Manitoba Hansard — 28 April 1993 (Sitting 51, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-51

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session -Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 41 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No. 51 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1993 ISSN 0542- 5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky GARST AIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHE EMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIED GER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWAR DS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKE S, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAUR ENDE AU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANN ESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHE LSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENN ER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID , Daryl RE IMER, Jack RENDE R, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rupertsland PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

2220 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, Aprll28, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEErnNGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr. Clerk {William Remnant}: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHER EAS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and

WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the student social allowances program ; and

WHEREAS Winnipeg already has the highest number of people on welfare in decades; and WHE RE AS the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the City of Winnipeg; and

WHEREAS the provincial government is now proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and WHE REAS eliminating the student social allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full-time education, resulting in more long-term costs for city taxpayers. WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the student social allowances program. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon.

Clayton Manness {Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement. It gives me great pleasure to announce today a new opportunity for all Manitobans to invest in their province. Due to the tremendous success of Manitoba Hydro Savings Bonds and continued interest in investing in Manitoba, I am pleased to announce the first issue of Manitoba Builder Bonds Series I for 1993. The people of Manitoba have shown pride in their province by investing in excess of $1 .2 billion in the four HydroBond series.

As important, over $125 million has been paid in interest exclusively to Manitobans, interest that otherwise would have been paid to lenders out of the province and indeed out of the country. Like HydroBonds, Builder Bonds will be available to Manitobans only for as little as $100. Builder Bonds are available for a five-year term, and purchasers can choose to have their interest compounded over the five-year period, paid monthly, or to have the interest paid annually. Builder Bond Series I will go on sale Tuesday, May 25, with the interest rate being announced May 21.

The interest rate will be competitively priced with the principal and interest on all bonds fully guaranteed by the Province of Manitoba. Proceeds from the sale will provide a local source of funds to keep Manitoba growing and build Manitoba's future. Mr. Speaker, as Manitobans continue to enjoy the benefits of the success of HydroBonds, I now encourage all Manitobans to share in this new exciting opportunity with Builder Bonds Series I. Thank you. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition} : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of F1nance for his announcement here this afternoon and say, on this side of the House we support the proposal of the Minister of Finance to proceed with Builder Bonds.

2221 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA April 28, 19 93 Mr. Speaker, we had a program announced in 198 !: the Manitoba In vestments Savings Certrfrcates, that I believe raised money for the Province of Manitoba. We have had the HydroBonds that have been announced over the last couple of years by this government. I suppose that HydroBonds are no longer necessary in light of the developments across the way with their project that they had in hand, but I think this is a good idea. Mr. Speaker, it is always better for us to have Manitobans investing in their own economy.

It is always better for Manitobans to experience the interest rate benefits for investments here. It is always better to take away as much as possible speculation in the foreign markets-whether it is the American dollar and its exchange rate that can fluctuate as it has over the last couple of years and affected the Manitoba budget, or in previous years where we have done well or done poorly on the Japanese yen or Swiss money. So I certainly support borrowing in Manitoba from Manitobans and having the capital stay here. *

(1335) I would point out, too, that there are no stated objectives in the release of the minister today. I would have thought that normally when one issues a bond issue, there is a stated objective of how much money you want to achieve. We will await the actual results, Mr. Speaker. We will not have any way to evaluate it against the expectations of the government, but we-{interjection] Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) could settle down a bit. I would like to again say that we support the local borrowing from Manitobans. Thank you very much. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, I have spoken in the House on this issue before and have been somewhat supportive of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) on his issue of HydroBonds. However, my support began to dim as I looked at the interest rate that was being paid well above market, and I looked at the commission rate that was being paid well above the average. It is no wonder he got the kind of response he did; he paid those people selling it far more than they could get selling other instruments. I raised the question with him in Estimates last year: From the perspective of the Province of Manitoba, is this a good idea?

We are paying more in terms of the advertising, the front-end load on these bonds than we would if we were using other instruments. The Minister of Rnance, at that time, said, yes, it was true, but it was necessary to do that with the HydroBonds early on because they were a new instrument and you had to do extra advertising and everything else in order to promote the sale of them, but that those costs would decrease over time. Well, I now note that "over time" has come and we now have a new issue, so the Minister of Rnance can run new advertisements and have his face on TV talking about his new series.

So I have the same concerns. I also share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) from the perspective of these being announced as an investment in Manitoba's future, to help build Manitoba's future. I, too, would like to see how that money is going to be employed. We have asked this minister many times the results of the other investments he is making through the Vision Capital Fund and we have yet to receive a single bit of successful information or information that indicates a successful investment by this government in five years. So I am a little skeptical, Mr. Speaker.

Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Eddie Connery, the former MLA for Portage Ia Prairie. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon, seated in the public gallery, we have from the Crestview School twenty-two Grade 5 students under the direction of Ms. Patti Lohr. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh).

Also this afternoon, from the Elmwood High School we have 12 students under the direction of Mr. Bob Skene. This school is located in the constituency of the honou rable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

April 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 2222 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Education System Reform Report Release Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Education released the long-awaited report dealing with reform of our education system. Mr. Speaker, we were shocked to see that there was absolutely no response of the government in terms of what positions they would take.

