Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 33A (35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-33a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

.· ·�.'n+�� ; ..... ,�..:.:...:� Fifth Sessi on • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Publish•d utukr lh• tlllllwrlty of Th• HonolUYibk D•nil C. ROCtUJ Sp•t11c., Vol. XLm No. 33A • 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 25, 1.994 JSSN G.S42-.5492

NAME ASHTON, Steve BARRE'IT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregoey DOER,Gaey DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harty, Hon. ERNST, Tun, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FD...MON, Gaey, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon.

FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Afftllatlon CONSTITUENCY Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.Rose Seine River Roblin- Russell Selkbk Con co nlia Arthur- Vinlen Steinbach Riel StJames Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley GilLES HAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minne dosa Crescentwood Gimli HELWER, Edward R. lnCKES, George KOWALSKI, Gaey LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA1HLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gonl MALOWAY, Tun MANNESS, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPlNE, Gerey McCORMICK, Norma McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. P ALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZN1K, Darren, Hon. REID,Daeyl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harty STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerey SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemaey, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St.

Johns Elmwood Morris Bwrow s Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage la Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossmere Kirk:field Parle FlinFlon La Verendeye Fort Garey Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Uberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Uberal Uberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Uberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

2223 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA VVednesday,�ay25,1994 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS RO�PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS ACCESS Program Funding Mr. Ge orge Dic kes (Point Doug las) : Mr.Spea ker, I beg to present the petition of Darlene Daniels, Arlene Mentu ck, George Munroe and others requesting the Legislative Asse mbly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley) : Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Martin Ross, Kim Summers, Ken Boyd and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to ACCESS program. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of 1im Edkins, Crystal Gibbs, 1odi Horsburgh and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to ACCESS program. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Della Be atti e, Beth Rogers, Archie Carmichael and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program. Ms. Becky Barrett (Well ington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Mickey Spence, M Vieira, A. Zibroski and others requesting the Legisla tive Assembly to request the Minister of Education and Training to consider restoring funding to the ACCESS pr ogram. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITI'EES Committee of Supply Mrs.

Louise Dac quay (Chairper son of Committees) : The Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of the Stan ding Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Reso urces . Mr.

Clerk (W'dliam Remnant) : Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resou rces pr esents the fol lowing as its First Report . Your Committee met on Tuesday , May 24, 1994, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1993. At that meeting, your Committee agreed by unanimous consent to also consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Publi c Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1992.

Your Committee had previously met on Thursday, 1une 17, 1993, at 10 a.m. in Room 2SS of the Legisla tive Buildi ng to consider the aforementioned 1992 Annual Report. Mr. Don McCarthy, Chairperson, and Mr. Walter Bardua, President and General Manager, provided such infonnation as was requested with

2224 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 respect to the Almual Report and business of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Your Committee has considered the Annual Report of the Manitoba Publi c Insurance Corporation for the year ended October 31, 1992, and has adopted the same as presented. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Lauren deau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honour able member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the re port of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker : Prior to Oral Questions , may I direct the atte ntion of honourable members to the galle ry, where we have with us this afternoon from the mton Collegiate fifty Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Sharon Jantz. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Otizenship (Mr. Gill esbammer). Also, from the West Park School and the Portage Collegiate, we have eighteen Grade 12 students under the direction of Mr. Ray Johnson. 1bese schools are located in the constituency of the honourable member for Portage 1a Prairie (Mr. Palli ster).

From the Pare La Salle School, we have sixty-two Grade 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Aim� Cyr. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendea u). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. •

(1335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Environmental Legislation Enforcement Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Annually the Pre mier prod uces very glitzy repo rts dealing with sustainable development strategies for the province of Manitoba. These reports of course have a number of statements of intent in the documents. The latest one talked about, in terms of environment policy: It is neces sary to have strong standards and regulations and enf orcement in terms of the environment.

What the government does not release of course is the report cards dealing with the enforcement of the standards. A report commissioned by the government produced by Arthur And ersen and Company on dealing with the laboratories in the province of Manitoba for the BITC, which of course is chaired by the Premier states: Manitoba has typic ally not been aggressive in the enf orcement of various environment legislation as a result- Point of Order Bon. Gary Filmon (Premi er) : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would not want the member opposite to continue to put false infonn ation on the recoid.

I do not chair the EITC. It is chaired by Russ Hood, a prof essional engineer from the private sector. Mr. Speaker: Order, ple ase. The honourable Fust Minister did not have a point of order. ••• Mr. Speaker : The honourable Leader of the official opposition, to carry on with his question. Mr. Doer: He chairs one of the round tables and the other one reports to him , as Premier, but I do apolo gize for the inaccurate assumption that the Premier chaired it. Manitoba has typically not been aggressive in the enforcement of va rious env ironmental legislation.

As a resu lt, environmental testing volumes are lower than other provi nces. Some provinces such as Saskatchewan require that various labs and industries utilize provincial testing laboratories and pay for that service. This has caused these operations to have relatively high volumes in profitabili ty. I would like to know why this government has not had rigorous environmental enfor cement dealing with our labs, consistent with the Premier 's own words in the document he produ ces for the public ann ually.

May 2S, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 222S Mr. F11mon: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report in front of me, but if I can believe the Leader of the Opposi tion's comments , it does not refer to active enforcement. It says that Manitoba does not require a great deal of testing. The act under which we operate , The Environment Act, was passed by the New Democratic government. If they do not require a great deal of testing, then that is a problem that we will have to contend with in terms of the deficiencies of the act. Provincial Laboratories User Fees Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Oppositi on) : Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has had this document for over a year now, and it says, and I quote: Manitoba bas not been aggressive in the enfor cement of various enviro nmental legislation. It does not say the legislation is weak. It says that his stewardship of that legislation through environmental enforcement is weak, very clearly in the document. Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the government had put together an operating agency to deal with Cadham Lab and the Ward Lab in the province of Manitoba.

They are now, in this report, calling for a change from the nonprofit areas of public health for testing such as water, for those services now to be made on a profit basis and moved onto the costs of the municipalities and private citizens. I would like to ask the government: Will they be implementing the user-pay sy stem for municipalities and private citizens , and what will be the impact on public health? Hon. Gary Fil mon (Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, I want to remind the member opp osite that when the New Dem ocrats were in office the y were evaluated, on the basis of a national environmental organization who evaluated all of the prov inces of Canada, as being lOth out of 10 provinces in teDDs of their environmental record. So we have no lessons to learn from New Dem ocrats in Manitoba on protection of the environment . They were the worst in Can ada. That same organization has improved their rating of Manitoba under this administration to middle of the range of the provinces of Canada, a substantial improve ment, I might say.

With respect to his question about the recomm endations that are being put forward reguding the operations of the various laboratories in Manitoba, we will take those rec omm endations into consideration, and we will be reviewing them in due course. •

(1340) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government had a document for over a year. The government has placed in their last budget, in their Estimates , a special opemting agency to deal with the issue of the Cadham Lab and the Ward Lab. It calls clearly in this report for user fees to municipalities and private citizens. We believe, in terms of water quality and water testing, which is now considered a public health issue, a nonprofit public health issue, going over to a user-pay system, that this has implications for pub lic health.

I would like to ask the Premier: What are the basic policies of the government when the y are moving from the existing system to a special operating agency? Are they going to put the user-pay system into eff ect, and what is the impact on public health and public health policies in the province of Manitoba? Mr. F11mon: Mr. Speaker, as is regularly the case, the member has it wrong again. We are not moving to a special opemting agency in the provincial government. It is not in the Estimates . In the Estim ates are the fees that are paid by the departments to the labs for the testing that they require.

The Environment department pays fee s to the labs. The Health department pays fees to the labs for their requirements, and so on. We are not moving to a special operating agency. He can go back to the dmwing board and start all over again.

2226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 Universities Student Service Fees Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when this government is fi nally gone it will be remembered for its amazing powers of self-deception. When the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) was Minister of Finance, be was able to say with a straight face that taxes bad not increased in Manit oba, when eveey Manitoban knew the impact of the property tax, the expansion of the sales tax and the in crease in government fe es. Now that be is Minister of Education, the minister is up to the same powers of self deception.

He claims that be bas put a 5-percent cap on university fe es, and yet universities are being allowed, by a letter received at the universities this morning, to raise their fees by creating student service fee s. It is the same kind of self-deception again, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Pr emier, today, to confum that his supposed cap on student fees, in fact at the Univer sity of Manitoba, is going to mean an increase not of 5 percent, but of something closer to 7.5 percent. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, the hypocrisy that drips from the mouth of the member for Wols eley when she speaks is unbelievable, when the government of the New Democrats that preceded our government in six years raised the income from income taxes in this province by 140 percent, raised the income from corporations by over 50 percent during that same period of time, imposed an increase in sales tax from 5 percent to 7 percent, brought in a 2 percent tax on net income , brought in a payroll tax and increased it 50 percent a few years later to bring in over $300 million, all of those massive, mass ive increases that bad never been seen before or since , and she wants to talk about tax increases.

She ought to be embarrassed when she talks about tax increases, given the record of the New Democrats when they were in office. That would have to be the greatest condemnation of New Democratic poli cy anybody bas ever seen. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, could the minister now answer the question? Is the fe e increase at the University of Manitoba going to be the 5 percent that be promised, or is it going to be the 7.5 percent that, in fact, is going to happen as a result of the changes which be is permitting? Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, we as a government are attempting to do everything possible to keep the costs of operation down for the universities so that, in fact, we can keep, as well, the costs of tuition down to the students . In the course of that, we obviously need the co-operation and the assistance of those who run the institutions on a decentralized authority basis, and that include s, obviousl y, those who oper ate the schools of Manitoba through public school boards , those who operate the universities of Mani toba through their management system .

We can onl y go so far, because she would be the first one to stand up and accuse us· of interfering -the honourable member for Wolsele y, to whom I have referred-as she would be the first to accuse us of inter fe ring with the universities and intervening in their right to manage their own affairs. We have done evetytbing we can to show the way, that we would like them to keep their costs of operation down, and we would like them to keep their tuition fee increases down. We can only go so far as long as we want to retain that authority within the bands of the universities themselves to govern themselves . •

(1345) Ms. Friese n : Mr. Speaker, I still did not bear any answer. Is it the 5 percent they promised? Is it the 7.5 percent that it is going to be? I want to ask the Premier, again, and I have emphasized this over and over in this House. Will be use some common sense and take that money from Midland Wal wyn, the blue chip investors, from Pepsi Cola, from Chicken Delight, from Murray Cbev Olds Cadillac sales, take those education dollars and put them into the universities and the colleges where the y can benefit everyone?

