Manitoba Hansard — 16 May 1994 (Sitting 28A, 35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-28a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Sessi on • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Prlblis#Nd ruukr 1M •fllhorily of Tlt.e BorwiUYible D•rds C. RDCtlll SJMflbr Vol. XLm No. 28A • 1:30 p.m., Monday,-May 16, 1994 JSSN OS42-S492

NAME ASHTON, Steve BARRE'IT, Becky CARSTAlRS, Sharon CERR.LI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louiae DBRKACH, .Lecnard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Guy DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. ln>VVAURJ>S,Paul ENN S, Harry, Hon. ERNST, 1"101, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, .Lecnard S. Fn.MON, Guy, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon .

FRIESBN,Jean MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, CoDStltueades and Polltlcal Aftlli ation CON S'ITTIJBNCY Thompson VVellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.Roae Seine River Roblin- Russell SeJkirk Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield VVolaeley GAUDRY, Neil GIILES HAMMBR, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minnedosa c�scen twood Gimli HEL \VER, Edward R. HICKBS, George KOVV ALSKI, Guy LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA1liLIN, Oscar LAURBNDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOVVAY,I"IDl MANNES S, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCORMICK, Nonna McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. P ALLISTER. Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZN1K, DIUI'en, Hon. REID, Duyl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENB ERG, Harry STEP ANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemuy, Hon. VVOVVCHUK, Rosann Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St.

Johns Elmwood Morris BUll"OWS Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon VVest Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonn et Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossme� Kirldield Plllk Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

1671 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, May 16, 1994 1be House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS RO�NE PROCEEDINGS Introduction of Guests Mr. Speake r: Pri or to Oral Questions, may I direct the atte ntion of honourable members to tbe Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Dr. Garcia Reyes, Head, Generalit y of Cataluna, Pre side nt's Department, Extern al Af fairs, Re lations with the United States and Canada. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here today, sir.

Also with us today, we have 10 senior pro vincial 4H pu blic spe aking competitors, and the y are under the direction of Mr. David Hay. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Immigr ant Investor Program Federal Governm ent Policy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to tbe First Minister (Mr. Film on).

On Fr iday, we lea rned that the federal government allegedl y is going to override the provincial decision on freezing Immigrant Investor Funds in the province of Manitoba. 1be freeze that the government implemented arose out of a long series of investigations and inquiries dealing with the integrity of the way mone y is raised, the integrity of the way it is invested and the inte grity of money in the fund. Mr. Speaker, we were very conce rned when we beard about this decision.

We wonder, can the First Minister indicate whether that is indeed the decision of the federal government to override tbe provincial government in terms of the Immigrant Investor Funds in Manitoba, and what rationale is tbe federal government utili zing in this decision? Bon. Jam es Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism) : Mr. Speake r, first of all, I want to reiterate the fact that this Immigrant Investor Program is a federal govern ment program, not a provincial program.

It was this government that initiated a review , an investigation into the activities of the Immigrant Inve stor Fund, and the conditions have not been met that we have put forward. In fa ct, we bad asked that an independe nt representation for the investor be put in place, the court-directed solution be carr ied out, and that full disclosure to the inve stors be made available. Those are the three conditions which this government put fo rward, Mr. Spe aker, and they still have not been met Immigr ant Investor Program Feder al Governm ent Policy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, we will recall that the Crewson report dated May 19, 1993, indicated on dealing with the proposals in question that in a report there is a cash deficienc y in the escrow accounts to complete the pr oject, based on either the projected budget or the revised budget. Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a cash shortage in some of the pro jects that are now ap parently getting federal government appro val, according to tbe accountant hired by the provincial government to provide an analysis of these funds .

These pro jects represent investments by immigrants in our province , and it re pres ents an issue of credibility for credible investments in the province of Manitoba. I would ask, again, the Premier: How can the fe deral government override the freeze that the provincial government bas put in place , when one of the funds bas been documented not to have

1672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 enough money in the fund to complete the pro jects? It seems to me to be very unfair to investors and very, very unfair to our reputation. •

(1335) Bon. Gary Film on (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) said, that is pre cisely why we have concerns. We have told the federal government very directly that we do not support the removal of the freeze be cause much of what was produced by the auditor who investigated on behalf of the provincial government-and I emphasize that the audit was caused by this government, that the fed eral gove rmnent of the day, the previous federal governme nt, did not agree with it and would not pay for the wor k that Mr. Crewson did in identifying the concerns with it.

Yet all of that has been overri dden by the federal governme nt today, and the only way in which I can respond to the Leader of the Oppo sition is to tell him that this is totally within fed eral jurisdiction, that this Immigrant Investor Program is totally a fe deral program and within their jurisdiction to remove the free ze. We disagree with it, but they have proceeded on that basis. Mr. Doer: I am sure we will have all-pa rty agreement on this matte r.

I remember the fo nner Finance critic of the Liberal Party, who is now a member of Parliament, indicating in 1993 that they were opposed to visas being sold for pmposes of immigration, Mr. Speaker. It quite concerns us because with the new govermnent in late 1993, the new minister, Mr. Marchi, indicated that they would be reviewing and curtailing the Conservative Immigrant Investor Fund as part of their new fe deral program. So we were quite surprised to hear about the app roval of these investments.

I would ask the provincial government, given that the original decision required a recommenda tion of the Province of Manitoba prior to the federal government getting an appr oval, and given the fact that we have frozen our decisi ons and frozen these funds given the fact that some of these funds do not even contain the original amount of money that was indicated, will the provincial government, on top of the freeze, be required to rescind the decisions, to recomm end to the federal governm ent that these fu nds be appro ved? Mr. Filmon: Well , Mr.

Speaker, I just want to ensure that the Leader of the Opp osition knows that we were not in a position, we did not have the authority to freeze those funds, but as a result of the findings of the investigation of Mr.

Crewson, the auditor whom we hired to do that review, clearly there were ma jor concerns that were identified and conditions that he was recommending that needed to be fulfill ed, so the government of the day, which was the fo nner government in Ottawa, did cause the freeze on all those funds. 1be new federal government, against our wishes and recommen dations but totally within their jurisdiction, have now removed that free ze. Crown Corporations Layoff Statistics Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson) : Mr.

Speaker, there is continuing evidence of the impact of the governme nt's economic polici es, which resulted in high unemployment, a combination of public sector layoffs, the continuing concerns expressed about Bill 22, continuing minimum wages. I would like to ask the acting Minister of Labour if the government can indicate the total number of public sector jobs that will be lost in tenns of Manitoba Hydro fol lowing the ann ouncement of layoffs last year and the announcement of layoffs in the Manitoba Telephone System only a few weeks ago. •

(1340) Bon. Donald Orchard (Minister charged with the administra tion of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend is referring to the recent news coverage on Friday last, that is the final working through of the corporation of some downsizing of 500 that was commenced app roximat ely one year ago.

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 1673 Mr. Ashton: I would Hke to ask as a follow-up question, Mr. Speaker, how the government can justify having brought in Bill 22, supposedly to preserve jobs in the public sector, having had that comm unicated to Manitoba Hydro workeis, and now we are seeing today that upwards of 500 jobs have been cut from Manitoba Hydro fo llowing the announcement last year, and there are continuing layoffs in such areas as Manitoba Telephone System, when some of those Crown COipOI'll tions are making a considerable profit? Mr. Orchard : First of all, Mr.

Spe aker, my honourable friend should get his facts straight bef ore he makes such statements to the House . 'lbere are not 500 layoffs at Manitoba Hydro as my honourable friend alleges. 'lbere was a downsizing of some 500 positions commenced a year ago. We expect by the time the most recent layoffs, which are approximately 100, filter through, with every eff ort being made at redeployment, there will be a significantly lesser figure of actual people who will be laid off after redeployment has taken effect. So I do not want my honourable friend to indirectly provide incorrect inf ormation to the people, but, Mr.

Speaker, maybe my honourable friend would support the president of the MGBA who preferred 500 people to be laid off , rather than the 10 days off . Maybe that is the position of my honourable fri end the New Demo crat: more layoffs, not less. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we would like to see jobs maintained in the Manitoba economy. That is what we would like to see. Re duced Workweek Impact on Service Mr. Steve Asht on (Thompson) : My final question is to the Premier, once again in reganl to the implications of Bill 22. There is an indication today, Mr.

Speaker, that the chamber of commerce is conce rned that service has been affe cted, particularly in rural and northern communities, becaus e of the impact of Filmon Fridays. As we enter the latest round of Filmon Fridays, will the Premier respond to the concerns that have been expressed, not only by civil servants and by members of public but now by the chamber of commerce, and recognize that there has been reduction in services and review what is happe ning in terms of services because ofFilmon Fridays? Bon. Gary Fnmon (Premier) : Mr.

Spe aker, I compliment the Manitoba chambers of commerce who are taking a far more seDSl'ble, common-sense appro ach to this, rather than the dogmatic, ideolo gical, narrow approach of the New Democrats who would rather see 500 people laid off . We will not accept that solution. We believe that the public does want their taxes kept down.

We believe that the public does want us to continue to look for ways to make government more efficient We are going to heed some of the advice that many people throughout the province have given us that coincides with that of the Manitoba chambers of commerce and look for ways of ensur ing that it is applied in a common-sense fas hion with flexibility. That flexibility will allow us to continue to maintain services while at the same time to reduce our payroll by $20 million and maintain 500 more jobs in the public service. Regiona l Economic Co-operatio n International Trade Mr.

Paul Edwards (Leader of the Sec ond Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my questio n is fo r the Premier. The Premier, later this week, will be meeting wi th other west ern Premiers in Gimli at the Western Premiers' Conf erence. In view of that, I want to speak briefly about international trade. He has put that in the press releases as a key area of concern. Just some time ago, we closed down our Hong Kong office, as the Premier well knows , and Mr. Walker, who had been heading up that office, was put on a contract.

My question for the Premier is , perhaps he can enl ighten us, after that 19-day trip that he took last fall to the Orient, on what basis that decis ion was

1674 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 made and whether or not he is going to be propOsing to the other Premiers that perhaps this is an area that the west er n provinces coul d co-operate in. Is there some way that we should be co-operating as a region to have a more substantial presence in the Far East? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premie r): Mr. Speaker, that proposal was made two years ago at a Western Premiers' Conference. It was repeate d again last year.

It was, in fact, discusse d on December 21 in Ottawa with all of the First Ministers of Canada We will continue to pursue the opportunity to have joint missi ons as opposed to individual missions, because the member may know that during the course of the month and a half or so pri or to Christmas, there were five diffe rent Premiers from Canada who were over in the Asia-Pacific region.

So it make s ultimate good sense. 1be move with respect to the representation in Hong Kong was one strictly of ensuring that we could operate more efficiently by hiring the same individual on a con tract basis, rather than undergoing the imme nse cost of space that I think exceeds $100 a square foot to maintain premises in Hong Kong,

whereas the individual who is the key to the operation can be hired on a contract for less and not have to have the expenses, yet can get the same effect for our services and for ass urances that we can keep in touch with and promote our business interests in that Asia-Pacific region. Mr. Walker will very happ ily be part of our continued effo rt to expand business, trade and oppo rtunities in the Asia-Pacific region. Regional Economic Co-operation Walker Contract Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Sec ond Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again for the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Mr.

