Manitoba Hansard — 4 June 1986 (Sitting 19, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-19

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 4 June, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standin g and Specia l Commi ttees . . . Minis terial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills .. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I dir ect the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 55 students from Grade 4 from the Green Valley School.

These students are under the di rection of Mrs. Moir, and the school is located in the constitue ncy of the Honourable Member for Emerson. We have 19 students from Grades 4, 5 and 6 from the Maple ton School. The students are under the dir ection of Mrs. Cathy Phill ipson, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable First Minister . On behalf of all the members, may I welcome you all to the Assembly this afternoon.

SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Again, before we move to Oral Questions, the Honourable Member for Brandon West raised a point of order based on a reference or an allegation that it is unparlia mentary to refer to the manner in which a member represents his constitue ncy. I have reviewed Beauchesne, Citation 320(r), to which the member referr ed, and the relevant Hansard of February 23, 1909. On that occasion, one member referred to another as misr epresenting a particular constituency and was ruled out of order.

In this instance, I do not belie ve that the precedent is relevant and therefore the honourable member does not have a point of order. ORAL QUESTIONS Signing authorities - senior civil servants MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the First Minister. A Cabinet, by Order-in-Council, establishes signing authorities for senior civil servants and these signing authorities are in order to streamline and expedite government business.

Can the First Minister ind icate to the House, as the president of the Executive Council and the person who signs those Cabinet auth orizations 543 of signing authorities, what the maximum limit of signing authorities for senior civil servants are in the Province of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, to ensure that there is accuracy by way of response, I'll take that as notice. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will maybe pose my next question to the Minister of Finance; he may have the answer.

Can the Minister of Finance inform the Hous e as to whether Marc Eliesen, as a senior civil servant in the Province of Manitoba, has signing authority in excess of $40,000.00? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: I'll take that question as notice, Madam Speaker. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , another que stion to either the First Minister, or the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board Chairman. Can either of those individuals of the Treasury Bench ind icate whether Mr.

Eliesen, in his position with the Manitoba Energy Autho rity, has any signing authority wh atsoever on behalf of the Department of Energy and Mines? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: I'll have to take that que stion as notice, other than to respond in terms of - these are issues that are presently before an inqui ry, but in terms of the specific que stion I will take that as notice and provide the answer in due cou rse. Inquiry- former Minister Wilson Parasiuk MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Pembina with a suppleme nta ry. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the Min ister of Finance might possibly be able to answer this que stion. The question would be whether it was the Department of Energy and Mines or whether it was the Manitoba Energy Authority which signed the $40,08 1 contract with WMC Research Associates. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, without paralleling the Comm ission of Inquiry - this is what I thought the

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 Deputy Leader was attempting to do - this matter, I am informed , was properly dealt with this morning before the Commission of Inquiry . MR. D. ORCHARD: Then , Madam Speaker , surely the First Minister would not be adverse to answering a simple question, since it has been dealt with in a public forum, as to whether a contract with WMC Associates for $40 ,081 was in fact signed by and on behalf of the Manitoba Energy Authority, or the Department of Energy and Mines. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Spea ker, I have too much respect , that the (Opposition) Deputy Leader does not have, for the Commission of Inquiry by Chief Justice Freedman, the imp ortance of that inquiry proceeding on a basis that is not paralleled by debate in this Legislature . It is my understanding that particular poin t was dealt with, and dealt with well this morning, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina with a supplementary . MR. D. ORCHARD: No, Madam Speaker , I have a new question for the First Minister, since he now has some recollection of facts. Madam Speake r, Mr.

Eliesen has been quoted as saying, "I signed the contract. The MEA approved the contract, not the Department of Energy and Mines, and the Minister wasn't involved whatsoever." Could the First Minister indicate to the House whether in fact the contract was signed by the Manitoba Energy Authority or by the Department of Energy and Mines as was indicated in evidence presen ted yesterday? Which authority signed it? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . Beauchesne Citation 357(

d) says a question should not "repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused ." The Honourable Member for Morris . MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Chairman of Treasury Board . Can he indicate whether contracts of all descriptions including consulting in excess of $5,000 entered into by any department of governmen t require Treasury Board approval? I use an examp le, the Andy Anstett consulting contract. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

All contracts entered into by government departments, I believe over $5,000, have to be approved by Treasury Board and have to be reviewed by the Attorney-General's Department, that is, government department not agencies outside of the direct government departments . MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Madam Speaker , given the revelation that a $40,081 consulting contract was paid by the Department of Energy and Mines to WMC 544 Research Associates, did Treasury Board approve this contract? HON. E. KOSTYRA : As I indicated , contracts that are entered into by departments are subject to that proce ss.

Contrac ts that are entered into by agencies , such as the Manitoba Ener gy Authority or other Crown corporations, are not subject to that process . In terms of the specific area, it was already indicated that has been taken as notice , that particular question . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker , it would appear to have been established, to use the First Minister 's words, this morning , that it was in fact the Department of Energy and Mine s that paid for that particular contract that was awarded to WMC , former business partner of the former Minister of Energy and Mines . My question to the Premier , Madam Speake r - and before the First Minister r ises to his feet - my under standing is that the question of the conduct of the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro is not before any Commission of Inquiry.

My question to the First Minister is: has the First Minister called in the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro to explain the contradiction now surfaci ng about who was responsible for the consulting contract awarded to the former business partner of the then Minister of Energy and Mines? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Ministe r. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Member for Lakesi de prefers to base his question upon a newspaper

article whic h was dealt with this morning before the Commission of Inquiry. It is my understanding that as a result of the evidence that was adduced this morning befo re the Commission of Inquiry that the newspaper

article in fact may not be factual. Possibl y the Member for Lakeside might want to check his facts , might want to chec k the transcript, or even having a watching brief so he depends upon direct information before the Commission of Inquiry, not depend upon second-hand reports from newspapers . Lastly , Madam Speaker , it was the Leader of the Opposit ion wh o said before this House that he would be prepared to respec t the findings of the Commission of Inquiry by Chief Justice Freedman , that we would not be engaged in second guessing the work by that very learned gentleman. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker , on a point of orde r. Members on this side are attempting very cautiously not to transgress any ruling that you would , of course, have to bring down - this is on a point of order - if specif ic references are being mad e wit h respect to a Commission of Inquiry that is currently under way looking into the affairs of the former Minister of Energy and Mines, Madam Speaker. We are not raising those kind of questions, but, Madam Speaker, I don 't expec t the First Minister be allowed to raise , at his convenience , issues and references to that same Commission of Inquiry when we can.

We are asking specific questions that are outside the realm of reference now before that Commission of Inquiry .

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 Now, Madam Speaker, I have a question. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable mem ber does not have a point of order. The honourable members can ask their questions; I will determine whether their questions are in order. They cannot determine whether the answer has been to their satisfact ion. They can then ask another question to help clarify the situation. My understanding also is that this particular kind of an inqu iry is not sub judice. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that information. Madam Speaker, I di rect a further question to the First Min ister.

I ask the First Min ister: how can the First Minister continue to have confidence and, more important ly, expect the people of Manitoba to have confidence, in the conduct of the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro who it now appears is prepared to commit perjury and mislead the government and the general public on such an im portant issue in volving the Hydr o development projects of this province? How does he expect us to maintain confidence in that particular person in that capacity? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I challenge the Memb er for Lakeside to repeat that statement outside this Cham ber.

He's accused the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro commit tee of a criminal offence. I've seen that contract. lt has been signed by the Chairman of Hydro, Eliesen. I challenge the Member for Lakeside to leave this Chamber and repeat that statement outside this Cham ber. A MEMBER: Were you withholding information? A MEMBER: Repeat or withd raw. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, far from withdrawing, my next ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I will recogniz e the honourable mem ber in a moment. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: A supplementary question, Madam Spea ker, to the First Minis ter .

Does the First Min ister consider the actions of the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro as a cover-up attempt to shield his friend and former Minister of Energy and Mines? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I am saddened, I'm aghast by the line of questioning this afternoon. The purpose for the establishment of the Commission of Inquir y by the former Chief Justice Freed man was to ensure tha t there would be an objective analysis of the allegations that have been made. The honourable mem bers across the way are obviously uncomfortable about an objectiv e inquir y.

They would sooner repeat allegations in this House, innu endoes in this House, Madam Speaker. If those allegations were repeated outside this Cham ber, they'd be sued for libel within 24 hours. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Member for Pembina, and my colleague, the Member for Morris, have given the Premier an opportunity . . . 545 MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. H. ENNS: Ye s, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Question period is not a time for debate. Would you ask your question? MR. H. ENNS: Okay, Madam Speaker. I am simply trying to ascertain the truth.

Who paid the $40,000 to WMC? Which department of government or agency of government paid for that contract? Just answer that question. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Two Ministers have taken that question as notice, and I have already cautioned . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. My goodness gracious sakes alive! A member should not repeat in su bstance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused. MR. H. ENNS: Golly gee, I'm dis turbed too. I am asking the First Minister . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . he rev ealed a few moments ago to this House that he has seen the contract. Who paid for the contract? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I realize you can rule me out of order . . . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside, with a new question. MR. H. ENNS: Wel l, then, Madam Speaker, I'm asking a new question, although I suspect you will rule me out of order because it has been asked before. Who paid for the contract? MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable memb er's question is out of order, and I have notified him thr ee times it's out of order .

If someone else has a question, we will proceed with Oral Questions. The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, on a point of order , the question I posed to the First Minister and to the Min ister of Finance involved the WMC contract and the method of payment. lt was taken as notice by th ose two Minis ters, but yet the First Minister in later questions revealed that he had seen the contract; he'd seen who had signed it. lt begs the question that the public of Manitoba must be asking is: what is this First Min ister hiding? Why doesn't he answer who paid the contract?

MADAM SPEAKER: Order ple ase. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That que stion

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 has been asked several times. The answer has been either answered or refused, as Beauchesne Citation 357(

d) says. I am suggesting members change their line of questioning. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you , Madam Speaker . I address a question to the Chairman of the Treasury Board. Given that the Manitoba Energy Authority - and I have their Annual Report in front of me - receives all of its funding from the Province of Manitoba in two forms , either direct appropriation from the Departmen t of Energy and Mines or through advances from the Province of Manitoba, does the Authority or its chairman have complete freedom to enter into any type of consulting contract?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker . The process that is in place with respect to that corporation is the same with respect to other corporations. There also is a process of auditing of the books of that corporation, as there is with every other public corpora tion, and there 's a reporting of those audits to the government and ultimately to the Legislative Assembly . Pay equity report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour.

