Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 62 (33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-62

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 4 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. PRESENTING PETITIONS 1, MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I beg to present the petition of the Southwood Golf and Country Club, praying for the passing of

An Act to Incorporate the Southwood Golf and Country Club . MADAM SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . · MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to table in the House today copies of the 1987 Constitutional Accord which I signed yesterday in Ottawa, along with the other First Ministers of Canada . The Accord is an historic document.

It is historic because of what it contains and because of what it symbolizes, a renewed spirit of good will and reconciliation across Canada. I'm particularly proud of the contribution Manitoba was able to make in creating the new Accord. I fully expect support for the Accord in the Opposition of this House. As Manitobans who believe deeply in good will, tolerance, who place great contribution in a strong confederation, I think we can all be proud of today . Madam Speaker, the Accord could not have happened without give and take by every government, by every province, by every region represented at the table.

What emerged was not exactly in the form we might have wished, but I'm absolutely sure that the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec, the Premier of Alberta and every other Premier would say exactly the same thing . It was a remarkable achievement. In a partnership which means something, the partners have to compromise . They have to find accommodation. That is what Canada is all about; and , as Premier Ghiz said yesterday, that is what makes Canada work . Going into the conference earlier this week, our main priorities were quite straightforward.

We had five goals : to strengthen the spending power clause; to secure our multicultural heritage; to protect aboriginal rights ; to ensure national public hearings; to help prevent the territories from having a more difficult time to become provinces in the future . We made important gains in four of these five areas, and the door is not shut on the fifth.

As I said yesterday, we wanted to make certain that the powers of the national government remain strong enough to enable it to establish new national programs, to ensure that all provinces and regions will share more fairly in the benefits of Canada's development. The spending power provision in the new Accord meets that objective . It also gives provinces the breathing room we require to design programs which reflect our own circumstances . Spending power provis ion gives all Provincial Governments the opportunity to make positive and creative improvements in program delivery and in design .

But it also makes clear thal the Government of Canada will have .a strong role in establishing the direction of these programs, in ensuring that they are consistent with national objectives in the national interest. Another of our major concerns was to ensure that the distinct society provisions which were designed to protect Quebec's cultural heritage did not unintentionally undercut constitutional protection for other Canadians . Again, we were successful in meeting those concerns .

The Accord we signed yesterday contains a clause which explicitly safeguards Canada 's multicultural heritage and the rights and the status of the aboriginal peoples of Canada . Again, these provisions aren't perfect but they represent a major gain, compared to the Meech Lake Accord, and they are of special importance to us in Manitoba. I would not have signed the agreement yesterday without those protections for the people of our province .

Unfortunately, the Accord does not explicitly meet our concern or the concern of aboriginal Canadiafls about the fleed to get on with the job of developing strengthened constitutional guarantees for aboriginal rights , including self-government rights . I remain hopeful, however, that the Federal Government will soon make a commitment to a new process of constitutional negotiations on aboriginal concerns. We'll be pressing for that commitment in the coming weeks.

I should say here as well that we do not see the Accord as having impact one way or the other on the matter of French Language Services in our province or other areas outside Quebec. The Meech Lake Agreement, in principle, and the 1987 Constitutional Accord were not and are not intended to change the status quo in that regard. Heading into the meeting in Ottawa, I was also concerned about the importance of nation-wide public hearings on the Accord . Here, too, we were successful in securing such a commitment .

The Prime Minister outlined in the House of Commons yesterday that there will be ample opportunity for public debate across Canada , with the Federal Government playing an important leadership role, as it should . As I said in my statement in Ottawa yesterday, these hearings will be critical to establishing the national consensus that the Accord must earn if it is to achieve what we all hope for it. Those hearings will be particularly valuable for assessing not only each provision in detail 2121 ·

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 but also the package in its entirety. Our own hearings here in Manitoba will also be extremely important. We will be speaking to the Federal Government about their hearing plans to ensure that our two processes will complement each other. Madam Speaker, the one issue on which progress was not made at our meeting was the issue of the Territories and their hope eventually .to achieve provincial status. I remain convinced the ·existing provisions -for the creation of new provinces · should continue to apply to the existing Territories, at least.

Madam Speaker, a little over a month ago; on the eve Qf the Meech Lake meeting, I outlined Manitoba's basic position on the Constitution negotiations. I said that firstly; most importantly, our primary responsibility is to protect and to advance the interests of the citizens of our province. I also said, fully consistent with that responsibility, is our duty as Canadians - to do all we can to help and to unite Canada . I believe the -1987 constitutional Accord will show that we've worked very hard to fulfill those responsibilities.

Manitoba has a long and a proud tradition of contributing to nation building, often contributing more than others because of our unique position within Canada. Manitobans know the importance of a strong federal government . Manitoba also understands the importance of strong provinces and strong regions. Manitobans value our multicultural heritage and we pride ourselves, our tolerence, our sense of community.

Most of all, I believe Manitobans have built a reputation for fairness, for a willingness to work cooperatively with other Canadians, to find solutions that will bind our country, east and west, closer together. I think Manitobans have a vision of Canada, of our place within Canada, that will be well-served by the Accord that we signed yesterday. It will maintain a strong central government with the capacity and the continued responsibility to respond fairly to the concerns of all regions.

It strikes a balance which will give Manitoba room to create, to grow and to make the best possible contribution we can to the future of our nation. Madam Speaker, I truly believe Canada will be the stronger because of what we achieved during the past two days that is good for our country, that is good for Manitoba. I commend the Accord to this House, and I wish to thank all Manitobans for their support throughout these important negotiations . Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I begin by thanking the Premier for the statement to the House today, and I compliment him for the efforts and the effect that his participation in the constitutional talks had. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I welcome -the signing of this Accord, the agreement for an amendment to our Constitution in Canada. I know that the Premier has already indicated the history and the tradition of support by this province for nation-building of a nature such as this particular constitutional amendment.

I appreciate the comments that were made about previous administrations and previous Premiers having 2728 participated in such efforts, as I know Premier Lyon and my colleague , the Member for St. Norbert, were very much involved in these discussions that took place in 1980 and'81 that led initially to the Constitution being brought home to Canada. Madam Speaker, in all of those efforts I know that there were sincere desires on the part of all of the Premiers, a sincere desire certainly on the part of Premier Lyon, to ensure that Quebec was included in the Constitution.

I know that indeed most Canadians will welcome the fact that Quebec can now be a full partner in Confederation, a full partner and signatory to our Constitution . Madam Speaker, I know that this is an example of the kind of achievement that can occur as a result of good will on the part of all participants , And all of us kriow the great differences of opinion, of concern that exist amongst the regions of Can·ada, great differences of political views throughout the regions of Canada .

But at the same time, that was overcome by a sincere desire to achieve the purpose of ensuring that Quebec could join as a signatory to the Constitution . With that good will there, and the leadership of the Prime Minister and all of the Premiers, and certainly including the Premier of Manitoba, that was achieved, and I say I agree . I've said before that this is a remarkable achievement and one of which all participants, I think, can be proud.

Madam Speaker, I believe that it occurred because the First Ministers derived their sense of good will from the people of their provinces and the country who had wanted this to occur, wanted Quebec to become a signatory to the Constitution under reasonable circumstances . Those reasonable circumstances obviously were able to be worked out amongst the Premiers despite their differences of view and concern on a variety of issues. So I believe that sense of participation and good will should be carried forward by the process that has been set in place.

I am very pleased that the process that has been set in place for the consideration and eventual approval of the constitutional amendment in Manitoba involves public hearings. The Rules changes that we passed in this Legislature last Session mandate that public hearing process. I know that at the time it was a matter of debate and discussion. It evolved from the massive disagreements that occurred in this province over the language issue constitutional amendment.

Madam Speaker, that and the process, the bell ringing and all the incidents that took place, led eventually to a consensus agreement from both sides of the House that mandatory public hearings on any constitutional amendment should be in place in our rules. It was a good decision.

Madam Speaker, I believe that we should take advantage of that good decision to ensure, a~d I know that the Premier has already indicated that it is his view as well, that the process should not be merely a perfunctory exercise, but should be a meaningful one that sees us, as legislators, prepared to listen to the concerns, whatever they may be, that are raised by people .who will be affected by this proposed amendment; not only listen to the concerns but respond to the concerns by being prepared, if necessary, if appropriate, to make changes.

Because I know that the Premier went through a very gruelling ordeal - 19 l I

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 hours - and along with his officials probably had to consider many alternatives in arriving at this final forum . The final forum is different in some respects than was the original agreement in principle at Meech Lake . It may well be that given the opportunity to review it at some length that the public of Manitoba , legal experts, constitutional experts, specific interest groups, may find suggestions for change that might merit our consideration for change in the eventual wording of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I believe that it's absolutely essential that all of us agree that the hearing process is a meaningful one and that we are prepared not to just go through it for the process of having it happen, but really for the process of hearing the concerns that will be brought forward. Madam Speaker , in reviewing the final text, a number of things have occurred to me during the past 24 hours, concerns that may be brought forward. One of them, of course, concerns that clause on federal spending authority, federal authority to initiate national programs .

I would hope that the Premier will be able to indicate to us his view on the fact that the wording that he talked about earlier this week, Monday, that was to ensure that the national objectives were to be set by the Government of Canada doesn 't appear to be there, rather the fact that the shared-cost programs are established by the Government of Canada, but not necessarily the national objectives are set in those plans . I note from his comment that that will give more llexlblllty to provinces . I wonder whether that doesn't work against the original objective that he went to Ottawa to seek.

Madam Speaker, the Premier has made a number of points . There Is the overriding concern, of course, on the part of many Manltobans, myself included, that this amendment and the fact that now we require ch~nge to some of our institutions, particularly the Senate . We require unanimous consent of the provinces, that this may well be the death knell of Senate reform In any meaningful way. Although there is a commitment to continue to pursue Senate reform, I see a very serious concern about whether or not that will happen as a result of this constitutional amendment.

But I would hope that in the process of the next while, before it becomes finalized , that serious consideration is given on the part of this Premier and the government as to how we can further ensure that it will not be blocked or not more easily blocked because Senate reform is, In my view, a major concern for Western Canadians and one that they see, and I think advisedly so, as being a way of further giving a strong voice to regional interests, better so than is available today.

Madam Speaker , the devolution of certain powers and authorities, certainly to the provinces , is certainly something that former Premier Lyon was very strongly in support of, and we continue to be strongly in support of that . Madam Speaker, we believe, as the Premier has indicated, that it is good for the country, because I believe that most Canadians want Quebec to be a full partner in the Constitution, and in that respect, it's good for the country . I believe, as well, that the devolution of some of these powers to the provinces make it good for Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, we will look forward to the public hearing process . We will assure the Premier and the 2729 people · of Manitoba that we consider the process to be important and one that should be meaningful; and we will do all in our power to insist that it be meaningful , and we look forward to the further input, discussion and contributions that will be made by many Manitobans on this matter . Thank you very much . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs.- (Interjection)- Order please. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: The rules, Madam Speaker, do not provide for me to make a response to th is ot:ivious statement , but considering its impact on our country and our province, I would like leave to respond. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for River Heights . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I would very much like to congratulate the Premier of this province for the initiative that he brought back from the conference in Ottawa over the last couple of days.

