously through some of the divisions this department encompa sses, and perhaps we can have some of the information available to us as we start the debate.

You know, there are a series of broad questions that come up here, and there are some pieces of informati on, such as the grants list, with reference to the previous and the current budget year that would be useful to have before us when we begin the discussion. It would be very useful to have a specific breakdown of the $36,874,600 that makes up the increase, to know where that money goes to. It would be useful to have a breakdown of the budg etary changes.

As this gove rnment has attempted to hide what it is doing, it, of course, has realigned some of the lines within the Esti mates in order to make it difficult to look back at a previous year and to det ermine where increases are occurring. It would be interesting to have that breakout so that we could deal with real information and real issues rather than speculating on what is happening. I would also like to have some answers to questions on the changes that are occurring in Income Security with the 55-Plus, with the Special Needs funding.

I would like to know why it has taken a year-1 guess it is not a year, it is a little less than a year, about 1 0 mo nths-- to get a policy manual into the library, as was comm itted in the last Estimates, so that any Manitoban who is on Income Security can know what the policies are that affect them. I would like to know why, when we talked at great length about rehab and commu nity services, about how It dealt with some of the most vul nerable people in this province who were the most ignored, because we tend not to be very forgiving toward dependent adults, that division has a decrease.

I would like to have some detailed explanation of where that decrease has come from and who will be affected. I would also like to know, and I have been through the Annual Report several times trying to sort this one question out: How many individuals does this department serve? How many people, not people who are served and counted many times through different services that are provided to them, but how many individuals, adults and children, does this department serve in total ? I think that would be interesting.

July 22, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4964 I am going to be fascinated to listen to the discussion on Child Day Care. Here is one that I have to ask the minister a series of questions on. One is, certainly, why was this announced at three o'clock in the afternoon if you are so proud of the incredible improve ments in services that this has made? Why is it that you sneak these things in at a time when you think you can avoid some of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-90a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 90a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4f1e85a76945b7177e33aa5107a42714568d9a9c

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