Has the Minister received a report from the executive director responsible for pay equity, giving the progress and the implementation of pay equity? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I have received oral reports from time to time regarding the progress in respect to the implementation of pay equity. I can advise that, for example , the parties, after considerable discussion, did agree upon a consulting group who will be advising in respect to the evaluation system, and that is Hay and Associates . That agreement was reached some weeks ago. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: A supplementary question to the same Minister. Will the Minister assure the House that the rep ort will be tabled before the Estimates dealing with pay equity? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I will provide honourable members with as much information as is available to me as to the progress of the implementation of pay equity , but I will not be in a position to file formal reports because it's an ongoing process .

But , certainly , there'll be ample opportunity during the course of Estimates, which include a line for the Pay Equity Bureau , to go into as much detail as members wish in respect to our initiatives there. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Just one further question to the same Minister. In the reports that are to be tabled in the House, it mentions that the executive director is to submit, at least once in every 12 months , a detailed report setting out the progress. I was wondering if the Minister would be able to table a report in this Session dealing with The Pay Equity Act. HON. A.

MACKLING: I'll take that under consideration. I don't know whether that will be possible. That is, I'm certain we could file a type of report which would bring members up to date on progress to date, certainly consider that , and if it would be useful maybe we can pursue that. Child abuse - Terms of Reference of Inquiry MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Yes, Madam Speaker , I'd undertaken at an earlier time to announce as soon as possible the names of the people who would be carrying on the external review of child abuse in the City of Winnipeg, and also to table the terms of reference. I have those available now for distribution and , as well , the current guidelines that are being followed with regard to identifying and reporting child abuse . The names of the . . . 546 MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister want to continue , or is this in response to an oral question , or .. . HON. M.

SMITH: Yes, I had undertaken to give the names of the reviewers. The terms speak for themselves , and people may peruse them. Again, the names of the reviewers are Dr. Eric Sigurdson , a physician who has worked for 12 years as a part-time medical officer of Health and also held a private practice in Dauphin . He's been involved in the child abuse multidisciplinary teams in Dauphin and a member of the Provincia l Advisory Committee on Child Abuse for three years and its chairperson for 10 months . His work on child abuse is respected throughout the province .

He has also presented papers at international conferences on child abuse. The other person is Professor Grant Reid from the University of Manitoba School of Social Work . Education, quality of - initiatives MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you , Madam Speaker . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell has a question in question period. This is not a time for debate. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I have a question for the Min ister of Education. The former Minis ter of Education made an announ cement in Janua ry of this year, outlining plans to introduce a series of initiatives to enhance the quality of education in Manitoba. Seven distinct initia tives were set forth, and a Dr. Tony Ruffell was appointed to coordina te these initiatives.

Will the present Minis ter of Education tell the House, specifical ly, the progress that has been made with regard to this to date? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would certainly be more than happy to report the prog ress that's been made on the quality education initiatives. I suppose that one of the most significant areas of prog ress has been the interorganizational cooperation that we have received on these initiatives.

In fact, one of the initiatives has already produced an interorganizational paper, that having to do with professional development in the Province of Manitoba. If the member will recall, I made reference to it in my addr ess to the Thr one Speech, referring to the frank ness and openness with which all of the organizations add ressed the problem of professional development. lt is a problem which is of concern to a great number of parents and community people in the province, and is also a concern to admin istrators and school boards in the province.

One of the areas where we have been most successf ul is pulling together the School Trustees' Association and the Superintendents' Association and teachers into addr essing some major problems that confront us all. So those initiatives are under way. They beg in by the groups involved sitting down and trying to come to some consensus about the current situation and make recom mendations. Those init iatives are being implemented, it is going to take some time. The member has asked a very expansive question, and perhaps I'll finish the answer at some other time. MR. L.

DERKACH: I didn't ask a question about teacher profes sionalism but, nevertheless, what specific plan of action is in place to bring forth specific suggestions from trustees, parents and ind ividuals who may have an interest in this area? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Minister of Education, briefly. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker , I perhaps overest imated the mem ber's knowledge of the quality of education initiatives. The reference that I made to professional development was exactly one of those initiatives.

What is requir ed and what has been done is to get all of the organizations inv olved in education together to develop, first of all, an overview of the problem and, second of all, come to some consensus 547 about what needs to be done. That is, in fact, one of the seven initiatives. There are six other initiatives and, if the member wishes and if Madam Speaker allows, I would be more than happy to elaborate. MR. L. DERKACH: Madam Speaker , can the Minister tell the House whethe r, in fact, school divisions and individuals throughout the province will all be afforded the opportunity to take

part in the initiativ es, whether this is on a voluntar y basis or whether this is going to be involving every division board in every school division throughout the province? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speak er, certainly this is going to inv olve school divisions from all across this province. Madam Speak er, the involvement of the school division is going to very much be determined by the desire of teachers in the division and school boards to become involved.

Now, Madam Speak er, I have outlined already a major paper that has been prepared by the Mani toba Association of School Trustees, which represents school di visions thr oughout the province, the Manitoba Te achers' Society , all major groups, the superintendents as well; they have come together and prepared a paper . Madam Speak er, obviously the result of that work is going to be the focal point for discussions at the division level, at Te achers' Society meetings, at parent teacher meetings over the coming months. Those initiatives do, in fact, affect all of the province, all school divisions.

The extent to which parents, teachers, tru stees become involved, it will be tremendously effective. City of Winnipeg - tax reassessment MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs. In October of 1985, Mr. Justice Croft of the Court of Queen's Bench ordered a total reassessment for the City of Winnipeg by December of 1986. The Legislature passed Bill 105,

An Act to amend The Municipal Assessment Act, assented to August 18, 1983, but has yet to proclaim

Section 2 dealing with classification and portioning. Does the Minister intend to recommend Royal Assent to

Section 2 prior to December 31, 1986? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The matter of classification and portioning cannot be dealt with until such time as the Department of Municipal Affairs has all the information that is required to make a responsible decision. When tha t information is available, and it is in the process of being provided to us at the present time, we will then review tha t information and appropriate decisions will be made. But insofar as proclaiming

Section 2 of Bill 105 prior to the end of 1986, I cer tainl y can not give tha t commitment at this time.

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 MR. G. DUCHARME: Does this mean the government is going to ignore the plea of the City of Winnipeg to implement this legislation for protection of Winnipeg home owners? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that there is a plea from the city that that

section be proclaimed to protect Winnipeg homeowners. lt may be that is a fixation within the minds of some of the Opposition members, but that is not the realit y. I am presently reviewing Bill 100 and Bi11 33, I believe, which will facil itate the cit y assessor with the reassessment process. But insofar as the proclamation of

Section 2 of Bill 10 5, that will do nothing to resolve the problem. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel, on a final supplement ary. MR. G. DUCHARME: Is it the government policy, regardless about a plea from the City of Winnipeg and an answer from the Minis ter, to ignore the plight of the Winnipeg homeowners and support tax deductions for corporations? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: For the information of the Member for Riel, it certainly is not the position of this government to ig nore the plight of Winn ipeg home owners.

There has been commu nication to the chai rperson of the Executive Planning Comm ittee that, when the information is available to us, when we have had a chance to review it, then we will consider whether or not a hardship is being imposed on Winnipeg home owners. If that is a concern, at that time we are quite prepared to sit down with the Ma yor, with mem bers of Council, and dis cuss what migh t be possible to ameli orate whatever hardships may occur. MR. G. DUCHARME: A further supplement.

Will the Minister, or can he answer when, because there is a plea, in what period of time will he be sitting down with the City of Winnipeg, with the Mayor and the EPC Chairman and the mem bers that are concerned ? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: As I ind icated, we are quite prepared to sit down with city officials and elected officials ... A MEMBER: When? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: . . . as soon as the department has had the opportunity to review the information that will give us some idea of whether there is a situation.

We ll, you may say five years, but it is a fact that we have only received the required information from the City of Winnipeg a matter of two or th ree weeks ago. We are dealing with a massive amount of information that has to be examined very thoroughly before any kind of reasonable, intelligent decisions can be made. Staff are doing that.

As soon as the staff are able to comment on the potential impact, then we will be in a position to sit down with the officials of Winnipeg and discuss what the potential hardships might be and what the province might consider doing to ameli orate those hardships, if there be any. 548 Manitoba School for the Deaf - safety procedures MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education.

The school bus drivers for the Manitoba School for the Deaf, who transport childr en who for the most part are severely hearing impair ed , do not have sign language training and therefore cannot commun icate with the childr en in their care about safety procedures. Will the Department of Education be instituting such courses for these drivers? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I'm not aware of any current efforts to provide that kind of training; however, I think the member has a valuable suggestion and I will be bringing it up with departmental officials.

Mosquito fogging MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Char leswood. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Min ister of the Environment. The City of Winnipeg licence granted for mosquito ground fogging has a number of restrictions attached to it. One of th ose restrict ions is the numb er of mosquito es to be found in a trap before spraying is allowed; I believe 25 over a three consecutive day period is the numb er. The second is wind velocity not exceed ing 10 kilome tres per hour .

Madam Speaker, it is my und erstan ding that both of these are creating some problem for the city in the carrying out of their program. Will the Min ister consider being a little more flexible, or allowing a range of consideration in these two areas in order to facilitate the ground fogging program? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If at first you don't succeed, try, and keep on trying. Since this permit was applied for by the City of Winnipeg sometime in February of this year, these conditions of the permit have been in place since that time.

I wish to repeat what I have said many times, Madam Speak er, all of the conditions are the same conditions as were suggested by the City of Winnipeg. I have here, Madam Speaker, in front of me, the report by the City of Winnipeg entomologist for 19 85. These conditions that the City of Winn ipeg applies to itself are in here, Madam Spea ker, and there is a reason and a rationale given by the City of Winnipeg for having these same conditions in place. The only one that was added, Madam Speaker, was the 10 0 metre, what some call the buffer zone, which

I Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 I have called limited protection zone, which was provided to enable the indi viduals who view the fact that being sprayed with a pesticide might be damaging to their health. Now, Madam Speaker , that in itself, we have said, does not in any way hamper the fogging program, whatever its effec tiveness may be, because it applies only on the street on which the objector lives. lt has no effect whatsoever on adjacent streets on either side.

Therefore, Madam Speaker , the City of Winnipeg has traps where it has colle cted, or has been able to trap mosquito es, and has ind icated to us a week-and-a half ago that the requir ed num ber to set off this fogging program have been in ther e - (Int erjection) - MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speak er, I am having a hard time answering the question because there is so much noise coming from the other side. MADAM SPEAKER: Ord er, please. Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, and should not provoke debate.