I think the single most important victory that Howard Pawley, excuse me, the Premier achieved was public hearings. I consider that a significant victory because this was the only province, No. 1, that was going to agree to those public hearings . Now we have that agreed to also by the Premier of Ontario and we have the Prime Minister also agreeing that in the final solution, it will be Canadians who determine whether this Accord has validity and not merely the negotiations of 11 individuals . I congratulate our First Minister for taking the initiative and leading that drive.

I also, like all Canadians , am delighted that the Province of Quebec will be able to find themselves now, once again, fully at home . I've always felt that they were at home, but there was that last signature, if you will , on the deed which was required to make them feel that the home was also their own; and, therefore, that is to be welcomed. But the reason why I place such value on the public hearings is because I still have many, many doubts about the agreement that was reached by our 11 First Ministers.

I have doubts, Madam Speaker, about the loss of federal powers, about what has happened to our Senate, because I believe it must be elected, and if not elected , abolished . I have great difficulty with the Supreme Court . I have difficulty with 10 provinces being able to establish rules for immigration in this country, because I firmly believe that people immigrate to Canada - they do not immigrate to Manitoba or to Quebec, they come to this country, and I am very fearful that powers given to provinces may be abused by some provinces , hopefully not by my own.

I still have grave difficulties, Madam Speaker, with the new wording and the addition of the word "the" to the opting-out phrase applying to federally initiated programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and I have grave doubts about protection of the rights of the Anglophone population of the Province of Quebec .

Thurs~ay, 4 J1,me, 1987 Therefore, .I believe that with the kind of public hearings , and with the open-mindedness of our Prem ier, as he expressed yesterday , that we can indeed achieve a national consensus, and I congratu late him for being the leader in that direction . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs . HON. E .. HARPER: would like to table the Supplementary Information for Northern Affairs for the 1987-88 Estimates . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney -General. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, yesterday on introduction of Bill No. 48, I undertook to distribute to the House explanatory notes regarding the bill. l'l!e provided the Clerk with· s1,1fficient copies for the House, and I'm formally putting that on the record . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . .. Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, my I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have six students from Grade 9 from the Kelwood School under the direction of Mr. Murray Scott .

The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. We have. six students from Grade 8 from the Lincoln School under the direction of Mr. Blaine Abram . The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park . We have 52 students from Grade 9 from tne John Pritchard School under the direction of Mr. Erwin Kroeker . The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for River East . On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon.

OR~L QUESTIONS Constitutional amendment debate - postponement until fall MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Premier.

Given that we are late in the current Session of the Legislature and that it appears likely that other provinces may not deal with the proposed constitutional amendment until sometime this fall , or maybe · even early next year, will the_ Premier and his colleagues consider leaving the constitutional amendment debate and the public hearings until this fall so that Manitobans will have time to reflect on and prepare themselves for the presentations which should be made in a meaningful way to that hearing process , that public hearing process? MADAM SPl,;AKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , as I indicated in my statement , the most important aspect was to ensure that we complement the hearings on the federal level. I would be most interested in ensur ing that we do work out an understanding. I think that the Government House Leader and Opposition House Leader, and the Member for River Heights, that we ought to discuss the best way of having those hearings , when, and the format of them . I think probably that would be the best route to proceed at this time.

It seems to me, Madam Speaker, we have a cho ice between very early in having those hearings, i n fact, early next year, as I understand some provinces will be having their legislative debate in '88 because of the fact that they 've already adjourned or prorogued their Houses. Meech Lake Accord - t~bling of amendment MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speal<er, on Monday in the Legislature when I asked the Premier, particularly with respect to his concern on the clause that governed federal spending and shared -cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction , the Premier indicated a concern and a desire to put forth a proposed amendment . He said, and I quote : " I don't want to see the defini tion of the national objectives being defined by 10 individual provinces or the courts .

I would like to see the Federal Government define t he national objectives when such a program is implemented ." Both his statement today and clause 106(a)( 1) doesn 't place the responsib ility for being compatible with national objectives , as being defined by the Government of Canada, or the Parliament of Canada , rather , in fact, the Government of ·canada, as just referred to earlier in the clause , in the establishment of these programs , not the defining of the objectives . · I wonder if the Premier can indicate what changed his position on that or why his position has changed on that? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, in fact, my position has not changed . The changes that took place in this paragraph, in relationship to the previous agreement out of Meech Lake, ensure an expansion and more clarity, insofar as the text is concerned vis-a -vis federal spending powers . The Federal Government 's power is more emphatic insofar as the national leadership, in that the emphasis is upon - and it's very clearly indicated here - that it's established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this

section . Those words have been added , then the word " the " before national objectives . ~ The constitut ional lawyers , in fact some 40 of them that had been involved, have a very strong consensus that that links up with the programs that are established by the Federal Government to ensure that the national objectives in fact will be those that will be enunciated by the Federal Government in their establishment of those programs . Also the words that were added after the coming into force of this program protect the existing prog rams 2730 -~ I_

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 that were, in fact, not protected earlier, such as, Medicare, Canada Assistance , and the Canada Pension Plan. I indicate the word " the " tying in with that established by the Government of Canada , after the coming into force of this

section , ensures an

interpretation that can be not other than that the national objectives are those established or enacted by the Parliament of Canada . This was an area of great concern to me. We had many drafts back and forth of different wording . As I say, it was a consensus of some 40 constitutional lawyers that this means exactly as I have indicated , including one of Canada 's best-known constitutional lawyers, Peter Hogg, who wrote "Const itutional Law in Canada," has also given that indication .

So ii appears , Madam Speaker, that there is clear clarity insofar as who establishes the programs , who is responsible for ensuring that the national objectives are clearly spelled out, and that is the Federal Government. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that this proposed amendment would bring about the requirement for unanimous consent by all the provinces for Senate Reform, how does the Premier intend to pur sue Senate Reform when it is made almost Impossible by that requirement? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I must acknowledge my own Inclinat ion In respect to Senate Reform and advise mem bers of the House that this is nol , and Mver has been, a matter of prior ity for me. I would probably tak e this In the oppos ite direction that the Membe r for River Heights had given , and that la fir st abolish and, only If we can't abolish it, look at reform . I may very well be a minority of one, I don't know in that respect. I believe I may not be entirely a minority of one, I believe there may be one or two others , but I expect discussing 11 First Ministers .

So I think, Madam Speaker , we will be required in this process to look at reform , and what is the best reform, because I think we'd all agree in this Chamber that the existing Senate is not an effective institution . I am prepared to participate in a constructive way insofar as this process is concerned, and certainly if I can't win support , I will try, I will try to win support for abolition and replacing it with constitutiona l strengthening under

section 36 of the Constitution Act. If I can't do that I prefer the Triple A any time to the Triple E, one that is abolition , alternative and accountable, Triple A, rather than Triple E any time .

But if I can't do that, Madam Speaker, I certainly want to indicate very clearly that I will attempt to work in a constructive fashion with other First Ministers, to find the best alternative to the existing obviously antiquated and ineffective institution, try to replace it, and I can assure members I will not use my position to veto a worthwhile improvement just because I can't happen to get my own way in respect to my preference . Yukon and Northwest Territories - face difficulties to become provinces MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Premier does not see Senate Reform as a priority .

But , 2731 Madam Speaker , further this same requi rement for unanimous consent by the provinces will make it extremely difficult for the Yukon and Northwest Territories in their ambitions to become a province . What steps does the Premier intend to take to try and correct that situation? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, after we have the public hearings and receive the submissions and there may be at that time suggestions that do command further attention insofar as this document is concerned, I can assure honourable members that, along with comments made earlier, that I would want to take those matters up with the other First Min isters . One of the items I intend to raise again, would be the question of the exclusion of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the almost impossibility of their being created as provinces with the overly restricted provisions that are in this draft now.

I tried, Madam Speaker , but was not successful in getting a loosening up on those restrictions . Constitutional amendment - difficult for aboriginal self-government MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, although I see certain references with respect to the protection of existing Native aboriginal and multicultural rights, I wonder if the Premier can indicate whether or not it will become more difficult under this process, for aboriginal self-government to be achieved after th is constitutional amendment . HON. H. PAWLEY: First , I believe that it will not be more difficult .

Secondly, maybe easier because I believe the momentum of the goodwill that was built up, insofar as these constitutional hearings, could carry over into round two. And on round two, I would hope that aboriginal rights would be dealt with and would be dealt with early if so indicated. I would hope that the momentum , insofar as this is concerned , can be carried over into the discussion on aboriginal rights so we can achieve success . I must acknowledge that I understand the frustration and bitterness of some of the aboriginal leaders in that we were able to resolve this and not the other.

I have asked the aboriginal leaders to consider whether or not they would not have been better with this process, rather than the other process that we've gone through over the last five years, and maybe through this process we might have been more successful in arrivfng at a successful completion of the issue of self-government insofar as aboriginal peoples are concerned. Saudi Arabian contract - when approved MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, August 25, 1986, the then Minister responsible for the Telephone System indicated, in response to my leader, that it is our concern that there be no new initiatives undertaken by MTX pending the management audit , where there are

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 ongoing initiatives involving responsibility for completing undertakings , that matter certainly can proceed after review by Mr. Curtis and the board . My question is to the Minister responsible for the Telephone System : When did he approve the contract in February of 1987, undertaken by the Saudi Arabian joint venture, for a total value of 8.2 million Saud i Riyals? When did the Minister approve that? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MTS. HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, as Mr.

Curtis indicated today at the committee hearing and, notwithstanding the different slant the Member for Pembina is trying to make on it, the contract was tendered at an earlier point than the announcement of the former Minister of Telephones . In fact, it was tendered in eariy 1986. The contract was awarded prior to the announcement of the Minister responsible for the Telephone System in the House . The award of the timing was subject to approval of the Saudi Ministry of Finance, but the contract, based on Mr. Curtis ' assessment, was firm .

There has been no equipment shipped , or money changing hands in terms of this issue. It was merely an issue that was raised in the report in terms of the liquidation scenario, before Coopers and Lybrand . So to project it as something that's been lost, after the point in time that the decision was made by the government, is incorrect. And in fact the only expense would have been some of the bidding expenses, etc ., prior to the date of the wind-down , or the order from the Minister responsible for the Telephone System . MR. I>. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , the Minister missed the question I asked .