May 25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2227 Mr. Fil mon: Mr. Speaker, Worlcforce 2000 bas been able to train over 80,000 people in this province. They have done so in ways, I might say- Mr. Speaker: Order, ple ase. I am havi ng great dif ficulty in hearing the co mments of the honourable First Minister, and unf ortunately, I think it is my eupiece , so the honourable Fust Minister. Mr. Fil mon: Mr. Speaker, I know the members opposite do not want to listen to answers.

They only want to indulge themselves in their own questions, but the fact is, Workforce 2000 bas trained over 80,000 people in this province, and they have done so in ways that have been followed by other provinces. The Province of Ontario, through its Jobs Ontario Fund, bas given money for training in the workplace by Toyota, by Chrysler, by major corporations throughout-[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself respond. They obviously do not want to hear the answer. Independent Schools Funding Formula-S pedal Needs Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposidon): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Premier. The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) recently conf irmed in the Estimates of the Department of Education that, in fact, for the first time, independent schools will be given the special needs Level I grants that are not based on any · proof of actu al students needing those special nee ds designatiom but, rather , are the same as all public schools, based on a straight 5 percent assumption, that 5 percent of the students would need it. Mr.

Speaker, this is curious, because a lot of independent schoo ls, specific ally through their process of selecting stud ents, do not accept special nee ds children. Why is the governm ent going to give the same special needs grants based on that same fonnula to independent schools that by their very enlistment and enrollment process weed those students out? Bon. Gary FDmon (Premier): Mr.

Spe aker, I find it interesting that the Leader of the Liberal Party is now enunciating a policy directly contrary to that which was espoused by his party in this Legisla ture, that they are opposed to fairer funding- Point of Order Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (River Heigh ts): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Manitoba not only has not approved of Level I funding on a percentage basis to independent schools, but we have not done- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of Older. • •• Mr. FDmon: Mr.

Speaker, we certainly now have on record their opposition to this funding going to independent schools, and we will communicate that to the independent schools of Manitoba I will take the remainder of that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Education. Independent Schools Funding Formula-Spedal Needs Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, never, never bas this party or indeed I think any reasonable , thinking person supponed giving money for special needs without any proof of the special nee ds. That is the bottom line. Now, Mr.

Speaker, my question for the Premier: Given that they are giving this carte blanche to these funds when there is no proven need , are they now going to requir e and mandate that all independent schools receiving this money accept any and all children whether or not they have those special needs? Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, firstly, there is no significant change with respect to special nee ds funding. As in the public school sYst em, unless there are specific individuals in Levels n and m, there are no funds that flow. Mr.

Speaker, with respect to Level I, there bas been a long-s tanding disagreement between

2228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 negotiators for the independent school system and the government as to the every-d ollar principle that was entered into by way of agreement several years ago. By agreement, that now has changed, recognizing that there are a growing number of Level I incidence students within the independent school system. •

(1350) Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Education, Level I funding is going without any proof of actual need for that special needs Level I funding. My question for the Minister of Education: Why is that money going to every independent school when there is no proof of actual need and, secondly, there are independent schools that specifically bar cbildren with special nee ds? Why is that money going carte blanche with absolutely no proof of need and the fact that these independent schools do not even accept them? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, as a matter of fact, that is not the case . 1bere is a growing number of students with Level I needs who are being accepted within the independent school syst em, and just like there is a divisor put into place across the public school system , 180 divided into the total number of students within the school division times a factor of $43,500 per student, that is the Level I support that is in place in the public school system . The same level of support is now put into place with the independent school system . Indepen dentSdboob Funding Formula Mr. John Plobman (Dauphin) : Mr.

Speaker, is it not interesting that the Liberals are now flip-flopping on their 80 percent promise that the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) made in 19 90 during the election. Do they not understand that this is just this government 's way of delivering on their 80 percent promise that they led in this province?

I want to ask the Minister of Education, in light of the fact that he admitted last night that many schools in Manitoba in the public school systems are now operating at less that 1991 levels of funding from the Province of Manitoba, how he can justify 20 percent increases in funding to the private schools , including funding for special needs, which is not documented, when these schools are now operating at 1990 lev els, and the minister admitted it last night . Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, this is all part of the public recold, and indeed the members opposite have posed that same question to me shortly after the release of the Estimates . Mr. Speaker, as I have pointed out on several occas ions, the increase of support to the Feder ation of Independent Schools is maintained at a factor level of 63 percent of operating support on a per capita basis as compared to the public school system . The total global increase in that level of funding, dollar over dollar, is roughly an amount of $22 million to $24 milli on,

whereas the total provincial commitment to the public school system is in the realm of $760 million. The members, I know, are trying to make an awful lot with respect to trying to compare $24 million with $760 million. The fact is, there has been an agree ment. It suppo rts the principle that this government has entered into, a principle that has been also mirrored by the Liberal Party , constitutionally created as a result of an agree ment entered into by this government and the Federation ofln dependent Schools . Mr. Speaker, there is an eight-year fonn ula in place that will drive funding towards 80 percent of the operating costs of a per capita student within the public school system . •

(1355) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, clearly, I would think the Liberal position is still 80 percent, even though they would like it to leave the impression that it is not I want to ask the minister whether he will now admit that if he were to roll back the elite, exclusion ary priva te schools like St. John 's Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall to 1990 levels, the same level that the public schools are having to function at at this time , that he would save $8

May 2S, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2229 million to give to such divisions as Transcona, Selkilk, Agassiz and Ever green, who are suffering under this government 's poli cies. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that, because indeed if the Catholic school system were to win their way in court the government would have to provide 100 percent funding, and today we would have to provide an extra $12 million that ultimately may have to come out of the public school system . There is a saving today with respect to the agreem ent that has been struck.

Let the member be so honest as to suggest when the NDP were in government they too were provid ing increasing levels of support to the independent school system . Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, we were provid ing a third of the dollars-less than one-t hird of the dollars that are being spent now.

I want to ask the Minister of Education whether he will now consider, supposedly with the blessing of the Liberals as well in this House , to roll back to SO percent of the funding for public schools on a per student basis and take that money and provide it with fair funding for those school divisions who have been cut unfairly by this minister , divisions like Selldrlc and- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question . Mr. Manness: Mr. Spea ker, the member for Dauphin just rumbles on and on.

What I find difficult to accept, particularly in the line of questioning coming from the member for Dauphin, is that he sat as part of a Treasury bench when indeed levels of support to the very same schools that we are talking about incre ased significantly over a period of time. The member can try and wash his hands of that fact, but the reality is, that is fact. The government was well aware that there was a greater negative impact with respect to a number of resul ts, not the least of which of course is the reassessment impact on some certain school divisions throughout the province of Manitoba.

That is why we went some distance to try and relieve the pressure with respect to the school divisions mentioned by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), because we did see where they had gone the extra mile, particularly the year previous, in dealing with the reduced workweek, Mr. Spe ake r, and they had obviously a minimal amount of smplus. We have tried to accommodate the shortfall in those two cases . Social Safety Net Program Reform Communication Str ategy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, the fe deral government has begun a process of reviewing social programs which their own opinion polls show that Canadians over whelmingly support. This exercise is supposedly about modernizing and restruct uring Canada's social progra ms, but now we have a 14-page communication strategy, the intent of which is to sell these cutbacks to Canadians, including spending $S7S,OOO for newspaper ads, $200, 000 for TV ads and $7!5,000 for a loose, hip interactive Much Music program .

Can the Minister of Family Services tell the House what the impact on Manitoba will be of a $1.5- billion cutback in social programs spending next year, cuts that this federal government plans to spend to engage the Canadian Ba nke rs ' Association to sell to Canadians? Bon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does raise some questions in my mind about the number of dollars that are going to be spent on a communica tion strategy, but we have not to date seen an action plan from the fed eral governmenL I would like to just give you a little bit of background on the process that has been followed to date. Back in mid-Febru ary, the fed eral Minister of Human Resources, Uoyd Axworthy, called toget her all of the provinces to discuss the announcement that he had made about major national social safety net refonn .

At that meeting, I think I can recall him clearly stating that there had been a fair amount of consul tation, but there was indeed no fe deral vision when they took over as the fe deral governmenL

2230 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 What he was going to do through a process was pull together around him an advisory body that would set out a national vision for social safety net reform and put in place an action plan. He did reiterate at that time that it bad to be a fe deral vision and a fe deral action plan, and once that action plan was developed, be would call the provinces together again to share that action plan with him and get feedback. That was to happen at the end of March and to date it bas not happene d. •

(1400) Impad on Manitoba Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask the minister if she can tell the House what the impact will be on the province of Manitoba when the federal government cuts $2.4 billion next year, which we have already been given advance warning of, from social programs under the guise of social program review, since this could put thousands of people on provincial social assist ance in Manitoba. What is the financial implication for this province? Ron. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, I do not think that we have any more inform ation than the New Democratic Party has in the communique that they seem to have obtained by some means. We do not know what the fed eral government is pl anning, because to date , although we were promised that there would be an action plan by the end of March, we have not seen any action plan on what social safety net reform would be. Some of the concerns that were raised with the fe deral government back in Fe bruary were the issues around, is this going to be true ref orm, Mr. Speaker, because we all realize and recognize that things have to change.

We have to look at changes in the way we deliver our social programs right throughout the country, but we do not know exactly what impact that will have . Indeed, is it just going to be an offload or is it going to be true reform? Mr. Martindale: 1be minister raises very serious and legitimate questions, and I would like to ask her if she bas communicated to the federal minister responsible, Mr. Axwortby, and asked when her government can expect the copy of the white paper so that her government can take a position on these cutbacks, which could have a very negative impact on the province of Manitoba.

This minister wants to budget, this minister wants to add matching money to new fe deral initiative s. At the same time, she nee ds to know what is coming down the pipe from Ottawa, because it will have an effect on Manitoba. Mrs. Mitchels on: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, when we met in the middle of Fe bruary with provinces and the fed eral government, there was to be a follow-up meeting at the end of March. In the interim, a co- ordinating committee , a fe deral provincial commi ttee of deputies, was to be doing some work.

That meeting was cancelled at the end of March. 'There was a further meeting set up of de puties, scheduled for next week, at the end of May, and the federal govermnent bas cancelled that meeting, too. I guess we are not quite sure at this point where the plan is at, when we are going to see anythi ng, and when we will have anything to respond to. Health Care Facilities Reduced Workweek Mr. Dave Cbomiak (Kildonan): Mr.