Walker, I understand, is curre ntly in the pr ocess of negotiating a contract with the province for the new arrangement. I note that be has been the emp loyee, the bead of that mission in Hong Kong. Now that be is moving to a contract basis, will there be a commission aspect of that contr act? Will Mr. Walker be paid a strai ght salary, as be has been, or a straight amount of money, or will there , in fact, be some relationship to what is actually secured in terms of investment in Manitoba as a part of his pay package? •

(1345) Bon. Ja mes Downey (Mini ster of Industry, Trade and Tourism ): Mr. Speaker, the detail of the contract I am prepared to get for the member.

I do not believe that there is a commission part to the contract. 1bere is a quantity that he will be paid, but there will be an ability for him to, as well , contract his services to other individuals who may need those services when be is not, in fa ct, working on behalf of the government of Manitoba's interests, which we believe will broaden the inte rests on behalf of the peo ple of Manitoba and enhance the oppo rtunities to encour age business to come to this province from the Asia-Pacific area. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, no doubt.

However, I do ask the minister to consider tying some remuneration to actual prod uctivity and actually securing investment in this province from that region now that they are going to a contr act as oppo sed to an employee basis. Regional Economic Co-operation Procur ement Policy Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Sec ond Opposition): Mr.

Speak er, my final question for the First Minister: The procurement agreement which is curre ntly in place between the western provinces does not include the largest departments this government opera tes, that of Health and Education, and currently does not include the contracts under the Crown corporations. Is that going to be a key priority for this Premier in the upcoming session?

Clearly, the biggest ex penditure departments and the Crown corporations are essential to maki ng this overall western co-operative effo rt work, in particular in terms of procurement, seeing as we already have an agree ment in place . It just excludes the ma jor departments .

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1675 Bon. Gar y Fllmon (Premier) : Clearly, Mr. Speaker, what we Will be atte mptin g to do from a Manitoba perspective is broaden the agree ment so that it does include as much as possible the procurement initiatives of the governments of the westem provinces . We are very much aware that although we have an agreement that was, I might say, the fiiSt in Canada the westem provinces signed it in 1990; it was the first in Canada among provinces- it does not go far enough and it does not include , for instance, desttu ctive competition for investment.

So we will be looking at broadening it and extending it to include as many areas as we possibly can for co-operation and access to each other' s procurement rruukets. Health Care System TQM Training Program Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildon an): Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me a manual produ ced in the United States which deals with total quality management and is used together with a video about how to make juice and is utilized at several Wmnipe g hospitals to train staff.

Just quoting from it, it says one of the reasons that third-ring organizations can charge more is their customers fee l they get their money's worth. 1bey retum for more and more and tell others about the quality. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Is it government policy that this program, which is being used at these hospital s, is appr oved by the government to teach and train staff at Winnipeg hospitals? • (1 350) Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health) : Mr. Spea ker, I do not know what it is that the honourable member has against the Seven Oaks Hospital.

Repe atedly he batters the administration and the staf f and employees at Seven Oaks Hospital for trying to improve patient care and service for all people who have dealings with the Seven Oaks Hospital. First of all, he is against improving discharge service for people so that they can receive app ropriate home care, and now he is against a total quality approach to better service for the patient. I just do not under stand wher e the honourable member is coming from. Mr. Chomiak : Mr.

Speaker, my supp lementary to the minister: Since it is the governmen t's pla n that has called for TQM to be introduced at all the hospitals, as related in their own reform document and their own throne speech in '91-ifthe minister looked to read it-since it is government policy, I am wondering is it not possible for the government at least to have a plan that is made-in-Manitoba and deals with health care sector, rather than used cars and juice-making? Mr. McCrae: I repeat, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know what the honourable member has against Seven Oaks Hospital or against trying to do a better job for the patients . Mr. Chomiak : Mr. Speaker, the government could do well by improving the CAT scanning facilities at Seven Oaks Hospital . Mr. Speaker, in light of the Connie Curran fiasco , will the government not introduce, because they said they would in their own health care pl an, a program that is made-in-Manitoba and deals with health care and its approach to people, not this custom, assembly-line, U.S .-based kind of industrial program that is not appl icable? Mr. McCrae: Mr.

Speaker, our health care system is a made-in-Canada health care system. It is governed by a national Health Act which is a statute of the Parliament of Canada. The honourable member is afraid of anything that will improve service for patients because his union boss friends will get angry. Rallway Industry Hopper Car Shortage Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, the fe deral Minister of Agriculture is in Winnipeg today mee ting with representatives from the grain industry to talk about the serious problem there is in the industry with the shortage of hopper cars.

They are meeting with repres entatives of the industry. Unfortunately, farm groups will not be there to raise their concerns .

1676 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what message he will be taking to the meeting or whether he will be meeting with the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the issue of shortage of hopper cars is addressed. Will he be asking for additional cars to be built? Will he be suggesting that grain be shipped through the Port of- Mr. Sp eak er: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Bon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agricult ure) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the member for Swan River.

The meeting that is occurring while we speak has more to do with what can we as Canadians do to better utilize the cars that we have in the system. My understanding is that the questions range from looking at some of our own legislation. When I say "our own," I am speaking primarily of federal legislation. There is co nsiderable concern that the bureaucracy that runs the Western Grain Transportati on program needs to be revised, looked at, indeed fundamentally altered.

It is not so much a question of not having enough rolling stock in the system, it is having them here and where we need them at the appropriate time. That is what is going on at that meeting this afternoon, Sir. Ms. Wowcbuk : Mr. Spea ker, since it is the industry that is responsib le for getting the hopper cars, as the minister says, will the minister raise with the Minister of Agriculture the possibility of the railway companies paying the dem urra ge at the port, instead of all that cost being picked up by f anners? It is not the fann ers' fa ult that the cars are not there.

Why will he not speak up for the fann ers and have the railway companies pick up the dem urr age costs? Mr. Enos: Mr. Speaker, I will make a deal with the honourable member for Swan River. I will certainly suggest to the railway companies that they have a respon sibility with respect to any unnecessary demurrage charges that are accrued to the fann ers if she will take that same po sition when organized labour walks out on strik e , as they did in Vancouver, and leaves the fann ers with millions of dollars in dem urrage charge s. These are the kinds of issues that I understand are being discussed.

As to whether or not we have to fundamentally overhaul our grain handling system, it is just not fair to the fanners of Canada that our customers should be lef t waiting. It is jeopardizing our position in the international trade maikets. Mr. Speaker, these are legitimate points that will be raised, I am sure, at this meeting. Ms. Wowcbuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister should rem ember that that was a lockout and we would- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. This is not a time for debate. The honoura ble member for Swan River, with your question. • (1355 ) Grain Transportation Proposal Government Position Ms.

Rosano Wowcbuk (Swan Rive r) : Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he will also be raising the issue of the Crow benefit Since the Crow bene fit was changed under the pre vious Conservative government and is now carried out by the Liberal government , reducing the benefit by 15 percent , fan ners ' freight bills will be rising an aver age of 54 cents per tonne at a time when the NT A says the transportation costs for shipping grain is reducing. Will he stand up with fanners on that, and will he support final offer selection next time the re is a labour dispute? Bon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture ): Mr. Speak er, it is always a priv ilege to stand up for the fann ers of Manitoba and of Canada, and I do that whenever I can . The question that she specifically raises, however, is far too complicated to answer in the short period allotted to me here in Question Period. I invite her to pose these questions to our officials when we deal with the de partmental Estimates which will be coming up shortly. I will have the neces sary staff available to provide all those answers. This is not the meeting that has to do with internal broader agricultural policies like the Crow

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1677 benefit, although they play a role in it. I also suggest that all of u8 in 1bis Chamber ought to be thinking about when those ttansportati on subsidies come off our feed grains , what are we going to do with the feed grains? One of the answers is, we can raise hogs. We can raise more livestock. We can raise more cbickem. I want some support for that from honourable members opposite, Mr. Speaker. Minimu m Wage Renew Ms. Jean Fries en (Wol seley ): In December 1990 , the Minister of Labour announced that the minimum wage would be increased.

At the same time he claimed that he recognized the importance of reviewing the minimum wage on a regular basis. 1be Minimum Wage Board has not met since 1990, and there has been no annual review of minimum wages in Manitoba which have now fallen considerably below the national average . Will the Premier today tell the House why his gover nment has not met its commitment to Manitobans who are earning the minimum wage? Will he explain why it has been four years since his government looked at that minimum wage? Bon.

Ga ry Filmon (Premi er) : First and fore most, we have been wodring to ensure that those on minimum wage are in a much more fa vourable position vis-l-vis the taxes that they no longer pay as a result of the efforts of this government. In addition to that, I would have thought that the member for Wolseley wo uld have been complimen ting the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Pramik) fo r striking the minimum wage review board now so that this matter can be looked at and we can review just exactly how the changes that have taken place since 1990 have affected those on minimum wage, and we can take a good position together on adj ustments to the minimum wage. Ms. Friesen: It is diff icult to compliment a minister who promises one thing and does nothing.

Will the Premier give us a clear commitment today on beha lf of his government of his oppo sition to a two-tiered minimum wage rate in Manitoba to give some assurance to the increasing number of students who as a result of this governm ent 's policy must combine work and study? Mr. FDmon: Mr. Speaker, this government will continue to listen to all of the people of Mani toba and do what is best for them in the circumstances. Ms.

Friesen: Will the Premier then con firm that his government 's labour strategy, whether it has been in the ending of FOS, in the 18- month delays on the cons truction wages act, in the absence of any discussion of the minimum wage act, that his policy, clear and simple, has been to create in Manitoba a low-wage , low-skilled province? Mr. Filmon: Absolutely not. I think that the member opposite is an intelligent person who has certain knowledge of many things, but on 1bis issue she is out to lunch. I just invite her to read things that are being said about Manitoba in the new areas of the new econ omy.

This from the Telesolu tions ma gazine tha t says, Manitoba of fering a philosophy of economic development. The province of Manitoba has become a player in the call centre community the ol d-f ashion ed way-they have earned it. It goes on to tell all about the things that Manitoba is doing to attract high-tech jobs in telec omm unications , in computers, in aerospace , in all of those things, Mr. Speaker. I rej ect tot ally the absolutely fo olish statement that sbe just made. • (1 400) Boot Camps Programming Regu lations Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

I would like to congratulate the minister for adopting Manito ba's recommendation for a more humane approach to camps for young offende rs and her reje ction of the military-style boot camps ann ounced in her nine-point plan of February 17. I also want to thank the minister for sharing with me the document entitled, Guid elines For Proposal To Operate A Youth Camp, produced by her department

16 78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 I ask the minister: Given that, according to the guideline, pro gramming for camps may consist of activitie s, including school, substance abuse treatment , aboriginal culture awarene ss, what regula tions will be put in place to ensure that privately run camps include these important elements in their pro grammin g? Bon. Rosemary Vodre y (Minister of Justice and Att orney General) : Mr. Speaker, the member has obviou sly mi sread the original announcement. [interjection] Yes, it says boot camp.