Then we were also very surprised to see that this report was given to the government in February of 1993 but withheld from the members of this Legislature until well after the provincial budget was debated and passed. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Why did they have this report since February of 1993? Why did they not make it public so that we could evaluate the various decisions the government was making in Education on the basis of the public input that was provided all across Manitoba?

Why was this report withheld from members of this Legislature and the public, so that we could debate in a comprehensive way the many cutbacks that took place in Education in this last budget? *

(1340) Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training) : Mr. Speaker, because the report had to be translated. The report had to be translated into French. That translation was not only to be technically correct but correct also in tone. Mr. Doer: It does not take 12, 14 weeks, Mr. Speaker, to translate a report. Clinician Funding Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government did not want their budget cuts in Education to be positioned against the public input that the Department of Education received through their task force report.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education how she can justify making a decision to cut clinicians for special needs kids in rural Manitoba-the hearing specialists, the eye specialists, the behaviour clinicians-how she could cut those kinds of special needs programs in rural Manitoba in light of the fact that all the way through this report there are recommendations to provide equal services for those children, for those communities, equal services for special needs kids, equal services that do not diminish the resources available to school divisions for those other children in their school divisions, how she can justify one recommendation with her cuts of this budget.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, just an additional response to the first question based on the translation. The translation also had to be approved by the committee. The committee had to take the opportunity to view it to see if it met their views of intent. Then, where there were any additional changes to be made to meet the requirements of the committee, that occurred. In the area of clinician funding, Mr. Speaker, again I will remind the member that this government funds those clinicians. We fund those clinicians through our funding formula.

There have been 19 school divisions that have been operating on that system. Now other school divisions will access the funding for clinicians, and they will be able to hire clinicians within their own area or join together as a regional group. I will also remind the member of our commitment to special needs. Special needs funding was in the range of $53 million in 1991-92. It has risen to over $81 million this year. This government not only maintains its commitment to special needs funding, it increases its interest in special needs funding. Partnerships Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the minister had this report in February. The decisions were announced in March and the budget was contained in the-[i nterjection] Well, surely the Premier (Mr. Rlmon) is not saying that the government ignored the report they had when they made the decisions in their budget. I guess that is what the government is saying. Of course, that is consistent with every other decision they have made in this budget-do not study it; do not consider it; just go ahead in a trickle-down fashion.

I would like to ask the government how they could proceed with unilateral action on all the school divisions in Manitoba, unilateral action determined solely by the provincial government, when the report clearly states that the public of Manitoba want the government to work in partnership with all the providers of education in our system.

2223 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 They want education legislation to be designed to promote partnership and to ensur e that formal mechanisms are in place for such partnerships to function. How can they proceed in such un ilateral ways when partnership is clearly the direction in which Manitobans want to go? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Trainin g): Mr.

Speaker, we certainly believe in partnership, and that is why we are now asking for the opinion of Manitobans, the dir ection of Man itobans, based on the nu mb ers of recommendat ions that occurred in the report that was released yesterday. Mr. Speak er, as well, we also speak for taxpayers. On this side of the House. we have a continued concern for the amount of money that taxpayers can provide, and that is why we did cap the special requirement at a 2 percent increase. Emergency Room Physicians Patient Safety Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, given the situation at the eme rgency wards of the commu nity hospitals, can the minister assure this House that patient care in the emergency wards will not be jeopardized or compromised in any way at any of the affected hospitals? * (1 345) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is the entire hope of not only myself as minister but this government and I believe of all memb ers of the Legislature.

To assure that is the case , the College of Physicians and Surgeons has, as recently I believe as today, indicated the trai ning requirements for staffing of emergency departments and reminded all of the hospit als tha t they mus t assu re tha t ad equat ely trained physicians are prese nt to provide those emergency services during the hours of operation that they have indicated they will be able to accept code red emergencies, and those primarily are cardiac involvement.

In add ition to that, in add ition to the College of Physi cians and Sur ge ons expr essi ng their requirement on standards, the community hospitals and the teaching hospitals in Winnipeg met, as I indi cated yes terday, and further fleshed ou t contingency plans to assure patient safety as long as this was to be part of the dispute. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that response.

We too have a copy of the letter from the College of Physicians and Surgeons indicating that, specifically in the case of cardiovascular emergencies, the public should be advised whether a hospital can provide that care. The public should be advised of that. Mr. Speaker, my quest ion therefore to the minister is: Can the minister assure this House that there are no staff at any of these hospitals who do not meet these minimum standards providing care? We are advised that at least in one institution, physicians are working who do not have these minimum standards. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I am intrigued with my honourable friend's position here because we were advised this morning by the College of Physicians and Surgeons that they would be communicating, as my honourable friend is obviously in receipt of, the correspondence which would indicate the minimum requirements of physicians working in emergency departmen ts. The inquiry was made directly when we were so advised as to whether the directive was a resu lt of the present situation.

The answer was no, that they were putting ou t this directive anyhow and in the process of repairing this, they wanted to assure that there was adequat e standards being met in any of the hospitals accepting code red emergencies. Mr. Chomlak : Mr. Speaker, my final supplemen tary to the minister-! do not know if the minister has a copy of the circular. I will table it for the minister's information, bu t my question to the minister is: Can he assure this House, regardless of the fact of the notice, that all hospitals are meeting this minimum standard?