When did he or the government or his predecessor approve this sale, given the ban that was placed by his former Minister? HON. G. DOER: Well, Madam Speaker, the sale or the tendering for this particular contract was made some time in late'85 or early '86, and we'll get the date . It wasn't after the instructions of the former Minister of Telephones . We understand, and I'll check the facts, it was made by the on-site management, perhaps Mr. Aysan , I could check those facts in terms of the date, but the whole tendering process was carried on well before the date .

And the valuation, Madam Speaker , that is indicated in the report is not - and I've discussed this with Mr. Curtis - this project had and will not have any effect on the valuation conducted, based on the November '87 financial reports. It was merely an issue, in fact, -the payment for that contract and the obligation for that contract with. SADL will, as the report indicates, will be six to seven months after April 1 potentially and , at that time, the SADL operation's been sold, as has been tabled in this House, and they will be responsible for implementing that contract. Madam Speaker, Mr.

Curtis did indicate that he would provide further details to the member on this issue . He did say in the committee that it didn't affect the essence of the bottom line. It does affect the liquidation scenario , Madam Speaker , and the liquidation scenario was evaluated by Coopers and Lybrand; was evaluated by Charlie Curtis, the Deputy Finance Minister ; and the action the government took was based on recommendations of those professionals. Saudi Arabia sale -

schedule of accounts receivable MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, a new question to the Minister responsible for the Telephone System . In choosing to sell our joint venture in Saudi Arabia to our partner, at which time the partner had lost $3.5 million , and we are losing $20 million in what was to be a 50-50 joint venture , when the Minister agreed to that sale scenario, did the Minister request and receive a

schedule of the accounts receivable that we sold to our Saudi partner for a song? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, we reviewed all the options that were felt to be viable produced by Coopers and Lybrand. One of them was suing the Saudi partner - and there's been specific information on that today in the committee . The second option was the liquidation option, and that again is articulated in the report that's been tabled in the committee. The third option we looked at briefly was a potential sale to any other corporations operating in Saudi Arabia .

In fact , I think there were discussions with Coopers and Lybrand with Bell. I'll have to check the file on that. The fourth option we looked at was selling it to the partners . In terms of the detail of the accounts receivable, and the assets of the corporation, Mr. Curtis and Coopers and Lybrand, who, according to Mr. Curtis, had the best expertise available in Saudi Arabia, evaluated all the potential assets and value of any other course of action .

Madam Speaker, the report that we tabled today from Coopers and Lybrand, consistent with the other reports that were table from Coopers and Lybrand, indicated that the May 2, 1987, agreement provided the optimum return to MTX, and has the additional effect of placing the burden of risk of future losses on MTX's Saudi partner . The partner also incurred financial losses. Madam Speaker, we received that advice from Coopers and Lybrand; we reviewed the options available to us. We had Mr. Curtis on site, the Deputy Finance Minister; he made those recommendations to us and we acted based on their professional opinion.

MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speak\ r, given that the Minister did not answer the question, I can only assume that he, like his predecessor, the Member for St. James MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . simp ly did not ask to see the accounts receivable from the company they sold . 2732

r Thursday, 4 June, 1987 Saudi Arabia venture - how many outside offers pursued MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is: Can the Minister indicate how many outside offers to sell our joint venture in Saudi Arabia were pursued by his government and by this Minister? How many other companies were contacted? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, again the Member for Pembina - and I quite frankly think that I found some of the bullying tactics with Mr. Curtis today quite concerning . Madam Speaker, the Member for Pembina is walking around acting in such a way that he's pure in this position .

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, this organization in Saudi Arabia was managed primarily by a person named Mike Aysan, who has been held accountable. The same person, Madam Speaker, that the Member for Pembina, when he was Minister of the Telephone System , had a bonus given to him for Project Fast, which the Member for Pembina had started, and this same individual, Madam Speaker, has run that corporation into the ground in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Curtis, I thought, did the beat job possible of getting out of a bad deal .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina briefly . MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, one is tempted to offer comment to the lengthy answers which weren 't to the answer, but I know that you would rule me out of order when I attempt to get on the record some nonsense like the Minister responsible for the Telephone System does . Madam Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question about how many firms were being pursued, to sell the assets to . . . MADAM SPEAKER: As the member well knows, a Minister can choose not to answer a question. An insistence on an answer is out of order. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I know , I'm absolutely aware of the rules because these Ministers never answer questions . I simply am pointing out that he didn't answer the question . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? This is question period, not committee debate. Saudi Arabia venture - was same writeoff offered to buyers MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, could the Minister answer the question as to whether , when presumably his government pursued outside buyers, other than the shiek, to sell the Saudi Arabian joint venture, were those outside companies offered the same writeoff of $20 million of receivables to Manitobans that was given to the shiek in attempting to sell it to an outside firm? Was the identical offer made to Bell, as he mentioned earlier and others that they'd pursued to buy the company? HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker, Coopers and Lybrand indicated to us very early on, based on their assessment, that a sale of the company to another corporation was not possible and they did not see that as a viable option . They were the ones operating in Saudi Arabia; they were the ones operating with all the facts of the assets of the corporation, in terms of how much they could determine; they were the ones making the decisions of the assessment on site, Madam Speaker, of what accounts receivable are possible .

Madam Speaker, there's absolutely no question that under the management of that corporation in Saudi Arabia a great number of the accounts, and the equipment that was shipped over there , was shipped to corporations or companies in Saudi Arabia, and the accounts receivable were never collected. That's a fact that's been well-established here, been well-established by Coopers and Lybrand . We had a number of major options to look at. We had advice from Coopers and Lybrand; we had advice from our Deputy Finance Minister that was on site in Saudi Arabia. I did not go through every individual account ; Mr.

Curtis did. On the basis of his assessment, in terms of the potential financial situation of the ventures in Saudi Arabia, he and Coopers and Lybrand came up with the strategy that they felt was the most economical on behalf of the citizens of this province . Madam Speaker, we did not want to protract these negotiations on for months and months and months, and years and years and years, we wanted to get out of a bad deal. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . I remind honourable members that question period is not a time for debate .

Constitutional Accord - Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be upheld MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the First Minister .

Section 16 of the Constitutional Accord signed yesterday says : "Nothing in

section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects sections 25 or 27," and continues, and is the particular section, Madam Speaker, which of course guarantees multicultural heritage and aboriginal peoples' rights in this Constitutional Accord . But , Madam Speaker, it has also raised the question among some constitutional experts that, by excluding those, this accord would in fact violate other principles of the Charters of Rights and Freedoms. Can I have the assurance to this House from our First Minister , that he would certainly work towards making sure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is totally upheld? 2733

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I heard the views expressed last night by the former Justice Minister Jean Chretien, in which he expressed the same concerns now raised by the Honourable Member for River Heights . Out of respect for the concerns of both the Member for River Heights and the former Minister of Justice, I am certainly asking for assurance in that respect and are asking our constitutional law people to give me their opinions in respect to those concerns that have been raised.

Constitutional Accord - right of Anglophone peoples to be upheld by future Premiers MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question to the First Minister . Would the Minister assure this House that, at least to the best of his understanding of the Accord , that the rights of the Anglophone peoples living in the Province of Quebec have indeed been guaranteed, not only by this Premier of the Province of Quebec, but will bind future Premiers , whether they be of separatist or non-separatist leanings? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , the Member for River Heights asks a very good question.

It is one that did cause considerable concern during the discussions that took place . The balance of legal opinion was that , indeed, the Anglophone minority group in Quebec were not prejudiced as a result of these clauses . In fairness , I must acknowledge that there were some other legal opinions that we had received that expressed a marginal possibility. I think it is important, over the next period of time , to satisfy ourselves from that perspective, but we did have solid legal opinion provided by the majority of the advisors that were consulted that they would not be prejudiced in a negative way.

As I say, I acknowledge openly that there was some concern expressed on that point. Bankruptcies - reason for high num~r MA~AM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: . Thank you, Madam Sp.eaker. My question is to the Minister of Business Development . Madam Speaker, we, on this sjde of the Ho.use, have said that we are in an economic bubble, an economic bubble that is buoyed by massive public spending with borrowed . money.

Can the Minister explain why, in 1986, we had the highest number of bankruptcies in the history of this province, over double that of 1985, . in fact , Madam Speaker, we had 665 . bankruptcies in Manitoba? Can the Minister explain why this high number of bankruptcies is occurring when we're supposed to be in good times? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Dt;iyelopment. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Madam Speaker, it's clear from all of the economic indicators that are collected by all of the financial institutions, that Manitoba 's economy is better than any other economy of any other province in our country right now, and that includes business, and it includes small business . Our record for the number of business starts is far ahead of any other province, Madam Speaker, so it's understandable that when you have a far higher percentage of business starts, that there are going to be some increases in the bankruptcy number but, overall, we're ahead of the game.

Business is stable, the economy is stable, and we're moving ahead as no other province is, Madam Speaker . Small B11siness Start Program - funding for MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker , I'm sure the 665 businesses that went under last year are going to be happy that they were in a game, a game played by this Minister . I've also , Madam Speaker, had a lot of inquiries from young people and they're wondering if the Minister is going to fund the Youth Business Start this year so that we can help some of the young entrepreneurs get into business . HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, I heard the words, "Youth Business Start, " but I didn 't hear the question that went along with it. I heard things coming from too many places . MR. E. CONNERY: I didn't know I did those kind of things to the Minister. Are you going to fund the program this year? The program is there , but there's no funds for it; will the Minister fund the program? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, actually the question of programs in support for youth is one that we're very interested in and we recognize that small business is one of the areas where a lot of our young people get jobs .

The success of the Small Business Start Program showed us that young people are great entrepreneurs , and I can just indicate to the member opposite that every program that we are designing, from now and in the future, will include some support for our youth in small business . Flat tax of July 1st - effect on migration of people MR. E. CONNERY: I have a new question, Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Finance . Before the biggest tax grab of all timf took place, we were losing residents , through migration, to other provinces, people who were looking for greener pastures .

Has the Minister a projection on the number of people who will leave Manitoba when the realities of this tax grap really sink in, especially the 2 percent flat tax that takes place on July 1? We lost 1,000 people in 1985 and it tripled to 3,000 in 198.6 . . . 2734

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. E. CONNERY: ... will the Minister tell us what this will do to the migration of people in Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: Okay. The last part of the question is in order . The Honourable Minister for Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As I've indicated and responded on numerous occasions the balanced and fair approach that this government took, not only to matters with respect to revenue, but also ensuring that there are funds available to maintain vital services in the Province of Manitoba, is one that I think will not only encourage Manitobans to stay here , but will encourage others to come to a place like Manitoba that is continuing to show strong economic growth , the strongest outside of the two central provinces of Ontario or Quebec.