However, I will make it very clear that I ha ve al ways been clear that thi s will be a made-in -Manitoba solution, that it will be developed in Manitoba, and I have been clear from the very beginning about the principles that boot camps will operate within. I have made it clear it will be made -in-Manitoba, highly stmctured, well-known rules, consequence s that are well known, an austere environment and a high level of activity or work. In that, there has always been an assumption that this will be humane treatment. The member has not fo und anything new. Mr.

Kowalski: I have the news release here that talks about boot camps, military boot camps, and if she would like to read it, I could shaJe- Mr. Speaker: Order . Que stion. Mr. Kowalski: Mr. Speaker, my question: If these camps are privately run, how can the people of Manitoba be sure that public saf ety and the rehabilitation of young off enders will not be compro mised fo r the sake of profit? Mrs. Vodrey : Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no decision on privatization, so I think the member had better back up there .

I would like to tell him , from the day of the announcement Manitobans strongl y supported more rigorous confinement in our institutions, and that is exa ctly the way we are moving . Manitobans also believe that they have opinions and they have inform ation to of fer. So, unsolic ited-and let me make that cle ar-we re ceived proposa ls and info rmation from Manitobans. In an effort to standardize what they sent to us, we put together the letter which said, if you have inf ormation to offer, here are the issues that we are looking at so that you can cover all of the areas of importance to us. Mr.

Kowalski: My final suppl ementary: Will the minister ensure that adequate staffing resources are in place to mo nitor and enforce these regulatio ns if these are privately run fa cilities? Mrs. Vodrey : 1be member, of course, is dealing with a hypothetical, the if, if. However, I would be happy to say that anything we put in place in Manitoba will certainly ensure that the trea tment fo llows exactly what we have said. Let me make it clear again. We are looking at, obviously, humane conditions, but we are not looking at summ er camp. Provincial Sa les Tax Arrears Mr. Jim Maloway (Elm wood): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Almost a month ago I asked the minister to table the outstanding arrears in sale s tax collection. At that time he said that he had recently received such a report. This morning at the Public Accounts committee the minister said he had still not obtained such a list. Now, I would like to know, which is it? Does he have it, or does he not have it? When is he going to release it? I would like to know when he is going to be able to tell the House how long ago his department was aware that- Mr. Speaker: Order, plea se. You have put your question already, sir. Bon.

Eric Ste fan son (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is a shortage of questions today from the opposition party because the honourable member did raise this issue with me this morning in Public Accounts. I did indicate to him that I would obtain the information . I have asked my depu ty minis ter to look into it. There are certain aspe cts of confidentiality whenever you are dealing with an individual taxpayer here in Manitoba, which I think we can

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1679 all appreciate in tbis House, or at least I hope we can. But I have undertaken to provide him with answers to his questio ns and will do so very shortly. Manitoba Securities Commissi on Clan cy's Ven tures Group Mr. Jim Maloway (Elm wood): It is clear that we are not going to get any answeiS from tbis Minister of Finance . My suppleme ntary is to the Minister of Consumer and Cotpo rate Affairs, the minister responsible for the Securities Commissi on. Maybe we can get some answe iS from him .

Can the minister explain why a letter from an investor to the commission questioning 13 concerns over the way Clancy's was operated, dated last June, was not responded to by either the minister or the commission? Bon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I can advise the House that the commission is just that, an independent commissi on. It is not controlled by the minister, but if the member wishes information I will inq uire. Mr.

Maloway : My final supplementary to the same minister is tbis: Will the minister also check whether the second le tter from a group of investo iS to the comm ission dated tbis May 3 is going to be inve stigated? Will be also investigate what role the Securities Co mmissi on is playing in tbis business collapse? Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. VIA RaU Layoff s Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): My question is to the Acting Minister of Highways and Transpo rtation. Before September of this year, CN Rail will, after 75 yem, move from the VIA Union Station loca tion.

There are currently some 360 employees working for CN at the Union Station. My question is for the acting minister: Has the minister met with CN to discuss the implications of tbis move? Will any CN or VIA employees be losing their jobs as a result of CN's move from tbis location? Bon. Albe rt Driedger (Actin g Minister of Highways and Tnns portation): Mr. Speaker, I will take the specifics of the question as notice for the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.

Findlay), but I want to give an indication to the member and to the House that the minister bas been meeting with CN and VIA people on an ongoing basis to try and raise the concerns that Manitobans have about what is happening. Mr. Reid: Can the acting minister tell the House, Mr. Speaker, what the impact of CN's move will be on VIA's operation and viability in the province of Manitoba? Mr. Driedger: I will take that question as notice, as well, on behalf of the Minister of Highways and Transportati on. Mr. Reid: Will the Acting Minister of Highways and Transportation tell the House or confirm to the Ho use, Mr.

Speaker, that there will indeed be job losses for the custodial and maintenance staff of the CN worldorce in Manitoba? Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, no, I will not confirm that Personal Care Homes F1in Flon, Manitoba Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Health busies his staff with the hospitality-plus approach to our hospital system, there are almost 30 senior citizens staying in extended-care hospital beds in the Flin Flon General Hospi tal, awaiting a placement in the personal care home . Mr.

Speaker, since 1988, the Flin Pion area has been awaiting the constru ction of a 66-bed peiSo nal care home. I would like to know whether the Minister of Health intends to place the 66 beds that are desperately needed in Flin Flon on the agenda for construction this year. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Hea lt h): Mr. Speaker, I will take the honourable member 's question as a repr esentation on behalf of his constituency and remind him that pro vince-wide ,

1680 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 certainly much, much progress bas been in the area of community care and long-term care as an alternative to acute care. We do not see ourselves as being in the hospitality business, but I would like to correct the honourable member's comment that my staff are involved in pro gramming in a particular hospital ; in this case, the Seven Oaks Hospital which the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) repeatedly attacks in this House.

That is a program of Seven Oaks, but from what I know of that program, it puts the patient first, and that is the right appr oach, as far as I am concerned. Mr. St orie: Mr. Speak er, the minister had a previous occasion to repudia te the hospitality-plus app roach to health care in the province. My question was, after waiting now six years, will this minister indicate to the people in F1in Flon and particularly those who have relatives , mothets and fat hets, in exte nded-care beds-will he now commit to building the petsonal care home which has been promised for six years? It is a simple question. Mr.

McCr ae: Mr. Speak er, I said in my last response that I would take the honourable member's question as a representation. As he knows, there are at any given time any number of proposals in Manitoba for various kinds of capital pro jects. We look at the care needs of people in all the regiom when we make our decisions about the long-term care requirements . • (1410 ) Ment al Healt h Care Rural Manitoba Mr. Jerry Storie (F1in Flon): Mr.

Speaker, on a diff erent subject but to the same minister, the minis ter will have rece ived a letter from one of the people participating in the mental health committee respecting the improveme nts that this minister announced for the communities of The Pas and F1in Pion. One of the concerns is the level of human resource training.

My question to the mi nister is: After receiving the expression of concern from people in the F1in Flon and The Pas area about the lack of training that is going into mental health workers and particularly in the area of developing physician capability , will the minister now unde rtak e to make sure that the human resources are in place so this proposal that the minister bas put in place will actually be effective in northern Manitoba? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health) : We certainly want the community-based model of mental health care delivery to be success ful, Mr. Speaker.

In order for that to happen we are going to need dedicated and trained individuals. That is one of the reasom that we have supported, along with the Univetsity of Manitoba, a program to train phys icians, notably physiciam in rural Manitoba, but physici am in psychiatric issues. Not every community will have a psychiatrist living in it. At the present time in the first round of the program we have I believe six physicians being trained in further psychiatric knowledge.

This is not to make psyc hiatrists out of them, but it is to attempt to make general practiti onets able to deliver a wider range of services to their patients. Social Assistance Sing le-Parent Families Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, last week in a question to the Minister of Family Ser vices I quoted from a paper titled: Federal-Provincial Fram ework Paper-Sole Parents Pilot Pro ject. The minister seemed unfamiliar with this paper. Perhaps it is because the fede ral government has not shared it with her yet.

I find this surprising in view of a press release put out by the federal and provinc ial governments in which the Premier (Mr. Ftlmon) is quoted as saying : The public and private sectots need to work together to identify solutions that will get welfare recip ie nts back to work and enable them to become self -sufficient. Can the mi ni ster tell us if her fe deral counterparts have now shared the ir position and their propos als on the sole parent pro ject, and if so, could the minister infonn the House? Bon. Bonnie Mitche lson (Mini ster of Family Servic es) : Mr. Spe aker, it is obvious by that

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1681 question tbat my honourable friend across the way bas never been in government and quite probably never will be. The fact of the matter is that from time to time, right throughout gove rnme nt, in any department, at any level there are wodd ng papers and woddng documents that the bureaucracy prepares from time to time. Nothing moves forward from a gov ernment or a min istry unless there is ministerial approval.

A working paper that the fe deral government produces is not necessarily something tbat receives approval from a provincial minister or provincial ministty. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions bas expired. Comm ittee Changes Mr. George ffickes (Point Douglas) : I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowch uk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Reso urces be amended as fo llows : Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Thompson (Mr. Ashton); Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Swan River (Ms . Wowch uk), fo r Tuesday , May 17, 10 a.m. Motion agreed to. Mr.

Neil Gaudry (St . Boniface) : I move , seconded by the member for Cres centwood (Ms. Gray), that the com pos ition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as fo llows: Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for River Heights (Mrs . Carstairs). Motion agreed to. Mr. Edward Belwer (Gim li) : Mr. Speak er, I move, seconded by the member for St Vital (Mrs . Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Reso urces be amended as fo llows: the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for St. Vital (Mrs.

Render) for the member for Seine River (Mrs . Dacquay ); the member for Sprin gfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for Portage 1a Prairie (Mr. Pall ister) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); and the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine ) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). Motion agreed to. NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS Arctic Harvest WDde rness Trip Mr. Speake r: Does the honourable member for the Interlake have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Clif Evans (Inter lake ): I rise today to congratulate , Mr.

Speaker, members of the Arctic Harve st team , almost all of them from Fisher Branch and area, for their recent unique and amazing 14-day trip from Churchill to the Arctic Circle. This trip has never been done bef ore. At this time, I would like to read off the names of the members of the trip: Cubby Barre tt and his sons, Kris, Karl and Doug; Dave Bouchard; Gerald Deneau; Jules Giasson; Dr. Bass Gouweloos, who, Mr.