I am sure that the Honourable Member for Charle swood is about to ask a supplem entar y. The Honourable Member for Cha rleswood. MR. J. ERNST: You are most perceptive, Madam Speak er. Given that the average wind velocity in Winnipeg, by Environment Canada, is 18 kilometres per hour , and the fact that the restriction in the licence has a maximum of 10 kilome tres an hour , would the Min ister give consideration to relaxing that particular restriction in the licence? HON. G. LECUYER: We ll, Ma da m Speaker - (Int erjection) - MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. G.

LECUYER: As well as asking the questions, the mem bers across would like to provide their own answer , Madam Speak er. At this point in time, many people have been providing answers but I am sad to say, Madam Speak er, very few of them were anywhere close to the truth. I will want to, in answer to that question, Madam Speak er, read from Paragraph 3, Page 14 of Dr. Ellis' report, in answer to that question. "Because wind speed and temperature affect both mosquito activity and the dis persal of the aerosol spr ay, they can have a pronounced effect on the effectiveness of the program.

Fogging is carried out only when the wind speeds are less than 10 kilome tres per hour and temper atures above 12 degrees centigrade." Hunting, illegal MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I noted with interest that on June 2, a copy of the 549 We stern Report for the Department of Natural Resources has indica ted that the department has established a task force to look into illegal hunting. Can the Minister indic ate whether a task force has been established to look into the illegal hunting aspect?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker , I am aware of considerable discussion by way of the news media that there was concern reg arding illegal hunting. There was ind ication of varying opinions in those newspaper articles. I am not aware of the

article that he refers to specifical ly, and to answer specifically whether the department has established a task force to look into that item, I would like to take tha t specifically as notice. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member of Beauchesne Citation 362, that it is the member's duty to ascertain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of parliament. Flooding -Ste. Rose MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speak er, my question is for the Minister of Government Services.

In the recent flooding this spring, the town and surrounding areas of Ste. Rose-McCr eary received a considerable amount of dama ge to private prope rty. The mu nicipalities and the towns have not received what I would consider any definitive replies in their concerns about whether or not they would be eligible for assistance. In fact, Order-in-Council No. 523 establishes that they will inquir e into damages. Can the Minister at this time give assurances to these people, who are quite concerned about whether or not they in fact will be eligible? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of High ways. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker , I don't believe that that kind of concern is out there. I know that the mun icipalities and individuals are aware of the process that is in place and the program that is in place, and once the reports have been inspected and verified, the rec omme nda tions will be made by the Disaster Assistance Board to Cabin et for a compensation program. We have stated that, clea rly, the guidel ines are in place.

I have stated that in this House both for public sector da mages and for private sector dama ges, the program has been established. lt has been engaged in many different situations across this province. As soon as we have tha t information and the reports have been received, rec om menda tions made, the comp ensation program will be gin. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Before we move to Orders of the Day, to facilitate qu estion period in the future I would like to bring

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 members' attention to Beauchesne Citation 359 (7) "A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motiv es or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it." I would trust that in future all members would bear that citation in mind. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Emerson. MR. H. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker , I would just like to announ ce a commit tee change on Public Accounts: Kovnats for Johnston. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On a matter of House business, I und erstand that the Opposition has agreed that we will continue with the meeting of the Public Accounts Commit tee on Tuesday next, if required. ORDERS OF THE DAY ORDER FOR RETURN NO. 5 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gtadstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Is it in order for me to do my Order for Return? MADAM SPEAKER: Right, Orders for Return. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you. I move, seconded by the Member for Brandon We st, that an Order of the House do issue for the return of the following information: 1.

The total num ber of emplo yer applications for the Careerstart Program for the year 19 85 showing:

a) name of employer;

b) type, description, salary and number of jobs required by each em ployer;

c) municip ality or district in which the employer is applying for job assistance;

d) for each emp loyer appl ication, state an acceptance or rejection. 2. For all applications and jobs created by the Careerstart Program in 19 85 specify:

a) the salary for each job including provincial and/or federal contributions;

b) the length of the job;

c) a description of the job;

d) the muni cipality or district in which the job takes place;

e) the emplo yee's age. 3. The total cost of adver tising spent on the Careerstart Program. 4. The total cost for each publication issued under the Careerstart Program. 550 5. The total number of emplo yees emplo yed on contract, or on term hired to admin ister the Careerstart Program:

a) salaries of all emp loyees;

b) job descriptions and titles of all emplo yees. 6. The num ber and location of regional offices and costs to the Careerstart Program:

a) to lease, rent or buy office space;

b) costs of office furniture, decorating and re furbishment. 7. Costs to rent, lease or buy cars for the Careerstart Program. I would, with the permission of the House, move an amendment to that. Where it reads "19 85" I would like to include "1 983" and "19 84" as well, if the House would accept that. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to make that amendment? (Leave) The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Ye s, Ma dam Speaker . We are prepared to accept this Order for Return as amended.

However, I do have to note that a considerable amount of time and considerable expense will be required in developing this information. We will und ertake to do so as resources permit. Particularly with the amendment as suggested, it does add a bit to the time and expense and perhaps the House Leader and the member who put the Order for Return in and myself can di scuss it at a further date to see if we can't expedite it a bit more. But for the purposes of the proce edings tod ay, we will certai nly accept the Order for Retu rn. MOTION presented and carried. COM MITTEE CHANGES (Cont'

d) MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ell ice. MR. H. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I would just like to announce the composition of the Standing Commit tee on Public Accounts tom orrow: the Mem ber for Kildonan is substituting for the Member for Ell ice. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: I move, seconded by the Attorney General, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for Interim Supply. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - INTERIM SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Order please. Interim Supply.

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 Resolved that a sum not exceed ing $1 ,403,09 1, 560, being 40 percent of the total amount to be voted, be set out in the Main Estima tes to be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 87. The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if you might help not only myself but mem bers opposite and tell us the procedure with respect to how this Interim Supply will proceed, the various stages. I'm wondering if you may tell us what our rights are as members to debate. I've only been here for five years. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is the mem ber talking about the entire procedure of the whole Supply or just the particular resolution? MR. C. MANNESS: The particular resolution leading to the bill and to the Com mittee of the Whole. I would like like to know that process, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The procedure is as follows: The resolution will be consi dered in the Committee of Supply, and then following the decision of the Com mittee of Sup ply, the re solution will be consider ed in the Com mittee of the Whole. It'll be conside red by the Com mittee of Ways and Means.

When it is considered by the Commi ttee of Ways and Means, then the read ing of the bill, the first and second re ading, third read ing in the Commi ttee of the Whole House, as to second read ing. A MEMBER: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Was he asking me something? MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me repeat with the advice of the Clerk. The re solution will be consider ed in the Com mittee of Supply. Following the decision of the Com mittee of Supply, it will be considered by Ways and Means Comm ittee.

Then the bill will be consider ed by the Committee of the Whole House in the first read ing and the second re ading; it will be given first and second reading and then it will be considered by the Comm ittee of the Whole House. A MEMBER: That's by unanimous consent. MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no reference to the timing. lt depends on the circu mstances. lt could be done on the same day, first, second and third. A MEMBER: By leave it could be done the same day. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Member for Morris clear about the procedure? MR. C. MANNESS: Ye s, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is also as clear as the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr . Chairman, for clarifying that for me. I certa inly would have been unable to stand here and speak with any 551 confidenc e if you ha dn't taken me thr ough tha t explanation. Mr. Chairman, there are a numb er of items that we on this side would like to di scuss during the consideration of the res olution and no doubt they'll centre into thr ee or four major areas. The one that I will deal with at this time is the area of transfer payments.

I'm hoping that the Minister of Finance, after my presentat ion, will see fit to rise and cast a little bit of light if he can upon some of the questions that I may raise. Also, we'll be posing some questions with respect to education. Ho peful ly, the Min ister of Education will see fit to remain in attendance this afternoon, and if he can provide the detailed answers to the questions, we'd be most appreciative. I think ther e are two or th ree other su bjects too that we would like to cover at this time. Mr.

Chairman, members opposite have been pushing the Opposition for some period of time to join forces with them and fight, using their terms, Ottawa on the whole transfer of payments issue.

Whether it is in attempting to, as the Min ister of Finance did the Friday or Thur sday prec eding the Budget, asked for a commi tment from the Opposition with respect to Bill C-96 in the House of Commons, or whether it's the jaunts, that fly back and forth, from members opposite with respect to where we stand on supposed cuts, with respect to transfer payments, members on this side ha ve been bom barded by demands fro m the government to join them in their crusade to convince Ottawa that these cuts, in fact, have been imposed mercilessly upon us. Mr.

Chairman, we have access to numbers, of course, which do not always jibe with those presented by the government. I, therefore, would ask the Minister of Finance to enter into a discussion as to how the tax point transfers should be considered. lt seems to me that the main reason that there is a difference in views as to what the Province of Manitoba receives in the form of tran sfers seems to focus into one specific area, that being the tax point transfer.

I would ask the Minister of Finance, either today or some time soon, to provide mem bers opposite with an opportunity to engage in a question-an d-answer period with officials of his staff to allow that type of consideration to take place.

I would also ask the Minister of Finance and Education who is, I believe, just be ginning to fall into the debate now - just tuned into the deb ate now - to begin to addr ess the whole concern of equalization, also be prepared to tell us how it is they agree or dis agree with Ottawa when it comes down to the separation of Establ ished Programs Funding as between post secondary education and health. There seems to be a dis agreement in the literature that I read at least, as to how the global figure that we receive under the EPF financing is split as between those two areas.

Again, I would ask either one of the two Minis ters to bring forward with their staff and allow for an opportunity to dis cuss in detail those types of questions. Mr. Chairman, I'd also ask the Min ister to tell us how it is that his government could allow a member of his back bench, specifically the Member for Kildonan, to bring forward a resolution which has as its second WHERE AS clause, this statement: "WH ER EAS federal trans fers have declined ." I would like the Min ister, either one of them, the Minister of Education or Finance, to

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 ind icate to us whether or not in their view that stat ement is fully and totally accurate; because again, as I will ind icate in further debate, Mr. Chairman, that all the evidence that has been supplied to us ind icates that total transfers have not been decreased at all. As a matter of fact, they've increased subs tantial ly. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Min ister of Finance to tell us specifically what the principles were of the original EPF Program as brought forward by the Trudeau Government in 19 77. What commitment to 50- 50 sharing was in place then?

What was ingrained within the legislation of that day to allow members opposite, inde ed the Min ister of Health, inde ed many of the memb ers, to make the claim tha t the Federal Government has pulled away from this sacred 50-50 cost-sharing. I want to know where, indeed, it is ingrained within parliamentary statute and, hopefully the Minis ter of Finance will be able to show me, because I've looked at the way the program was introduced in 1977, and I can find no record, no un derstanding as to a 50-50 cost-sharing being locked in to the statute of the day.