We are advised that, at least at one hospital, there are physicians who are operating in emergencies who do not have the minimum standards as desig nated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be any more specific than I have been with my honourable friend already. We want the hospitals to assure that they are staffed to the College of Physicians and Surgeons' requiremen ts for accepting code red. That is why there is some significant co-operation between ourselves, the college and the hospitals to assure that is the case.

April 28, 19 93 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 2224 If my honour able friend has some specifics, maybe instead of sort of holding out a "what if" or a pote ntial rumour, if my honourable friend had specifics that he wishes to share with me in private, I will be fully prepared to answer the specifics. In the meantime, Sir, I have to assu me that all hospitals are abiding by our desire and the College of Ph ysicians and Surgeons' desires that emergencies are operated by physicians qua lified to accept code red emergencies.

Should my honourable friend have different information, please provide it to me in confidence, and I will provide him the assurance he seeks. Reduced Workweek Cost Savings Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. This government has consistently over the years cast itself as the party of fiscal restraint. However, the facts tell a different story. The fact is, this year's real deficit, when one adds back the $200 million from the fiscal slush fund and the hundred million dollars that the membe r for Rossmere (Mr.

Neufeld) revealed in his budget speech, is $862 million, the single largest deficit in the history of the province. This year, the government says they will save $1 5 million on the reduced workweek legislation to deal with civil servants; yet on April 21 , the minister indicated he could not define what essential services were. My qu estion for the minister is: How did he decide that the reduced workweek would save Man itobans $1 5 million before he had even determined what services and employees were to be designa ted essential, or was this again the same type of financial wizardry that we have been- Mr.

Speaker: Order , please. The honourable member has put his question. * (1 350) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, the memb er plows a long furrow to finally come to the que stion. Firstly, let me state that I acknowledge that for the year ended, there was a structural deficit, before taking the $200 million away, of $750 million, and the net was more in the area of 560, and that is a large numb er.

That is why I found it very perplexing that the members opposite would not realize the tremendous effort put in by this government to take that structural deficit from 750 down to 367, basically in half, and probably the only government in Canada to do so, and no longer having money to withdraw from the savings account. With respect to the question, how is it that we put a figure on the savings to be achieved through the reduction in the period worked, Mr. Speaker, we simply took the $3.6 billion in the public sector and we apportioned some roughly 4 percent saving.

We did that within the civil service, roughly $600 million, applied a 4 percent saving, and that gave us roughly a $25-million gross saving. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think "roughly" is the key word there, because the government has not obviously taken into account the things which are going to happen in the coming year. Overtime Polley Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): This week it was revealed that people were golfing on Fridays and then getting time and a half on Saturdays to do the same work in one of the Crown corporations.

My question for the minister: How much overtime will be added to the government budget , including the Crown corporations, as a result of the reduced workwee k in essential services, or did the government bother to calculate that-obviously not-before coming up with this predicti on, a prediction which looks like it is going to be consistently- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, certainly the MP IC situation is one that we are in vestigating fu rthe r.

The Cr own Corporations Council is looking into that, because of course the mandate that was given to all the Crowns and indeed the civil service was that there would be no overtime and trade-offs with respect to having to take certain days o ff. When the member asks specifically how much additional money is being put into the overtime budget because of this, I will tell him specifically, zero dollars. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there has already been some spent because it has already come forward in the last week, and that was just the first week.

My further qu estion for the minister: Will government employees now be getting overtime

2225 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA April 28, 19 93 rates after 30 hours because that is now defined as the normal workweek, or will overtime rates go from 37.5 hours, which is the normal course? Can the minister answer that question? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whose definition the member is saying now is the normal workweek. I do not accept his. The legislation embodied in Bill 22 is powerful. It is very powerful legis lati on.

It allows the government, indeed those other organizations outside of government that choose to use it, tremendous powers, in many respects to overrule collective agreeme nts that are in place. I say to the member, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to his presentation on Bill 22 which I will be calling for second reading after Question Period. •

(1355) Education System Reform Special Needs Students Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the minister that she was given this rep ort on legislation reform for educ ation in February prior to the budget that was presented and prior to the announcement that she made on educ ation funding in this province. The minister now hides behind the translation as the reason why she could not act consistently with the report.

I want to ask her, especially as it applies to recommendation No. 32 dealing with special needs funding, whether she did read the report when she received it, or was it the translation that was the problem there for her as well, and why she did not act consistently in her recomme ndation on the budgets that was made by this panel. Did she alert her cabinet- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his que stion. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, it seems the member from the other side is saying that on the receipt of this report, I should completely ignore what all the educational organizations have requested, and that is to give those educational organizations an opportunity to comment on the report and to also look at how they would look at incorporating legally and organizationally some of these requirements and some of the recommen dations and how acceptable they are and workable.

The member indicates that instead of allowing commen t by those edu cational organizations, governmen t simply should have accepted the report immediately and totally. Service Integration Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I just simply asked her why she acted contrary to the recommen dations in the report, the public interest, as requested. Now she says that she is supposed to-we want her to ignore the recommendations of the public.