Speaker, is a doctor from South Africa; John Rudyk; from Stonewall, Kelly Langevin, John Hrominchuk, Sergeant Wyman Sangster, Lome Ross; from Swan River, Ivan Balen ovis and from Sebastian, Florida, Dennis La Beur. As membeiS may be aware, the crew travelled on 14 snowmobiles over some of the most diffi cult terrain in this country along the Hudson Bay to Repulse Bay. I want to particularly congratulate and commend Arctic Harve st organizer Cubby Barrett and RCMP Sergeant Wym an Sangster who came up with the idea to make this journey and make it a fundraiser for the Winni peg Harvest food bank. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Agriculture have leave to make a nonpolitical statement ? [agreed] Bon. Barry Eons (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the modesty that honourable members have become accustomed to bas prevented myself or my colle ague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) to have drawn the House 's attention to this indeed very worthwhile and exciting wilderness trip that the honourable

16 82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) quite appropriately puts on the record. It was, in fac t, the privilege that I had shared with the Minister of Natural Reso urces with the same group to explore the beauty and the wonder of the Seal River just a yea r ago in a similar wil derness occasi on that got us out onto the rough waters of the Hudson Bay in our light canoe craft fo r a very worthwhile experience. A few years earlier, I and the same group travelled the historic Hayes River to its final destination up at Yorlc Factory.

So I appreciate the comm ents that the honourable member for Interlake put on the record. I .know that my colleagues with whom we have enjo yed these wil derness trips will appreciate their public recognition in the journals of this Chamber. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. ORDE RS OF THE DAY Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Lead er): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environm ent (Mr. Cummin gs), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a commi ttee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a commi ttee to consid er of the Supply to be grant ed to Her Majest y with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the De partm ent of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine Riv er (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health. COMMI'ITEE OF SUPPLY (C oncuiTent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Ch ai rpe rson (M ar cel Lauren deau) : Order, please. Will the Co mmittee of Supply please come to ord er. This afternoon this

section of the Comm ittee of Supply meeting in Room 255 wi1I resume cons ideration of the Estimates of the Department of Educa tion and Training. When the committee last sat it had bee n consider ing item 2.(c)(

l) on page 38 of the Estimates book. Item 2. School Programs (

c) Assessment and Evaluation ( 1) Salaries and Empl oyee Benefits $675 ,900-pass;

(2) Other Expendit ures $361 ,1 00--pass. (

d) Native Education Directorate

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1 59,200-pass;

(2) Other Expenditure s $79, 700-pass. (

e) Program Deve lopment

(1) Salar ies and Employee Benefits $1 ,506,3 00-pass;

(2) Other Expenditure s $998,1 00--pass. (

f) Program Impl em entation

(1) Salaries and Employ ee Benefits $4,776,1 00--p ass;

(2) Other Expenditures $3 ,495 ,400 -pass;

(3) Les s: Recoverable from Other Appropriations (7.5). Mr. John Plohman (Daup hin) : Mr. De puty Chairperson, just for the record, we have discussed a number of issues under all of these under education refonn and therefore are passing these at this time. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(

g) Student Services

(1) Salari es and Emp loyee Be ne fits $1,905, 300. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : A coupl e of weeks ago I bad asked the minister under this particular area why there was a substantial cut of 22.5 percent. In asking the question there was a great deal of concern that in fact the minist er talks about a budget which is fai r and appropriate and that everyone bas to share the pain. If we take a look at the Student Services and the indivi duals that the Student Services serves, one has to question whe ther or not this is in fact a reflection of sharing the pain that the government is talking about.

I guess I will just start off by asking the specific questio n, why was it cut 22.5 percent? Hon. Clayt on Manness (Minister of Edu cation and Training): There are a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that part of this service is now provided under a different program area, that being within the Program Implementation area, so we are

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1683 not quite comparing apples and oranges here, firstly. . To drive that point home I would like to indicate to the member that we have the same number of vision and be aring consultants that we always bad. We just sort of changed the location of housing some of their staff years, so that is the main reason for the reduction. Mr. Lamoureux: I notice even under the Program Implementation line that there was in fact a decrease . So the minister is indicating because of resb uffting that the 22.5 percent could be fo und under the Program Implementation line?

I am wondering if the minister can then assure us that part of the obj ective, no doubt, is to ensure that the materials that are necessary are, in fact, there and in place . Can be give us some sort of an assurance that the level of setvices, then , for those within the special needs or the student setvices are not going to be handi capped in any way or any fashi on by this particular line cut? • (1 430 ) Mr. Manness : We ll, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I know it is never easy when you are on the other side of the table to follow these changes that result because of a divisional reorganization, but I would indicate to him that the fo llowing positions: Statistics Specialist, Consultant Special Education, Consultant Special Education Extreme Behaviour Dis ordered Learning Speciali st, Senior Psycho logist, all of these specialists are now to be fo und within the provincial specialists listing. Mr.

Lamoureux : The list that the minister just rea d of f, is there any change in terms of responsibilities that they will be incurring as a result of the transfer ovefl Mr. Manness: The answer is no. Mr. Lamoureux: My question, then, would go back to the original thought of, can the minister give assurances that those individuals who require the student setvices will, in fact, be receiving at least at the same level that they received last year? Mr.

Manness: Well, gen erally I can make that statement, but there may be some nuance of a setvice that maybe bas impacted, if for no other reason a person is in a new department or a new division or a branch as compared to the other, but generally across the way, there was no intent here to withdraw setvices. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, I know the other day I bad asked some questions with respect to the special nee ds funding. The minister bad indicated that it might not necess arily have been the most appropriate line.

I wonder if I could ask some specific inf ormation with respect to that special needs at this time. Mr. Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, whatever the member wishes. I now have the inf ormation. The question is probably more prope rly put in another section, but I think I have inf ormation I can deal with a specific school division if be wishes that right DOW. Mr. Lamoureux: I know I had requ ested the minister if, in fa ct, be could give us some sort of actual cost.

I believe the two school divisions I bad given him were W JDDipeg School Division No. 1 and Winnip eg Seven Oaks School Division, specifically in terms of the special nee ds I fo rmula funding received. Mr. Ma nnes s: Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, answering that question, this now is not the special $1 0-million funding I am talking about. I am talking about the general fo rmula fundi ng in support of Level I, n and m and the clinician services and all the special ed needs that flow under form ula. There were roughly $90 million spent in '93-94.

Winnipeg School Division 's share of that was $19 million and the other school division requested was Seven Oaks. Their allocation was $4.6 million, again, based on the criteria that are in place . Mr. Lamoureux: The minister is re ferrin g to specials I through ill. The biggest problem with that is that the special needs IT and ill, from what I unde rstand, is decided upon request, where you actually have to identify the individual who would be the recipient of those funds,

whereas the special needs I is something that is given via form ula.

1684 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 I am wondering if the minister can give us the special needs I. It is the fo rmula that is being used to justify the amount of reso urces going to each school division that we are really calling into account. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the formula is this. You take the number of students within the school division-and I think there are roughly 33,000 in Winnipeg School Division No. l-and you divide it by 180. That is the divisor, 18 0. Whatever you come up with, then you multiply by the allocation on a professional basis of $43,700.

That used to be $45,000, but it too received a decrease this year to $43,700. That is the funding that, in part, I guess would be maybe the significant portion of the $18 million or the $19 million to Wmni peg School Division No. 1, but not all ofit. Mr. Lamoureux: I guess that is what we were at least trying to refer to the other day whe n I was asking the questions. The form ula that the minister just finis hed indicating, does it not worlt to the advantage, if you will-if there is an advantage to be bad-to school divisions that do not necess arily have the same demo graphic socioeconomic impact?

I know the minister bad made reference to a manner in which be was supp lementing that. I would ask the minister maybe if be can expand on that for me. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know what point the member is trying to get to. If be is saying there is just not enough money put into it, come out and say that.

We sense that the fo rmula; although it is worlting and although it is working well, and although it is working in keeping with what the divisions want, because the divisions did not want to identify person by person by pers on, it just took too much administrative time, too much additional cost. They wanted to go to fonn ula. So we went to fo rmula and that is what I have given you. But we realized that there is a problem with the for mula. Even though it probably addressed the reality of the situation, overall it still was a little bit short. So we put in an additional $1 0 million- Mr.

Lamoureux: Was that for special needs? Mr. Mann ess: Well, students at risk. We put another $10 million into that pot of which Winnipeg School Division, from memory, was around $5.9 mi llion. So we have recognized that. Now if the member says, well, that still is not enough, then be is going to have to say that. I think, in principle , we have tried to reflect, firstly , a system where you do not have to build massive administra tions and do all this counting. Secondly, we tried to take into account the fact that Winnipeg School Division still under the fo rmula is probably short, given the experience .

They then comm and virtually 60 percent of the additional funding, again in support of students at risk. Mr. Lamoureux: Does the minister see any diffe rence between students at risk, let us say, and special needs I students ? Is there a difference between the two? Mr. Manness: Well , there certainly is a difference. Special needs would deal with those who are suffering from autism, those who have some real special learning disa bilitie s,

whereas students at risk are those who have learning diff iculties due to migrancy, again, socia l economic factors, more so than inherent learning disabilities. I will give you some of the exampl es: migrancy, in come, single-pa rent fam ilie s, academic achievement and second language. There may be ove rlap. But still a larger number of the students at risk not called into question is their ability to learn-when I say their ability to learn; their inherent ability to learn. What is called into question is their ability to learn because of outside influences. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Deputy Chairpers on, the minister quite correctly demonstrates that there is a difference between the special needs and students at risk yet does not acknowledge, through funding, the diff erences between school divisions and their need for funding resour ces. I tried to indicate to the minister, speaking strictly with the special needs I students, which is

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 16 85 based on a fo rmula in which everyone, whether you are a private school, whether you are in a school division that bas a significantly smaller numb er of students per capita than other school divisi ons-and the minister refuses to really acknowledge the difference between those school di visions. I think that is a mistake . He talks about this review that is ongoing , dealing with the special needs students .

I would strongly encourage the minister that whol e area of that funding form ula, if you will , can be improved upon, primarily because you are penalizing a significant portion of the student base by not acknowledging where there is the greater need. Even though be talked about the additional, I believe it was, $10 million for students at risk, the minister himself ackno wledges that thos e are diff erent students, those are not the same students as the special nee ds. • (1 440 ) I want to go on to some oth er questions on special needs , but I know the minister would like to respond to what I just said. Mr.

Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot leave the comm ent unchalleng ed. This is exactly the line of questioning we reviewed last week. That is fine. We will go through it again. The fact is, No. 1, the gover nment bas understood that. I can remember when we were on the other side of the table and we asked the very same questions of the NDP government and they put additional funding in. I want to remind the member in case be forg ets that when we brought in the new formula in '91-92, we increased Level I, Level n, Level m support by 40 percent.

As a ma tter of fact, it was one of the issues, believe it or not, that got bied into the support of indepen dent schools. Anyway that is for another time. The reality is, this gove rnment has again, in kee ping with the arguments put forward by the member, increased funding in these areas by 40 percent. 1be member then would seem to try and leave an impression that all the special needs probl ems are in the city of Winn ipe g. Mr. Lamoureux: No. Mr. Manness: Well, be says no. 'Iben be says be wants one or two things, and I hope be would be so honest to say so.