So, hopeful ly, again the Min ister will take that comment as notice and have officials of his staff reply to it and, hopefully , the sooner the better. Mr. Chairman, transfer payments, of course, in their global sense, are made up of around th ree or four different components.

I would like to go through each and every one of those components in some detail so that from now on when mem bers opposite or, indeed, members from our side are engaged in dialogue, engaged in debate either within this House or within a public platform outside of this Assemb ly, will be discussing the same concept, whether it's equalization, whether it's EPF, whether it's Canadian Assistance Plan or whether there are other programs, because to lump them all into one and then to make a statement that they're falling because, to be totally hone st with you, Mr.

Chairman, I'm well aware that equali zation payments to the province will begin to drop in '87-88. I'm well aware of that, but I don't think it does the argument and does the debate any justice whatsoever when members opposite begin to lump into, or begin to group, with the EPF argument or the equ alization argument the other components of transfer payments. So I would propose that this Assembly move into some fair debate on that issue also. Mr.

Chairman, the Minis ter opposite, and ind eed the First Minister and other mem bers of the House, have challenged us to come forward with some commentary with respect to tax ref orm. As I ind icated last night when I was in response to the Min ister's speech, when he again challenged us to come forward, there will be opportunities ahead for us to make comment upon that and we will. We 've taken the liberty to read some of the material that the members like to quo te on so many occasions, that they would indic ate that they would like to see come forward in the area of tax reform.

The mem bers opposite are going to be pushing very specifically very detailed questions to the Min ister and to the First Min ister as to whether or not his government wants to see the changes in place. The free trade issue, Mr. Chairman, is something which is different and yet tied compl etely into the whole question of revenues for this province. Up to this point 552 in time, our party has not seen any significant leadership at all being offered to the citizens of this province. This Province of Manitoba is a trading province within a trading nation.

There's no other jurisdiction that I can think of where such a high percentage of our gross provincial product and, indeed, our very standard of living is more determined, is more arrived at than through the trade issue and through the major trade that takes place. We were disappointed yesterday when the First Minister laid before the House the total compendium of analyses that have been done with respect to all the enterpris es and all the indus tries within this province - three, Mr. Chairman.

We note with int erest the answers offered by the First Min ister when we asked him who within the indus tries, which key people will be asked to make input, and he tells us to accept the fact that they' ll be the same people that are on his summit, on his economic summit group, or however they' re defined. Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept that.

There has to be a greater openness by the government opposite telling us specifically how people that we represent, busine sses that we represent, will have an opportunity to make input into this whole process which again I repeat is so vital to the int erests of this province. Mr.

Chairman, I would hope that the Min ister of Finance at this time would see fit to rise and to addr ess some of those questions or make some indication as to whether or not he will, in the next short period of time, have in the House, or within some of the commit tee rooms, senior people in his department that can go into some detail into those questions. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me whether we all have unlimited opportunity to speak on this res olution or whether inde ed we have one chance. MR. CHAIRMAN: Except for the Minister, who has unli mited time, the general limit is 30 minu tes.

Pardon me, the Min ister has 60 minu tes. The Ho nourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm plea sed to rise to addr ess issues that have been raised with respect to the Interim Su pply Resolution, and I would hope that at some quick point we would be into the actual Interim Supply Bill because, as members are aware, this bill will subsume, the one introduced will subsume the Special Warrant that was passed that they criticized and said that the Legislature had no opportunity to deal with interim spending of the government because it was done by Special Warrant, and they had somehow suggested that was done in secret and it was a government that wasn't prepared to face the Legislature.

The fact that we have agreed to bring forth an Interim Supply Bill indic ates that we are prepared to allow that process to take place, so I would hope at some point soon we would be into the bill itself and deal with the Interim Supply Bill so that the Special Warrant that exists will no longer exist because that was a concern that members opposite expressed. I will speak specifically to the bill once, obvious ly , it comes in for second re ading. If I can deal with some of issues that the member raised, starting first on the issue of free trade, the

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 mem ber ind icates tha t he's concerned tha t the government has not provided for very clear direction on this issue and also ind icates that he's concerned that the government will not consult with Manitobans. I think those comments are incorrect and I'll provide information as to how I believe those comments to be incorrect. First of all, I certa inly agree with the member that Manitoba is a trading province. We are a province that relies even much more than other provinces in Canada, because of our relative size, for trade outside of our bounda ries.

We have always taken a position that one has to increase opportuniti es for trade. In fact, over the past number of years we have been one of the few provinces that have raised concerns at the federal-pro vincial level with respect to interprovincial barriers that exist within Canada, because while we're talking in terms of Canada-U.S. trade and we're talking about world trade, we don't even have free trade within our countr y right now. There are many man ufacturers, there are many businesses in Manitoba that cannot sell their goods elsewhere in Canada.

There are many service ind ustries, there are many construction companies that can't bid on contracts outside of Manitoba because of the barrie rs that some provinces in Canada have put up. We've taken a very clear position that we're opposed to th ose kind of barriers being erected throughout Canada and we've taken that position on numerous occasions. lt's only now, in the context of Canada- U.S. trade, where the U.S. is raising some of those concerns with respect to barriers that exist within Canada, that are we really taking a serious look at it.

But the position of the Government of Manitoba with respect to Canada-U.S. trade has been very clear. We are in favour of entering into negotiations with the United States to look at a comprehensi ve bilateral trade agreement. Some referred to that as a free trade agreement, and I belie ve that nothing is free. One has to look at areas that would be contained in that agreement that would provide for a full free flow between the two countries and other areas that may have some restrictions or some gradual dr awing down of restrictions or tariffs that exist at the present time.

But we have clearly gone on the record, Mr. Chairman, in favour of entering into a bilateral trade agreement with the Unit ed States. At the same time, we have not gone into tho se negotiati ons, into tha t process suggesting that it should be done at all costs or without looking at the impacts on Manitoba indus try, both positive and negative. We have also said that there has to be a reco gnition that there are going to be negative consequences to entering into that kind of new trade relation with the U.S.

Then, we're going to have to have some kind of phase-in period for sectors that may be impacted negativ ely. We 're going to have to have some kind of process for dealing with empl oyees that may t e thrown out of work or ind ustries that need to be retooled or redir ected as a result of entering into that kind of area. We have also said that certain of the unique features of our country ought not to be put on the negotiating table, such things related to our health care system or our social network, such issues as unemplo yment insur ance.

I know people at times say well you 're raising issues that are not relevant. Well they are relevant 553 because if you look at some of the disputes that have been ongoing between Canada and U.S. in terms of trade, such things as unemplo yment insur ance have been raised by the Americans as areas of unfair competition or unfair subsidy to Canadians. That has taken place with respect to groundfish, as an example, in the Maritimes. So we have taken the position that those issues ought not to be put on the negotiating table.

We also said that certain unique features of our suppor t system to agriculture ought not to be put on the negotiating table, such things as our stabilization programs or our marketing boards or our other common support systems for farmers. I think ther e is some general agreement on that from what I've heard from other people. The difficulty you get into when you deal with areas like that where you could conceivably protect that and not put it on the negotiating table - and I'll use the pou ltry indus tr y, by way of example.

We could conceivably agree that area is not to be put on the negotiating table in terms of our system for poultry farmers in Canada but, the minu te you allow for the processing end to be put on the negotiating table, the processors will tell you that they will not be able to compete effect ively with the U.S. processors if the present system that is in place with respect to poultry farming exists in Canada and the U.S. has a different system. What will happen is that you'll lose all your processing indus tr y, and the outlet for our Canadian farmers in that area will be lost.

So you have to look at the integration and the impact between the basic commodity produc er, in the case of the poultry farmer, and how it impacts on the poultry indus try. I guess the other major area that we've said cannot be put on the negotiating table is our cultural identity that manif ests itself through our cultural indus tries. Now if I could just turn for a moment on the specific area of concern that the member raised about the lack of consultation, there has been a great deal of consultation with Manitoba ind ustries. lt has been quite interesting actually, as we've gone through that process.

Origin ally , we started off talking to the um brella organizations like the Manitoba Cham ber of Commerce, the Winnipeg Chamb er of Com merce and the Canadian Manuf acturers' Association. We took a very basic, I guess, philosophical position, saying that we are in favour of free trade arrangement with the U.S., but we didn't stop ther e with our consultation. There was consul tation with every single ind ustry sector group in Manitoba, and we went through sector by sector and met with them dir ectly to ask them their views.

As we started doing that - I know the Member for Morris will be interested in this - the focus and the position started to change. As an example, we met with the furnitur e manufacturers in the Province of Manitoba through their umb rella organization of furniture man ufacturers in the three prairie provinces called Furniture We st. They have taken a position in opposition to free trade. We met with the electronics association in Manitoba, which is the Organization of Electronic Man ufacturers and related distrib utors and the like.

Their position is that they are in favour of free trade and they would see some benefits. We brought together not all of them, but a representative group of .the food prod uc ers , food

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 processors in the Province of Manitoba. They don't have a formal organization, but we did bring together a group which included the large food processors in the province and some of the smaller ones.

Their position is that they're not in favour of free trade, unl ess Canada is prepared to di smantle some of the stabilization and supp ort programs for farmers - I made reference to that point a moment ago - because they believe that unless they are able to compete on the input side, on the price side, with their American count erparts, that they will not be able to compete effec tively with the processed product. So that group said that they were basically opposed to free trade - and it wasn't a unanimous position - there was one processor there that was totally in favour of it.

We also met with the clothing indus try and , again, that organization had not taken a formal position, however, their mem bers were split on it. I met with the Manitoba Fashion Institute to get their views on free trade and they had split views. Some of them were in favour of it; others were opposed. We also met with other trade organizations within the province, such as the Bankers' Associa tion, such as organizations of the service sector, besides the overall umbrella organizations.

We also asked all of the national organizations that represe nt members in Manitoba, such as the Food Products Council and other such organizations, for their specific views. We then also met with labour organizations and with farm organizations, including Keystone Agricultural Producers, and the National Farmers' Union, to get their views on the issue. So there has been fairly extensive consultation with all of the organizations and I think, in total, there was close to 20 organizations of Manitoba businesses and other int erest groups though, the predominant focus was on the indus try organizations.

There was a couple of farm organi zations and a couple of la bour organizations that were consulted but the majority of them were all of the various sector organizations in indu stry . As I ind icated at the start, it was interesting how the broad umbrella organizations, like the Cham bers, took very basic positions in favour, go ahead, conclude an agreement as quickly as possible. But as you work into the various sector or gani zations and particular groupings of indu stries, their views changed somewhat where they were much more cautionary and ind icated that we should look at it very carefully.