I want to ask her in that vein since she received over two years ago a report from the Manitoba Teachers' Society, the Ma nitoba Association of School Trustees, the superintendents, as well as the School Business Officials, asking her to in fact integrate services to the schools through the system of integration that is used in British Columbia on the B.C. protocol. I ask her why she has not now integrated services to those- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, recommendation No. 32 does speak to a co-operation and an integration of services to provide the most efficient service to students, and I have told this member previously that there is a committee functioning to do that. However, I also have said in this House that there have been a number of movemen ts already and actions taken in that area, and I have already given two examples, one between the Departments of Family Services, Health and Education to look at a 24-hour planning for special needs students. Work has been done in that area.

It is ongoing and we continue to look at other ways for co-oper ation. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, two years she has been sitting on those recommendations. I ask her now: Will she give us a timetable to co-ordinate the service? [interjection] ! am asking her. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Mann ess) cannot define a question. It is mine. He is having trouble understandin g-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable memb er for Dauphin was jus t going to put his question. Mr.

Plohman: I want to ask the minister when she is going to bring in a fully co-ordi nated and integrated system between Family Services, Justice and the Departmen ts of Health and Education to

April 28, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 2226 co-ordinate services to the edu cation through the schools. When will she implement that system? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy during the process of Estimates to discuss the number s of co-operative efforts that are already in place between those three departmen ts and other departments in government. There are many services which are currently ongoing and there are others to be explored, and government will actively work in that way. Workplace Safety and Health Regulations Ms. Marianne Cerilll (Radisson): Mr.

Speaker, this government has a history of interference with Workplace Safety and Health committees. It takes explosions like the solvent plant and weeks of questioning in the House here before they live up to their commitment.

My question for the Minister of Labour is: Why is it, when we had regulations on Workplace Safety and Health committees two years ago that were passed unanimously by the advisory council, have we had the minister and his department intervene, and now we have regulations that do not meet the high standard that was previously met to the liking of all the members of the committee? * (1 400) Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to challenge the premise of the member for Radisson.

This government does not interfere in the work of Workplace Safety and Health committees in the workplace as she implies. [interjection] Well, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) makes a comment from his seat. Come up with some proof. Come up with some evidence. Like most things he says, and his colleagues, they are more rhetoric than substance. As I explained yesterday to the memb er for Transcona (Mr.

Reid), there were problems with admi nistering the particular regulation that was drafted, and I want to make sure that if I am going to tak e a regu lation forward to ca binet for consideration, it is one that works administratively. She ma y not be concerned with how the department operates. The memb er may not be concerned at all whether or not there is common sense application in the resolution. She may not be concerned that the people who have to work with it every day had problems with it. That is just called workplace demo cracy, which she may oppose.

If that is her attitude, I cannot help that, but I have responsibilities beyond her rhetoric. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, Workplace Safety and Health committees are common sense. That is what these regula tions enact. We now have regulations that are not to the liking of all the group, but there is still stalling. The regulations are done. What is the minister afraid of? Why do we not have these regulations enacted? Mr. Praznlk: Mr.

Speaker, the only thing I am afraid of is what everyone should be afraid of, is where we are making our decisions on the basis of rhetoric and not proper information, as so often happens with members opposite. If the member for Radisson would care to study the issue as opposed to just trying to raise it in the House for the appearance of caring about the issue, she would find out that the genesis of the issue is under our current regulations. There is not an ability to take a particular matter forward that a Workplace Safety and Health committee has not dealt with after three meetings.

The Manitoba Federation of Labour, in my discussions with them, very frankly said they want the ability to get that to the Labour Board. I agreed with that. I have no problem with that. It is how we do it in the intervening steps, and that is where there was an administrative problem we had to work out. I do not think the member appreciates that. Ms. Cerllll: If the minister wants to talk about rhetoric, read the proclamation and then look- Mr. Speaker: Order, please . Question, please. Ms.

Cerllll: I would ask the minister to do something positive to commemorate this day of mo ur ning and to te ll us the date when the regulations are going to come into force. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, again, it proves I think that the member for Radisson should do a little more consulting. If she is concerned about rhetoric in the proclamation, I would indicate to her that the wording was suggested by the Manitoba Federation of Labou r. So I think she and her apparent supporters should talk a little more often. Point of Order Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The inaction on the regulations and the hypocrisy make the proclamation-

2227 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister, to finish his response. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, if members opposite want to talk about hypocrisy, all one has to do is to look at the operation of that branch prior to 1988, to look at the operation of the Workers Compensation Board in 1988, where there were hundreds of files, boxes of files in the basement of the board. People did not even know what they were in.

They talk a great line, but in practical fact do not accomplish very much. Department of EducaUon and Training Audit Contracts Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a report to the Minister of Finance for the members of this House, which I am sure he has, and it indicates a nontendered contract through the Department of Education and Training for $4,000. The reason, as stated in the report by the Department of Education, for this untendered contract was to provide audit verification for a number of programs within the department.

The reason is that the Internal Management Audit branch of the Education department had carried out the audit previously, but were unable to continue in the last two years because of staff cutbacks. I would ask the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Vodrey): Given that we have spent $4,000 on this untendered contract, we have not been doing audit verifications so we are not sure how much extra money we have spent in the Department of Education and, in fact, we are looking at a workweek reduction where staff are going to be off even more hours, can the Minister of Education tell this House how these actions ju stif y ef ficiency in administration? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I gather from the question that the Liberal Party will be voting against Bill 22.