Either be wants a shift or be wants more money yet, and if be doe s, say so; or secon dly be wants to shift away from these divisions here, all of them, all of them who receive a portion, including Brandon which receives $3.2 million. He wants to shift away-and I will table this, Mr. Deputy Olairpers on. He wants to shift away then from Brandon. He wants to shift away from Dauphin Ochre. He wants to shift away from Morris-MacDonald into the city of Wmni peg. He wants one or two things.

Why does be not tell us which be wants, because I can ten you be cannot have it both ways in sitting idly by and just saying, wen, this is inappro priate, because right now what we are doing is we have done it, not by favouritism or ad bockery where we try and guess and all that, we have done it in kee ping with what the divisions have asked for, and that is a system of a divisor. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is very important the minister note that what I am referring to is the special needs I, which is based on the fo rmula.

If be is asking in terms of a very specific, well, let me give him a very specific. I do not believe it is appropriate, for example, for Ravenscourt to receive financing on special nee ds on the same percen tage as Winnip eg School Division No. 1, using the same fo rmula. I would ask the minister if be fe els it is appropriate that that should occur . Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, agai n, the member is right. There is some history there which, when we have the other peo ple here involv ed in finan ce, this is the time to ask the questions of the independent schoo ls.

I would say this, Level I always has included gifted, high need, special needs. That is what gifted Lev el I always bas included. Now, if the member is saying that he wants to change the definiti on, then let him say so, but that has always been the meaning of Level l. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. De puty Chai rpe rson, through my example I bied to demonstrate fairly clearly in terms of the priorities. If we look at the

16 86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 specia l need s requirements throughout the province of Manitoba, both rurally and urbanly, we will see that there is a consid erable amount of diff erence and to see the minister at the very least ackn owledge tbat, and I do believe that he is aware of it. I just trust tbat he will in fact be bringing this up. He did mention that he does have a special needs review that is going on, and I think it is imperative tbat that discussion take place at tbat particular commi ttee. I do have a coupl e of more specific questions. I hope the minister is coming back.

I cannot make reference to him not being here, so if we might want to recess for a few minutes I think, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and then I can maybe resume my questioning the moment that we get back. Mr. Deputy Chairperso n: We will recess for just fiv e minutes. Tbaok you. The committee recessed at 2:44 pm. After Recess The committee resumed at 2:49 pm. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. De puty Chair per son, fo rtuna tely, today we bad tabled the May 11 Hansanl in which the minister had indicated the Level n funding for special needs was at $8,520, and for Level mit was $18 ,960.

Again, f ortunatel y, between then and now I have had opportunity to talk to a nu mber of administrators with respect to both special needs n and m and some of the actual costs of being able to service or to at least enable those individuals to be able to participate in our public schools. I am wondering if the minister can give the committee som e sort of indication on what he beli eves the actual cost, if there is an average cost that he might have at hand, for having a Level n and a Level m special needs student in the classroom . • (14 50) Mr.

Manness: If the memb er wa nts me to acknowl edge that the government funding level does not cover all the costs, I will acknowledge that That is a given reality. Mr. Lamoureu x: I think everyone knows that is in fact the case. What I am trying to find from the minister is if be can give us some sort of an indication on what the department believes is the actual cost of having a special needs student, special needs n for examp le. Maybe tbat is what we will do, talk about the Level n special needs student What does he believe the actual cost is? Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, all of the que stions that I am about to ask would be applied both to Level n and Level m special needs students . Mr. Mann ess: What we know is that school divisions are spending roughly $1 22 million in special education expenditures. What we know is that we are providing support grants of $83.4 million-w ell, in the latest yea r, $89 million. Those are the rough numbers . Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, if the members say you are short, well, we are short what school divisions are spending, but then we are not in charge of how it is and what it is and on what basis that school divisions ultimately spend, what models are in place, because the cost vari es dramatically from child to child-dram aticall y. Some school divisions have programs which are better than others. Does that mean that one division is doing it better than others? One division has a program which is more expensive than the other divi sions. Does that mean that they are doing a better job? No. So what does local autonomy mean?

Local autonomy means you can sort of set the educational program you want, and se condly, you can go to the taxpayers to support it. That is a lot different than calling on the provincial government to support every dollar you spend. Those days are long gone. They are not coming back in the fore see able future. Mr. Lamoureu x: Using the fi gures that the minister has just brought fo rward-and I thought it was interesting in terms of when be says, well, the school divisions $1 22 million, but it is the school divisions that ultimately determine what sort of services that they want to provide .

As a result, that has an impact on that $1 22 million. I think that is an accurate statement . That is the primary reason why it is I ask the Minister of Education in terms of what does be fee l, or the department, and one would think that

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1687 the department would have some sort of an idea of what the average cost of having a special nee ds Level n and a Level m, because if I take the two figures that the minister gives and take the total number of students in Level n and Level m, and maybe the minister could even possibly give that. I do not know if be has that. It is not really all that important to have that actual number, but, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, if I take those two, the Minister of Education would quite accurately say, well, that is not necess arily an average because some of the school divisions have diff erent services than other school divisions. That is why I am more interested in knowing what the Minister of Education and his department feel is the actual average cost of Level n and Level m. Mr. Mann ess: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is a philosophical question almost. That is not a question of math.

I mean obviously we feel we are covering the needs across the whole wide cross sec tion because we are putting up roughly 75 percent of the global funding. Now, the member does not have to stop there. I mean he could ask the Premier tomorrow. He could ask them whether or not we are putting enough in to support the social pro gramming by the Oty of Wmnipe g. The Oty of Wum ipeg says we are not. It says, we are not covering the nee ds, you are only covering X and X percent. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eons) is here.

He knows that there are indi viduals from the f ann commun ities saying your GRIP program is only covering basically 50 percent, 60 percent of the actual cost of fannin g. You are not covering the needs. Well, I tell the member this is being in government. This is what governing is all about. So be can come and say, well, within the area of special needs pro gramming, do you realize you are only covering 75 percent of what is being spent? I will say, well, no, that might be what is being spent, but of the needs, cov ering the needs out there, I would say the government is doing about the right amount.

I will not be drawn into this debate as to, well, what is the average per child, do you not think you are away below? I will not be drawn into it because that is not governing; that is giving away what everybody asks. In esse nce, what the recipients are saying, look, we will spend it, you provide it. Sorry, that is not governing. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, some of the arguments I would buy in terms of what it is that the minister is saying. 1be government in fact has to make some decisions on funding, and put so much into an envelope, but there is another aspect that again I have been somewhat supportive of the minister, not only presently but at times even in the past, when be argues very eloquently that it should also be fair. I think it is. When I look at this, you know a question could be asked of the minister, does be believe that in fact it is fair? If you look at the actual numbers , you have $122 million.

Even if one might want to go as far as to say that is excessive, whatever justification the minister might want to put on the $122 million that the school divisions would put in, Level n and Level m, and where again the biggest demand for those programs are coming from, you find that it is another level, at the school board level, where it is being asked to pick up the addi tional cost. Yet it is a provincial government decision that it is important that we enable these two levels of special nee ds students to attend our public schools. That is what we are telling them. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, on the other hand, we are saying to them that we will provide you a level of funding. By just looking at the numbers, it is far less than what is actually required in order to fa cilitat e what the provincial governm ent has mandated the public schools to do. I do see a bit of contradiction there in tenns of the whole question of fairness because of the amount of subsidy that school divisions had to put in. Again I would use the argument that, depending on the area of the province , one would argue that there is a higher level of special needs in Levels IT and ill.

It would be interesting, in order to prove that-I know when we entered into the discussi on of this nature the other day, the minister says, well, the mem ber fr om Inkster wa s jumping to conclusions, that I could not substantiate that there

1688 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 was a difference in demographics to warrant what it waS that I was saying . Yes, maybe I was jumping to some conclusions, but I think a vast ma jority of Manitobans agreed with me on that. I would imagine-and if I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister of Education would be more than happy to demonstrate it-that there is a higher percentage of Level ns, Level Ills, in some school divisions over others. Those school divisions once again are being put into a position in which they have to- whether it is raising at one level or maybe cutting back on a servi ce in order to be able to compensate-but they are trying to fulfill a mandate. •

(1500) Again the minister emphasizes about the whole que stion of fairne ss. I am not que stioning the amount of dollars. One could question the manner in which the school divisions are being treated, and should not the funding fo rmula take into account, more so, the per capita needs of special needs n and m and possibly even have some sort of a sliding scale? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, nothing bas chan ged. The member is asking for more money. I mean, that is what the issue is- An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Manness: What do you mean, no?

When be says put more into Level n and Level m, that means more money. More means more. More does not mean less; more means more. I mean, be can try and talk around this issue all be wants, but when be tells me at $8,520, Level n, be wants more , that means more. When be says at Level m, $18,960, be wants more , then be wants more. He wants more money; that is what he wants. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonde r if the minister can indicate, or give us some sort of an indication, whethe r it is percen tage or even in terms of numbers of some sort, of where the school divisions are at in particular.

Again, we can draw two school divisions. You could take a look at Cbarleswood versus Winnipeg School Division No. 1, base it on a number of special- Mr. Plohman: Assiniboine South. Mr. Lamoureux: Assiniboine Sou th-with Wmnipe g, and I thank the member from Dauphin for bringing up Wmn ipeg Assini boine. Mr. Plohman: Where was I? Mr. Lamoureux: But where was I, as the member for Dauphin says. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, if the minister can actually bring the actual numbers, if you like , of Level n special ne eds in both of thos e school divisions and base it on the percentage-again, I have not necessarily bad the same reso urces that the Minister of Education (Mr.

Manne ss) does to actually come up with the numbers, but I do, and it is somewhat speculati ve, believe that you will find that there is a higher per capita special needs Level n in Winnipeg 1 compared to Assini boia, and if the minister sees that as not being a problem, or somewhat probl ematic in term of ability to be able to raise or to finance . Mr. Manness : Mr. Dep uty Chairperson, I do not have the breakout by school divisions, we could probably get that, for Levels I and m.

I can tell you globally, a breakout from the $89 mill ion I was talking about, Level n, 1,928 students throughout the provinc e, that is '93-94 number, but if you multiply that by the $8,520, it would give you a total number of $14 million, Level ll. At Level m, 436 students at the $18,960 comes to roughly a little over $8 milli on that was spent. So of the $90 million we ref erenced earlier, roughly $22 million across the provi nce is being spent on Level I and Level ill.

Now, the member says, ab, yes, but even by fo rmula a greater proportion of those accruing to Winni peg School Division No. 1 and theref ore by ref erence, you should back that off into the Level I consider ation. I think that is what he is saying whether he know s it or not, the Level I consideration, that should be built in as another factor. What the memb ers is saying here basically is, some divisions are getting too much and that Winnipe g School Division is not getti ng enough, and there should be a real look at the Lev el I numbers and the shift occ ur.

May 16, 1994 LBGISLA11VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1689 Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I would be interested in getting some of the percentages of some of the diff erent school divisions so that the next time we go through this, possibly next spring, we will be able to continue the dialogue with respect to this particular issue, especially given that the minister this year is going to be having a study on special needs .