Another group of ind ustries that was opposed to it was the brewing ind ustry , saying that they were not in favour of a free trade agr eement as has been deve loping. So there has been very far-r anging consultation that has gone into the development of the positions that the Government of Manitoba has put on the table. The specific area that the Premier made reference to, in the ongoing consultation has been left to the Economic Advisory Council, which is made up of representatives appointed by the business organizations and labour organizations in the province.

They have an ongoing consu ltativ e role in that regard. So in response to his question on free trade and consultation, there has been far-ranging consultation, which I know is still continuing as we move along.

In 554 fact, it was thought tha t as this thing would be an evolving process where there would be issues from time to time that would have to be dealt with, that there would be an ongoing role for government to look at responses from ind ustry generally as negotiations continued, or specifically in areas of particular sector groups that may be impacted by one position or another in terms of the negotiations.

If I could turn to the issue of fair federal financing and deal with some of the issues that the member raised - and I obviously won't be able to deal with all of the detailed issues - but let me first say tha t we expect in the matter of a day or two, to invite all members of the Legislature to a briefing on issues related to Bill C-96, as I ind icated at the time I spoke in the House on our telex that went to the Chairman of the Parliame ntary Commit tee asking for extended national hearings on Bill C-96.

I would expect by tomorrow we will be able to indicate a date for that briefing of mem bers of the Legislature on issues related to Bill C-96, where they can question and get information from staff. Obviously , there will be further occasions to have detailed discussions in here, whether it's through the formal Estimates of the Department of Finance when they are brought forward, or on other occasions. But there will be that opportun ity. Let me just deal with the broader issues of federal financing. The member has asked where the 50 percent funding formula has been enshrined in any kind of legislation.

Hone stly, without review ing it, I don't believe it has been.

What I do know, tha t if one reviews the his tory of cooperative federalism in this countr y, and cooperation between the Federal and Provincial Governments, you will note that the funding for those specific areas such as health and post-secondary education, where at one time they were at the overall rate of 50 percent federal and 50 percent provincial, have dropped considerably to this point of time and as a result of increasing demands from those areas, health and higher education, and as a result of a reduction in the amount of federal funding that was planned for those areas - and this is where we get into the debating point over cutbacks but over what was planned - the share of the Federal Go ver nm ent's contribu tion to health and post secondary education will decrease; that is, given an assumption that health care costs and education costs are not going to stay at present levels, that based on the projections and the needs that we see and others who ha ve looked at it, including the Federal Govern ment's Nielsen Task Force, indic ate there is going to be considerable increase in demand.

In fact, they project it as being higher than the growth in the GNP. If that is true, then we are going to see, as a result of Bill C-96 and other decisions, that there is going to be an overall reduction of the Federal Government contribution in those areas and in other areas unless, of course, we see a reduction of the demands and we don't see that at the present time. So I think we have to deal with the basic issue. Do we believe in areas like health and post-secondary education, that there should be a fair funding formula?

We are suggesting that it should be 50 percent federal and 50 percent provincial in those areas. The Federal Government is taking the position that it shouldn't be

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 that, it should be somet hing lower, and based on project ions, it will be lower. What I find difficult in terms of the present debate over Bill C-96 and the EPF formula, is that those changes are going to take place over a period of time, if we look at the present projections in terms of growth, so that once the impacts come people won't remember the debates today on Bill C-96, or the debate that has been going on for the past while, because that will be histor y, that will be a couple of years in the past.

As members opposite know, and the Member for Morris knows, that people's memories are not that long when it comes to some of the issues that we debate on in this House, that people tend to forget them rather quickly; and that's a point we can debate sometime, as to whether or not that is good or bad, I guess that depends on what is the issue. We ll, I could argue that people have a very good memory because four out of the five last elections, they chose us on this side. So they must have a good memory as to the good things that this government has done.

But I don't want to get into that or spark un necessary debate because that wasn't my intention in making reference to that. I think that is the kind of issue we should deal with. What do we believe is a fair formula? Do we believe that the Federal Government should be spending less money in terms of cooperation with the provinc es?

Because I would just ask the mem ber that if we were dealing with it in another context, if we were dealing with it in terms of the relative share of support that the province should provide to mu nicipalities or to school boards, there would be a very strong argument that we should maintain; and in the case of school boards there is certainly a move and a recog nition by all members that we ought to be incr easing the portion that is being paid for by the provincial system as against the school boards, or levied onto the local taxpayers. So I think that's kind of the basic issue in that regard.

I was curious in terms of the comment that the memb er made in terms of how he views it somewhat differently - I presume he is receiving information or statistics from the Federal Government - but I would just ask him, and I say this in all sinc erity, to talk to some of the other provincial governments in Canada who have taken a position that is the same as the Government of Manitoba, other governments that are not of the same political persuasion as this government, but they have taken a position the same as this government.

I have provided information in regard to some of th ose governments and what they've said, and we can certainly provide more. I have just today received a copy of a telegram that I thought was qu ite sig nificant, and it's to the Honourable Allan McKinnon, who is the chai rperson of the parliamentary comm ittee that is reviewing Bill C- 96.

This telex goes on to raise concerns about Bill C- 96 and its impacts. it says: "We are advised that federal savings on education and health care contributions for the period fiscal 19 86-87 to 1991- 92 may reach $8 billion." it is their view that: "This tremendous load will be transferred to the provinces already under heavy pressure on health care costs as well as to the voluntary sector." lt finishes, if I could just conclude it. "A strong federal presence in Canada's health care is essential.

We strongly urge that the federal share of health costs be maintained." 555 lt's signed by the President of the Kid ney Foundation of Canada, by the President of the Canadian Heart Foundation, by the President of the Canadian Lung Association and by the President of the Canadian Diabetics Association. Then there are copies that have gone to Federal Government officials and all the provincial Min isters of Finance and Health and a whole list of others.

But there are national health care organizations - and these happen to be ones that have a very high concentration of volun teers in them - that are saying that they have concerns about the Federal Government's role in health care funding. So I think that we should be dealing with that kind of basic question. Do we believe that there ought to be shared responsibility in this area?

Given what we know about inc reasing demands in costs in this area, because of demo graphics and cost increases and those kinds of things, our aging population, do we believe and do we agree that there should be a reduction in the amount of percentage role played by the Federal Government? I don't beli eve so. I believe, in order to maintain a stro ng national system, that the Federal Government has to maintain its role. lt is important for Manitoba as a province that, on relative overall wealth, is still below the average of Canada.

But I even say it's more important to the poorer provinces in Canada, such as those in the Maritimes. The New foundland Government presented a paper on health care as they saw it, and they'v e raised serious concerns as to their ability to fund those costs and have put sug gestions in there in terms of privatization and increased user fees and all kinds of other things which they don't agree with.

Tha t Cons ervative Government there doesn 't agree with it but they recognize that, if this move on shared responsibility goes in the dir ection that it seems to be going, they'r e going to have to accept more of the respon sibility. So those are some of my responses to the areas. I think I touched on a couple of areas. I may have missed one or two that the member raised. I think we should be looking at the very basic question in terms of cost shared funding with respect to health care. Do we believe that it's reasonable to expect that there should be a role of 50-50, or should it be 45-55?

The fact is that it is decreasing and will continue to decrease more. I recognize what the member is saying that, yes, there is an increased flow of money but, if you put it relative to the overall increased costs in those areas, you'll see that the percentage is dropping. I think that's something that all Canadians are concerned about. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First ly, I thank the Minister for a detailed first response to some of the comments that I have made. I would like to rebut some of them, not for a long period of time but in quick passing, if I may.

Mr. Chairman, the Min ister talks about the consu ltative process on the free-trade issue between this government and the various associations within the province who have a dir ect or an indir ect int erest in the free-t rade issue. I would ask him whether he would show the mem bers. opposite the courtesy of

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 ind icating, not today but over the period of the ensuing weeks and months, the total number of assocations that will have a relevant int erest within the issue within the Province of Manitoba, and an indi cation by way of checklist as to where they stand on the issue. Qu ite obviou sly , Mr . Chairman, tho se of us in Opposition do not have quite the same opportunity to meet with all the associat ions that are obviously wanting to be part of this decision process.

I, therefore, would hope that the Min ister would expand upon the verbal process that he ind icated tod ay, whereby there are certain associations within the province with whom he has met that have ind icated their support in concept to freer trade and those which have rejected outright any discussions within the area. I think it would be a courtesy that certa inly would be well-appreciated by us and one that, I think, would represent no thr eat whatsoever to the Provincial Government. Mr. Chairman, the Minister talks about interprovincial barriers, and I can tell him I'm well aware of many of them that exist.

I was inv olved first-hand in some of the ones that exist within the agricultural supply managed areas, where every province holds steadfastly to its share of quota and, of course, wants to have more of potential growth markets if they indeed exist, and all the gyrations, economically and mathematical ly, that are brought to the table when any one province is trying to increase its share. I guess I take some solace then in the Minis ter's answer that the province, at least from what he tells me, is trying to do what it can to break down the barriers wherever possi ble.

So I can tell him that he certainly can expect support from th ose of us on this side who unde rstand those issues and who recognize full well that, in many of these areas, Manitoba does have an historical comparative advantage and one that should not be bartered away. lt should only be lost through the proper workings of the marketplace. I have so much faith in our producers in a whole host of areas that I do not see that occurring at all. The cu ltural ide ntit y aspect of free trade, Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with.

I always believed that, if a nation wants to fervently hold to whatever makes it a nation outside of the Constitution, laws and documentation are not going to guarant ee it. lt's the will and the desir e of the people of that nation or that region. They ultimately will determine whether they want to maintain their cultur al identit ies, maintain whatever it is that makes their nation dif ferent from any other. With respect to the transfer payments issue and the fair funding formula that the Min ister and the First Minis ter allude to whene ver they are discussing the issue, Mr.

Chairman, I find it strange that the mem bers opposite do not recognize the reality of the Federal Government spending. That is that 25 to 28 percent of all the reve nues collected federally, of course, are paid out in servi cing the debt. Now I take it that the theory, the thesis of the NDP provincially in Manitoba is that there isn't a shor tage of mone y out there.

There is plenty of untapped taxable reve nue in place such that if tax reform comes about there will be plenty of monetary resources available for the Provincial Government by way of tran sfer from the Federal Government to meet all the demands placed upon government by those who want to have not only 556 to see maintained the health system we have now, but which will expand the areas of service which it provides to the citizens of the province and the nation. Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that troubles me a little bit. I would like to believe it was true.

I'd like to ho nestly believe that there were great degrees of wealth out there that are being miss ed now, which, if we all had the courage, regardless of whether we're provincial or federal politicians, regardless of what stripe we belong to, that we could change the tax system a little bit and go out and get it. Therefore, what would flow from that then would be adequate revenues to service all the needs within health and then post secondary education and a thousand other areas that people within our population would like to see government create more spending within. Mr.