Speaker, the implementation of Bill 22 and the major cuts to facilities have been very poorly administered by this government In the most recent letter from the department to the facilities, the department states , quote: We will give special consideration to those facilities in which patient care is jeopardized. Just what does the government mean by using the words "patient care," will be in jeopardy, and did the government not consider this before they put these cuts in place? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health) : Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member says something about cuts being put in place, while he reads from a le tter that talks about how we might seek some

May25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2231 kind of participation from the faci lities. You cannot have both at the same time. In fact, if be reads that letter, I am sure he will see a reference to our bottom line being patient care on two, petbaps three occas ions throughout the body of that letter. The honourable member cann ot have it both ways . I think what he really wants to see us do is to impose massive cuts like New Democratic government here in the past in Manitoba has done and like New Democratic governments in other provinces are doing now. That is not our appro ach in Manitoba.

Patient care comes fust We will not follow the advice of the honourable member for Kildonan and cut dee ply into the fabric of our health system. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. He asked the facilities to submit their plan by May 16 , and they will give special consideration to see then if these patients are put in jeopardy. Those are the minister's ow<· words. My supplemen taiy: Can the minisk. advise this House whether or not the possibility that Deer Lodge hospital will have to cut rehab services and cut outpatient services constitutes putting potential patient care in jeopardy or not? Mr.

McCrae: Mr. Speaker, Deer Lodge is one of many faci lities in Manitoba that have responded to our letter, and they have, if I am correct, I believe Deer Lodge has said they can use Bill 22 to some extent but not to the full extent to achieve the savings and that pemaps there are other ways they can do that without jeopardizing patient care. Those are the kinds of constructive sorts of responses we were hoping to receive.

In fact, we have received many responses, not all of them yet, but many, many responses which indicate a willingness either to use this vehicle or this vehicle combined with other mechanisms or some other mechanisms altogether, which is what we asked from the facilities. We asked for their pro posals, because we respect their autonomy, we respect the worlt of their boards, and we want them to be able to operate in the way that they feel is best for their communities ' own needs . We have had an encouraging response from many, many fac ilities in Manitoba. Mr. Chomiak: Mr.

Speaker, the minister confinns the cuts will be put in place, and then special conside ration may be given by the department to these cuts, because that is what the letter says . My final supp lementaiy to the minister is: Wil l these same criteria of special considerati on, if patient care is placed in jeopardy, be placed in ef fect for the $10 0 million in cuts that the government has asked the urban hospitals in W innipeg to institute over the next three years? Mr. McCrae: The honourable member and his colle agues are getting pretty desperate when they deliberately misunderstand answers given in this House.

I in no way confirm that cuts will take place. I have asked facilities for their proposals. Facilities are making their proposals available to us. We are reviewing those proposals, and at the end of that review, we will let the facilities know whether their proposals will be acce pted or not accepted. Government Departments Reduced Workweek Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we have seen the potential for some flexibility in the application of Bill 22 with personal care homes and hospitals . I would ask a question to the Premier.

Is he willing to allow that same flexibility with the application of Bill 22 as it affects gove rnment services so that in fact essential government services will remain open and provide service to the public? Bon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I ha ve indicated that we will certainly be encouraging the managers who are responsible for delivery of services in the various government departments to apply the requirements of Bill 22 in the interests of ensuring that services that are in particular demand and requirement are able to be provided.

Having said that, I do not think we are sugg esting that there are no requir emen ts. Certainly the effect of Bill 22 needs to be achieved in tenns of the savings that are required, but there is some flexibility in the hands of manag ers to

2232 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 allow for provision of services where there is an obvious requirement for those services . Essential Service Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood) : Mr. Speaker, with a supp lementary question to the Premier: Is be willing to allow exemptions of essential services in the government serv ices such as home care, child and family services, court backlogs and maintenance enf orcement, where there are already extended waiting lists for service and there is a great nee d? Is be willing to allow an exemption of these essential services? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premie r): Mr.

Speaker, I am informed that home care operated last year within the requirements of Bill 22 without a problem vis-�-vis services. I am not sure the specifics that she is refetring to. It is a blanket general question. If she could give me some spe cific examp les, perhaps we could deal with iL Home Care Program Essential Service Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwoo d): Mr.

Speaker, with a final supp lementary to the Premier: Perhaps if the Premier could read the Estimates in the Department of Health, we would give him a spe cif ic example where hospitals in rural Manitoba are not able to discharge patients, because in fact home ca re services are not available on Fri days and, in some cases, on Mondays. Will the minister now, in light of that inf ormation, rec onsider some of the essential services such as home ca re and provide an exemption to Bill 22 in that area to provide better public service and save dollars in the long run? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health) : Mr.

Speaker, with respect to home care, the same rules apply on the Bill 22 days as apply on statutory holida ys. However, where our program bas not been able to be as responsive as perceived neces sary in certain circumst ances , i.e., at Seven Oaks Hospital, the Seven Oaks Hospital bas taken the initiative to attempt to provide an earlier discharge program through the services of the We Care Home Health Services company, which the patients have found extremely positive and the NDP bas found extremely negative for their own particular reasons.

I do not think Bill 22 is the cause of the problems at Seven Oaks, and those are issues that we are atte mpting to address. We need the support of the New Democrats as we attempt to address these important issues of patient care, Mr. Speaker, and we are disappointed when for philosophical reasons they put the patients second. •

(1410) Education System Physk al Education Ms. Marianne Ce rilli (Radi sso n ) : Mr. Speaker, day after day we bear of incidents of youth violence, criminal activity, gangs, unemploym ent, youth depression, suicide . Young people in Manitoba need some hope and they need some alternatives. This is provided by school programs in sports, arts and cult ural programs. They are a cost-effective investment in young people in Manitoba. I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Is the minister and his governm ent considering the policy of eliminating physical education specialists and other specialists in the schools as core courses in Manitoba? What research or other rationale does the minister have for the basis of this kind of policy change? Bon. Oayto n Manness (Minis ter of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, this issue and many others have been discussed in the Estimates review in the program area of the Department of Education. When the government makes known its blueprint for educational ref orm, that issue and many others will be discussed at that time. Ms. CerDli: Mr.

Speaker, I have a survey of over 1, 200 Mani toba students from 18 schools regarding the benefits of athletics for high school students in keeping young people in school and developing lif e skills .

May 25, 1994 LEGISLA1TVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2233 I would ask if the minister has seen this survey done by the Manitoba High Schools Athletic Ass ociation and if he will use this as the basis of his decisions in changing extracurri cular and core -curri cular specialist programs in Manitoba. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen it, but I can acce pt and endorse all of the recommenda tions that would flow therefrom. I fully understand the incredible benefit of physical exercise within the whole sphere ofleaming. I am a supp orter of it. I was actively involved as a student myself in physical activi ties.

My children have been. I am a full underst ander and, I believe, a supporter of physical education within our ttaining institutions . Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, if the minister fee ls so strongly about this, can the minister explain then why he is telling the physical education specialists that he thinks that there needs to be more generalists in education and they are looking at eliminating specialists in education? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the basis on which the member asked the question. If she wants to peddle hearsay, she is welcome to do so. Mr. Speaker, I too have an opportunity.

I was in attendance at the meeting. I know exactly what I said. If the member wants to contradict the statements that were made or embellish some of the comments that have been made public, I say she does a tremendous disservice to the meeting that took place. Breast Implant Lawsuit Delay Request Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington) : Mr.

Speaker, I am tabling a letter from the Women 's Health Clinic to an American judge filing a formal objection to the proposed settlement of the breast implant lawsuit as it affects foreign claimants and requesting an extension of the deadline for those foreign claimants, many of whom are Canadians and Manito bans. On May 31, an inf onnation meeting will be held in W'mnipeg to provide back ground infonn ation, a history of the various lawsuits, and an overview of the options available to Manitoba women. I would like to ask the Premier if he will do two things, Mr.

Speaker, if he will also write a letter to the American judge asking for a delay, an extension of the time for filing an ap plication, asking for more inf ormation, and also, will he urge the federal Liberal govemment to join with him in lobbying the American judge and the American judicial system into dela ying the June 17 deadline so that Canadian and Manitoba women have more of an opp ortunity and a better understanding of the implications for them in the health care system in the province of Manitoba of the judicial ruling in the United States on the breast implant issue? Bon.

Gary FDmon (Premi er) : I must admit, Mr. Speaker , that I do not have the infonnation with which to make that commitment. So I will have to take time to review it and respond back to the member. Breast Implant Lawsuit Delay Request Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington) : Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier, upon review and remembering that the deadline is fast appro achin g, please undertake a commitment to the women of Manitoba and Canada to lobby the federal govemment and the United States judge on the issue of breast implant judicial compensation, so that Canadian women are not held to the 3 percent of the $4-b ill ion lawsuit money available to them 1 Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speaker, I would take under advisement the suggestion of the honourable member about our getting involved in writing a letter directly to the judge.

We have in progress now preparation of a letter to the fe deral Minister of Health and Welfare to ask the fe deral Liberal govemment to show some leadership in this area on behalf of all Canadian women. Our initial response is that 3 percent of this settlement for all women outside the U.S.A. is totally inadequate from what we can tell on a preliminary review . Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

2234 LEGISLA1lVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 lntroduc:tion of Guests Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the atte ntion of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us this afternoon our very good friend Mr. Lmy Desj anli.ns, the folDler MLA for St. Boniface. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. NONPO�CALSTATEMENTS Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Portage Ia Prairie have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Missing Childre n's Day Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage Ia Prairie) : Mr. Speaker, today is Missing Child ren's Day.

You will notice a number of the honourable members have green ribbons on their lapels signifying their awareness of the problem around this issue. Today is a day to think about those children and young people who are missing. In this Year of the Family I think it is very important to draw attention to this important issue. Some young people decide to run away and find themselves on the streets trying to make ends meet, and in almost every case they find that their desire for freedom from their home lif e has turned into a folDl of bondage to the street life . Mr.

Speaker, I would like to send out the message today to young people that there are people who care and are willing to listen to their concerns. We have a number of help lines in our prov ince. They are listed on the inside cover of the telephone directory, and there is also a national kids helpline called Kids Help Phone at 1- 800- 668- 6868. I know there are also children who are missing beca use of abduction either by parents or by strangers, and I ask all Manitobans to ensure that when they walk by the poster of a child who is missing to take a moment and really look at that picture of that child.

If it helps return one child to its family, that moment will be well spent. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] •

(1420) Child Find Week Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows) : We too are wearing ribbons today to malk Cll ild Fmd Week. This organization provide s public awareness regarding missing children and information about preve ntion. They help find missing children. They offer infolDlation and support to families. I believe that protecting our children is the resp onsibility for everyone in our society, and particularly of parents, and we can all do our part by knowing where our children are at all times and knowing who they are with. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples have leave to make a nonpolitical statemen t? [agreed] Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples) : I too on behalf of our caucus would like to applaud the work of Child Find. As a police officer for a number of years I have been a part of many investigations looking for lost children. I see the devastation that it causes parents, family and even the entire community when a child is lost and how the community has come together, enemies and friends have come together to help out. I applaud the work of Child Find and I wear this ribbon to honour the woJk that they do.