AIDS - screening of children re placement in foster homes MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRI. 8 . MITCHELION: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question la to the Minister of Community Services. The Min ist er ol Social Services In Ontario was conllderl ng acrN nlng children before they are placed In totter homea lor AIDS, aa a result of a 10-month old baby In Toronto who was placed In a foster home and believed to have contracted AIDS from her natural moth er. la the Minister considering Introducing such a policy In Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker , we have no such policy at present. I will review the options and be prepared to comment later. AIDS - criteria to determine high risk groups in penal institutions MRS. B. MITCHELSON: A new question to the Minister of Community Services . Can the Minister inform the House how her department determines who are the high risk and target groups in our penal institutions that are being screened lor the AIDS antibody? HON. M. SMITH: Through confidential med ical Interviews that are carried out as the normal course when inmates arrive in the institutions .

AIDS - re policy used and action taken for positive results MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, would the Minister consider tabling in this House the policy that is being used about who is being tested and what actions are being taken with a positive result? HON. M. SMITH: There is a draft policy, Madam Speaker . I will be prepared to table it. Manitoba Beef Commission - request marketing regulation changes MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you , Madam Speaker .

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture about the Manitoba Beef Commission procedures for selling finished animals, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker, farmers, auction mart operators and load assemblers are continually giving me evidence that the live auction sales of finished animals is returning farmers $30 to $50 a head more than the Central Desk Selling practices of the Manitoba Beef Commission this spring , Madam Speaker . Last week the Manitoba Beef Commission held a live sale in St. Boniface and received a top bid of $156.15 for these live animals , Madam Speaker .

On the same day, the Beef Commission's central selling desk received a maximum bid of $149.15, Madam Speaker . Will the Minister immediately change the marketing regulation so the farmers can receive the highest return for their finished animals through the Manitoba Beef Commission? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , it appears that the honourable member - this is his second attempt in this House to confuse the issue .

Last week he made allegations about a sale in Brandon which he gave me figures that said that the live weight price of a sale netted farmers anywhere from 4 cents to 5 cents above the posted sale price of the Beef Commission on rail grade of between 88 cents and 91 cents a pound . I think those were his figures .

Madam Speaker, when I checked with the commission as to the sale dates of those animals and the marketing dates and the average price, in fact both the rail grade and the live weight prices were within the range that the honourable member, when converted back to the live weight price , were within the range of 88 .cic!nts to 91 cents, which showed that the honourable member was not giving the accurate comparison of the actual sale dates .

Madam Speaker, the commission recognizes that during this period , with Canada Packers pulling out of the market , some of the packing houses have in fact been what one can only consider manipulating the market to their advantage .

As a result of that market manipulation to their advantage, the commission has in fact had live sales in the Province of Manitoba, in the City of Winnipeg , and is monitoring the situation and will , if the need arises , have live sales to try and get the most out of the market , on a central basis, rather than fragmenting the sales , as the honourable member wants to happen , Madam Speaker. 2735

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, given that on April 15 the Marketing Manager, John Kruzenga, the Manitoba Beef Commission , sent a letter to all feedlot operators saying Manitoba Packers will bear down on prices - the Minister's employees knew that at that time - why has he not acted to protect the Manitoba farmers who, I say, Madam Speaker, are losing $30 to $50 an animal because he will not act to correct the situation? HON. 8. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the honourable member did not listen to my answer.

I just told him that we acknowledge that the packing house industry was manipulating the market in terms of trying to gain the biggest share at the expense of the producers. Madam Speaker , that's why the Beef Commission already has taken action and is monitoring the market, and has had a live sale in the Province of Manitoba, and will have live sales when it is determined that it is to the best advantage of the producers of this province.

Madam Speaker , it is in the interest of all of us to get the most out of the market; and the commission, in a coordinated way, should be using whatever efforts it needs to get the most out of the market, in fact, to both benefit the farmers and, as well, the taxpayers in terms of the Beef Program. Finished animals - sold through live auction ring MR. G.

FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, given that the Beef Commission allows feeder animals to be sold through the live auction ring where the best price can be achieved, will he allow finished animals to be sold by the same process where there are bidders from outside the province who are prepared to pay to price for those animals? HON. 8. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, my answer still stands in terms of what I've answered.

The commission has in fact had a live sale, but it is to the advantage, and one of the tenets of the Beef Program has been to attempt to make sure that the animals are not only marketed, but also processed in the Province of Manitoba, to make sure that the greatest benefit comes to the value-added and to the economy of Manitoba; and that has to be one of the principles there .

But, Madam Speaker, I say again that the commission has, and when there appears to be a great concentration of market power in a few hands whereby producers are not receiving the greatest benefit out of the rail grade price, the commission will use whatever means at its disposal to get the best price for their animals. MR, G. FINDLAY: Very quickly, does the Minister want animals to be processed in Manitoba at the expense of $30 to $50 a head for each animal a farmer sells in this province? Is that what he wants? MADAM SPEAKER: Would the member like to rephrase that so it doesn't seek a personal opinion. MR .. G.

FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, I'm asking if it's the Minister policy that each producer in this province shall lose $30 to $50 a head so that they can be processed in this province? HON. 8. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, no producer will be losing $30 to $50 a head. Madam Speaker, the honourable member doesn 't understand the Stabilization Program . Madam Speaker, obviously he doesn't understand that the producers' returns are protected; as well, they want to criticize the program whichever way.

Madam Speaker, there may be isolated incidents - and we've acknowledged that certain instances do occur, but not in the way that the member described them a week and a half ago, because I checked his figures, and he did not do an accurate comparison. Again, Madam Speaker, in the same way he didn't do an accurate comparison on the Budget Debate, when he said the budget was going to cost every farmer $1,000 per farm family as a result of increased taxes when, in fact, that $1,000 was saved to Manitoba farmers by virture of lower drug prices to the province's farmers, Madam Speaker, drug prices.

Investment Saving Certificate Program - how much money to be raised MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNES$: Madam Speaker, considering the aura of good feelings surrounding the Meech Lake Accord, I find it passing strange that the Minister of Finance didn't , by way of ministerial announcement, make his own announcement today with respect to the Investment Saving Certificate Program that the government is instituting . As most Manitobans know, Madam Speaker , this is a policy somewhat similar to the 1979 policy of issuing government bonds brought in by the former Conservative Government.

Can the Minister of Finance tell me how much money is to be raised by the issuing of provincial bonds; and, secondly, can he tell me whether that represents some portion of the $1.56 billion to be borrowed by the province this year? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . First of all, a correction in terms of the

preamble to the question. The last issue of such bond was in 1979, but the history of that goes well beyond, back to the 1960's, in terms of governments and through the 1970's . With respect to the amount of money that we expect to be raised, we would anticipate that we would be able to raise at least $20 million through this vehicle, offering Manitobans the opportunity to invest in their province. With respect to the other part of the qµestion, whether or not this would be part of the borro J ing - yes, it will be. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. 2736

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 HON. J. COWAN: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker . I believe there is an inclination on the part of members to forego Private Members' Hour, by leave. MADAM SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) HON. J. COWAN: I, therefore, move, Madam Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Energy and Mines; and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security . CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC SECURITY MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Committee, come to order. We will begin with a statement by the Minister. The Honourable Minister. HON. L EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

W. will have a copy for the official critic and anybody else on my statement, and therefore I don 't propose to read it all. I just want to highlight a few points of the progress that has occurred during the past year. Effective January 1, we changed the structure of Social Allowance rates by combining the separate rates for food, clothing, personal needs and household supplies into a basic allowance structure of rates that vary by family size. This simplified the rate structure , while retaining the recognition of the effects of family size and of the ages of children on the costs of basic needs .

We've maintained the real value of Social Allowance rates during a period of increasing caseloads. Our rates have been reviewed and adjusted annually, as you know. As of January '87, we increased our rates by an average of 4.4 percent, which was equivalent to the overall increase in the Consumer Price Index which we have for the City of Winnipeg . That's the only index we have in Manitoba . In regard to shelter costs including utilities, we provide this separately from the basic allowance, and we increase it each year in accordance with the rent increase guidelines set by the Rentalsman 's office.

We made a number of changes over the years. We've discussed this in past years in this committee, Mr. Chairman . I might mention though that the development of an Automated Management Information System for our Social Allowance Program which was initiated in 1982, the implementation of the first phase was completed in 1986. That is an automated client registry and an automated payment system . By this summer , the system will be fully implemented, and I think there will be a number of benefits for all concerned · from that automated system .

We've taken a number of important initiatives recently to develop and expand employment measures for social assistance recipients to help the recipients improve their skills and gain work experience so they can break out of the welfare poverty cycle. Accordingly, Manitoba recently signed a major agreement with the Federal Government for the joint funding of measures to enhance social assistance recipients' employability and employment opportunities. . Four new initiatives will be developed under the terms of the agreement for the next two years .

Six million dollars will be jointly directed towards these initiatives in each of these two years, providing employment and training opportunities for about 1,000 social assistance recipients each year and focusing in particular on single parents, the disabled people and young persons . Of course, in '87-88, our Estimates provide for the continuation of supplement programs to low-income Manitobans, aged 55 and over, through the 55-Plus Program, and additional support for low-income families under the CRISP program.

Effective April 1, '87, 55- plus benefits were indexed for the first time, and our government has made a commitment to continue this practice on a yearly basis. I'm proud to observe that my department's efforts have contributed to improve income and job opportunities for needy Manitobans . I believe our overall economic and social policies, in large part, have resulted in this province being relatively unaffected by the substantial increase in poverty among Canadians as a whole in the 1980's .

The most recent statistics from the National Council of Welfare show that, from'81 to 1985, the percentage of families In Manitoba who are considered to be living in poverty decreased by 4.8 percent compared with a 10.8 percent increase for Canada as a whole. And furthermore, employment in Manitoba has increased faster than the national average between 1981 and 1986, and our province's unemployment rate has consistantly ranked among the lowest in the country . Going on to the Employment Services Division , we have a number of programs ongoing.

These have been discussed in the past, I won't necessarily repeat them at this time. I would observe that we have witnessed a continuing decline in the youth unemployment rate . In particular , I notice in 1986 Manitoba's youth unemployment rate was 12.3 percent on average, down 1.6 percentage points from 13.9 in 1985, and well below the recession peak of 15.4 percent in 1983. Manitoba had the second-lowest youth unemployment rate of all provinces last year, behind Ontario's rate ·of 11.5 percent . One of the major programs we have, of course, is the Job Training For Tomorrow Program.

I'd like to note, in particular, we have incentives for employers to hire women in non-traditional or technical occupations, and also for those willing to hire and train unemployed persons 55 years of age and over. As well, there's a component of the program dealing with labour market adjustment and technological change . After some extensive negotiations with the Federal Government, we have concluded and signed a new three-year Canada-Manitoba training agreement covering federal purchases of training from community colleges and other post-secondary institutions .