I wanted to move on to the whole question of learning disabiliti es, and you could, well, I should not say you could, namely ask the minister up front, students at risk, do individuals with learning disabilities fall under that particular category ? Mr. MaDness: No. Mr. Lamoureux: Is the minister doing anything in terms of acknowledgement or reviews or studies? Is the department doing anything with respect to individuals with learning disabilities? Mr. Maoness: That is in part the special need review. That will cover that off. Mr.

Lamoureux: I did ask the minister the question initially in tenns of what it was going to be covering, the special needs review, and he did not indicate the learning disabilities. I am glad to hear that is in fact going to be incorporated into it. That is about it in tenns of questions I have for this particular line, Mr. Deputy (.baiJperson. Mr. Plohman: Just briefly to fo llow on a couple of issues, the minister said that Level I includes gifted as well as high need and special needs .

Will he admit that traditionally the amount of money that goes into gifted education as part of special needs is about 10 percent or less? Is that a fair figure? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, I do not know whether that is an arbitrary number, or whether that was put into place as targets by the divisions, or ultimately , at the beginnin g, is the way divisions split their fundin g. I do not know the history of that I gue ss it depends from division to division.

Sometimes the division d oe s not have a large component of special needs children, and so over a period of a fe w years, I ima gine , then they take their funding and shift it to other priorities, because it is basically a per capita grant So I do not know how it is he could probably come up with a hard number like that I have not seen the rationale to support his number. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in a discussion I had with the f orme r gifted consultant, she indicated to me that 10 percent was about the figure that was realistic in terms of the gifted, or actually less than that.

I think she said 10 percent probably would be a real target that would increase the funding . So it is probably substantially less than 10 percent of the funding that goes into special needs . As I recall , I think the latter is the case; she had said that would be an in crease . It is actually less than 10 percen t.

On that basis-and I think it would be fair to assume that it is less than 10 percent, or at least no more than 10 percent would go to gifted education out of the Level I funding-then how can he rationalize some of the el ite, private schools that have entrance examinations to in fact ensure that they take only students who are able to meet their entrance requirements, should get the same kind of fo rmula funding for Level I special needs as other schools in the province who in fact take every student who comes into their doors, with no choice?

Does he think that is fair, or is this just another way to provide a little slush fund to some private schools under the guise of special needs? I would like to hear the minister's rationale for this. Mr. Manness: We ll, Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, the member talks about a slush fund. I do not know how it is, when it is all fo rmula-driven, you can have a slush fund for some private schools.

All the independent schools, 53 percent population of which is Catholic, or at le ast a Catholic-based education, and all the other 47 percent that fly under the independent school banner, I do not think any of the m have slush funds. • (1510 ) If the member senses that we are some how twisting funding formula, which applies to all equal ly, to provide special support to some elite schoo ls, using his term, I cannot do that. The funding formula will not allow me to do that. All

1690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 of those schools under the independent school banner are all treated the same. It is on that basis that schools all be treated the same. You rea lize in today 's world there is a compl exity in place, that students, regardless of what school they attend , have requireme nts.

I can indicate to you that there are some students who come from socioeconomic homes that some would say are above avera ge, but I will tell you that schools tell me, whether they are independent or public schools , that these students also, from time to time, have compl exities and problems that have to be dealt with.

As a matter of fa ct, nobody can make the argument that there is not a school setting where one does not necessarily have problems, but the bigger issue with respect to in crease d funding to the independent school system, taking into account the special needs funding base, bad more to do, again, with an agree ment that was reached by the provincial government yea rs ago, supported strongly by the Liberal Party at the time, that we, taking into account a chall enge that was going to be rendered against the province-that it would probably be better to work to a higher level of funding.

So that is the No. 1 order of things. Se condly, there was quite an increase made. Once that agree ment was struck, it was on the basis of per-dollar-spent-in-ed ucation basis. Two years ago, as I have referenced in an answ er here about half an hour ago, there was a significant change made in the fo rmula increased to special needs-1 say this to the mem ber for Ink ster (Mr. Lamoureux)-and that change in base was frozen out of the base incre ase to independent school s.

That was in spirit, if not in the letter of the law, in violation of the every-dollar principle which we used as the base against which we placed the percent funding. Now it is 63.5 percent. It was the recognition of that shortcoming two years ago, when we made a tremendous infusion into special nee ds funding, that was taken into account. That is what bas been done, and now students in the independent scQool system are receiving roughly a little under two-thirds of the per capita level of those studen ts government funded in the public school system. Mr. Plobman: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, just so we can move along here, we will want to know from the minister the amount of money that is going to private schools for Level I special nee ds under the Support to Schools when we get to that section. Also, we will want to know, when we are dealing with the private school funding issue at that time, bow ma ny schools have entrance examinations , bow many Level I kids do they actually have , considering that they are getting funded on the same form ula, and bow much goes to gifted education for those schools.

If the department bas any inform ation on this 10 percent figure that I was using, I certainly would like to shed some light on bow much funding, on average across the province in the public school system, goes towanls gifted education out of the Level I funding. So those are some of the pieces of inform ation that we would like to have when we get to that. I just wanted to raise that with the minister for his and his staff 's inf orm ation at this time. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(

g) Student Services

(1) Salari es and Employe e Benef its $1 ,905 ,30 0-p ass ;

(2) Other Expenditures $818,600-p ass. 2.(

b) Manitoba School for the Deaf

(1) Salarie s and Emplo yee Benefits $2,651, 600. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am wondering if the minister can give us some sort of indication. Over the week end, actually , I was talking to an individual who was talking about the School for the Deaf and bad asked me specific ally if I bad beard anything with respect to the future of this school. I am wondering if the Min ister of Education could comment.

You know, it is compl etely -I do not have anything to indicate that there is something out there that is going to chan ge, make a change , and that is why I just ask it straight up in terms of, is there anything that is on the agenda for the Manitoba School for the Deaf in terms of a potential sale or anything of that nature? Mr. Manness: The reason probably for the question from somebody outside of this process wants asked, no doubt, is because we are doing a pretty in-depth study. The facility requires

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1691 significant amounts of money if it is going to be maintained in refulbishing and upgrading. So we are trying through study to provide ourselves a list of options because the age and structure of the build ing are not conducive to providing a high-quality program. Some decisions are going to have to be made not too far down the course, and we are trying to give ourselves options so we can make the best decision. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister give the commit tee some sort of a time frame that be might be looking at? Mr.

Maoness: We thought we might be making a decision a year ago this year, but the more we dig, the more we have to dig for more inf ormation. I would not want to put a time frame on it. Mr. Lamoureux: I wonder if the minister then could give some sort of assur ance s. Are we looking at dismantling the idea of having a School for the Deaf or are we talking about relocating to another facility in which there would be an outright purchase of another building, capital dollars put in for a new building? Give us some sort of indication on that aspect. Mr. Mann ess: We have absolutely no plans to dismantle the program .

The issue is whether or not the present setting or a better setting would provide better pro gramming at a much reduced cost. We could probably do better programming if we could just decrease the costs of the plant It is costing us an ann and a leg to keep that plant running, and with the savings we could probably do even a better job of pro gramming. Mr. Lamoureux: Is the minister aware or does the minister see the building going up for sale shortly? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I cannot answer that.

Again, this is part of the study, and the Department of Government Services is in charge of the build ing. Ultimately we will be part of that decision, but I do not see anything happening too quickly . Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, the minister made reference again to the part of the study. Is there a reporting time for the study? Mr. Maoness: We would like to have it as soon as possi ble . We have been studying it for more than a year, and I would expect we would have some options presented very soon. Mr.

Lamoureux: Would this be just an independent study &om within the Department of Education or would it be Government Services who would be responsible for the study? Mr. Manness: We do this joint ly. It is our program , it is their building, but the way government wodcs, it bas to be done in concert or otherwise you do not have order; you have chaos. Government Services cannot sell a building out from under a department that is using it, and a department cannot start building them or moving around willy-nilly without Government Services being involved. We work together. Mr.

Lamoureux: Just in go ing thro ugh the Activity Identification that makes reference to the programming and the actual numbers, bas that actually increased over years or is that a fai rly constant number of individuals at the Manitoba School for the Deaf facility? Mr. Manne ss: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, it is fairly constant, although it represents an increase of two from a year ago. •

(1520) Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, I did not think we would get quite this far this afternoon. I know I had intended to bring forward some questions that were put on the Order Paper from the former member for Osborne with reference to the School for the Deaf, and I would ask if the minister is aware of those questions and maybe what curre nt state they would be at. Mr. Manness: I am aw are there are some questions, what they are on I honestly do not remember. As the House leader, I was as close as I came to them , but the de partment tells me that we bad respon ded to those questi ons.

We will try and follow up as to the pr ocess and whether or not we have reported. Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I asked was actually that I was reading through the Order Paper just the other day and the questions appeared there

1692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 with Mr. Alcock's name on them . So yes, if it is possible , it would be much app reciated; othe rwise , we are prepared to pass the line. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Should the item p ass? The item is accordingly passe d. 2.(h)

(2) Other Expenditures $332,000--pass. Resolution 16 .2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $20,29 1, 000 for Education and Training, School Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995. We will move on to 3. Bureau de L'Ed ucation � (

a) Division Administrati on

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $127, 900. The honourable minister , to introduce his staff . Mr. Manness: I would like to introduce Assistant Deputy Minister Guy Roy, no stranger to anybody who has been part of education before ; Roland Pantel, and he is director of official languages and adm inistration- gee, Roland, that is quite a title. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, perhaps we could discuss some of the policy and experience surrounding the new Francophone Division in a general way under this section.

I wanted to ask the minister first of all with regard to Bill 34 that was passed last year, to give effect to the new Francophone School Division, whether in fact there have been any diffi culties with the implementation of the bill as it was set out, whether there have been some changes or inadequacies recognized that have to be changed in terms of the bill and its implementation for the new Francophone Division, or are things working fa irly smoot hly insofar as the procedures as spelled out in the bill?

I am not talking about specific situations at this point, as to whether there are some diff iculties; I am talking about the administration of the bill. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I suppose I should answer that from a number of perspectiv es. Firstly, as the House leader and also head of our Legisla tive Review Committee within government, myself and the MLA for Emerson, Jack: Penner, when this bill first came in we were mindful that this was going to be a dif ficult proc ess, that the bill would take great craftsmanship, to use a word, because of all of the sensitivities around the change.

So I was kind of close personally to the bill at its drafting from an overall perspecti ve, and a lot of direct questions were posed by government members before the bill was tabled. (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chaitpers on, in the Chair) The bill was subsequently tabled.

It gave power and authority to a process which we entrusted under the leadership of Cll ief Justice Monnin and which attempted to implement the process of taking the effect of the bill into the c ommunities, providing background material and information, trying to indicate the essence of the change and then ultimately calling on individuals within the commun ity-those in single-program and double-program schools, but particular ly those parents who had students deemed to be part of a fran�ais program-to make a decision.