Thank you. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Commit tee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Lac du Bo nnet (Mr. Praznik) for the memb er for Minne dosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) ; the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Sturge on Creek (Mr. McAlp ine); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); and the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister).

May25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2235 Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable government House leader under Onlers of the Day, I would like to draw the atte ntion of honourable members to the gallery to my le ft, where we have with us this afte rnoon His Worship the Mayor Rick Borotsi k of the City of Brandon. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this aftemoon. ORDERS OF THE DAY Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majest y with the honourable member for St. Norbe rt (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Family Services. COMMITI'EE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) EDUCATION AND TRAINING Mr. Deputy Chairpers on (Marcel Laurendea u): Older, pl ease.

Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estim ates of the Department of Education and Training. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 5. (a) (

l) on page 43 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training) : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I promised last night I would provide an historical perspective of support to private and independent schools, I table that infonn ation now. Mr. John Plohman (Dauph in) : Yes, my colleague the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) indicated that the minister had promised to provide, to table some docum ents on Workforce 2000 prior to the sitting today, at least that is what she just infonned me was the case . Mr. Manness : Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, the training division as yet, at 2:30, did not have that infonnation prepared. We will table it as soon as it is here. · Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for tabling the infonnation on increases to private schools. Can the minister tell us what the figures ref erenced here, 63.50 percent for '93-94 for high incidence , 63.50-what does that refer to? Then '94-95, the Level I, 154- is this thousands of dollars, or what are we ref erring to? Mr. Deputy Chairperso n: Order, ple ase. Could I ask you to bring the mike forw ard?

Hansard is having some problems picking up, and that does not usually happen. Mr. Plohm an : Wel l , yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I wanted to know was if the minister could explain the figures under high incidence, Level I and General Support Grant that seemed to begin in '93-94, '94-9S. What do those numbers represent? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was a different definition with respect to the support of special needs in '93-94 as compared to '94-95.

All we have tried to do is, for once and for all, take away the reference to high incidence and make it synonymous with what exists in the public school system under Level I, Level ll, Level m.

Whereas in '93-94 there was a level of support within the high incidence , the old ref erence, that has been shifted and increased totally into Level I funding to make it comparable to the level of support in the public school syst em. Mr. Plohman: So the 154 in '94-95 under Level I stands for? Mr. Manness: Well, it subsumes the $63 that was provided in high incidence the year before , and what it represents is the per capita student equiv alent of supp ort, $15 4.

2236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May25, 1994 Mr. Plohman : So what the minister is rea lly saying, then, is that in '94-95, schools like St. John 's-Rav ensco urt and Balm oral Hall were given an increase in funding of $15 4 per student plus $68, or plus $68 less $63.50? Mr. Manness: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, the $63 rolled into the $15 4, but what he is saying is right, $154 plus $68 minus $63. Mr. Plohman: And this is based, Mr. Deputy Chaiipe rson, on a formula that assumes the ratio of Level I special needs students is about the same in St.

John 's-Rav enscourt and Balm oral Hall as it would be in the general student body throughout the provi nce. Mr. Manness: I cannot speak to St. John's Ravenscourt -like the member seem s he has this fixation with Balmoral Hall and St. Jo hn's. I will address it in terms of the 53 schools that are all part of the independent school syst em, [inteJjection] 53, representing 10, 000 stud ents. I do not know what percent of the students that he wants to talk about attend St. John's-Ravenscourt and/or Balmo ral Hall. •

(1440) I will address the 10,500 students who are part of the independent school system and indicate to him there is obviously a growing number of students who are requiring Level I support. Whether it repre sents the same population, per capita population, as exists within the public school system , probably the answ er is no.

Let members remember in the first instance, the support that was provided for special needs stud ents, not only took into account those who had learning disabilities and those who bad other disadvantages, but also those who are disadvantaged from the perspective of being achievers far beyond average and who were not sufficiently challenged. So I do not know how we quantify exactly comparable areas, but certainly Level I in this case includes slow learners which exist in many aspects of the independent school syst em, plus, in some cases, gifted learners, too. Mr.

Plohman: Well, the minister does not want to talk about particular schools. I used those because they are certainly nond enominational schools , nonr eligious-ba sed schools. The minister has increased the funding to them by 5.1 percent on a per student basis, even higher when you consider increased enrollm ents. I thought the minister might be concerned about that, and he does not want to talk about that. Let the recotd show that is the case. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, let the recotd show, for those who probably do not have access to the historical data that I presented, but let the record show for all those who read these Estimates seriously , that the NDP who like to sense that they would not provide any support for independent schools including the two schools that the member wants to fo cus on time after time, that during the NDP years of governance, these were the increases on a per student basis to those attending the independent school-[inteJjection] 1983, 9.7 percent to the students of St.

John 's and Balm oral Hall; 17.6 percent increase to the same students in 1984; 10.3 percent increase in 1985; 19.6 percent in 1986 to those same students at St. John's-Ravenscourt and Balm oral Hall. Mr. Deputy Chailperson, 38.2 percent in 1988 . [inteJjection] No, no, that was the last year. That was the last year of the Pawley government to those very same students that the member fo cuses on.

Then, the seven budgets that we have brought down, our increases were 19.7, 14.6 and then for the next five budgets, drop into the single-digit area of 6.6, 9.2, 6.1, 2.7 and 5.1 percent , the same base, taking into account the global funding divided by the number of students . We come nowhere close to the double -digit increases of 38 percent and 17 and 20 percent provided by the NDP Pawley government in the '80s. So the members, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, speak with great inconsisten cy. As a matter of fact, some would say they are kind of hypocritical with respect to this whole issue. Mr.

Plohman: The minister alleges that he would like to put factual information on the record, but he neglects to mention, first of all, that the base was much sma ller. We were talking about in the neighbourhood of $500 per student versus 2,358, now alm ost five times as much money per student.

May25, 1994 LEGISLAllVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2237 He also neglects to mention that inflation was running around 10 percent in the early '80s, something else that he does not want to put in perspective with regard to the double-digit-as he calls it- increases during that period of time. I think the other couple of points, the fact in 1988 the government was defeated on its budget and went to an election. This gov ernm ent came in and submitted a new budget and at that time, it was in a position to decide on all of these kinds of things and chose to increase the funding by 38.2 percent. Point ot' Order Mr.

Manness : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, on a point of order, I will not stand fo r the member for Dauphin putting lies on the record. I brought do wn- Mr. Deputy Chairpers on: Order, please . Mr. Ma nness: Mr. Deputy Cha irperson, I apologize fo r imputing that the member has brought lies down, but on the same point of order, this government has brought down seven budg ets. Even the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) can count to seven. On this sheet, if he counts back sev en--one , two, three , fo ur, five, six, sev en--he will see that the first year was 19.7, the first budget that we brought down.

I say to the member, the 38.2 represents an increase provided by the NDP after a letter was signed by Roland Penner, the bench mate of the member for Dauphin. That is part of the record. That has to be part of the record. Mr. Deputy Chairperson : Order, please . The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts . ••• Mr. Plo hman: I think the minister did not explain his table well when he presented this.

He should have indicated that this was not given eff ect in 1988 by budgetary decisions but in fact was the result of '87 decisions, because in fact the government was elected in '88. At that time this government was elected in 1988 and brought down their first budget in '89. Is that correct? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy ChaUperson, we were elected in '88. We brought in the '88 budget which covered '88 and '89-year end '89.

As I said previously and the first time, the last NDP budget, not the def eated one but the last one that was passed in the House, provi ded an increase to the independent school system of38.2 percent. Mr. Plo hman: Mr. Deputy Chaitperson, what the minister is saying is that these are given effect by the previous year's budget 1be '87 budget gave effect to the '88 figures that he has on this shee t. Mr. Manness: Correct. Mr. Plo hman: I am happy the minister has clarified that.

It is important information that we know and understand the levels of funding that we are talking about here in terms of the total dol lars. [intetj ection] Well, I indicated in the House that what I wanted the minister to do was to roll back the funding to SO percent of the public school syst em. That is what I was suggesting. I did not say they should not give them any money. It is a matter of priorities.

When the minister is saying he is short of money and he cannot provide it to the Mystery Lake School Division and to the Lord Sellcirlt School Division and Transcona and Evergreen and so on, all of those divisions which have seen substantial cuts, then I think it is significant. I think we should also get from the minister, when he provides this table, the percent of funding in relationship to the public schools, because that is significant. When we were in office in the late 1980s, we were talking around 30 percent of the funding that public school students were being given in the private schoo ls.

Now we are up at 63.5 percent. So the minister is the one as the Minister of Finance , and his previo us colleagues, that increased the percentage of funding to private schools from some 30 percent to 63.5 percent and increased the dollars from the neighbourhood. The minister can provide that information as well on the global fo rum from some $8 million to $10 million to some $24 million now. Those are the important figures that we have to consider when we are worldng with a shortage of funds .

2238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May25, 1994 The other point is, and I think it is worth putting on the record as well, during these years that the private sc hoo ls were getting large increases during the NDP years on a percentage basis-not on a dollar basis, on a percentage basis -the public schools were getting comparatively large increases as well. This is quite differe nt than what we are seeing now, because the public school was at a larger base at that time.

Naturall y, a percentage on the larger base made many more do llars, and in this case, the minister has increased the amount by some $16 mill ion over this period of time. So I think the minister has to put all of these things in perspective and still acknowledge that he is going to 80 percent with the support of the liber als, and it is the NDP that wants to limit the funding to private and especially elite , exclusionacy schools to ensure that there is money for the public school system . It is a matter of priorities.

The minister has to remember that he is the one that is saying the NDP wants all kinds of money thrown at everything. We are the ones saying no, cut Wo rldorce 2000; put that money into ACCESS, put that money into universiti es, put that money into the public school syst em, cut St. John's, cut Balmoral Hall and put that money into the public school system. It is a matter of priorities . •

(1450) I thin k these memb ers opposite have to recognize priorities. Surely by now they should recognize priorities . That is all we are saying, and that is the point we have been making. I want to just re-emphasize that at this point, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and move on to other points. If the minister wants to respond, that is fine. Mr. Manness: I really have de ve lo ped an appreciation for the way the member for Dauphin can butcher arithmetic. We have a situation where the member talks about the high base. I mean, comparisons do not mean much unless they are done on the basis of per pupil comparisons .