The agreement is retroactive to April 1, 1986, providing for 2737

l'huriday, 4 June, 1987 $56.4 million in federal expenditures under the Canadian Jobs Strategy over the three-year period for training purchased on behalf of clients of Canada Employment Centres throughout Manitoba . Yearly levels of this direct purchase of training will be $22.9 million in 1986-87 , $18.95 million in '87-88 , and $15.6 million in '88-89 . An additional amount is provided for federal income support to trainees . Federal funding is also provided under the Canadian Jobs Strategy to enable Manitoba employers to purchase training from various institutions for their employees .

While we would have preferred a new agreement which maintained or increased direct purchases of training, we feel we have negotiated the -best arrangement possible, one that maintains the integrity of the position Manitoba adopted 18 months ago. I am hopeful that the system of training purchases being introduced in this agreement will prove effective in increasing training opportunities for Manitobans, and that direct purchase revenue losses can be offset by indirect purchase funding.

Under the terms of ·the new training agreement, the province will be establishing a new Manitoba Training Advisory Council (MTAC) to provide a mechanism for consultation on training matters with employers, employee representatives and the general public .

This consultative process is _intended to ensure that purchases of training will be in keeping with the labour market needs of the province . just by way of explanation for members of the committee, we were deadlocked on this matter with the Federal Government because, under the Honourable Flora MacDonald, it was announced that the amount of monies available for our community colleges would be reduced for all provinces over a three-year period. We held out on signing such an agreement because we simply did not wish to be party to a severe cutback . However , these are direct purchases I'm talking about .

We have reached a compromise, as I've attempted to explain here, by establishing this new Training Advisory Council, which will provide a mechanism for indirect pu'rchases of training positions at the colleges to help make up for the cutback in the direct purchase . If we're successful in this way in working with·employers and others in the community , then we would hope to make up for the decline in the direct purchases .

Needless to say, this was a very serious threat to our college system in the prov ince and could have resulted in · cutbacks of a severe magnitude of the programs offered by Red River, ACC . and Keewatin College. However, I am hopeful that, given good wiU and a lot of ·effort on our part and on . the Federal Government's part and particularly on the part of the Training Advisory Council, we can somehow make up for those cutbacks .

Just in conclusion, of course we have the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, which provides a central focal point for statistical collection under the terms of The Manitoba Statistics Act, and certainly coordinates with Statistics Canada on behalf of the Provincial Government. It continues to place increased emphasis on cross departmental statistical services and analyses . So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman , we've given you a brief overview . I've skipped over my written statement but, as I said, the members of the committee can have access to ·the printed statement.

In conclusion , I would note that the total expenditure proposed for the department in 1987-88 is $236, 184,900.00. In addition of course , there are several programs that the department delivers which are funded by the Manitoba Jobs Fund. So, Mr. Chairman, I refer the department's Spending Estimates to your committee and look forward to members ' comments , questions and contributions . MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, Mr. Minister . The Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . I'd just like to make a few remarks in reply to the Minister 's statement.

Of course, I'd like to thank him for his statement and his overview of his department's activities and proposed activities for this year. I look forward, of course, to debating and discussing the activities of the department , the expenses, and it all helps to gain a better understanding of just how the programs work and how the hard earned dollars of the taxpayers are spent , and how people dependent on the government are served . Mr. Chairman , in the study of this department's Estimates, I'd like to focus this year on a number of major issues.

If in doing so, we seem to ignore some sections of the department, that is not because they 're not important. It's because time is rather short, the Estimate period, under the timetable we are operating under now, and I felt that these issues that I wanted to raise were of a great deal of importance to everyone and, as I say, not that the other programs that may not be ment ioned are not important. One major area of the Estimates, of course, is social assistance .

This component of the department accounts for 92 percent of the spending so, if for no other reason, I think we should focus on that when we get to that line of the Estimates . I'll be bringing to the attention of the Minister significant problems concerning the delivery of social assistance , particularly in rural areas, and some suggestions for the solution of the problems . Because as an Opposition critic I don 't have access to the same wealth of information as the Minister , of course, the solutions may not be as readily apparent to me as they should be to him .

It's interesting to note that most of the changes the Minister has brought to his department are those demanded by others - the Federal Government, the Anti-Poverty Association, myself and others - and we see very little evidence of initiative on the part of the Minister . It appears he takes ·the role of caretaker .

The Throne Speech read at the opening of this Session points to some of the chan1U3S that have been made in the department , and I qu6te: "Unlike other provinces, Manitoba has not restricted eligibility for benefits and has increased basic Social Allowances each year in line with estimated cost increases for basic · necessities. Other significant changes have been made to improve the fairness and efficiency of the · Social Allowances and Municipal Assistance Programs.

These include legislative amendments to extend eligibility to sole-support fathers , waiving recovery of overpayments due to administrative error, restricting the municipal

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 use of liens to recover assistance from welfare recipients , and the delegation of responsibility for approval of additional resources to meet special needs." Mr. Chairman, we would like to know what the Minister is talking about when he talks of other provinces and their restrictions, and he will get an opportunity, of course, during the debate to point those out. But during the debate on the Economic Security, I will give the committee some figures obtained from a study done from Alberta which puts the statement in the Throne Speech into question .

Another area we'll be questioning is the massive increases in administrative costs within this department, and the reasons for the increases . The Minister will be asked to explain why, for example, there's an increase in administration costs in the first section, the Administration and Finance

section of these Estimates, of 91 percent in the year since this department was formed until the present year, a major increase in administration costs. He'll also be questioned on the fact that, while staff years in the Employment Services are decreased by 106.97 from the '86-87 Estimates to the '87-88 , the salary component of the department - that is the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security - has decreased by only $350, 100.00.

These sorts of figures and facts fall into llne with what the Opposition has been saying with regard to the Budget of this year, with the spending habits of thla government , and with regard to a total lack of underatanding on the part of this government that the taxpayer• of this province are not getting a square deal from their government. The people of Manitoba want to know, when will these sorts of increases end? When will this government demonstrate their care and concern for people in action rather than in words? It Is Interesting to note, Mr.

Chairman, that while administration costs are skyrocketing, millions of dollars are spent on training programs. The Minister brags about Manitoba's unemployment rate, and we have just had another version of that in his opening statement . The welfare rolls are steadily increasing. Some mun icipalities are becoming alarmed about the increasing numbers of people seeking assistance within their borders . Somewhere, we're failing the taxpayers and the people who, through no fault of their own, need our protection and our assistance .

This Ministry was set up to deal specifically with social assistance and employment problems in our society . It was set up with a great deal of fanfare as the answer to the problems. Mr. Chairman, the problems are still with us, and we have an ever-increasing bureaucracy to deal with them. We will be attempting, during this debate , to get some explanations and action from this Minister . MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll beg in with the first section, Appropriation No. 1. I'm sorry, would you like to bring up your staff and introduce them, Mr. Minister? HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me Roxy Freedman , my Deputy Minister; Wes Henderson , Director of Administration ; and Gerry Bosma; who's also a senior person in the Administration and Finance Division. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you . We'll begin with Appropriation No. 1. As customary, we will leave out the Minister's Salary and begin with (bX1) Salaries, Executive Support. The Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: There are several matters I would like to raise within this appropriation, Mr. Chairman, and one of them I just mentioned was the large rise in costs of administration .

Now if you take year by year, as we do in the Estimates process most years, with only the previous year's figures to look at side by side with the current year, you don't get so alarmed. But this year, I decided to take a look backwards and see how the department had developed over the years that it had been in existance and try to get a handle on how the department has been performing. I'll give you some examples of the problems that I see there, and the figures that present themselves. The Administration and Finance department as a whole has increased its spending from 1984 to '87-88 by 91 percent.

Under Executive Support, 1.(b), which we're discussing now, the figures are much worse . In 1984, the Executive Support figure was $23 ,700; in 1987-88 , it is $334,000.00. For example, in 1985, there was an increase of 972 percent, bringing the total percentage increase from '84 to '88 to a staggering 1,309 percent. I'd like to ask the Minister how many staff were hired as Executive Support in'83-84, and how many now? And how does he justify the number? HON. L. EVANS: Was the question: How many were hired in'83-84? MRS. C.

OLESON: How many support staff were in the Minister's office when he set up the department in'83-84? HON. L. EVANS: I just want a clarification, Mr. Chairman . Are you talking about . . . MRS. C. OLESON: Executive Support staff. HON. L. EVANS: Just Executive Support? You're not talking about Administration and Finance? MRS. C. OLESON: No. It's all under the one heading of Administration and Finance, but I'm talking about 1.(b), Executive Support. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman , there has been no increase in the SY's; it's always been eight SY's. MRS. C. OLESON: How many was it in 1983? HON. L. EVANS: ln'83? MRS. C.

OLESON: When the department was created . HON. L. EVANS: There were eight when the department was created, so there's been no change. 2739

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 MRS. C. OLESON: Why do we see such a difference in funding then from that year to this year? HON. L. EVANS: There shouldn't be any unusual increase . Do you have those numbers for that? Mr. Chairman , does the member have those numbers, specifically? MRS. C. OLESON: In 1984, the Executive Support figure was $23,700 and, in 1987-88, it was $334,000.00. HON. L. EVANS: There may be some anomaly . The staff can't figure out what you're referring to by the 23,700 .00.

The department is formed in that year and there may be some anomaly from that, but there hasn 't been any unusual or any different increase in spending in that area compared to any other part of the department We can check that out, what the '23,700 is - I don't know how you can have eight staff for 23,700.00 . MRS. C. OLESON: Well, I don't either, but you must have had fewer staff when you started the department . HON. L. EVANS: No, it was a new department . ('lnterjection)- Unless it was part of the year, I don't think so. MRS. C. OLESON: I got the figures, Mr.

Chairman , from the Estimate Books , going back through the Estimate Books, perhaps the Minister's staff could take a look at that and we could have an answer later. HON. L. EVANS: In 1983-84, that's when we were just initiated so we weren 't together - it wasn't put together finally . . . There's some anomaly , there were people brought in from Community Services and 'people brought 'in from the Department of Labour to put it together, as you know.

So there 's been no change in the staff size and there's been no unusual change ·in the dollars arid the 23,700, I would say, is not a realistic base - there's got to be an anomaly but we'll check it out and let you know. MRS. C. OLESON: Okay, if you would, because that does seem like rather a large increase in that short a time . One wonders if it increases at that rate into the future, what wil! 'happen. On ·the other

section under Administration and Finance that has incr!;!ased questionably also is - we're gping of course, line b,y line, but if you look at the whole

section of Administration and Finance , we find that there's high increases in percentage of administration also . For instance, in Research and Planning, we find a 27.2 percent increasethi!;I year ; a 13.5 percent increase last year. We ·get into Communications , increase 11.5 percent. We get into Finance and Administration, we get a 12.9 percent increase in 1988, an~ the total under that department from 1984-1988 was an increase of 43.6 percent . We get increases from'84-88 in person _nel services of the Administration and Finance department, 62.2 percent in those four years .