They do not want to try and find any savings whatsoever within the salary line of government. What is obvious is, through the decisions that have been made in the past and given the internal audit function in some departments, we have found in a number of departments that we are looking at our accounts in a pre-audit sense and we have been functioning well. It has worked well. In some respect, we have been able to reduce some of the staff in that area. Mr. Speaker, when we go outside of government for a $4,000 contract, that is only a fraction of what would be required if we had to hire a full-time staff.

Obviously the saving is there. The Provincial Auditor is well aware of that process. The Provincial Auditor has the final opportunity to pass judgment as to our pre-audit activity, and it has not been found wanting. The process that we have adopted is one that is in keeping with the Provincial Auditor's wishes. Reduced Workweek Overtime Polley Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Minister of Rnance.

Given his answer, in which to me he reaches an illogical conclusion, can the minister tell me how he can guarantee, as he said in the House today, that the overtime costs, any increases will be at zero? The Mini ster of Family Servi ces (Mr. Gilleshammer), in his Estimates debate, basically said the overtime policy in his department has not changed, which means if staff need to work overtime to deliver a service, they will. There is a contradiction. Can the Minister of Finance explain that contradiction? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there are basically two issues here.

Certainly we are looking at all of the overtime costs of government.

Whereas we have brought it significantly under control, in spite of some of the position reductions within the civil service, still Treasury Board will continue to review the overtime number within government, and to the extent that we can reduce it further, we will. (interjection] No, we have been doing it. We have been doing it for several years, and we make no apology for that. The member says, now, is Bill22 going to cause that number to rise again? The reality is, no. We have budgeted a certain amount for overtime that is needed from time to time in government, and Bill22 will have no impact on that number. Ms. Gr ay: Mr. Speaker, I have a fina l supplementary to the Minister of Rnance.

April 28, 19 93 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 2228 Will the Minister of Finance then table in the House today, given he has all this data for the last couple of years, an analysis of what the workweek reduction will do as far as overtime costs, given that stand-by and emergency arrangemen ts will have to increase in a numb er of departments? We would appreciate an analysis. Mr. Manness: We never said, and I never said when I introduced Bill 22, that there would not be some areas of government that would be exempt from Bill 22.

There would be areas where indeed we would not be forcing through the 4 percent reduction. That would be taking into account [interjection] Mr. Speaker, I said, during second reading of Bill 22, Corrections is a good example. Corrections will continue and will not come under the effect of Bill22. I said that in speaking. So I do not know where the member is coming from in her comments. I do not know what she is trying to state. Throughout $600 million within the civil service, roughly there will be a $25-mill ion saving, almost purely 4 percent. No-Fault Auto Insurance Implementation Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a ques tion for the minister of Autopac, Mr. Speaker. The no- fault aut o insurance exp erience in Quebec shows that eliminating fault for accidents cuts overall costs, meaning that victims can receive grea ter compe nsation without inc reases in premiums. The government has not acted on the no-fault recommendation of the Kopstein report, and for nearly three years this minister has sat on the Tillinghast report which clearly outlines a savings of a pure no-fault auto insurance system. Mr.

Speaker, my qu estion to the minister: Is the govern me nt, is the mi nis te r, no w seriously considering the implementation of a pure no-fault aut o insur ance syste m in Mani toba as recommended by both the Kopstein and Tillinghast reports? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manito ba Pub lic Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions, and I am sure the member has read the papers as avidly as anyone, that we are looking at a large range of options and that, obviously, has to be one of the things that we would consider. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that answer. • (1 410) Government Position Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I wonder if the minister could advise the public of Man itoba when can we ex pect a decision from the government on a no-fault system for Manitoba? Man itobans do not want to face continuously escalating Autopac premiums , Mr. Speaker, and as the minister said, with bodily injury claims rising dramatically, we are going to have further sharp increases. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the admin istra tion of The Manito ba Publ ic Insurance Corporation Act): Mr.

Spe aker, I certainly would not want the memb er to be able to avoid the concerns that he has expressed about the potential uneas iness that the public of Manitoba has about automobile insurance costs, but the member attempted to put on the record a few days ago that the cost of repairing the tin was what was driving up the costs. The corporation followed up on the information that the member put forward and inspected the vehicle, Mr. Speaker, and the items that were missed by the private estimates that he put forward as being savings, first of all, the right front door frame repair was not enclosed.

The right front door jamb was not enclosed. Autopac Cost Controls Mr. Le onard Evans (Brandon Ea st): Mr. Speaker, we not only want costs not to escalate, but we want to have costs- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. Mr. Leonard Evans: How does this min ister expect to keep Autopac costs from escalating in the future as they have done each year under this government? How are you going to keep Autopac prem ium rates from rising in the futu re, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the ad ministration of The Manito ba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr.

Speaker, I am not going to let that member continue to put incorrect information on the record. The matter that he raised previously-t he estimate from Bunz y's Auto Body

2229 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 19 93 missed the right front door frame repair. The right front door jamb was not included. The right corner panel was not included. Penner Auto Body missed the right front door frame, the right quarter panel, the rear bumper refinishing, the clear coat, the right rear stripe. Couture Toyota -r ight front door frame, right- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it in order for a minister to get up and start answering a question that was not asked of him?