Chairman, I don't believe it's that easy. I guess that's what makes me a Conservative. I don't think there are great masses or pools of wealth that are lying there that have mis sed government taxation capital. Now, my federal colleague, the Min ister of Finance in Ottawa, was severely chastis ed when he made a comment - I can't remember whether it was off the cuff or whether it was offered in debate - when he said the problem with Canada is that we do not have enough millionaires.

Of course, he paid in some sense for making that comment; of course, the NDP and the Liberals just wanted to jump all over him for making that type of statement, Mr. Chairman. I could see the political windfall to mem bers of the Opposition when a member of the government, particularly the Minister of Finance, federal ly, makes that type of statement.

I see a large degree of truth within that type of statement, because if the members opposite are saying if there are large pools of untapped taxable revenue on one hand; second ly, believe that nobody should be a millionaire; or believe, thirdly , that there are many millionaires out there - many, many, which I don't believe there are - then if any of those three aren't correct, and they are going to push the nation and the great population into believing that tax reform will be the great salvation to all these problems, then, Mr.

Chairman, little do they realize that who they will ultimately tax are the people that they believe that they're standing for on most occasions. I am talking about the middle, middle class, the lower middle class and, of course, the lower income people. They say that; I don't say that. I believe our Party, in philosophy proven throughout the years, in all our actions, in many cases, stands more for the people that do not have the power of the marketplace at their disposal. So, Mr.

Chairman, I, today, am not going to convince mem bers opposite that tax reform in itself is going to create the huge pools of money that they would covet in order to support increased funding and in spending within the areas of post secondary education and health. So that's why I react a little - it's a philosophical discussion - to the Min ister when he talks about fair funding formula. Because from where is the Federal Government to get this additional money when today they're paying 25 to 30 percent of what they do receive in support of the debt, debt servicing?

And that's why I posed the question the other night when I was debating. At what level should this province allow its debt servicing increases? To which level should they

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 allow our debt servicing level to increase? Is 25 percent the level, given that that's what it is in the Federal Government? Because the taxpayer is the same.

If the Federal Government is hollering that all the Federal Government is doing is offloading part of th eir responsibil ity, which is not enshrined in statute, if all they're doing is unloading part of that resp onsibility of the province - and we have many constituents who are property taxpayers within local muni cipalities, local school divisions who are saying that the Provincial Government is doing the very same thing to them, offloading part of their responsibility onto the local muni cipal ratepayer, Mr.

Chairman - for the mem bers opposite to even try and convince anybody that that isn't the same taxpayer, is doing a terrible injustice to the whole system of taxation and to representation by population - democracy as we know it. That's why, I guess, I will not accept personally , I will not accept at face value the arguments and certainly the num bers provided to me by the Min ister of Finance. That's why, I suppose, over the ensuing months I have proposed, and he's agreed to, to allow us an opportunity to move into greater in -depth di scussions and questioning within this whole area of transfer payments.

I thank him for that. So, Mr. Chairman, I real ize there's a philosophical difference. The members opposite can say, oh, you're just apologizing for the Federal Government, you're just taking their view. We ll, quite honest ly, the reality today, nobody at any time really gains an awful lot by taking in a hard fashion the support, or wishing to support, the Federal Government. So let's put that theor y to rest certainly with respect to the comments that I offer personal ly.

Now, the Minister of Finance talks about 50-50 sharing, and he indica tes tha t true, it was never enshrined in statute, but he says, surely, we should be able to, as a nation, between provinces and between the Federal Go vern ment, come to some type of accommodation, some type of an agreement as to what each share should be. I don't argue with that; there is nothing better. I don't care if you're playing the game of politics, I don't care if you'r e playing baseball; there's nothing better than having rules which you know have existed for some period of time and will continue to exist for some period of time.

I have no difficulty with that, Mr. Chairman. But what happens when all these extra needs and demands come about? And Government of the Day just assumes that, because we're politically elected, we have to allow them to continue to come forward, we have to make appropriations in support of them and we also, therefore, have to find money; either we tax for it or we borrow for it. Mr. Chairman, I see no attempt, very little attempt on the cost side. Never does the Minister or does this government in particular - and I particularly saw it in the area of education where Dr.

Nicholls did a report looking at the costing of education - nowhere through that report was an assumption ever made, or maybe the terms of reference were never given to him such that he could look at the cost side of pro viding education. We have in our midst, I belie ve, that whatever the total global figure is spent on health tod ay, and if the cost of inflation goes up by this much, well then 557 obviously the global figure has to increase by that much and more.

If that's going to be our attitude, if that's how we are going to make decisions federally or provincial ly, within the Executive Cou ncil s of go vernment, Mr. Chairman, then obviously we always will be in a problem, because, I don't care who's in government and I don't care what the system of government is, anywhere in this world, you cannot give more to the people than the people can produce. When I see a total abstinence, from looking at the cost side of providing services, a total unwillingness, then, Mr. Chairman, I realize that any government, any political party is going to have difficulty.

I daresay to the mem bers opposite, I have never seen anyth ing, in five Budgets that have been presented to me sinc e I've been a member of this House, whereby there has been a willingness to look into the costs of providing health and education and all those areas that every person within this province deems to see maintained and expanded and increased wherever possible. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to certainly go on beyond my welcome, but I just thought I would offer those few remarks in rebuttal to what the Min ister had to say. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I was particularly interested in the member's last comments in terms of the costs and the increase in the Budget on areas like health and education because, as I recall - and I don't have it in front of me, because it's in my office - the document that his party presented during the election campaign on a Sunday ind icated that they would see spending at levels that were basically the same as ours.

Now, I know that the Member for Morris had little input into that document - I'm told it was more a development of policy people, rather than caucus people - but that document indi cated spending levels which were basically the same that we have. We had the di scussion last night in terms of the kind of things that were put forward by members opposite and what impact they would have on spend ing, but there was no clear position in the election campaign that they were going to reduc e spending or even keep it down.

They were going to spend as much - in fact, if you look at the area of education - I think actually more than what we had presented in the Budget, because our overall spending Estima tes for education are 5.1 percent. I think his party had suggested over 6 percent. So I don't quite under stand that contradiction. I certai nly agree with him that we all have to look at how we can be more efficient in terms of del ivery of services in critical areas of health and education because, particularly in the area of health, the demands are incr easing.

People want and need those services, and in cases want to have even better services or enriched services. If we, as a society, want to continue to impr ove our overall health as a nation, then we're going to have to look at how we deal with those increasing demands and there are going to have to be efficiencies put into the system. But we saw the position of mem bers opposite in regard to those areas, because there are members who raised concerns about the closing of the obstetric wards in the Seven Oaks Hospital, which is a hospital that -

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 services my area of the city, but I recognized that, even though we would like to have that service in the hospital in my area - and I know, Mr. Chairman, you agree with me because it's a hospital that serves constituents of your area - we recognized that, in terms of trying to have efficiencies in the system, we were going to have to rationalize some of those services in the City of Winnipeg, but we were criticized at the time when we did it.

We were criticized even recently during the Budge t Debate for doing that, so when we deal with those issues and deal with efficiencies in the system, we're criticized. In terms of the issue of EPF - and I don't want to belabour this issue furt her, but I just want to make some references from a document called "The Green Paper on He alth Care System Expendi tur es and Funding," issued by the Government of Newfo undland. I would sinc erely suggest that the mem ber read this document, in fact, all members.

In fact, maybe I'll take the trouble of getting it reproduced for all mem bers to read, because it's got some, I think, very telling arguments in terms of what is happening. I just want to quote a couple of them.

One, and this is right in the introduction of this paper from the Government of Newf oundland. lt is refe rring to the problems of pro viding health care services in Newfo undland. lt says: "They are made more acute by the decline in the growth rate of federal Established Program Financing (EPF ) contributions to health care, as well as post-secondary education." If you get into the document, and it goes through the whole range of ways of dealing with that problem and the overall problems of health care, but they go into just documenting some of the actual impacts. lt says in Table A-2 on Page 23 of that document: "This federal restraint init iative . . .

"- and these are not my words. These are not my adjectives; these are words of a Con servative Government describing the same kind of thing that the mem bers suggest here - when I raise it, I'm fed-bashing - but these are their terms, saying that: "This federal restraint initiative entails an estimated annual reduction in the province' s," being Newfo undland, "EPF entitlement of $46 million by 19 91. The cum ulative EPF losses over the period , 19 86-91, will cost the Province of Newfou ndland $1 28 million." So the y'r e raising the exact same concerns we are in this area.

The member suggests, how is the Federal Government going to deal with its deficit problem? We ll I agree that the federal deficit has to be dealt with, as I agree the ongoing deficit of the Province of Manitoba has to be dealt with. That certainly is going to be something that, over the mid-term, you are going to see a sign ificant action on. But I guess it's a question of priorities, in terms of dealing with that. How do you deal with that? Where do you cut back? What areas do you look for additional revenue, or what areas do you reduce expenditur es?

The Federal Government, by its policies, have said that they are going to reduce funding, or growth in funding, so I can be more accurate, and reduce their commit ments, the Federal Min ister of Finance said, by $2 billion by 19 91 in the area of support to health and post-secondary education. There are other areas of federal spending that are growing.

There are other areas that, I think, they could look at if their focus is to reduce the deficit by a specific amount. 558 But I say they'v e got their priorities wrong when they' re looking at areas like that to make the reductions, and there are other areas where there is either growth or little inclination to make reduction and there have been examples of those kinds of areas in the past. The overall area of dealing with tax reform is another where there could be sign ificant improvement in the revenues that could deal with, in part, the deficit problem.

But there are also other areas of Federal Government spending that I suggest, from where I come from, are of lower priority than cutting it out of health and post secondary education, areas like defence, other areas of assistance. They seem to have no trouble finding the kind of money that was needed to deal with the bank situation, but they can't find it for health care. I know th ose are hard decisions to make, but I say that the priorities are upside down.

Just a brief comment in terms of tax reform, I belie ve that there are sign ificant differences between the way we approach the issue and the way members opposite approach the issue. I think that generally Manitobans will be prepared to look at paying their fair share and, indeed, even paying an increased shar e for services such as health care, and also to ensure that the deficit is brought under control but, if it's not done in a fair way, I don't think anybody would agree to that. If you look at the tax system right now, different classes of income are taxed differently.

Investment income is taxed totally different than so-called labouring income. So there are areas ther e that can be dealt with, and I certainly intend, and this government intends, to continue raising those issues in the national forum and we intend to have a very, very close look at what could be done within the provincial context to deal with the areas of taxes that we have control of and where we can provide for greater progress in terms of its application for Manitobans. I think I'v e touched on a couple of areas that the member has spoken on.