We get increases in the Systems _and Computer Support, which of course it readily comes to my mind, that that will be the staffing to set up the computer program. So the large increase in that department - it's · 304 percent increase - that rnay be more easily understood if we get the explanation from the Minister under that line of the setting up of the computer program. But the other increases are rather large and we just wonder why. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, to answer each question we really have to go appropriation by appropr iation rather than down the list . . . MRS. C.

OLESON: Well, I was just giving them as an example . HON. L. EVANS: But I just want to advise the member that any increase has been in line with gerieral increases. There have been some staff increases where warranted. We needed two for the National Diversion Fund Program we're into, we needed two there. There's been no increase in Communications personnel. We've had to add an internal auditor, so there ·have been a few changes but nothing unusual, nothing out of step . That's my general observation , but we could look at each figure if you like . MRS. C. OLESON: The Minister mentioned the internal auditor.

On what line does that fall in the Estimates? HON. L. EVANS: It's under Finance and Admnistration. MRS. C. OLESON: Oh, it 's under Financial and Administration Services? HON. L. EVANS: Yes. MRS. C. OLESON: Okay. Yes, I probably have it noted there in my notes. HON. L. EVANS: I might add, Mr. Chairman , that the internal auditor who we referred to was recommended by the Provincial Auditor to do an overall - he recommended that each department have one. We also have auditors. of course, in the various components of the department, too, but this is an overall service that's performed by this person . MRS. C.

OLESON: Also under 1.(b), Executive Support, there were some questions I wanted to ask under there because I couldn't figure out where else to ask them . 1t's to do with the expenses listed in the Public Accounts on the question of use of taxicabs. I asked in the committee last year on Public Accounts. I had been glancing through and there seemed to be massive numbers of cabs paid for. It listed various cab companies , so I asked for a report j nd received it sometime later and was rather alarmed by the totals .

The Employment Services and Economic Security Department had, by far, the largest total in this report, a total of $730,690 - excuse me, I'll start again with that number , I'm not great with numbers, $730 ,639.44 - spent on taxicabs by this department in 1984-85. a rather substant ial sum. Now it isn't hard to figure out that there are occasions when staff and others need to use taxicabs . The staff figure was $8,707 .64 and the balance, of course, being $721,847.28, which was •2740

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 explained, and I quote, "Includes costs which have been specifically quoted by departments to indicate transportation of social assistance recipients and other citizens." First of all, what would be meant by "other citizens," and secondly, will the Minister explain to the committee what justification he can make for this amount of tax dollars being spent on taxicabs? I'm not meaning by my remarks that I cannot see any occasion when a cab would be necessary, but I wonder under what circumstances it's 11ecessary for a cab to be hired by people and charged to this department. HON. L.

EVANS: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is most of that expenditure would be in rural Manitoba, in Northern Manitoba, and it's mostly related to medical or other emergency services . It is essentially for social assistance recipients. There could be the odd time the member of the family had to accompany them to the hospital, so that would be the other persons. Normally a family or friend maybe who has to accompany the person, but generally the monies are spent for medical purposes and other emergency services. Remember we don't finance people to run their own automobiles.

So when they can demonstrate there's a need to get from their home, let's say, to the hospital then that's covered, to use one example. MRS. C. OLESON: Does this include the use of handlvans and ambulances, In this what would be termed as taxicabs? Is that under the same or is that an additional cost to the department? HON. L. EVANS: We're not sure that is included . Like ambulance services could be included under the Department of Health, but we could check that. The point I want to make though is that we do have a lot of controls over this.

It has to be justified and there are a lot of checks and balances in the expenditure of this particular money. MRS. C. OLESON: On what line of the Estimates would the expense appear? Would ii be under social assistance in that case? HON. L. EVANS: Yes, it will be. Yes. MRS. C. OLESON: That's part of the social assistance expense on this. Now in checking through the Public Accounts book for this year, I see similar notations . I might add that the Public Accounts book, where it's divided into departments, it almost makes you cross-eyed to read the thing, but I persisted. HON. L. EVANS: I never look at it. MRS. C.

OLESON: It looks as if by my quick reading of it and marking it that we're getting into the same sort of cost for last year and probably they're continuing into this year. This is a massive amount of money and I hope that the criteria is very, very strict on the use of cabs . Also in that same exercise I undertook last year to check on this.

I checked on hotel accommodations and 2741 I found that there is a similar - well not similar, it's less of a figure - but I wonder ii the Minister could give us an outline of why hotels would be used so extensively by his department, other than the staff on their rounds of business. But it also included the figure for other that was other than staff, that was quite large . HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, the taxi services are related and transportation services are related mainly to medical needs, and there could be other emergency needs.

But we're talking about people who are living in remote areas, rural, northern areas that are some distance from services, and then I can imagine in cases where a person has to stay overnight, because they arrive there, say, at Thompson from some remote community, and it just doesn't make sense, it's not practical to move them back that night, or there could be a snow storm or an icestorm. There can be all kinds of circumstances. We certainly wouldn't want to spend the money for them being in a hotel if we didn't have to. That's only done if it has to be done.

I want to reiterate, there are some very strict guidelines for the use of taxis. There has to be a verification by a doctor. For example, a doctor has to indicate that the person has to have that service. We check the waiting times of taxis by the minute if necessary . In fact, I think we get complaints from taxi cab companies that we're too strict.

So we are doing our best to keep a handle on this, to make sure that there is no abuse, but the point is that, if a person has to get to a doctor or has to have some other medical service, we are required by law and for basic humanity reasons to make sure that they get there . MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I just felt that I should raise it since it was such a large sum. Also in the public accounts book, there are a lot of other financial undertakings by this department and I just wondered where they would fit in to the various lines .

For instance, do the programs funded through the Jobs Fund, for instance Community Assets, which was a program of this department before it was changed over to Cultural Affairs, were the individual payouts listed in this? They were funded by the Jobs Fund, but were they listed in public accounts as payouts by the Department of Employment Services? HON. L. EVANS: The spending dollars are not in our Estimates. Spending dollars are in the Jobs Fund . MRS. C. OLESON: I can give you some examples of why it piqued my curiosity. HON. L. EVANS: I haven't addressed that question before, Mr. Chairman.

The funding of course is from the Jobs Fund. It's allocated to our department for payout, so I guess it probably - I haven't studied the account, so it's probably shown there. Probably the member has some examples. MRS. C. OLESON: Well, I do have some examples because it seemed rather - for instance, the Child Related Income Support Program is listed as that program and there is a dollar figure beside it; but when

I ' Thursday, 4 June, 1987 you get looking at things like the Canadian Peace Research and Education Associat ion, the Contemporary Dancers, the Condello Unisex Hairdressing - I wondered why this department would be involved in them, so it piqued my cur iosity - the Injured Workers Association , the Action Committee on the Status of Women, Mid . Continental Media Group. The various and sundry entries like that cause me to wonder if those were payouts through, for instance, the Community Assets Program . Was that the answer to it? HON. L.

EVANS: I'm not sure without studying each one of those, but it sound though to me, Mr. Chairman , that these could be also recipients of the various training grants , as we do give training g-rants to businesses to hire people and create jobs, etc . So those sound like a number of those kinds of grants , not Community Assets . It's possible that the Community Assets are in there, but I didn't recognize some of those names . They sound like businesses, and businesses would be under the training grants program . MRS. C.

OLESON: So no matter where the money comes from , whether it's Jobs Fund or training funds or what, it's listed under this? HON. L. EVANS: If the Jobs Fund money was allocated to our department and spent by our department , then it would be shown in there . MRS. C. OLESON: That's probably the answer to that then . I just was curious because of the type of entries that were listed . Some programs, as I say, the Child Related Income Support, seemed to be listed separately, so I was curious to know just how - are they listed separately then under a Jobs Fund heading somewhere else in the Jobs Fund Department? HON.

L. EVANS: Which is that? MRS. C. OLESON: For instance , the Community Assets . HON. L. EVANS: Well , the spending would be under the Jobs Fund Estimates . The monies allocated would be under the Jobs Fund Estimates . You mean the actual expenditures incurred? You're ask ing me whether they're listed by the Jobs Fund? They should be someplace . They will have to be someplace in that book if they're spent . Everything spent by the government is included in Public Accounts somewhere somehow. As I said , I haven 't studied the book.

I haven't studied the items there, so I don't know whether they 're shown separately under the Jobs Fund or not. You simply have to look at the book . MRS. C. OLESON: It .points out again how difficult it is to figure out what money , comes through the Jobs Fund, so I thought I would raise it just to make sure if that's what it is. But if it's also listed under Jobs Fund as separate programs and separate allocations for grants, then you've got a double listing of it. But as I say, it is very difficult to research that and find out exactly what is going on. HON. L. EVANS: I just wanted to just go back a moment.

The member does have our Supplementary Informa tion for Legislative Review, 1987-88 . I'm just going to point out that , on page 6, chart 1, it indicates to you the total spending in the department, how much is spent on Administration and Finance, and you'll notice that it's 1.2 percent. So I would say that is quite reasonable and it's not out of line . I would say the admin istrative costs are not out of line in the department whatsoever . MRS. C.

OLESON: Now in the Estimates ·bf Revenues that was tabled - I believe the Minister of Finance tabled it with the Estimates Book - on page 4, we have a levy for local government welfare . We'll discuss that of course under Economic Security . But we also have a listing (

b) Sundry. Under Sundry, there 's a figure of $2.466 million which , in most people's language , would not be called " sundry." Can the Mini•ster tell us what is included in this? Is it the recoverable funds from the Federal Government? What else would be included there? HON. L. EVANS: This is page 4 . . . MRS. C. OLESON: Page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates. HON. L. EVANS: That's Supplementary Spending Estimates you're talk ing about? MRS. C. OLESON: Just a minute , I gave you the wrong - it's the Estimates of Revenue, sorry. HON. L. EVANS: These are miscellaneous revenues that the member is referring to.

You referred to 1986- 87, $2.1 million . At any rate, this is the kind of spending levied for local government welfare purposes in unorganized territories . I can read off all these numbers, but we'll probably lose you. I can just give you an idea of the kinds .. . MRS. C. OLESON: Those are the types of funding that are ... HON. L.

EVANS: Yes, as I said, levied for local government welfare purposes in unorganized territories , welfare recoveries , maintena nce orders . as you know , under our legislation we can recover for maintenance purposes ; welfare iiens; overpayments by clientele which we've collected back; some miscellaneous federal payments , probably some miscellaneous transfers; monies from . the Public Trustee. Those are, more or less, the basic elements of the miscellaneous revenue . MRS. C.