I want the minister to know that the gentleman in question- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Cummings: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Corydon Auto Body also missed- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evan s), I would like to remind the honourable minister that we should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. ACCESS Programs Funding Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, I expect that the Minister of Education will be atte nding the graduation powwow at the University of Manitoba.

That is a spectacular and very proud occasion for the university and especially for the students and families. Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has cut up to 16 percent from ACCESS programs, could she tell the House what message she will be taking to those fam ilies and those com mu nities about their prospects for ACCESS funding? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Traini ng): Mr. Speaker, I certainly have attended the powwow. I did attend it last year, as well. It is a spectacular event. The Gove rnment of Ca nada, however, has changed its funding for native students.

Last year, it was this government that provided over $1 million in supp lementary funding to support those students who are currently in the ACC ESS program so they would not have to lose their academic year. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my ques tion related to this year and it related to this government's funding.

I want to ask the minister, who less than a year ago said that the fed eral go ve rnme nt' s unwillingness to meet its obligations to ACCESS students is, quote, unconscionable, will she confirm that her policy of withdrawal from ACCESS funding is in fact taking us down exactly the same road as Brian Mulroney? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we have not withdrawn our ACCESS funding. I have explained to the member that the federal government, as I explained to her last year, has in fact changed the way that they fund. They will not be funding through the provinces.

They will be funding directly to the bands, and last year did not support the students who were currently involved in their programs. This government did. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there is a 16 percent reduction to ACCESS programming. I want to ask the Minister of Education again, will she restore that funding? Will she take responsibility for the funding of those students in Manitoba? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, in the past, the federal government funding for ACCESS students was funded differently. They are now fund ing, not through the provincial government, but they are funding directly to bands.

This government has maintained its commitment to ACCESS students, including last year-and I say again, including last ye ar-su pporting those stude nts who would not have been able to continue in their programs. This governmen t provided over $1 million in supplem entary funding for those ACCESS students. Women's Advisory Council Child Care Consultations Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, in Estimates this week, the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) adm itted that his Policy and Planning Division was not asked to provide an analysis of the ability of parents with child care subsidies, most of whom are women, to pay the additional $1 .40 a day in child care fees just imposed by his government. Did the Minister responsible for the Status of Women ask her Manitoba Women' s Advisory Council, under its mandate of advancing the goal of equal participation of women in the economy, to look at the potential negative effects of this surcharge on

April 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2230 this necessary com ponent to women gainin g economic equality? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, indeed we as a province have increased substantially the amount of funding that goes for child care in the province of Manitoba, something that was woefully un der fun ded when the New Democr atic administration was in power in this province. We presently now fund child care at about four times as much as the Province of Saskatchewan does for a population very similar to Manitoba. So, Mr.

Speaker, this government has increased and has committed more dollars to child care over the term of our admin istration, and we will continue to make child care and Family Services a priority. Ms. Barrett: Did the Minister responsible for the Status of Women then ask the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council to study the impact of the change in eligibility for access to child care while looking for work from eight weeks to two weeks, and what effect these changes- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated in my first answer, our commitment is clear to the women in Manit oba by the initia tives that we have undertaken in many, many areas and by increased funding, not only in the child care area but in social allowances, and we provided opportunities for those who were not receiving their health benefit card to have access to health benefits while they moved from social assistance into the workplace. We have increased funding for she lters throughout the province and many, many initiatives in the area of violence. Mr. Speaker, our commitment to women is strong.

Student Social Allowance Program Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, since the minister did not ask the advisory council for ei ther of tho se things, did the Minis ter responsible for the Status of Wome n ask the Wom en's Advisory Council to investiga te the probable or pos sible eco nomic impacts the elimination of the student social allowance would have on the women of Manitoba who are attempting to get out of the cycle of poverty? Did she ask their advice- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr.

Speaker, it was one of the recommendations from the advisory council indeed that had this Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and this government extend the health care benefits for up to 12 months for those women who, under the NDP admin istration and up until this year, did not have access to health benefits as they moved from social assistance into the workforce. So that has been a very positive move that has been applauded by the women of Manitoba. *( 14 20) Children's Dental Program Meeting Request Mr. Cllf Evans (Interla ke): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

A few weeks ago, and since cuts have been imposed on the rural dental health program, I would like to ask the minister if in fact he is willing to and has met with the organization to discuss the rescinding of his decision to cut the program in rural Manitoba. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Not as yet, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cllf Evans: Mr. Speaker, will the minister meet with the groups, as they have indicated they would like to? Will he meet with them as soon as possible? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I always accept wise advice. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon.

Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speak er, will you call second readings of Bills 26, 27, 28, and then adjourned de bate on second readings, Bills 16 , 23, then 22. SECOND READINGS Bill 26- The Expropriation Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move , seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness, that Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur I' expropriation), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented.

2231 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 28, 19 93 Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these amendmen ts to The Expropriation Act is to address concerns raised by the Department of Government Services regarding duplic ation in the current adjudi cated process for dete rm ining the compensation payable on expropri ation. The amendme nts will also help to reduce both the length of time to resolve claims and the corresponding accrual of interest on compensation awards.