The member can say, well, we were providing incre ases to the public school system. Well, a 6 percent increase on a per capita supported base of, let us say, $4,000 per student represents $240; 10 percent increase on a $600 base or $800 per capita student base or $1 ,000 per capita student base within the independent school system represents $100 . So, with a much lesser increase in the public school system, obv iously the benefit is much gre ater. That is pure arithmetic. The member destroys his own argument then. He uses the right tools, but he butchers his own argument.

But we should point out, in '93-94, that the total support on average for a student within the public school syst em, both prov incially supported and indeed locally supported by way of special levy, was $5,830. That was the total cost of educating, on average , across all the school divisions: $5,830. The province by way of Estimates contributed roughly $3,600 of that, but then there was another $200-m ill ion worth by way of our provincial le vy.

So I say we would have cover ed roughly 70 percent , but the total cost was $530 taxpayer supported to a studen t-t axpayer mean ing taxpayer plus ratepayer-in the public school syst em. The support provided through the provincial government only by way of tax dollars to the student within the independent school system in 1993-94 was $2,244. That is the number second from the bottom shown on the list: 38.5 percent as a share of what is being provided for in the public school system . Now the member I know wants this to be a major plank of the NDP re-election strate gy. It is fe rtile ground. I understand that.

It is fe rtile ground, because I know it is convenient when you do not have solutions of your own. It has been practised by politicians since the beginning of time. When you do not have answ ers of your own, what you try and do is you make somebody , some group, some individual, the enemy. It is so convenient, of course, to make the Fe deration of Independent Schools the enemy generally , but more specifically to make SL Iohn' s-Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall the real enemy.

Were it a perf ect world and if government bad ways of manipulating and without a policy basis and fo undation to make decisions, maybe we would do things differentl y, too, but 53 schools

May25, 1994 LBGISLA.llVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2239 appro ached the government, not when we were in office but when the member for Dauphin was in Thompson. Pardon me. I do not know why, Mr. Deputy Chaiipers on, I am really, really tied into Thompson today.

But when the member for Dauphin sat with Roland Penner and, indeed, when they made decisions within the Executive Council of this prov ince, they made an agree ment and the result of that agreement , the manifestation in that agreement with the independent schools, not with the Catholic schools, not with the so-called nonelite schoo ls, but with the Federation of Independent Schools including the elite schools they mentioned. This member sat at a Treasury bench when that decision was made, and the result of that decision- An Honourable Member: What was it? Mr.

Manness: -a 38.2 percent increase in their last year of government Did the membeiS opp osite separate under the umbrella of the independent schools, the Catholic schools from the nonreligious schools? Did they do that? Oh, no. They dealt in the same way we bad to deal with the Federation of Independent Schools. What the Catholics said was this, basically. We will give away our call for 100 percent funding, which we constitutionally will win. We will ask for 80 percent, but we will do it in the sense that the global community of all independent schools being outside of the public school syst em.

That was a commitment they made to come in and seek support for all. The member opp osite and his govern ment supported that approach. But, today, when our levels of support have increased under an agree ment working towards a goal, yes, it is certainly much less than the experie nce of the NDP ahead of us, the membeiS, of COUISe, wanted to make it to be their election plank in this whole area of education. So, Mr. Deputy ChairpeiSon, that has to be put onto the record for those who want to read Hansard and want the truth associated with these numbeiS . Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Deputy ChairpeiSon, again, the minister is loose with the facts . He is not interested in talking about the additional $ 15 million that this gov ernm ent has put in place, more than double, almost triple of what the NDP government was putting in place for private schools at that particular time. Talk about not havi ng answers-when a government does not have answ eiS. We have gone six yem of fumbling arou nd.

The minister still does not have a blueprint or direction for education reform in this province, and he is talking about these opp osition parties, and particularly the New Democrats , not having the ans wers. Well, he should look in the mirror and look at his colleagues and look at the fact that ther e has been no direction. He has been operating a rudderless ship fo r the last six yem. I think this is something when the minister wants to bring in those kinds of arguments. [interjection] He says now I am off topic.

Well, that is exactly what he was when he said we do not have the answer, so therefore we look for a scapegoat. In this case, it happens to be Balmo ral Hall and St. Jo bn's-Ravenscourt . Well, I am afraid it is this minister. This is the minister who is the target, not St. Jolm's-Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall. It is this minister's policies that we are referring to and the huge increases and the agreement that goes to 80 percent on the basis that somebody says we are going to win the court case.

You have to remember, we have a Francophone School Division right now and some of that will have a bearing on what is the obli gation. [interjection] Well, some of it is bearing on it. An Honourable Member: What did he say about the same argument in 19837 Mr. Plohm an: That is right. In 1983, on the Fre nch language question, he said go to the Supreme Court. Sterling Lyon did. They made a big issue. It was shameful bow they tried to stir the pot on that issue in the mid- 1980s in a crude political attempt to gain office . So let those members not talk about making these kinds of decisions.

In fact, now they take it to the Supreme Court. Why did they not do it with this issue then? They threw in the towel. An Honourable Member: We did.

2240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May25, 1994 Mr. Ploh man: You did not do it with private schools . You took the Francophone issue to the Supreme Court, but you did not take the issue of the religious schools , the funding and the historical statement or the oblig ation that was being made , assertion that was being made by the Catholic schools that in fact, they could win this and get 100 percent. So the minister likes to put it in the light, well, we compromise. We do not know if they comp romised, because it never got there . That is enough about that.

I want to get on to a couple of other questions before passing this along to some of my co lleagues and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) , as well, fo r the Liberals . Certainly, there are a lot of issues that have to be raised. I wanted to ask the minister though, last uight be said be made special exception for Transcona and Agassiz as a result of the reductions and the impact that these reductions bad on those divisions. What form did that take? Mr. Manness : Mr. Dep uty Olairpersoo, firstly, I do now have some material that I promised the member for Wolseley last uight.

I have Wolkforce 2000 '9 4-95 training schedules by employ ers. This is a list of training contracts since Apri11 '94. Mr. Deputy Olairperson, in response to the- Point of Order Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolsele y): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have not seen the list that the minister bas given me, but I would remind him that be also promised to table information on Caron's Collectibles and Murray Cbev Olds Cadill ac Sales at the beginuing of this session. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order. ••• •

(1500) Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will attempt, through the day, to try and provide-that material is not ready as yet, but as it becomes ready, I will table. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the form in which the supp ort was offered was an advance on next year's funding. Mr. Plohman: How can the minister do that? What is be saying, that be is going to make it up next year! Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Olairperson, I believe it is academ ic in the case of one school division. I do not think they want to accept the offer. What we have said is that obviously Bi11 16 will not be in place next year.

School divisions will not be capped. Given that Bill 16 will not be in place, they will not be capped, and they will have an opportunity to go to their ratepayers to try and provide the shortfall, but until then, we would be prepared to provide an advance if they so choose to receive it. Mr. Plohman: I do not know whether that is any solution at all, and you cannot really blame them for turning it down.

What the minister is saying is that be is not prepared to prov ide additional funding to deal with the uuique situation, and be is not prepared to commit to pro viding funding if be were in the position to be able to do that next year. If be is in that position, be is not committing to give them the additional funding at that time to make it up. So, what is be saying, then, that they would have to find it from within or raise it locally? Is that the implied option for the school divisions in this case? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairpe rson, every division, every entity of publi c service and even in private firms, when there is a shortf all of money, you have to make certain decisions. What we have said is the impact is pretty severe.

These divisions probably would want to make expen diture-side decisions over a course of two years rather than be forced to make one, and unto that end, we were prepared to advance some of the proceeds that they would expect under the fo rmula next year, and that they then would have to go to the ratepayer accordingly, by way of tax increase, just to provide the shortfall that would occur next year as a result of having bad advances made to them this year.

May 25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2241 Mr. Plo hman: It is interesting the minister bas finally put on the record that the impacts in some divisions were, in his words, "pretty severe ." We have been saying all along that they have been intolerable in many divisions because of the combined eff ect of two cuts in a row, some perhaps even more than that, but certainly many division, two years in a row, being reduced back to perhaps pre- 1990 leve ls. I wonder if the minister could provide any infonnation on those school divisions that had reductions in provincial funding in two successive ye ars.

Maybe, to make it simpler, in two successive years, 8 percent or over combined, so that we could see how many divisions have been bit hard, in other words, something like the minister said, "pretty severe" over the last two ye ars. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Cbaitperson, I do not know whether I can do that promptly, but I would indicate that the member deliberately tries to leave the impression that these two divisions also bad decrease s the last fe w years.

I do not know if anybody has told him or not, but Transcona particularly, No. 12, benefited by the introduction of the schools finance program in '92-93 with a 6.8 percent increase in provincial support. Of course, the member does not talk about that, so obviously Tmnscona-Springfield School Division No. 12 is not one of those who have accumulated reductions using the member's tenns of8 percent Mr. Plo hman: Just for clarification, Mr. Deputy Cbaitperson, I am talking about '93-9 4 and '94-95 , not '92- 93.

If we go back to '9 2-93, then the decreases in '93-94 and '94-95 would more than offset the increase in '92-93, and we are then obviously back in 1991 lev els. That is the point I am making he re. And some much further back because some did not get a big increase in '92-93 . Mr. Mann ess: For the most part, the ones that did not receive an increase in '92-93 were again the winners, supposed ly, under the reass ess ment. That is the general rule. I can provide it glob ally. 1be member wants to know what bas happened over the years. Again, we have brought seven budgets down.

In '88-89, our percent increase was 7.6 followed by 7.1, 7.4, 3.3, S.S. These are all increases; 1.6 increase and this year a reduction of 4.6 the way it prints. I am sorry, it is not the way it prints, but it is the way leading up to the print. So the general cumulative average increase was 4.4 percent over seven budge ts. Yet Winni peg's . 12-month average of consumer price index increases over those same seven years on a per year basis was 3.8 percent That is the cumula tive . Those are the global averages .

I know the member would like those breakouts by school divisions over the years, and be would like then to be able to point at those divisions that may have experienced over the last two years , a reduction in absolute funding of some-using his terms-8 percent. Again, I point out to the member, I would only provide that ifl also showed where the student enrollment was decre asing because in almost all the cases that is the direct cost Mr.

Plo bman: I do not mind if the minister includes student enrollment and compares app les with app les in terms of a per student cost and then the global base on the same number of students for that divisi on. It is not relevant to talk glob ally about the cuts or increases in funding over those years because our major point-and the minister just gave global figures as if that is what I was asking about-what I want to see is the figures division by division and particularly , to make it easier for the minister, those divisions that have been severely bard hit over the last two ye ars.