As I ind icated, I will make copies of the Green Paper from Newf oundland so that all members will have the opportunity of pursuing it if they choose. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to address some comments and hopefully we will get some answers from the Minister of Education on the funding formula, and I would specifically aim it to the St. James-Assiniboia School Division. When I asked a question in the House - and I know I have spoken of this issue before about the funding formula that actually St.

James does not come under - the Minis ter made the comment that the education program is based primarily on a very simple formula, on a simple principle, that if divisions take the initiative and are sp ending add itional money , then clearly additional provincial support is warranted in most circums tances. Mr. Chairman, I find that an extraordinary statement for a Minis ter to make and I find it an extraord inary area, that the government would base a formula on the more you spend, the more you get. I think that it certainly flies in the face of what most of us would consider to be good spending practices.

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 I want to go back to 19 82 when the former Min ister of Education, who was dis satisfied with the formula that was in place by the former government, asked Mr. Glenn Nicholls to have a study , a review of the education finance. lt was a thorough review. I sat in commit tee as a number of our members did, and listened to, 1 think, every segment. Every division, I think, made presentation to it. Every school parent organization; MA ST; the Ma ni toba Association of Scho ol Superintendents; the Manitoba Te achers Society; everyone made presentations. lt was a very thorough review.

Part of the review was to examine longstanding inequit ies, as well as current problems due to declining enrolment. What we ended up with was a thorough review, a thorough report from the Assistant Deputy Minis ter, Mr. Glen Nicholls. However, the formula was based on ad hoc. What has happened is that St. James, I think, is one of a third of the divisions that do not fall under the current formula. In other words, in 19 85, they were grandf athered ; th eir fu nd ing was grandfathered. In 19 86, their funding was grandfathered again and they had a 1 percent increase, which they consider is a bandage approach.

Under the GSE weighting factor for salary classification and years of experience, Dr. Nicholls recogn ized that aging staff costs in some divisions, and espec iall y tho se with declining enrolment, were significant. In St. James-Assi niboia, the 19 85 teacher's salary - this is the average - was $37,339.00. The provincial average teacher's salary was $34,35 1, which was a salary differential of $2,988.00. Now, the average salary differential for principals and vice-principals is $4,074, and there is a situation that's dealing with the non-teaching and support staff areas, the aging staff costs of the St.

James-As siniboia School Division are compounded and bring a significant financial burden to our division, as well as other divisions with declining enrolment. The GSE weighting factor for salary classification and years of experience has no effect on the funding to St. James-Assiniboia. When you consider that this factor was supposedly designed to assist divisions with senior staff and declining enrolment, the formula provides absolutely zero in additional funds, since the division's maximum support exceeds eligible block support.

I am referring in these notes to a brief that was made to the former Minister and probably will be made again to the present Min ister. By exercising Bud get restraint, and I have mentioned this time and time again, as the former Minister well knows, that in St. James, they were able to limit expenditure incr eases to 1. 23 percent in 19 85, and 2.23 percent in 19 86. However, no incr ease in block sup port was received in 1985 and only a 1 percent increase was received for 1986, which resulted in a provincial funding cut of 2.46 percent that had to be passed on to the local ratepayers through the special levy.

The Min ister, when I asked him the question about bringing St. Ja mes un der the funding for mula, mentioned that we hear mem bers opposite telling us, through the Throne Speech and in questions, or asking us during question period, to spend more mone y. I'm not asking the Minister to spend one penny more. What 559 I am asking him is to shar e it on a more equitable basis. He doesn't have to spend more mone y to do that. What he has to do is take a look at what the formula was meant to do, and that is help divisions with declining enrolment, and it doesn't help St. James one iota. In fact, it hurts.

By granting the 19 86 minimum funding, which was 19 85 percentage plus 1 percent, the Minister does not address the continuing problem of declining enrolment. The division, and I say this again, has made a ded icated effort to downsi ze the division staffing levels and physical plant. I might mention, as I did in the question period, but you don't have the same amount of time, that the enrolment in St. James since 19 79 has declined 35 percent and it is still declining. Our division was the first to go into a decline and it is still in a decline.

They reduced staff by 26 percent, mainly through attrition and through an early retirement program. I think that St. James was probably one of the first divisions to bring in an early retirement program so that they would encourage their teachers, principals and staff to retire early and thereby we'd be able to hire, in some cases, younger teachers or not be hiring at all, which was in most of the cases, but where you were hiring, you were hiring at a lower salary and giving younger teachers an opportunity to come into the division.

When I was on the board in '77 to'80, we brought in a model energy conservation program and I know that the government used it at the time. I think Hydro took that program and used it and I think the government used it as a model. That creates a saving of $342,000 annually to the division. That's no small num ber. The staff, the people on maintenance, they all had to go and take courses; they had to know what their plant was doing. I don't think it probably was on computer at the time but it was done in such a way that we saved megabucks.

That's a lot of money for a division to save every year on energy conservation. By June of this year we'll have closed nine schools. We were doing this sort of thing so that we could preserve in St. James-Assi niboia, and the school board is doing it now to improve the quality of education in our division. What happens, we had the former Minister suggesting that we cut programs.

How far does the division have to go to get some equitable treatment? lt certainly hasn't from this government; and I suggest that the Minister not just listen to what has happened before and think it's all right, because it's not all right. There are other divisions that are in the same bind, but I think that the Minister, if he takes a look, he'll see the unfair ness of the position that was taken before and bring St. James into a better funding position.

If they had utilized the 19 86 formula the way it sits now, a 2.23 percent increase in funding from the province in 19 86, could only have been realized by incr easing the 1985 Supportable Expenditures by $7 million, and increasing the special levy to 29 mills. Now that's an extrao rdinary sum to ask a board to spend so that they can come under the formula. Who can afford that sort of nonsense? I really feel that it's time the Min ister took a good look. I would say, a new broom sweeps clean, and this is the time to do it. Further to what has happened in St.

James, the Minister's guidelines for disposal of surplus buildings

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 ind icates that divisions can, with the approval of the Min ister, lease surplus school space. lt was anticipa ted that these rev enues would be util ized by the division.

In other words, we're closing schools, we can use the mone y when we lease the schools to help pay for the closures and help pay for our education, for any new programs or jus t to continue and enha nce programs, and that's in the special needs area or any area tha t you wish to mention; but in stead , the guidelines, the requirements in '86 on the'85 formula, the GSE reduces the division's block grants by 71. 8 percent of any gross revenues received.

So the division is essentially penalized for saving money, penalized for closing schools, and now they're suggesting maybe it would be a good idea to mothball the buildings and hand them over to the Provincial Government. You might as well have the costs. Why should the taxpayers of St. James-As siniboia be penalized over and over again? I belie ve that in the Min ister's answer to my question about bringing St. James under the formula to add ress the continuing problem of declining enrolment, I think he gave a very simple answer to what is probably a bit of a complex question. I don't doubt that for one minute.

We 're not asking the Minister to spend more mone y. What we're asking is that the Minister di vvy the money in a more equitable fashion among all the divisions. Don't penalize the divisions who try to save mone y. That just en cou rages wild spe nding. lt's insupportable and I would ask the Min ister if he could give the reasoning for this type of funding. Possibly he's too new to it to unde rstand what's happened, but I think time and time and time again you're going to get presentations from divisions that are in this same type of cost squeeze.

I don't doubt that for one minute, but surely you can have a formula that brings everybody under the formula. If St. James isn't gran dfathered every year, they're falling further and further behind. What happens if one year they go to the Min ister and he says that's it. You can imagine what their mill increase is going to be. lt's just not going to be supportable at all and there's going to be an uprising in our division, as well as others.

So I think the Min ister has got a pretty big problem on his hands to bring the divisions back under a formula that we can all live with, and I know he's going to take this into consideration. I hope that he won't say, well, it was great for the former Minis ter and it sounded like a good idea and we'll just leave it. I would hope that he would do something and make some effort to look at the divisions which have had a decline and are still having a decline.

I would ask the Min ister to, ins tead of telling us that it's a very simple formula on a simple principle, if divisions take the initiative and are spending additional mon ey, then clearly additional provincial support is warranted in most circums tances. I don't think that's an adequate answer and I don't think it's an answer that, if the Minister really thought about it, that he would consider is anything anyone, either in their home life or in business, would adhere to. lt doesn't make sense. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ho nour able Min ister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Chairperson, just in reply to some of the comments that were made by the Member for 560 ... well, first by the Member for Morris and secondly by the Member for Kirkfield Park. The Member for Morris, I think, was making a very important point somewhat earlier in this afternoon's proceedings when he talked about the need for a sharing of information and coming to grips with some of the very real problems that we face in terms of provi ding suppor t to educ ation, post-secondary education and health in the province; and the question of cash transfers and support transfers from the Federal Government.

I can inf orm mem bers opposite tha t I will be endeavouring to provide members opposite with an opportunity to learn more about the real situation and to come to gr ips, perhaps come to a better und ers tand in g of the dilemma that we face as a province, and it is a real dilemma. So I'm serving notice at this point that members opposite will have an opportunity - all members of the House will have an opportunity - to receive information in an unb iased and non-partisan way, and I will be making a further annou ncement on that.

With respect to the issues raised by the Member for Kirkfield Park, certainly there are no simple answers to the question of declining enrolment. 1t does create a problem. How do you downsize an appropriate way? lt creates a problem for staff. Obviously it creates a dilemma for parents as they see the specter of schools closing in their particular areas. lt is some thing, as I have mentioned before, that has happened in the province and will happen as populations shift within com mun ities and within the province.

So it's not something that I think the province can fores tall. lt's a fact of life and something that school boards are dealing with now as best they can. The member raises the question about whether the formula is di stri buting provincial supp ort in an appropriate way. I point out and she comments on whether a formula that works in part - and I empha size that it's only in part - on the basis that the supportable expenditur es of school divisions should be a part of the formula used in provincial funding. Clear ly, Mr.

Chairman, the school boa rds, the admin istration in those school boards, are introducing programs; funding is being increased on the basis of needs, serving needs in their particular communities. The member also recognizes that it is not solely the Provincial Government, nor provincial rev enue which supports educational initiatives. Clearly, local taxpayers by virtue of their contribution to support to education through special levies, are also making a commitment. I think that is unde rstood.

So when I say, as the member has quoted me as saying, that the province, I think, has a respon sibility to acknowledge the initiatives taken by a school division by way of providing additional funding, I think that makes sense; because we know and school boards kn ow, when they take tho se initiatives, it's not only the province that is making the com mi tment. Local taxpayers are making a commitment. They are making a commitment on behalf of local ratepayers and that's the fact of the matter. Second, how do you deal with the question of distribution?