That process, for the most part, has worked well because decisions were made , votes were taken through the formality of registration in a number of - well, all of the eligible areas. Subsequent to that, ward boundaries-a governance model was built upon some of the decisions because you had to have a feel for what population you were talking about before you could then build ward bounda ries and representation models, and it had to be done within a ve ry, very narr ow time frame.

Through some very good drafting and, I sense, an awful lot of good will in the department and those outside of the department, it has worked reasonably well. The n, of course, we hence have come to discussions between provider school divisions and receiving school divisions as to how assets, direct and ind irect, and properties and program s and staf fing and how all of the changes that would cause impact in those areas have occurred. But we are still not that long from the beginning of a new school year-we are only fo ur months away basically-and in certain divisions that process has worlced extremely well.

I have sensed that we are well on our way to have it in place with

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1693 certainty with respect to the fall term. That bas not occurred, though, in one area, and we are still trying to find ways to make as many people happy as possi ble . Now, the member asked a general question, and I gave him a general response. I would say not the least of which is an outside pemon by the name of Victor Goldbl oom, the Commissi oner of Official Languages from Canada, who has come and looked at the change.

Although he has not certainly looked at the process in minute detail, certainly we have been recognized as forging forwant and trying to provide what is in keeping with the spirit of federal court decisions. We have come pretty close to moving to a system to reflect that So, all in all, Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, I am sorry I have taken this much time to answer the question, but I want to put on the record that the process of this most sensitive issue, from my point of vie w, not being a pemon inherent within the Manitoba Francophone community, I sense, bas gone reasonably well. Mr.

Plohman: There are so many areas that one could question or discuss here. 1be minister, in his overvie w, seemed to indicate that without addressing legislation in particular, there did not need to be any major changes to ensure that the transition goes smoothly. As a matter of fact, I guess the legislation will be obsole te, that portion of implementation, by the time any changes would be made in that case . I wo uld ask the minister per haps to just comment on the issue of parallel prog ramming, . firstly.

The policy decisio n whereby the government decided that existing divisions would be able or would be forced to, or at least able to-1 am not sure if they would be forced to if there were su fficient numbers-but upon request from parents to offer fran�ais programming, not just immer sion programmi ng, but fran�ais programming in existing divisions even though the Francophone Division was there and quite capable of providing the service, in other wolds, parall el pro gramming in existing divisions.

I believe Sa skatchewan sa id, no, the Francophone Division is in charge of fran�ais education, and they are going to provide all of that. If parents want their cbi1dren to receive fran� pro gramming, they will belong to the Francophone Division. Othe rwi se, they can expect only immersi On in existing divisions. This government chose not to do that. I ask the minister, in retrospect, considering some of the situations that are developing , whether he thinks that that policy decision should in fact be reviewed. • (15 30) Mr. Manness: Well, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairpemon, it is always easy to look backwants and see things in clear view. I would say to the member that bearing in mind that those of us who represent Francophone comm unities, and there are a munber of us certainly on the governm ent side , and bearing in mind that over all of the sensitivities within those communities and how the communities react with their neighb ouring communities and taking into acco unt the history, this government was not going to put into place a system by way of vote where winners take all.

If we had, then we probably would have even been more careful and watchful of the voting procedures that went into place and, ultimately, who had a chance to vote and who did not I do not know whether the member represents any Francophone communities, but I have represented many for yeam, and I was struck that in a number of situations the re was harmony within a nwnber of communiti es. Some of it was bani fought, some of it was recent, but it was there, and just to all ow a vote which would have then forced bani decisions was not in keeping with the history that some of us had of our communiti es.

So consequently, we decided then to allow for parallel programming, realizing that the people basic ally in number would reflect which level of governance they wanted. That has occurred in most areas. So be asked me the question, if you bad to do it all again, would you force fran�ais programming purely to occur under the auspi ces of the Francophone Division, newly constituted in our

1694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 case . I would say the political decision was made not to do that, and I think we made the right decision. Mr. Plohman: It is interesting the minister is saying that, and it is not unexpected. But in terms of the cost of that, of course, there is a cost to it as well when you are offering parall el programming. There is efficiency in numbers, and there is also the impact of the new division on existing divisions' ability to offer pro gramming because of loss of student numbers .

That is another issue I want to ask the minister about, in terms of declining enrollment phenomena. In some divisions there is rather a substantial number of students transferring. With them goes the funding, and it leaves behind a smaller student body with a shrunken ability, I guess, to offer the same range of pro gramming. As a result, there may have to be reductions in programming and reductions in services because of the reduced doll ars.

Has the government made any provision or taken any steps to alleviate the impact of the declining enrollment phenomena as a result of the establishment of the Francophone School Division on school divisions so that they will not be faced with cuts because of that to students in the existing division? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, the direct answ er to the questions is yes, $480,000 roughly put into place for transition this year, to take into account that the providing divisions , in other words, those divisions who are losing a student count and who still may want to provide a program for those students who are left behind and/or to take into account that administrati vely and staff -wise, you just cann ot adjust that quickly , that money has been put into place for one year.

The member's other argument, when he says, you know, if providing divisions still want to reach out to a sm aller fran¢s base and try and provide some progr amming, that calls into question the efficiency, the economy and ultimate ly, I gues s, the quality of educati on- a fair statement. That is the essence of free choi ce. That is what choice means. As a parent, I can tell you, I have been through it. I have been through it in my own community , and it has nothing to do with lang uage, absolutely nothing.

It has to do with whether or not you are willing to make a commitment to your local school or some other school , if it is further away, to drive , and what is the value of it? I can think of a case where I committed three of my children to a two-room school that I went to that had 22 people because I could see the numbers coming and ultimately it grew to 60 people . Tough, tough decision , it did not come easy. Some would say that was foolhardy , close the school , close the small school, let your children go at an earlier age a further distance. Their quality of education will be better.

That faces us time after time in rural Manitoba, those of us who support small schools with the atte ndance of our childre n. The programming -and I say to the member, the fact that we have left choice to parents who may want to leave their children in the older division, in a fran�ais program which may not be as good as it was or move their child over to the new DSFM School Division No. 49, where there might be a larger number and theoretically greater access to programming-that is a free choice and that is what the government provided . Mr.

Plohman: The minister could very easily be on the other side of it in sa ying we just cann ot be everything to all people , all students. We just cannot afford to do this. We have to make choices and if people want to have access to other programming, they have to be prepared to pay for it. He is arguing in this case that he is offering choice, but the question is, who is paying for it, and can he aff ord to do it? What I was saying to him was, if there was not parallel programming provided for-I mean, it is politically expedient, perhaps .

That is why I think the minister had said it was a political decision to allow that, but he is trying to justify it on the basis of choice when he is talking about sc arce resour ces. I find that a little bit hollow because in fact in other arguments he said, well, we cann ot afford to do everything, we cann ot provide all the funding to special needs kids throughout the pr ovince. The days of providing all

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1695 those services to special needs kids are gone; we cannot provide all die funding from the province. In this case the minister bas made a choice to provide additional funding to school divisions to continue to provide parallel pro gramming, and be bas made tbat a priority over some other services that are certainly lacldng throughout tbe proviooe, severely lacking in many areas where kids are really being aff ected. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Depu ty Chaiiperson, I am sorry for interrupting, but I wanted to make two points.

First ly, the funding that we are talking about, for the most part, is just to support through the transition year; in tbe second year, tbat will not be there. So there will be no additional funding. The funding goes where the students go at the same level. Secondly, the member ignores the fact tbat there was a challenge of this pol itical decision, as the member says. There was a challenge. I do not know who took it fo rward. The Francophone parents took it to the Supreme Court.

I do not know, and I am on thin ice out here and I am a little at sea, but the Supreme Court, in its judgment that it handed down, was silent on that issue. This was an issue that this parallel programming could be offered. Yet, when it was taken forward certainly we were not oldered by anybody to not maintain the policy.

If it has been taken to the highest court of the land and the highest court of the l and is silent for the most part, then l-and again I point out, there are very few cases, if any, of provider divisions continuing to offer frans;ais programs, very fe w. • (1 540) I guess there is one case in Laurier, and the other cases are all in the 50-50 programming: in St. Malo, Notre Dame, Provencher and St. aaude also. Mr. Plohman: It was not a question of whether it would be something the Supreme Court would want to rule on.

I mean, it was JIOt that you wanted to take away the right of Francophones to govern their own education system , but whether they would be offered additional services in French in existing divisions. This is a luxury really. It is not a matter of not providing enough services. It is providing in-addition-to services through another means. The question was, is it in fact a luxury and can it be affonled? That was my angle there.

As far as the existing act is concerned, I wanted to ask the minister a couple of questions about that, and maybe he could also table the provisions for transfer or for imple mentation that Justice Monnin bad distributed. I would like to have a copy of the background material and so on, pursuant to the act, that went into the establishment of the division and the kinds of material that was provided to parents . That docum ent tbat is being shown, we had that last year already, I think. Were there additional materials that were distributed to parents at meetings?

I wanted to ask the minister about the transfer of school divisions . It talks about a regulation in 21.20 whereby if a decision is made or after consultation with parents is made and only a Francophone program is going to be provided in the school, the school shall be transferred. So the wording in the regulation would determine whether 21.20 would be invoked: shall transfer the building.

Is that the way all regulations were, where a majority of the Francophone eligible parents voted in favour of joining the Francophone Division, that the building would be transferred automatically, or was there usu ally a provision for sharing programming in an existing school? Was that an option or was it always woided in such a way that the building had to be transferred if a majority of eligible voters voted in favour of joining the new Francophone Division? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the diff erence between 21.20 and 21. 21(1) , of course, is single-program schools versus shared pr ogram.

The legislation was written in a fashion that the government had no discretion with respect to the school being transferred after a vote within a single-program school in which the majority of the vote was in supp ort of transfer. Ther e was absolutely no discretion left with the government or the minister.

1696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 Now where there were shared-program schools , in this case being a school which housed fran�ais and 50-50 program or French immersions, then there was some discretion for the minister to set up a process of arbitration and/or committee review. 1bere is a different process in place . Mr. Plobman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaiipe rson, that is what I wanted to get at. It talks about the regulation which is something that the government drafts .

Why was it read into a decision that you had to have the building transferred if a majority voted that way if you could say, leave it open for additional programmin g, 50-50 programming, which would enable a sharing arran gement to be undertaken in a particular buildi ng? I have to ask then, was it based on whether a SO-SO program was being offered prior to the vote, or could a division s ay, no, well, we are interested in offering one now, and we would like to have a sharing of that building, rather than having it completely transferred? Then you would invoke your arbitration process.

Why is it blade or white in these situations? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know where the member is leading. There are times I wish I had more discretion, and even in this case I wish I did. But the reality is you had to set the rules. You cannot set rules, see what the results are and then change the rules. An Honourable Member: 1be rules are in here. Mr. Manness: That is right, but before you could even go through the process you had to have legislation in place. What the member is I think saying ---and not to put words in his mouth-he is saying, well, there is this certain sc hool; it, by all

definitions, was a fran�ais program, it had a fran�ais program. What the member is saying is, well , once you see-you should allow freedom within the legislation or the regulations that flow therefrom so that the host divisio n, and seeing the results, could then rush in a variation of a fraD�ais program of SO-SO. I think that is what the member is indica ting. That is like changing the rules after you know what the results are going to be.