Let us have a look at what divisions we are talking about here. We know that a number of them are urban divisions , but there are also some rural and some urban divisions as well that were impacted in that way. I would like to see what school divisions specific all y, because that is the only way we can debate this. Our contention is that the funding bas bee n unfair, and it bas hit certain school divisions in an unfair way. It bas not been equitable. So to talk globally just is not talking the same language at all.

2242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May25, 1994 The minister may feel it is to his benefit to talk glob all y, but we want to talk about those specific divisions, because, in fact, it is our contention that some special provision should have been made, that it is intolerable that some of those school divisions should have bad the kind of impact two years in a row. Evergreen and Lord Selkirk are a couple of examples . I think it is important the minister provide us that information so we are not talking in hypothetical terms. It is important for me to have it, and it is important for the minister to have it. Mr.

Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, part of the difficulty that we have in providing that information is, as the member knows full well, the level of support provided to school divisions is made up of two sources: that which comes out of the provincial Treasury-that is what we are voting on here-and then another $200 mill ion at this point in time, which comes from the Public Schools Finance Board, which is equiv alent to the provin cial 1e vy, in other words the ESL. Nowhere is it provided fo r, a global contribution of those two factors. Mr. Deputy Chairpe rson, I stand corre cted.

What we are going to try and do is we are going to try and take the global of those two so mces that has been provided to every school division and we are going to give the historical record over the last several years of increase to school divisions or whatever flowed. • (15 10) Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. I think in his reference to the two sources he led into what I wanted to discuss brie fly with the minister in addition.

That is the true contribution of the province to public schools in the prov ince, in terms of the amount of dollars and percentage that comes from the prov ince-not just general revenue but those funds that come from property taxes through the Public Schools Finance Board. The MTS uses a figure of some 60 percent, 63 percent. I do not know what exactly it is now that the province is contributing to public education in the province. They say this is dropp ing. At one time they said it was around 80 percent. They do these graphs up on a regular basis.

I have talked with MTS and I said: I do not think that accurately reflects the provincial contributions.

Perhaps it is just a changing of accounting, but I want to get the minister's view on that: Whether he beli eves that is an accura te reflection of what the province is contributing to public schools and whether he thinks that perhaps there would be an advantage to have those funds that come from property taxes with just another form of taxation levied by the province should not be part of general revenues and then disseminated on an equitable basis as opp osed to out of a separate source, a separate pool and why, as the Minister of Finance, he has never considered doing that. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, it is a good point. I would point out again what we have been voting on, for the record-because I do not think the member will do it, so I think I should do it-that in the first budget we brought down, the '88-89 budget, we contributed by way of vote what we are voting on, hopefully sometime today or some other time, we contributed as a province $474 million out of the Treasury. That represented at that time roughly 54 percent of all the public school expend itures.

Now memb ers-and indeed particularly the society, but others-have said that this is a funding issue, that we have not provided enough funding. Seven budgets later that amount has grown from $473 million to $576 million and reaching its high last year of $603 million. Mr. Plo hman: So three for '93-947 Mr. Manness: Correct. This year decreasing by a fair amount. Mr. Deputy Chairpers on, today that still represents that increased funding. As the Premier has said many times, 17.2 percent of all funding wa s allocated to Education when we took government. To date it is 18 .2.

Still, and this is the main point, 54 percent of all public school funding comes out of the Treasury-not this year, I mean before this year, 54 percent That means the other 46 percent comes from ratepayers, taxes on pro perty.

May 25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2243 Here is basically where the shift has been Not that the ratepayers are paying a larger percent, because what bas happe ned, they still are paying 46 percent They paid 46 pen:ent in '82-83, and they are paying 46 percent in tenns of '92-93 . But there bas been a shift between the local levy and the provincial levy.

Whereas 10 years ago, out of the 46 percent, 27 percent was levied by the province, 19 pen:ent by the local division, today that is virtu ally changed so that 27 percent is levied locally and 19 percent is levied by the provincial government. So the impact on ratepay ers, their share, their burden of the total education budget bas not changed. Indee d, the contribution put forward by the provincial government out of the special levy, pardon me, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, bas not changed.

It just depends bow you want to divide the ratepayer as between whether be or she directs their dollars to the local municipality, which directs it to the school board, or whether it is collected by the local municipality, which sends it to the government of Manito ba, to the Public Sc hools Finance Board, which redirects it back to the school boards. Mr.

Plohman: I think the MTS uses the 54 percent plus the provincial levy, the 19 percent that the minister refers to-was 27 percent, now 19 percent-adds those together to get the provincial contribution I am not certain of that, but I would think that is what they would do. There is another element of this as wel l, and that is, the minimum effort that the province requires of school divisions to levy, the minimum levy. What percentage of that 27 percent that is levied locally is actually a requirement from the province as a minimum local mill rate? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, the memb er is right.

Under the old values of assessment, the number used to be slightly over 8, and under the new value of assessment, the uniform levy is 7.29 mills. That then becomes the thre shold, and everybody has to levy up to that point. We reduce their support on the expectati on that everybody raises or can raise or will raise 7.29, the equivalent of 7.29 mills against their ass essment Mr. Plobman : In actuality then the province is responsible for more than the 19 percent. By decree , by policy or by regulation, school divisions have to levy another 7.29 mills.

It var ies in percentage terms, but, in fact, the figure that would come from provincially initiated property taxation would be much higher than that reftected by the minister's statements earlier. Mr. Manness: One can make that statement , yes. Mr. Plobman: It would be interesting to get these figures in pen:entage terms rather than in mills. My point is that I guess there is a lot of money there that is raised as a result of provincial taxation that the province does not necessarily get blamed for or credited for.

It is deemed to be local levy and theref ore ratepayers tend to look to the local municipality and the local school division and say, well, you guys are taxing us this amount of money when in fact it is because of government policy provin cially that they are doing a lot of that To some extent we just established that 7.29 mills , for example, in addition to the other property tax that is levied as a result of the provincial levy . •

(1520) I guess I would ask the minister, as a previous Minister of Fi nance, simply because it was historic ally done this way, that there be monies separated from the general revenue and school finance board, whether be finds that desirable, or why be bas not looked at perllaps combining all sources of provincial revenue in general revenues and then using that to disseminate in a fair and equitable way to school divisions across the prov ince, which would mean greater fairne ss perhaps in bow these dollars are divvied up. Has the minister studied that at all or considered that option or a change of that nature?

Mr. Manness: The way we are receiving the mon ey, in essence two pots , in support of education, that is not the issue around fairne ss. Fairness ultimately, as the member knows, that

2244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 designated funding as a result of taxation, occurs basically in one area of government. It is the only area the Provincial Auditor bas not chall enged the setting up of a separate reserve, which does not come, by the way, before this Legislature and that is the Public Schools Finance Boanl. I look at my colleague, the member for Lakeside (Mr.

Bnns) and the former Minister of Natural Resources, who always wanted government to set up in support of Natural Resources expenditures designated funding where the fees that came in, for instance, did not find themselves totally consumed within this big monster called the Treaswy, then to find its way never again back into Natural Resources.

I understood the arguments, but for years Provincial Auditors have been forcing governments to consolidate all of their revenues. 1be one area they have never been successful since the beginning of time, of course, is in the area of education, because there was a belief that if you put forward a levy against property in support of education and it ended up in the big fund, then bow did we know for sure it would not end up in some other department? In this day, of course , it would be in health.

Today you would see if it ended up within the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the $200 million I am talking about, the provincial levies by way of education support levy- Mr. Plobman: Plus. Mr. Manness: Slightly plus, not much. Roughly $200 million, today it would not all come back to education. That is a bard statement to believe , but that is the fact. 1be member says, well, maybe it should be collapsed into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I am telling you, it is a designated fund. If it is a designated fund and education wants it to stay designated, it better stay there.

That is exactly what Alberta is doing to control it. Now it hits the big pot, and now it is whoever wins the hardest or the greatest at the decision table . I will tell you, health is not going to lose. If it comes down to health and education, I will tell you where I will bet the farm. It is going to go to health. So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is the reality. The member may say, well, change the acco unting, but that is not the issue. 1be issue is fairness.

I mean, we still put it into a formula, and we still try to take into account the ability of school divisions to raise funds by way oflocal levying and if they are short by way of equalization or supplementary funding. [inteljection] That is right. Mr. Deputy Cllaiipe rson, we can look around at the other models; in the Toronto area, for instance, zero comes from the prov ince. lbey are all local levy-not a dollar.

So there are plenty of models to look at, and I will be interested to bear which of the models the member talks about, but let us not get into a conflict or a belief that because we have two pools of money, that somehow inhibits the greater de gree of fairness. That is not the case . Mr. Plo hman: 1be point is, of course, that we do not get to discuss or consider the $200 million. We are only talking about the general revenues, the funding that comes from the general revenues. We are not talking about the whole picture.

The other thing is, we are not even talking about the other portion at all, of course , even in the Public Schools Finance Board. That is the mills that are levied as a result of government policy, and that is the minimum effort that must be raised locally by school divisions. In fact, the province is actually responsible for much more taxation than is being acknowledg ed, I guess, in most sources, and that is why I asked the question of the minister in terms of what his views were on consolidating that to present the whole picture .

I guess the concern that the minister raises is a valid one in terms of determining what the priorities are, but it is be that is saying that you would have to choose between Health and Education. I would think that we would be choosing among the 20 or 30 departments of government, and we would be making choices on the basis of priorities , not one priority. 1be Minister of Natural Resources knows that be bas bad to ante up year after year. Of course, things have been that way for many years if you look at the budgets for Natural Resources, and perhaps even in some instances I can speak with

May2 5, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2245 some experience with regard to Highways insofar as where the priorities would sit. But I do not think it has to be the case, and I would strongly argue-1 am certainly not making the case that there should be a choice between education and health care in tenns of the final dollars allocated. What we have to do is ensure that there is adequate public investment in public education on the basis that it is a priority; and, if the minister wants to tum it into an argument between health ca re and education, he can do that with someone else.

He is not going to find that very rewanling insofar as his dis cussi on here. I think what I wiD do is move to some specific school divisions after we have an oppo rtunity for the Liber al critic or whatever the Deputy Chairperson is deciding in terms of who he is recognizing. I know some of my colleagues have concerns about school divisions in their constituencie s. There is some serious concern, as I have outlined, about the way the money has been allocated by way of the formula, the way the cuts have impacted.