OLESON: Under what circumstances would you be getting money from the Public l.>Trustee, from people who are in care of the government, who are in residential care, that sort of thing? HON. L. EVANS: There are a number of people in residential care who are under the Public Trustee and , for whatever reason, the Public Trustee would be making a payment to us. It gets rather complicated in terms of the Public Trustee but , as I indicated , Mr. Chairman , the Public Trustee has responsibility for a lot of people 2742

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 in institutions, and there are some miscellaneous payments that they are required to make from time to time. MRS. C. OLESON: Under Research and Planning, I have some questions there from page 23 of the Supplementary Information . For instance, there's a reference to assessing programs for welfare recipients. Is this the first attempt to judge the effectiveness of the training and job programs? HON. L. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do and have over the years. The department has, over the years, evaluated these programs, and monies have been spent for that. This is a specific reference .

We have a new item this year under the terms of agreement with the Federal Government. We have two staff to evaluate this $12 million program . That's the Diversion Fund to employ single parents and that sort of thing. That's the condition of the agreement with the Federal Government, that there be that built-in evaluation, and they pay half of It, of course . MRS. C. OLESON: They pay half the cost? HON. L. EVANS: Yes. MRS. C. OLESON: It refers also on that page, on page 23 of the Supplementary Estimates, to policies and strategies regarding reforms to the Social Allowances Program .

What activity is taking place in that area? What studies and what consultations are taking place? HON. L. EVANS: This is on page 23? MRS. C. OLESON: Page 23 at the bottom, under "Expected Results." HON. L. EVANS: I'm sorry, which line were you referring to? MRS. C. OLESON: The reference is: "expand research and analysis into policies and strategies in the area of reforms to the Social Allowances Program." HON. L. EVANS: There is ongoing research and analysis Into the one-tier system versus the two-tier system. There are all kinds of research into the incentive programs.

We have different levels of incentives, different kinds of incentives and the impact of those Incentives. Generally, whenever we discuss the possible reform, we have to look at, well, what's it going to cost us. What are we going to get out of it? What benefit will the client get out of it? What impact on the taxpayers and so on? So it's sort of ongoing . Yes, I'm- reminded there are issues like Canada Pension Plan disability payments .

The Federal Government has indicated that they would be prepared to allow increases in Canada Pension Plan disability payments, the increase only to be kept by the clientele without being deducted from the welfare cheque, I mean, that sort of thing. It's a very complicated issue . It's not clear yet where the Government of Canada wants us to go on that, because it seems to be a contravention of the Canada Assistance Program. There's a lot of confusion around that issue but, without getting into that issue, we can discuss it at some time .

It's a very complicated thing while there's research into that sort of thing . MRS. C. OLESON: Yes, I have in my notes to discuss that under Economic Security. I think last year we discussed the Workplace Innovation Centre under this line, and I just have a short question on it. Last year, I asked about the possibility of it becoming self-sufficient after three years and the Minister's reply was that it was too early to tell. Is it still too early to tell, or has the Minister formed some opinion after two years of operation of the centre? HON. L. EVANS: It is still too early to tell.

It's really not two years of operation because the board took quite a bit of time in getting a director in place. We've got a very good person, a former executive from Versatile, Mr. John Roll, a very qualified person with a lot of management and executive experience. So the organization has been, in my opinion , a little slow in getting off the ground . But the board was very determined that they were going to search high and low for the right person and they had quite an extensive competition and review, and finally a person was chosen and put in place, he acquired the office and so on.

So I would say it's still a bit early to say, but that was the ideal of having this as a separate organization that it could receive monies from organizations who wished to have its services . MRS. C. OLESON: Has it received several applications or contracts for services? Is it into that phase of its operation yet? HON. L. EVANS: I don't believe that it had any contracts thus far. I know they've had a lot of contacts with businesses, all kinds of client contacts, but there have been no contracts, no agreements to provide services. MRS. C. OLESON: What is the cost to date of setting up that centre? HON. L.

EVANS: Under the terms of the agreement, and as we announced under the MGEA Trust Fund, under the Manitoba Jobs Fund, we agreed to pay them $400,000 a year for three years, for a total of $1.2 million. That would be allocated to them for their utilization. MRS. C. OLESON: That's the total funding that they've had? HON. L. EVANS: Yes. MRS. C. OLESON: Into 1.(

e) the Financial Administration Service, on page 26 of the Supplementary ·lnformation,-there's a note, and I quote : "Provision for additional position to peform internal audit function." Now we discussed that earlier and you had said that - correct me if I'm wrong - it was a request of the Provincial Auditor. HON. L. EVANS: I believe the Provincial Auditor asked all departments to have an internal audit and the answer is yes. 2743

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 MRS. C. OLESON: And there's one person hired to do that audit? HON. L EVANS: Yes. This is one person in this position. I just repeat, we do have five other auditors on our Economic Security programs . MRS. C. OLESON: What are the terms of reference for the audit? HON. L EVANS: Well, I would imagine they're normal terms of reference. It's a centralized overall audit. We can get the terms of reference for the member, give her a statement on that. It's a new position and we're . still recruiting for that position . There's nobody in it yet. MRS. C, OLESON: Oh, I see.

Yes, I would like to have the term!! of reference for that-. Under 1.(g), the computer component, the Minister announced just recently - I don't think it would be the final phas.e but an additional phase of the setting up the computer program. Where are the funds appropriated for that program? Are they under this line or are they under Economic Security or both? HON. L. EVANS: They're here, but mostly under Economic Security . MRS. C. OLESON: How many staff will it be required to operate their system when it's operational , when it's fully operational? HON. L.

E.VANS: There is some advisory staff, but essentially it's a matter of training our existing financial security workers to operate the software. We're using our own staff; we're training our own staff to do those tasks. Mr. Chairman , there are two technical people who are expert in the system and its implementation, and they are on staff for troubleshooting and to implement it and so on, but, as I said, we have trained and are in the process of training our Economic Security officers to use the equipment. MRS. C.

OLESON: Does the Minister anticipate that ' when this is fully operational there will be need to be a reduction in staff, or will it still take the same number of staff who are presently working on the soc•ial assistance? HON, L. EVA,NS: By and large, what we want to do is to utilize the existing staff, to take more time on various cases that they deal with. We found that many offices, many personnel have been really run off their feet . They don't have enough time · to check a lot of things.

We think by giving the staff more time to work with the clientele that they can help the . clientele and give them some advice, but also can do a better job for the government and for the taxpayers . So r think both benefit . I think there are some examples we could refer to, but generally the answer is we don 't anticipate laying anyone off because of the computer system .

We intend to use them to do a more thorough job of interacting with the clientele . 2744 Employment counselling would be one of them, also counselling on how to use their money, because we find a lot of young women and young rrien, in particular , are into trouble because they don't simply know how to spend their money. This has been drawn to our attention by the Welfare Appeal Board, because they hear so many cases of people complaining about insufficient funds, etc . This is something that they'ye drawn to my attention, that some of our clientele should be given some assistance in how to manage money.

You know, you don't rush out to the ?-Eleven and spend your cheque for food . There are places like Safeway and other large stores that you might get a better deal on how you should spend your money. So we hope that the staff will have more time to interact . I'm using just one example , but there 's the example of money expenditures. There are examples we could use of some counselling in terms of emp :'>yment opportunities for them, vocational counselling and so on . MRS. C. OLESON: I.l's interesting the Minister mentions the. monetary problems with money and need for training people.

I have always had the feeling that there should be a little more of that in the school system, and perhaps people would come ou_t of the school system more equipped to deal with the realities of life instead of what's on the television set. But anyway, we're looking at that. Are all the people on social assistance programmed into the computer system at present or is this still contiruing? HON. L. EVANS: We have 14 offices. Eleven are on the system, and the other three will be put on in this month of June. MRS. C. OLESON: Are these 14 offices going to be all independent of one another?

They surely would be able to cross-reference, cross-check from one office to another. HON. L. EVANS: Yes. MRS. C. OLESON: What sort of information about each client is programmed into the computer? HON. L. EVANS: What was the specific question? MRS. C. OLESON: What sort of information about each client? What would be programmed into a computer when they're social assista,nce recipients? HON. L. EVANS: Well, basically, it would be the same information we'd have on paper previously. Obviously, we have to know their address, the number of people in the family, if it is a family.

We'd have to know some of their financial background because, as1,an incomes tested ,program , you don't get welfare if you have lots of money in the bank, for instance - those kinds of basic information that we would want to make a decision. We also ask about their work experience. We try to get Information on their educational background, ask their age and so on. MRS. C. OLESON: Who would have access to the program then, to the information, I mean?

Thursday, 4 June, 1987 HON. L. EVANS: We have to assure confidentiality of the individuals by law, so the information is confined; the caseload is confined within each particular office . While, as I understand it, one office can check with another one about a particular person, there's a limit to how much information the other _office can obtain . Until the file is transferred to that other office, they can only obtain some fairly basic information . I just might add that the one value of the computer is it will facilitate people who move around the province.

We can check very i:iuickly on their background, make sure there isn 't a double payment - somebody runs in from Dauphin and says, well I need some assistance. So we can get immediately the basic information that we need . It also helps the client too, because we could come to a decision much more quickly than with the old system. MRS. C. OLESON: One problem that has been raised to me by municipal people is that it's very difficult for them to identify whether a person is in real need and if they're on another program in another centre .

I'm wondering if there was a possibility - like, one municipality suggested to me that it would be very helpful to them if they had a toll free number that they could call to check on a person to see if they really needed help when they arrive in their municipal office seeking assistance . Could this be a possibility with this program? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, the way the system works is that normally municipalities within the radius of a district office contact our district office . We have good relations with the key people, the key municipalities that interact with us on welfare matters.

I mean, they know who to phone and they do phone. I suppose we could always look at a central phone, but usually the regional staff have the information that they want. MRS. C. OLESON: When the welfare recipients were put onto computer, did it appear that there were many duplications in people getting assistance? Were some abuses readily apparent after the system started to function? HON. L. EVANS: Yes, we have detected some abuse, but I'm advised it's of a minor nature. So essentially, there isn't much abuse. MRS. C. OLESON: Was there cost-sharing available through the Federal Government on the computer program?

HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, yes. MRS. C. OLESON: You made full use of that cost sharing program? HON. L. EVANS: Roughly speaking, the Federal Government is very generous . They paid - this is a guess, a very rough figure - about 75 percent. There were some elements they paid 100 percent, others they paid 50 percent . So overall, a rough guess is approximately 75 percent or 3/4. MRS. C. OLESON: I think I'm ready to pass this No. 1. section. I guess we can't pass it until later, but unless you have something you wanted . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)(1) to 1.(g)(2), inclusive, were each read and passed .

We will now begin Appropriation No. 2, Economic Security . 2.(a)

(1) Salaries - the Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: Thank _you , Mr. Chairman. This is one of the areas that I really wanted to focus on this year in our Estimates debate, not because, as I said before, the other areas aren't important, but because I'm becoming increasingly concerned about this area and the large increases of numbers of people seeking assistance. I'll be asking the Minister for his projections of increases this year after I've made this statement. We've seen some changes take place, as I mentioned before, in the delivery of social assistance.