Although the Department of Justice is responsible for amendmen ts to this act, the Department of Government Services is primarily responsible for the ad ministration of expropriations undert aken by the government of Manitoba. Under the current system, compensation is usually determ ined before the Land Value Appraisal Commission. However, while the expropriating authority is bound by the certification by the commission, owners who are not sati sfied with th is dec ision ma y also hav e compensation determ ined by the Court of Queen's Bench.

Proceed ings before the Court of Queen' s Bench are a dupli cation of the function already provided by the Land Value Appraisal Commission, which is a specialized tribunal on land compensation matters. This dupl ication has two major consequences. First, allowing expropriated owners to have their case adj udic ated in two foru ms results in a du plication of legal, appraisal and consulting fees. Second, the resulting delay in settlement increases the amount of compensation being paid by the expropriation authority.

These amendmen ts will make decisions of the Land Value Appraisal Commission binding on both the expropriating authority, as they are now, and the expropriated owner. Both parties have the right to take this decision to the Court of Appeal when their appeal is based on issues of fact and law. I would also like to note that with these amendmen ts, the limitation period for making applications is reduced to two years from the date the expropri at ion authority take s vacant posse ssion of the property.

The other proposed amendm ent to this bill deals with setting the statutory interest rate paid on compensation awards. The rate of interest payable on outstanding funds will now be based on the rates set under The Court of Queen's Bench Act or prejudgment interest. This would reduce interest costs in periods of declining interest rates because of the delays encount ered by having interest rates set by regulation on a yearly basis. The benefi ts of these amen d me nts will be substantial cost savings to expropriating authorities and fewer delays in resolving matters.

Also, a more frequent adjustment of interest rates will be tter reflect current interest rates. It is important to note that these amendments will not impair the right of an expropriated owner to have a full and fair hearing on the amount of due com pensa tion for the expropriation of land. With these brief comme nts, Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill for second reading. Thank you. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the memb er for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that de bate be adjo urned. Motion agreed to. Bill 27-The Environment Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill27, The Environment Amendmen t Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'environnement), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be quite brief on these amendmen ts.

They are intended to be able to provide absolute assurance tha t certain aspec ts of our stu bble burning regulations or, as referred to in the bill, the crop residue burning or remains of vegetation, that we have the complete authority that we may need to use in order to make sure that all of our intentions will be able to be carried out in order to provide protection for the health of Manitobans who might be affected by the smoke as a result of the burning of the vegetation. Mr.

Speaker, there is one specific reason why we had to make this ame ndment, and that is that while any numb er of government emp loyees can be appointed as environment officers, there was a quirk in the existing bill that meant that RCMP officers were not classified as gov ernment employees, and while they could enforce under a number of areas on behalf of government, that there was some qu estion whether or not they could enforce as environment officers for the purposes of this act. They certainly could provide enforcement under a

April 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 2232 number of other sections, particularly emergency measures that were used last fall. That is the primary reason for opening up the bill for this amendment, and at the same time we would use the opportunity to make sure that the other aspect of the burn regulations, which is that in specifying a specific time and providing notice of that time that we have the absolute authority in order to be able to make that a legally binding notification, rather than go to publishing the regulation in the Gazette under The Regulations Act.

We have to be able to have quick and ready access to providing the notice this fall. An example would be when burning is not to be allowed in the northwest quadrant of the city, the numb er of mun icipalities that might be in that quadrant would be specified and said no burning should be allowed this day or for a bank of days. That is very specific and was not necessarily properly accommodated for in the manner in which we were able to write regulations under the previous clauses in the existing act.

Those capabilities are adjusted in this amendment in order to assure ourselves that there will be complete authority to use that type of notification in order to convey the intent of the regulation to the affected people. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, I believe that covers the aspects of this bill that are the important reasons for us bringing forward this amendmen t.

I would look forward to speedy passage from my colleagues in the opposition, because while these regulations are to be in effect primarily following August 1, we also have other auth ority that we have given ourselves in order to implement them on six hours notice. I know that we all want to make this workable and I appreciate their co-oper ation. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. • (1 430) Bill 28-The Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal Act Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 28, The Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur le Conseil intercultural du Manitoba), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to have the oppor tu nity to speak on The Manit oba Intercultural Council Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, this legislation holds the promise of a new beginning for the Manitoba Intercultural Council, the ability to det ermine a future course which is based on the needs and wishes of the comm un ity without interference or control by government. Mr. Speaker, last June, this House unanimously passed The Mani toba Mu lticu ltu ralism Act .

Through the consultations leading to the act, a strong consensus emerged that the MIG needed to be carefully and fully exami ned as to its role, mandate and structure. It was also clear, however, that there was no one answer to these issues. Many suggested that we engage an external, independen t consultant to conduct such a review and report back.

As a result, Don Blair was hired to conduc t research and consultations to assess the role, the mandate and the structure of the Manitoba Intercultural Council and ma ke recomm endations, includin g any nec essary amendmen ts, to The Mani toba Intercultural Council Act. The consultant developed and distributed almost a thousand qu estionnaires to individuals and organizations and held over a hundred personal interviews and consultations and submitted his report in December of 19 92.