I dare say that if you wanted to do that, it would have been much better probably to, in my view, from the memb er's perspective, allow the discretion with respect to single program schools right at the beginnin g. Mr. Plobman: I am going by what I thought should have been the intent of the legislation. I am not sure about his words "rush in"-a school division to rush in. It is a question of whether maybe they are respondin g to a request that is lon gstanding and never offered it and then come in and sudd enly make a decision to offer it so it looks like they are rushing in.

If the act was worded in such a way that it recognized there would be sensitivities on this issue and would be disputes and there was an arbitration process set up to deal with that, specifically, did it not envisage the kind of situation that has occurred in some areas, and is that not why the arbitration proces s was set up? Because I cannot understand why the government would not even want to be dealt with by arbitration. I thought that was why they would have drafted the act in this way. Mr. Mann ess: Remember what arbitration is.

Arbitration is winner take all in a case like this, or you force two communities to share a build ing. Arbitration ultimately says that somebody , some small group of people are going to make a decision to deal with those sensitivities to which the member refers. In the schools which were considered single- program schoo ls, they have been single-program schools for years. They were pure in that sense .

So why would the legislation not expect then that the purity around that school, which by the way had drawn students in from far outside of the traditional school boundarie s-why would the legislation not presuppose that there was purity of an opportunity at least to express a democratic position? I hear what the member is saying. I say to him again, the act has worked in most divisions. The only area where it bas not is the Mountain School Division, and certainly we have difficulties there. Mr.

Plobman: What the minister is saying is that the kind of situation where there was only one program being offered was never envisaged to come under this arbitration process. It was just

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1697 assum ed that would be a complete transfer if the majority wanted it. · Mr. Manness: Well, the legislation was drawn that way for the belief that you wanted to basically keep politics out of it. You did not want to keep political intluences too closely ass ociated with the process. Mr. Plobman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaiipe rson, but then the governm ent recognized there might be situations like that and put in an atbitration process and time lines.

Then, further to that, a committee , I guess, to atbitrate even further on some issues according to the act, which recognized perhaps that arbitration can be tough in terms of its impact and, theref ore, peihaps there should be another process. •

(1550) In the case where we have a ma jor dispute now in the Mountain School Division, neither of these two applied. I was just trying to explore why that would not have been envisaged and why it was not provided for in the act. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitpenon, when you have a shared-program school, who owns it? Who owns the school when you have existing programs? Who should it be? I mean, does winner take all? When a program leave s, that is where the diffi culty is.

That is why the legislation said, no, in that case it is probably better to allow the safety valve of second thought, sober thought. Mr. Plohman: Yes, but what the minister is saying is that if it is not a shared-use school prior, it cannot even be subject to this atbitration process .

I am saying that might have been a good place to have the issue of sharing of the building, not the ownership of it, but the sharing of the faci lity dealt with by atbitration, but the minister says, no, you cannot even go to arbitration for detennining bow best to share this, or whether in fac t sharing should take place, because we have gone past that point on the basis that the

section dealing with transfer has already pree mpted the arbitration process . Mr. Mann ess: We ll, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, wha t ha ppens if we had 20 arbitrations? It gets so easy then to pass on the decision to the next level or a diffe rent level. 1bese were beady, beady decisions that individuals had to make, so I do not think the member--on what basis do you arbitrate ? Let us say yours is a single-shared school- An Honourable Member: You set it up. Mr. Manness: No, I am asking the member, using his theory.

So let us say you do have a comm unity -single-program school, 20 percent of the parents voted agaimt the transfer into the new division, 80 fo r, is that the basis of which you call into place an atbitration, or is it 30-70? I mean, on what basis would you want to do it? Do you feel it out? Do you take delegations and sense the political pressure before you tum the hot potato or the Queen of Spades over to somebody else? I do not know, ultimately , bow it is you run away from these decisio ns. You sort of have to face up to them. Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaiipe rson, the governm ent set out a proces s for a transfer of schools and for atbitration to deal with shared services or shared use of the building. It is all set out in the act, but it did not apply to this case in Notre Dame in the Mountain School Division. I am trying to find out why it did not, because it seemed like it would have been a natural to fall into here . When we have a difficult situation like that, you might go through some type of process .

Has the minister appointe d a person, Larry Des jardins, or has this been appointed by someone else to be a conciliator then, a process that is not envisaged in this act? What process is be now undertaking? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Cllairpe rson, it has been reported. Yes, I turned to Mr. Desj ardins to mediate be�een the existing and new school divisions with the intent, of coune, that there could be some give and take on both sides and we could find a solution. Mr.

Plo hman: So what the minister is indicating is that be has run into a situation here with the whole thing that was not even envisaged in the act. 1bere is no provision for that kind of penon. I read in 21 .24(2) that the minister could refer matters to

1698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 16, 1994 a committee, many matters dealing with shared use or ttansfer of a school, for its advice and opinion or its determination, either /or. Is that the

section the minister is using, or is this something else now that the minister has come upon because the act did not envisage this kind of situation? Mr. M8DDt!SS: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbaiipe rson, remember, three parties put this act through. I cannot remember any member of the House voting against Bill 34. Mr. Plohman: But there were a lot of concerns raised, and you got it with your majority. Mr. Manness: But I cannot remember anybody not supporting Bill 34 and posing a question about whether or not there was adequate discretion in the minister 's office to deal with these unforeseen circumstances.

The member says, well , is that the reason now you have reached out to Larry Desjardins because the bill did not anticipate the sensitivity. Well, as I said in my first rem lllks, the bill took a great time to draft because it did anticipate significant sensitiv ities. I can say to that, the government policy in allowing for parall el programming also took into account the potential for great sensitivity . This whole bill was steeped in sensiti vity, but the reality is we brought in a thiJd party because we do not need legislation to do that. No government ever has.

We just sensed that if we could find a solution and somebody could mediate and find that solution more quickly, that that person should be called fo rward. That is why we reached out to Mr. Des jardins. Mr. Plohman: I think the minister made a good choice , and I hope that they will be able to find a solution that is one that everyone can live with and support. However, I find it rather odd that the minister did not use the procedure that he had outlined in his legislation.

It is a simple point that I think nee ds at least mentioning with the minister in this particular venue, and it draws into question the legitimacy of the act if it is not being used. I do not think the minister has adequate ly been able to explain why he put in place a very definitive arbitration process involving arbitration, all involving committee. It involved discretion in tenDS of whether a determination would be made or whether opinion or suggestions would be made. All of these things were envisaged, and yet that process was not used.

If that is not used there, then I have to ask the minister, well, why indeed did the government draft a process if it was not going to use it. Mr. M81UleSS: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, I point out for the record-and the member has acce ss to this. This is the bookle t that was taken out by former Chie f Justice Monnin, Francophone School Governance , page 10, table 1. It indicates all the single-program schools. There are 19, and 18 of those I under stand right now there is an agreement- 16, at this point between provider and accepting the division.

When the member calls into question the legislation, I guess it is a matter of degree. He is saying that legislation is fau lty because at this point there is a nonagree ment in one school and therefore-he will not say it, but really what he is saying is, you should have left the discretion with your office in all cases in all schools. An Honourable Member: The process. Mr. Manness: Well, the process is the discretion. That is the process he is pointing to. The process, I mean whether I do it in my office or I set up an arbitration, it is my power to put that into place . So the issue is the same.

The issue is whether or not you maintain the power in the minister's office. Mr. Plohman: The issue is in the hands of the arbitrator or committee and in what way they would make a decision or a recommendation. •

(1600) I will leave that issue, because it is a difficult one. I recognize that. I thought there was a very helpful process put in place in the legislation. I asked the minister about this in Question Period. We had a little chat after, and he said it did not apply. I wanted to find out precisely why it did not apply . I am not sure that I feel comfortable with those reasons, but in any event, it did not apply in this particular situation.

May 16, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1699 The minister is now engaging in another kind of proce ss. Petbaps tbllt will not have the strength of law, but it is something that might end up coming up with a solution, and that is what we all want. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaiiperson, I am sorry for interrupting again, but obviously what the member would have done diff erently had he been the Minister of Education at the time is be would have brought in legislation that would have done one or two thin gs.

FU'Stly , as a policy he would allow no hope fo r a paralleL In other words, the school and the community decided once and for all whether it was going to be part of the governance model or not, in which case the Notre Dame situation, to use an example, would be no diff erent than it is today.

Secondly , he is saying, no, if he did not have a situation winner take all, be would allow for the proce ss where the arbitrator would dictate who the winner was, and in that case the winner take all. 'IbiJdly, be would put into place an arbitration process that allowed the school to share more than one program , or to have more than one program. Indeed the courts of the land might dictate, and I am sure would dictate that would not be acceptable . The member for Dauphin cannot have it both ways. Mr. Plohman: Oh, yes I can. Mr. Manness: Well, yes, I guess he can. But on the reconi be cann ot have it both ways.

Mr. Plohman: The minister is assuming that arbitration means there is a winner take all. I have said right fr om the beginning that the recommendation or the decision that is made-and there is also room for recommendations by way of a committee to be set up. The minister should not try to simplify the process further than what is in the act. There are a fe w steps insofar as dealing with these disputes , and it is quite possible that a compromise decision could be rendered by an arbitrator. It does not have to be all one way or the other.

In any event, insof ar as the parallel programm ing, I think the minister has to recognize what be is doing here in terms of giving meaning to the Supreme Court decision. In fact, other jurisdictions have said the Francophone School Division is responsible for the delivery of Francophone services fo r fran� programming thr oughout the province, throughout their jmisdiction.

So I do not think that would have been any more difficult than what the minis ter has put in place here , because be has still got a situation where some people would say they are not even having access to parallel pro gramming because the division may not offer it. If we look at the St. Oaude situation, the people there are saying-and they have been trying to meet with the minister to have this issue dealt with. They are very concerned that the voting was changed in terms of who was eligible. They said it was at the last minute . I do not know if that is correct, but the minister has not even met with them.

Why does be not meet with them to explain what has happened? Apparently, these are parents who represent the 18 percent of the students in St. Claude who voted for the Francophone Division. Could the minister agree to meet with these people , with the representatives, and discuss with them the various options that have been considered and bow they tit into this? They very much want to be part of the Francophone Division. They want to have access to the program, but they do not want to have to travel to Notre Dame to get it. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chai.Iperson, some do not want to travel to Notre Dame.

I have others saying that they want to travel to Notre Dame. An Honourable Member: They have been for six years. Mr. Manness: We ll, of course, they want to keep travelling to Notre Dame. So the member has been a minister bef ore. He knows at times you have got to make difficult decisi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-28a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 28a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6b59d7ca35a33fc35363232269a407f3b1f9d52b

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