That is why I have asked the minister to provide us with a copy of those school divisions that received cuts two years in a row, because I believe it has been inequitable in te rms of the distribution of funds, as a result of the reassessment and formula that the minister is responsible for. So I know they wiD have some concerns about how it has impacted in their constituencies, and I hope we have an opp ortunity to give them time to raise those questions . Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I had a number of questions in this particular area, and I guess a good place to start off is maybe to follow from the Question Period that led into the beginning of the discussions with respect to independent schools. I know , and I appre ciate the minister, in fact, tabling the document based on the percentage increases over the last number of years because it does paint a fairly clear picture, which is not neces sarily as consistent .

I did want to spend some time to make comment on this because I think it is important that there are a significant number of people that are out there watching, and are no doubt going to be reading Hansard to try to find out in terms of where all three political parties are coming from on whole iss ue of independent funding. I know at the last couple of meetings that I have been at with the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) that he has been fairly clear in terms of a commitment to 50 percent and the issue should be resolved by going back to court, but I did, in fact, meet with the independent school fede ration.

They are a bit unclear in terms of if that is what-that is not necessarily what they have been telling that particular interest group, if you like. So I think that for those sorts of organizations it is somewhat beneficial for the clarification, because it is indeed needed. • (1530) (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairpers on, in the Cllair) I know that in the questions I asked today during Question Period, there was quite a bit of heckling from actually both sides, indicating that there seems to be a bit of a flip-flop on the Liberal Party 's position. Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to take this opportuni ty to make sure that it is fairly clear in terms of what is in fact going on in independent schoo ls. I, too, have met with different groups , but I like to believe that I have been fairly consistent, and would like to suggest to the other two political parti es, in particular, the New Democratic Party, that they, too, should be consistent. An Honourable Member: This is today 's position. Right, Kevin? Mr.

Lamoureux: This is a very sensitive issue, because I do believe that the New Demo crats would like to make this a political issue in the next election, one that is based on classes of individua ls. I find that most unfortunate , but in terms of a flip-it was interesting hearing the dialogue that went back and forth between the me mber for Dauphin and the Minister of Education (Mr. Man ness). I will end with a question to the Minister of Education. I do appreciate his being patient with me on this.

2246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 Mr. Acting Deputy Cbailperso n, if you follow the pen:entage increases that have been given, the NDP, while in office, sent a very clear message to the independent schools that in fact they were in favour of substantial increases, and we do not know what level they were actually hoping to achieve. I talked to the independent schools and individuals that bad sat down with the New Democrats, and they did not indicate to me that it was 50 percent.

They bad indicated to me that the NDP have always been committed to independent schoo ls, and if you take a look while they were in office, it is fairly clear that in fact they were committed to independent schools . Another point that I think bas to be emphasized is the New Democrats are also being somewhat inconsistent by making the statement, look, you have the Catholic schools versus the elite schools. 1be member for Dauphin (Mr. Plobman) and other critics from the New Democratic Party often refer to the Bal moral Hall and St. Jolm's-Ravenscourt, but they never mention St. Mary's or St.

Pa ul's or Western Christian College, and there is a list of other independent schools that are out there. That, I believe , is the primary reason why I say that to them it is a question of class, and they are trying to portray themselves as individuals that are, in fact, supportive of the public school system outside of some of the interest groups that are there. When I sat down and met, I have been consistent in terms of saying that this whole issue is something that we are looking at.

The first priority of the Liberal Party will be to reinforce that the public education system is the No. 1 priority, and we are going to do what is neces sary to e nsure that is, in fact, portrayed to the public. We have also ensured interested individuals with respect to in the future there will be some very detailed explanations in tenns of what the party's position will be. Mr. Acting Deputy CbaiJperson, I think that is a responsible way of dealing with this particular issue.

I was very interested in the minis ter's comments in tenns of the percentage increases, and I would ask the minister if be could provide the same percentage increases for the same period of time in the public school sector. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will undertake to provide that infonnation. Mr . Lamoureux: I did not want to spend too much time in tenns of the independent schools other than just to get that onto the record. I do want to move on to the whole education funding fonn ula, and I listened fairly closely with what was being said about the whole funding fonnula.

I know at one point in time, at least it was indicated to me, that the current minister, I believe, when be was in opposition, bad made a commitment that that particular opp osition party at the time was in favour of seeing increased general revenues towards the financing of education. I would ask the Minister of Education if that was the case . Mr. Manness: Mr.

Acting Deputy CbaiJperson, we are going back now nine or 10 years, and at that time when revenues to government were growing at the rate of in one year 20 percent, in '84-85, and the condition- An Honourable Member: How come you did not mention that when you talked about the private schools? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy CbaiJperson, we are talking about '84-85. 1be big increase to independent schools was in '88 when already there was beginning to be a slowdown in revenue growth. An Honourable Member: In '88 there was a slowdown in revenue? Mr. Manness: In '88, yes.

We bad it in '89 coming from the 2 percent tax on-[inte rjection] Right. At that time, with the condition being that reve nues to government grow, at a minimum 5 percent to 8 percent, the government of the day sensed that 80 percent support could be provided. Now that was no different than when our fonner Minister of Education Mr. Cosens, in the last year of the Lyon government, changed around the fonn ula and fused, I think, $50 million or $80 million to once again take the level of provincial

May 25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2247 supp ort to a pure 80 percent. That number then began to slide through the Pawley ye us. We have found OUISe lves in a situation where, given that revenues to govermnent are no longer double-digit but for the most part are in the area of 2 percent or 3 percent, we have had no alternative but to hold the level of funding at the level that we inherited, and there has been some slippage from there, as far as taking money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Yet, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairpers on, I say for the recon:l that we have still put into public schools over the last seven budgets an additional- well , using last year 's base-$ 130 mill ion. That is an extraordinarily large amount of money. Just like we have put $500 million, a half a billion dollars , more into Health over the course of seven budgets, we have put $1 75 million into Education. So nobody has to tell me about priority setting and the impact on the other departments, because of course their share of the total revenue pie has decreased some 10 percent. But back to the questi on, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson. I think: the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is trying to say, well, what is the target? Well, the target of course is to provide more, but it can onl y be provided if indeed there are additional revenues to governm ent. We have sensed the only way today that we can bring in additional revenues to governm ent in a significant way is to increase the tax load, the individual personal tax load, on Manitobans. This is where we disagree so much with the Liberals and the NDP. We have sensed that it is unfair to brutalize your taxpayers by going and asking them to pay more.

That is why, of cour se , me mbers in oppo sition have voted against us in seven budgets, because they voted against our freezing individual tax rates, personal income tax rates . So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know it has been a long circuitous argument, but the result is we still have committed over $100 milli on more to public school education-happy to do so-and will continue to try to provide a fair share in the yeus to come. •

(1540) Mr. Lamo ure ux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairpers on, I take it then, in the minist er's answer, that he did in fact make a commitment to the 80 percent, even though he brings up a caveat of 5 percent increases in general revenues, I believe. But the concept is still there, and that is that the general revenues , I believe, is a much more progressive way of col lecting taxes than to have levying against property taxes, whether it is the provincial governm ent levying the property tax or the local school councils l evying the property tax. What we have seen-[inteljection] The member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohman) says, they are all fonns of taxation. I would like to think that he too would acknowledge that one is much more pro gressi ve than the other ones. But, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the point that I am trying to get at is that over the years we have seen a shift from general revenu es, the reliance of funding education from gen eral revenues-the reliance of funding education from general revenues being shifted over to property tax. The Minister of Education (Mr.

Manne ss) has consistently said, and he has been the author of six of the budgets that have been brought down, that this is about fair taxation, that they are fair. They might be implementing cu ts, but at least they are fair. I do not see the shifting of reliance onto property tax from general revenue as something that is fair or appr opriate. I would ask the Minister of Education whether he feels that the taxing of property is a more equitable way of taxing or collecting revenues for funding education. Mr. Manness: Mr. Actin g Deputy Chairperson, obviously not.

That is why, since we have been in government, we virtu all y, on the provincial levy, have frozen that over seven budgets . There has been a slight increase over the period. We have not significantly taken total dollars off property, have increased, and as a matter of fact, we have probably decreased the take from local levy as a provi nce. So conceptu ally he is right. In poli cy, we agree with that. As a matter of fact, we removed education tax from bare fannland about four years

2248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 ago. What the member has to bear in mind is that still the percent of the total education budget that is supported by the provincial purse as a percent, straight percent, has not changed. It is still in the realm of mid-range 50 percent. So the question being when the member says, well, you should not be taking more from property, he should be then more specific in his charge when he talks about fairness. Is fairness then in tenns of absolute numbers or is fai rness in terms of percentage?

Because, of course, if we are going to maintain our percent of roughly-and it is an arguable point -aro und 70 percent, and yes, we would like to ultimately go to 80 percent, but indeed if the pie is growing and indeed the contribution is growing by a hundred-some million dollars in our case, then obviously, if the local school division, the local ratepayer is going to pick up 20 percent or 30 percent, then I say that number of a growing expenditure , that number is obviously going to increase in absolute tenns. It is going to increase. So the member is going to have to tell us where he stands .

Does be mean by 20 or 30 percent even though that means more and more from year to year as expenditures increase, or do you like to see the absolute amount on the property tax frozen, the absolute dollars that a roll or a reference number was on the property roll? So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member can talk about-[inte rje ction] Some member from the side says, a small percent. We ll, I do not know what he is talking about. Let us talk either percentages or absolut es, because when you are getting down into this sensitive are a there certainly is a vast difference. Mr. Lamo ureux : Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, let us deal with the percentage s. It is fairly clear in tenns of what it is I am sayi ng, that we need to see direction from this government to move more toward a reliance on general revenues in financing education and over the last decade it bas been the opp osite .

If you take a look, using the minist er's own numbers that be gave a half hour, three -quarters of an hour ago, with respect to the reliance on property tax, in his amwer that he gave just now be tries to leave the imp ressi on there really has not been any increase from the province on the pro vincial levy in terms of percentage. But let us look in tenns of the school division levy. 1be figures be gave, and he can correct me if I am wrong, was in '8 2-83, the reliance for the school division was at 19 percent.

In '94-95 , and he did not really say the year, I am assuming it was '94-95- An Honourable Member: '92-93 . Mr. Lamoureux: In '92-93 , it was actually 27 percent, a complete reversal from what it was previously. I would interpret that as a form of offl.oading. 1be same sort of opposition that the government says whenever the federal government does something. 1be local authority, if you will, is the one that then bas the responsibility because of the government 's actions to be able to provide a quality of education that they have been requested to give to increase their local levies.

Again, if you look at that in the spectre of a 10-y ear time period or a bit better than 10 years, because I did bring up the copy that MTS actually had circulate d, and I am sure the minister bas read it. It makes reference to the myth of No. 2, if you like , provincial funding for public education has remained high because education bas been a priority of the Manitoba government. I think, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that the minister would have a very bard time refuting that particular statement.