Of course, the computer program is probably one of the major ones and it was one of the recommendations of the task force. Also another recommendation of the task force report was that there would be consultation with municipal officials concerning the delivery of social assistance. With that in mind, recently I wrote a letter to all the municipal corporations in the province, asking them what problems they were facing with the delivery of social assistance . I asked them for information about the costs to each municipality .

I haven't tabulated that yet, by the way, because I haven't got answers from all the municipalities . I also asked them whether they would suscribe to the principle of a one-tier system. I found I'm getting replies daily and I'd like to share with the Minister some of the information I got from that Jetter, because I found it was one of the most useful things that I have done . I got some very interesting information. I have enjoyed the letters that I received. I've got a far better understanding of what it's like delivering social assistance at the municipal level.

So I think it was very worth while to have written and be compiling the statistics of those letters. There are some major issues that surfaced that I guess we all maybe have known about but, when you see them written and explained to you in these letters, it brings it home more I guess. I think there are some problems that the municipal people made mention of that I think would take probably not a great deal of work to rectify . Some of them, of course, would be more difficult , but they would take some study.

I referred earlier to statistics regarding costs of this department and the fact of the increase of 52 percent in the funding of Economic Security from'84 to '88. This, of course, reflects partly the increase in benefits to social assistance recipients. It also -reflects a great deal to the increase in the roles , an ever-increasing number of people seeking social assistance . It also reflects administration costs. Administration costs of the Economic Security Department, according to my figures , increased by 52.6 percent.

They are projected to decline this year by 2.3 percent in giving an overall increase from the year 1984 to '88 of 196 percent. 2745

,, Thursday, 4 June, 1987 Now these are kind of staggering figures . So we hope that the decrease this year, sort of indicates that maybe the Minister has realized that things are getting difficult and has set about to correct them . Now with respect to the line 2.(b) - Social Allowances Program - perhaps before I mention that, the Minister may want to respond to what I've just said; but before I go into that, I should also ask some questions about the Advisory Committee . I could do that after the Minister responds. HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, if the member is going back to'83-84, yes, we did add $1 million at one point for the Automation · Project . But other than that, the increases are normal. I'm advised that ·they're not out of line at all. We would have to get the specific numbers again. It's hard for me to follow all those numbers you're reading off and examine them . We can certainly do that . But generally , the administration costs are not out of line .

The Social Allowances pav.ment, of course, is a reflection of the client load and the increases in the benefits - and indeed some years we did increase the benefits substantially, but that was because we felt that there was a need to increase those benefits . MRS. C. OLESON: Under the line of Social Services Advisory Committee, is there an increase in protests - it's not the word, I'm looking for the correct word . HON. L. EVANS: Appeals? MRS. C. OLESON: Appeals, excuse me. Is there an increase in appeals in the last while? Or what are your figures for last year for appeals?

It's difficult working . without an annual report this year. HON. L. EVANS: The appeals in 1985-86, actual were 383, and this includes incidentally day care. It's estimate for '86-87 is 375, and the projected for '87-88 is also 375. So it's pretty well stable. MRS. C. OLESON: It's staying just about stable .

Now with regard to the social assistance program, a press release of Janulf,ry 30, the Minister pointed out that what a good employment picture there was in Manitoba in 1986, and the press release, of course, dealt only with people who are unemployed, statistically, not the people who've given up looking for work, the peopl.e who are on social assistance and that sort of problem.

So I wonder if the Minister could explain why, when we have a picture of relatively good employment In ManitoQa, why the welfare rolls are not declining, but are projected to increase by 13. 1 percent provincially, and 10.9 percent in Municipal Assistance this yel(lr? HON. L. EVANS: Well, as I said in the House, certainly in terms of the provincial Social Allowances, we deal with sole-support parents and there has been an increase in sole-support parents as a phenomenon .

Also over the years, there's been a considerable amount of deinstutionalization, not only under the Welcome Home Program of the mentally retarded, but also mentally disabled or people who are post-mentally ill. There are more and more people living in communities and a great percentage, a great number of our people are in that category . So you've got that . Also, of course, the fact is the population of the province is increasing overall , so that has to be a bit of a factor in this. Single parenthood is growing and deinstitutionalization, I think, is a major phenomenon.

But our Social Allowance, the percentage of people on Social Allowance, as I indicated in the House , is 5.8 percent as of March '86, which is considerably below the rates in the other regions. We are certainly one of the better provinces, as I've indicated previously . If you take Manitoba's social assistance caseloads, that's both the provincial Social Allowances and the Municipal Assistance between March'81 and March '86, it grew by 39.8 percent , which was below the national growth rate of 42.6. It certainly was less than half of the growth rate for the other western provinces combined .

Saskatchewan , Alberta and B.C. together was 93.5 percent. So, it's not out of line and, as I said, it's below the national average . It's certainly much better than those provinces to the west of us. MRS. C. OLESON: Well, it seems odd, Mr. Minister, that the welfare roles keep rising. We spend millions ~ of dollars on training programs that definitely take in ~ - are supposed to take in - people who are on welfare .

It just seems to be a very difficult thing to understand why we're increasing the roles all the time when we're spending a lot of money on training and job programs that are supposed to put them to work . HON. L. EVANS: Well, it's a difficult challenge but, as I pointed out, the situation in Manitoba is better than the national average and certainly a lot better than the other western provinces. It's a very difficult matter . If we had faster economic growth in the country, it would help.

But, as I said, there are these factors at work, sole support parents, disabled people living in the community; those are factors. MRS. C. OLESON: The Minister mentioned the sole support parents and I'm wondering why there's such an increase. Does the Minister have any particular reason why? Is it a change of attitutes in community? Is it a change of policy within the department that gets more people into this, onto the roles when they were previously denied? What would he suggest would be the reason for this increase in numbers and what is the number of sole support parents on social assistance? HON. L.

EVANS: The sole support parents on social assistance'85-86 was. 8,429, that's cases. MRS. C. OLESON: How many? HON. L. EVANS: Eight thousand four hundred and twenty-nine . Incidentally, they account&! for over 60 percent of the increase in total caseload. The reason for more sole support parents is I guess it's changing values in our societies. It's not peculiar to Manitoba . There are more unwed mothers keeping children; there's a rapid growth in separation ; there's a growth in divorce rate. All these are factors and it is very difficult to explain why it's happening .

I just repeat, it's nothing peculiar to this province, regrettably it's in many, many parts of the Western World. 2746

It Thursday, 4 June, 1987 MRS. C. OLESON: What is the particular reason that so many of them would be on, from an individual point of view - is it particularly because they have poor education and are unemployable, in a sense that maybe so underemployed that welfare would be the answer? Is it the places they are in the province where there are no jobs? Is that part of the problem? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is alluding to some of the answers here.

They tend to be very young, many /are under 21, some are in their late teens and, generally, they've had no experience and many don't have much education , but this is what we get, this is what comes to us. There are a lot of single parents out there who are not at all dependent on our programs; they're doing very well. They are well trained, they have skills, they're professional people , technical people, they're okay. Their big concern is for day care, I suppose, essentially. But, apart from that, we tend to get the young , uneducated, unexperienced people .

Either they don't make enough money or they couldn't make enough money on their own or they may need some supplementary support from us. But, generally, they are disadvantaged . MRS. C. OLESON: Do they get some help and counselling to the aspect of returning to school and get help that way and upgrading their education? HON. L. EVANS: Yes. We have a Student Social Allowance Program which is probably the best in the country, at least it's well used among the Canadian provinces .

We have a lot of these people who come in and are able to finish off their high school because of our Student Aid - I'm confusing it with the Student Aid - it's our Student Social Allowance Program, which is separate . But many, many - I don't know what the numbers are, it's about 600 or 700 on Mother 's Allowance - but about 1,000 in total who get assistance under our student program, Student Social Assistance. What was the other question you asked? MRS. C. OLESON: Oh, I wondered if they got counselling and referrals to other programs, for instance, from the department . HON. L. EVANS: Yes.

Mind you, this is the thrust of this Employment Enhancibility Program, the program we signed with the Federal Government. That's the whole point. This year there are 800 on that program . All over Manitoba together is about 800 we estimate who are getting just that. They're getting counselling, intensive counselling in some cases. They're getting pre-employment training and they're getting work experience . So this is the whole point of that program. MRS. C. OLESON: Now with regard to the Canada Pension benefits .

Has the Minister changed the policy of the department with regard to considering the increase in CPP benefits to the disabled as income? HON. L. EVANS: No, we haven't taken a position on that, nor has, I believe, any of the provinces . There's a great deal of concern and problem because, according to our understanding of the CAP regulations, Canada Assistance Program , all incomes must be considered in determining your level of welfare support.

The exceptions we make, if there are universal kinds of programs, if everybody's entitled to that income, then we can make an exception, but there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of disabled people I guess in Canada who are not on CPP, and yet are on welfare across the country. You're in effect discriminating against those people by saying, well, just because you happen to be on CPP and you get a disability pension, we'll let you keep that;

whereas we're going to treat somebody who isn't on CPP but is disabled, we're going to treat them differently. There is a categorical unfairness about this . The other problem is, if you 're going to allow them to keep the increase , why not the whole thing? What's so different about the increase in the disability pension? Also what do you do next year, it's indexed? So do you let them keep the indexing portion as well? This is not at all clear and it's going to be a major topic of discussion next week in Halifax among the provincial Minister's concern with social welfare, social assistance .

But I would say this , we did get a letter from the Minister, Mr. Epp, asking that we don't discriminate against people who are possible early retirees under CPP, and he asked that we don 't encourage people, we don 't force them, encourage them to go on. We agreed that we wouldn't do that . We were also asked if we would consider keeping the health card benefits for people who might get off this program now. Would we make a special case for them? And we agreed that we would . So we've agreed to do what was asked of us.

The latest item, the one that you referred to, the CPP disability pension increase, is -causing a lot of difficulty because we just don't have an understanding of what the Federal Government is up to. It's contradictory in their position on this and I would hope we can resolve it soon . MRS. C. OLESON: Well of course , one problem that comes immediately to mind is that it's a shame if one level of government is trying to help people who are in desperate need and the other is not allowing them the help.

That's why it begs a question, because the people who are disabled through no fault of their own are probably one of our most needy group in our society. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, we're concerned about the needy. We're trying to help the needy and we've done all that we've been asked to. But this latest item is contrary to the CAP regulations and we'd like the Federal Government to change their regulations so that we're abiding by the regulations. No province has seen fit to pass on this increase in the CPP Disability Pension. It's very strange and very confusing so that has to be clarified.

It's not good enough for the Minister to say, well , you can keep this little bit of CPP Disability, this pension increase that you happen to be given this year. Why not the whole thing? What about the increases next year? The Province of Ontario rejected it outright . They absolutely refused to do this an

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-62
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 62.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5cbf260f225dfe0ed06e60bd7c62ab406e8d691f

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