The Member for Kildonan and the Member for Kirkfield Park would have us believe that the only determinant is the amount of provincial suppor t tha t is provided. That's the only question that needs to be

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 raised with respect to equalization, with respect to distributing the costs of education across our societ y. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, that St. James Assiniboia has had relatively small increases in their operating fund expenditur es. lt is also true that the provincial contribution to provincial support has been small. lt is also true and important to acknowledge, that in terms of the provincial average, the mill rate in St. James-Assi niboia is substantially lower than the provincial average - (I nterject ion) - pardon me? MR. H.

ENNS: That's because of their good management. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Morris and the Member for Lakeside suggest that's none of our business. lt reflects a reality in Manitoba that members opposite should be aware of. The distribution and the ability of local school divisions to ... Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is that school divisions have varying abilities to raise monies, varying abilities, and that is in fact reflected in the mill rates. Mr.

Chairman, we believe that part of the manda te, and school boards by and la rge, the Ma ni toba Association of School Trustees, I believe support in principle the idea of equalization. The mill rate in St. James-As siniboia, as I was saying, is substantially lower than the provincial average of 52. 1 - I'm talking about special levy, Madam Speaker - I'm still saying, Madam Speaker, I'm so used to saying that. I'm not used to being in comm ittee, Mr. Chairman.

However, that begs the question of whether in fact we are going to be able to find a formula which can meet all of the individual requirements, and I'll give you a small example. I met rec ently with a school board, a group of tru stees, the chairperson of the school division who received substantial incr ease by way of provincial support in 19 86 - over 10 percent - andl make the point to the Memb er for Kirkfield Park that they felt they hadn't been treated fairly; that, in fact, they had special needs and except ional circumstances which warranted funding beyond the 10 percent which was provided.

So for the member to suggest that if I met with school boards, tha t there are a few of them out there who have been treated in some manner which is in keeping with the principle of fairness, I suggest to members opposite and to that member in particular , that there is no school board out there who doesn't feel that they had needs that aren't being met, that they don't have funding req uirements that aren't being met, that their local ratepayers aren't already heavily burdened by the special levy mill rate. So, you know, I've made the point before. There is no simple answer for this.

The member opposite kn ows th at unde r the established Education Support Program, St. James Assiniboia would not have been better off. In fact, what they have received is ESP plus 1 percent. So there is no simple formula. I'm telling the member that. That I cannot account, nor can a single formula in a province that's as div erse as this province account for all of the anomalies, and there are anomalies in the situation that St. James faces.

The anomalies have been pointed out by the Member for Kirkfield Park and those are: 1. declining enrolment; 2. an aging teacher population, 561 which is both a problem and a benefit. So divisions obviously have to adapt to the formula that is in place whether it is in keeping with meeting all of their needs or not. I have not heard complaints or as many expressions of concern - (Interjecti on) - I repeat , Mr. Chairman, I have not had concerns expressed to me from those school divisions which receive 6 or 8 percent incr ease on average.

Some divisions out there believe that they are being treated relatively fairly. Clearly those divisions which have not had the majority of their needs met from provincial revenues feel that they are not being treated fairly. Mr. Chairman, if I felt that there was a simple solution to the problems raised by mem bers opposite, I would be the first one addressing them in this Session and over the coming months. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the previous funding formula, ESP, had significant shortcom ings. Those were made known by many school divisions in terms of the base that they established for funding.

There are some problems with the government support to education programs, but we have to addr ess those problems in a flexible man ner. I think the previous Minister and certainly I am prepared to meet with any school di vision to look at their exceptional circums tances and to try and add ress them. I am also prepared at any time to introduce a funding formula which is more fair.

Unfortuna tely, despite the best efforts of some of the people in the Department of Education and some of the best minds from the Mani toba Association of Scho ol Trustees and the Manitoba Te achers' Society, no magic, no panacea has been found. Certain ly, if some mem ber opposite wants to come forward with a solution which doesn't include, as the Memb er for Kirkfield Park sugg ests isn't necessarily to be included, more funding, then I'd be more than happy to receive it. Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfield Park. We are nearing Private Members' Hour . MRS. G.

HAMMOND: I just wanted to say that I feel that the Min ister, Mr. Chairman, has taken the declining enrolment far too light ly. He's treating it far too lightly; it is a fact of life. But I think the former Minister was often saying the decline is ending; that isn't so, and I think maybe that was one of the things that happened in the formula. The other thing, I can see what's going to happen to St. James and divisions like St. James.

Because our mill rate is the lowest, substantially lower, I have the feel ing that the Minister has his eye on our special levy, and rather than keeping his eye on what actually happens, if our division chooses to save its taxpayers mone y, surely that should be the right without the formula affecting it. If we choose to close schools where other divisions haven 't, and have other areas of cost savings, su rely, that shouldn't penalize our taxpayers. That's what's happened here.

When I read what the Minis ter has just said, and I think when people in the division read what he said; in other words, they are keeping an eye on our special levy, I think that is wrong, wrong, wrong and I think it's time the Minister paid attention to the part of the

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 formula that he should be dealing with and not the part that the school divisions are levying on their taxpayers. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour is now 4:30 p.m., and it's time for Private Memb ers' Hour . Com mittee rise. Call in the Speaker . IN SESSION The commit tee of supply has conside red certain resolutions, dir ects me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for lnks ter, that the report of the commit tee be received. MOTION presented and carried. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR RES.

NO. 1 -RETENTION OF PS YCHIATRIC SCHOOL OF NURSING MADAM SPEAKER: Proposed Resolutions - the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Pembina, WHERE AS the Min ister of Community Services has ordered the closing of the Psychiatric School of Nursing at the Manitoba Development Centre in Portage la Prairie at the end of this semester, and; WHE REAS the people of Manitoba believe the well being and future quality of life of the mentally retarded residents of Manitoba will be severely restricted for the following reasons: 1.

The MDC School of Nursing is unique in North America. 2. The MDC treat the mentally retarded. Brandon and Selkirk treat the mentally ill. 3. By closing the school, students will lose their "hands on" experience. 4. If students are trained elsewhere, Portage will not attract the most qualified graduates. 5. lt is difficult to attract staff to the MDC if they are not trained there. 6. Poor training may result in patient abuse. 7. With the increasing life span of the mentally retarded, there will be a steady or increasing requirement for psychiatric gradua tes. 8.

The quality of the students and the quality of training at the MD C is reflected in the attrition rates. Between 19 77 and 19 84, Selkirk had an attrition rate of 35 percent and only 14.5 percent at the MD C. 9. Graduates from the MD C are excel lent in academic achievement. 10 . lt is doub tful if Brandon and Selkir k can graduate an adequate num ber of students to fill the demands of the future. 562 11. There will be no financial saving by closing the school. THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that the government consider retai ning the Psychiatric School of Nursing at the Manitoba Development Centre. MOTION presented.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Mada m Speaker , I think it's important that we review, and I know we've had a lot of discussion on the Manitoba Development Centre in Portage over both of my speeches and other questions in the House, but I think it's important enough that we go through the resolution in point form, and then I have some other points I would like to make. We mentioned before that the MDC School of Nursing is unique in North America and, Madam Speaker, it truly is.

There is no other facility that is around to give the sort of education that the mentally retarded get at the MDC.

Madam Speaker, it's important to know that the MDC is a school of nursing for the mentally reta rded, and Brandon and Selkirk treat the mentally ill. lt makes one wonder why, when we have two other facilities treating the mentally ill, we would close the only one where we have training for the mentally retarded. it's inconc eivable but, as we said before, we know the political stripe of the Members for Brandon and Selkirk, and, when you put those together, it's kind of obvious as to why Portage would be closed.

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, the experience that the people in Portage have had with this closure, they're not likely to get a smell in Portage for an awfully long time. In No. 3, it mentions the closing, they will lose their "hands on" experience, and I would hope some of the mem bers opposite would try to und erstand a little bit what "hands on" experience is. If you're not working with the mentally retarded , as compared to the mentally ill, it is very difficult for somebody just to go in and be comfortable working with the mentally retarded.

If they are trained at the Manitoba Development Centre, they learn to be comfortable with the mentally retarded. They see them as people, and they can understand them and they love them, and they're comfortable working with them. But we have a hard time bringing the students in, as in No. 4, from elsewhere. They're reluctant to come from Brandon and Selkirk and they make no point about that; they'r e not comfortable, so they'r e not willing to come.

When they're not trained in Portage la Prairie, we find that the really highly qualified people will not come to Portage, they'll go elsewhere, and Portage would then get the lesser of the gradua tes, which I hope wouldn't be bad, but they'r e not getting the cream of the crop. In talking with many, many people, Madam Speaker, it's obvious that poor training - and I say "m ay" because we hope none of it ever do es happen - but there's always the potential for patient abuse if you don't fully understand mental retardation.

Mental retardation is very different from mental illness, and people who think they can very quickly

Wednesday, 4 June, 1986 learn mental retardation and unde rstand the people are wrong. This can sometimes end up in frustration of the em ployee and end up in patient abuse. Also, Madam Speaker, with the increasing life span of the mentally retarded, it's ackno wledged now that there is going to be a need for geriatric mental retardation in the future. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that there is something in the process of being built at Brandon, I'm told; I don't kn ow. I haven't had this verified, Madam Speaker, but I am told that there is a geriatric facility either on the drawing boards or planned.

I don't know if that is true. But I'v e been told that Brandon, that ther e is a plan, and I don't know why, if it's a geriatric for mental retard ation, why it wouldn't be at Portage where they have the facility and the knowledge. The quality of the students in training at the MDC, Madam Speaker, we mentioned that it was reflected in the attrition rates, but it also has been accepted by the residents - the students at Portage, because of the numb ers, have much better training and are in the final results and comparing with Brandon and Selkirk are in the higher level of academic achievement.

Also, with those attrition rates, Madam Speaker, there is some great concern as to whether there can be an adequa te numb er of students to be graduated. We see the attrition rates at Brandon and Selkirk and they are very high. They haven't yet turned out the numbers that they have forecast to turn out. We feel this will not happen and there will be a shortage of proper psychiatric training.

Madam Speak er, all of the efforts I have made to und erstand the situatio n with the closing of the Manitoba School and having to bring students back from Brandon and Selkirk for short periods of time for orientation at the Portage MDC, it's not going to be a net saving, because they'r e going to have to put up students in commercial facilities. They have to bring the teachers with them from these residences at Brandon and Selkirk. So,

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-19
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 19.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	924b625736e808f34d81b64aff7d4ef69f4c961e

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