Then it goes into reality by saying, operating funds from the Manitoba government have steadily fal len from 82 percent of the actual yearly costs of public school programs and services in 1981, to only 66 percent in '93-94. After listening to the Minister of Education and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plobman) in their questions and answers, one might question some of the numbers that have been presented.

I would seek to try to get some clarification on it, which I will bring up with the Manitoba Teac hers' Society , because I noted that in 1982, the minister indicated that 54 percent came from general revenue, 27 percent was the provincial levy, which brought it

/ May 25, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2249 up to 82 percent. That is what the Minister of Education was saying for 1982. AccOJding to this graph provided by MTS, they said 78.2 percent for 1982. It is off, that is considerable. From 82 percent to 78.2 percent, that is a considerable differe nce. I believe that there is a need to seek some clarification on that particular issue. It portrays 1981 funding at 82.4 percent. This is all from general revenues, and we will assum e that they are taking into account the provincial levy on the property tax. An Honourable Member: No. They are not.

You cannot assum e away 20 percent. Mr. Lamoureux: In 1981, they are saying that the province facilitated 82.4 percent of education funding? An Honourable Member: Right. Mr. Lamoureux : Would that not include the general and the provincial property levy? An Honourable Member: There is very little levy on them. Mr. Lamoureux: Very little, but it still includes it? [interjection] Okay, it still includes it. •

(1550) So they are sayi ng, from 82.4 percent, 1981; 1982 to 78.2 percent; to 77.8 percent to 74.7 percent , 74.3 percent, 72.5 percent, 71.7 percent, 71 percent, 69.9 percent, 69.2 perc ent, 68.4 perce nt, 67.8 percent, and in 1993-19 94, 66.1 percent. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairp erson, what that clearly demonstrates in their graph is that there is a signifi cant decrease of monies coming from general revenues in favour of the school divisions having to increase the level of property tax, which points out a number of probl ems, two of which I take great exception to.

One is the fact that the property tax is a much more regressive tax than a personal income tax. The second one is that some school divisions, because the school divisions themselves have a limited base , to a certain degree some have a significant advantage over others. The socio economic demographics of some school divisions will dictate some of the services that they have to provide .

So there are many natural inequities that are there to justify that what the government, not only the current governm ent but the previous New Democratic administm tion, the direction that they have been taking, the whole funding of education in the province of Manitoba has been backward, that it is moving in the wrong direction. Now I am not going to say that the actual percenta ges, as p resen ted to me from the Manitoba Teachers ' Society, are a hundred percent accurate , but I would ask the Minister of Education if he can clarify for the committee , just how accurate is this?

Have we, over the last decade , seen a continuous shifting of responsibility for funding away from general revenues and onto the property tax? Has that been consistent? Mr. Manness: Absolutely not. Mr. Acting Deputy Chaiipe rson, what is in dispute here is whether or not the ratepayer wants to pay all the funding, all the levels of taxation to the province and/or the local school division directly by way oflocal levy.

I am saying to the member, will the mtepayer feel better if all of a sudden we take away the movement of the money by way of the ratepayer paying the municipality, the municipality paying the provincial Treasury, the Public Schoo ls Finance Board, in other words , adding to the provi ncial levy , and the province then being able to stand up and boast, we are now back to 80 percent from two source s, the Consolidated Revenue Fund and from the property? W ill the prop erty mtepayer fe el better? My answer is no.

What difference does it make, because today, the ratepayer, as a percent of the education bill, pays exactly the same-as a percent of the education bill. That does not mean that the impact on his property or her property is not going up, because 30 percent of200 is still twice as much as 30 percent of 100. That is why we are talking percen tages. So does the mtepayer feel better if all the money comes to provincial Treasury and then goes out to the school division, when the actual cost on the piece of property keeps going up year after year? Do they fee l better? Not a bit. Who fee ls better in that situation?

Well, the local trustees, beca use

2250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 25, 1994 they can say, well, it is not my cost. The provincial government levied it. So when the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says the Liberals will do it diffe rently, lhat they want it off property, fai r, that is a different issue. That is a much different issue than I have been talking about, lhat he has been talking about. What the Liberal Education critic is saying then, he wants that $200 million that we raise by way of education support levy, the provincial levy, to do away with it.

Of course, we will remind the voters where the Liberals stand on this, that they want an increase in the sales tax rate of 2.1 percent. They want to take it from 7 percent to 9.1 percent, or they want an increase of 10 points in the provincial income tax levy. Right now, it is 52 percent of the basic fed eral tax, and they then would want that increased by 20 percent to 62 points of the federal basic income tax payable. We will remind the citizens of that, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, or we can go through all of the other tax sources, because indeed we only have those tax sources.

So I would sugg est to the Liberals [interjection] Well, of course, it would double. It would double the rate of taxes, of levy. It would take the price of-[interjection] That is right, and tobacco tax. Of course , we know where the Liberals stand on lhat. So then we would have to tum to motive fuel tax, or not motive fuel tax, but gasoline tax, and we would jump very quickly. I think we have a levy in place today of 11 or 12 cents a litre, and you would double that over -no, you would have to more than double that overnight. These are the sources that you tum to.

So maybe the Liberals are going to do that and say that this is the way they are going to do it; if they do not, we will . But the bigger issue-and it is something the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) said. I can make an argument that when you start to compare '8 2-83 with '92-93, that right today, we are providing 80 percent of funding-today. The ar gumen t is no di ffere nt than the federal government uses with the provinces when we talk about equalization and backing out in tax points -absolutely no difference.

What the federal government did-at one time, we had a provincial tax rate I think of somewhere around 40 points, 40 as a percent of federal payable tax. Then they let us jump to 50 percent, but they have never let us forget that they all owed us to move into lhat tax area. I can make the same argument with the school divisions. We have held back our provincial tax and let them move in. [interjection] Well, I can make the argument, because the first chunk of the local levy is what we allowed them to move into. An Honourable Member: You required it. Mr. Manness: We require it.

Same argument, and we are not quite-we are at 80 percent exactly . So when the member comes up and reading-I believe that came from the Teach ers' Soci ety arguments, you can argue it either way, but the reality is today that, as a share of the consolidated revenue , what we are voting on today , 54 percent, is no different than it was 10 years ago. That is the issue here. Mr. Lamo ureux : Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of Education says that curre ntly it is 80 percent that we finance education, and I want to make sure that is clear in tenns of what he is saying.

I know what he is attempting to say is that by legislation he is telling the school divisions that they have to charge this amount in tenns of a mill rate. That is mandated. He is saying that the provincial government is financing 80 percent today? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, through direct funding including equalization -and this is the key-and for backing out of local levy and backing out of provincial levy , allowing local levy to replace us, I can make the argument strongly that we are providing 80 percent of the fun ding.

No di fferently than the federal government can argue and has argue d, and because they hold the hammer most success fully, that when they backed out of income tax and allowed the prov inces to increase their level of income tax, in essence they still should have the benefit. •

(1600) I guess what I am saying is, we now then could levy that 7.29 unifonn mill rate across all the

May 2S, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 22S1 divisions; we could do it, haul that money out into the provincial govemment. The local levy then would drop like that, and we could boastfully claim that we are providing 80 percent of the funding. Is the ratepayer locally any better offl Definitely noL He is paying the same bill. Who is better offl 1be trustees. The trustees will say, well, it is not us that you should tum to if you have got a concern about property tax; it is the provincial govemment. Mr. Lamour eux : Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Minister of Education says, look, if we took that 7 percent- Mr. Manness: No, 7.29 mill . Mr. Lamoureux: -or 7.2 9 mills and we accounted that as monies that we have raised. Well, the Department of Education forces a number of different things to all the diff erent school divisi om, but the individu als that are held accountable for that money that is being collected, including that 7.2 mill rate, are, in fact, the school boards. Under the property tax line, it will say that it is the school trustees that are doing the increases.

From 1982-83, one could say from 19 percent to '92-93 of27 percent because of the offioading, and that is what it is, offioading of the Department of Education. It is the school trustees that are now collecting the tax, not the province. When an individual taxpayer looks at the property tax bill, he says, well, look I have this amount coming from my city taxes or municipal taxes; I have this amount coming from my school taxes; and I have the provincial levy of this amount.

Sur e the provincial levy might be maintained in real dollar terms and actually going down in percentage terms, but it is the school boards that are, in fact, having the constant increases. They are having those constant increases because of the funding decisions of this govemment. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chailperson, the honourable member has got it confused again. What he is saying is you are not giving additional additional money. I said we still are supporting S4 percent, no different today than ten years ago, of the larger pie.

H you want to move from percent to absolute dollars, we have put in $130 million more. So the school board does not collect a dollar. The municipalities collect the dollars , as the member knows, but we cause to have collected today in support of public school education 80 percent of the fee. What do we do with this 7.29 mill un iformly? We ll, we force the equal distribution through equalization, the sharing. We take from the rich and we give to the poor. It is called equalization. So what the member says is then, why do you not do it totally, bring it all into the province ?

Bring it all in and remove it from the authority of the school divisions. But I want to point out this model we have, where did it come from 7 Did we develop it in isolation? No, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we did it in concer t with representatives of the trustees, with representatives of all of the educa tional groups, with the superintendents , and the reason it was developed this way was to allow the greater flexibility with the local area . You know what has gone wrong, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson?

Basically, you have school expenditures at the local level that outstripped the increase in revenue to the province , that outstripped, in many cases, inflation, outstripped inflation, and rather than face up to that, what local boards have done, in most cases, not all, they have turned to the local ratepayer as they wanted to have the right to do. I have given all the numbers with respect to our level of increase, outstripping inflation even during hard times, even during a tight-fisted govemment tim e. Mr. Lamo ureux : Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairpers on, I had read over-the Manitoba Teac hers' Society also had a presentation to the Boundaries Review Commission, and in that particular presentation I wanted to quote one thing that they had on page 3, and they talked about this: Taxpayer equity depends on a sta ndard and accura te assessment of all classifications of property throughout Manitoba, and property ratepayers being asked to make a similar eff ort toward the contribution of revenue for public

2252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOB A May 25, 1994 schools. Equity amon g taxpayers is best served when taxation is unifonnly levied by the provi ncial government. When taxes are paid not by residents of any one school division but by all ratepayers within the province to supp ort all public schools. I would ask the minister if be agrees with that statement. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I read into that stat ement is that the Teachers ' Society is saying that there should be no availability or no oppo rtunity for local lev ying, and that indeed

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-33a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 33a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	81b31480287eb0b1dedb8488f0f7bed1b0dc9339

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