After carefully considering the Blair report in its entirety, we accepted the recommendations and distributed the report to some 800 organizations and individuals throughout the width and the breadth of this province. With the report, when it was distributed, I included a letter which stated, in part, and I want to quote from that letter: that the report has concluded that there is a consensus that there is no longer a role for government to play in the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I would agree the time has come for government to turn MIG over to the communities it serves.

Following this consensus, it would be my intent to support MI G's functioning in accordance with the views of its membership, eliminating any grounds for a perception of government control and insolence. By accepting the main recommendation,

2233 LEG ISl ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 to withdraw government's involvement in MIC, we are working to achieve the goal of empowering the ethnocultural communities of Manitoba to enable the community to lead in meeting the needs of the future. Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before us in the House embodies our commitment to accept the recom men dations in the Blair repor t. This legislation reflects our ongoing commitment to the conti nuin g development and ev olution of multiculturalism in our province.

We have demons trated time and time again that we are prepared to take positive steps to ensure that our cultural diversity is recognized as one of the grea test assets we are privileged to enjoy in Manitoba and to reflect that recognition in our policies and in our programs. Our government has done much in the promotion and advance ment of multiculturalism.

On May 15 of 19 90, Manitoba's first- ever policy for a multicultural society was announced, including four initiatives designed to address the opportunities and challenges of a multicultural society in all of the activities and operations of government, and for gov ernmen t to en gage in mo re effectiv e partnerships with all parts of our diverse cultural community. We have fulfilled all four very important initiatives. The first was a designa tion of a Min ister responsible for Multiculturalism, and as minister, Mr.

Speaker, I am privileged to have had the opportunity to introduce many positive new initiatives, which ha ve found fav our and su ppor t amon gst Manitobans. Reflecting that multiculturalism is the responsibility of all departments of government, I act as an advocate within government to ensure that policies and programs throughout government reflect our policy. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) This co-operative, collaborative approach to implementation of the multicultural policy has been seen in several initiatives. On May 11, 19 92, my colleague the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs.

Vodrey) unveiled the Multicultural Education Policy which recogniz es that un der standing , accepting and building on our cultural and racial diversity is crucial to our economic, social and community success. The second undertaking in our multicultural policy was the est abl ishm ent of a Mu lticu lturalism Secretariat. This originally found its basis in the report of the Manitoba task force on multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is for all Manitobans toward a horizontal mosaic, which was commissioned in 19 87.

The task force felt that one single individual, a multicultural co-ordinator, could not perform the function of co-or dinating the implementation of a mu lticultural policy. It was proposed that an admin istrative infrastructure was required to advise me and the Mu lticultural Affairs Comm ittee of Cabinet and co-ordinate the implementation of government policies among other functions.

The secretariat works with the community at large to develop and en hance partnerships between commu ni ties and with go vern men t and is responsible for working throughout government to ide ntify, prioritize and implem ent actions to contribute to the achievement of the multicultural ideal. In February of last year, we announced a unique awareness program launched by the Employment Standards branch in partnership with the secretariat to better inform ethnocultural communities about em ployment standards laws in Manitoba.

Volunteers from ethnocultural communities are trained by the Employment Standards branch to set up information sessions, forums and workshops in the comm u nity on workpl ace rights and respo nsibili ties. We have had some very outstanding and ded icated individuals from the Filipino, aboriginal, Vietnamese, Polish and Laotian commu nities take

part in the program with further communities to come in in the months ahead. The secretariat assisted in restructuring the citizenship division to include the establishment of the Immig rant Credentials and Labour Market branch, established, among other things, to deal with this issu e. Recent changes to program recognition, now credentials recognition, will enable us to better respond to the needs of recently arrived Manitobans who may have special needs in gaining Canadian credentials.

In looking to the future, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can see the need to promote Manitoba as a good place to live, to work and to raise a family, as we encourage immigrants to choose to come to our province. We need and want more immigrants to come here to become contributing mem bers of our society.

April 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2234 Our commitment to ensure that services are available to new immigrants has been reflected in a number of projects within my departmen t, and we also have ongoing projects with probation services, Family Dispute unit that will provide for treatment groups for individuals convicted of spouse abuse who may not be fluent in English. Facilitators have been trained and groups started in five language groups.

This project has also been carefully adapting material so that our cultural differences are acknowledged and laws and ind ivid ual responsibilities are described. It will be a model for all of Canada and has already garnered a great deal of interest. Similarly, our project with the Driver Testing offices resulted in the translation to 24 immigrant languages of the beginners drivers test. As well, this test is now being field tested in simple English to make it more accessible to all Manitobans no ma tte r what their mother tongu e is.

The multipurpose form, the legal document signed upon successful completion of the road test, has now been translated into five languages with another 19 scheduled. * (1 440) The third initiative of our mu lticultural policy was the opening of an outreach office. I was pleased to be able to officially open that office on May 14 of last year. This is an easily accessible store-front office which provides practical assistance to groups and indi viduals in dealin g with depa rtmen ts and agencies of governmen t. Madam Deputy Speaker, the fourth initiative was to establish a legislative framework for the policy.

The Manitoba Mu lticulturalism Act proclaimed October 24 of 19 92 is, as all members of the House are aware, a very important piece of legislation indeed. Through consu ltations held with the multicultural umbrella organizations and various individuals throughout the comm un ity and throughout the province, ! heard time and time again that it was most timely and most necessary to introd uce legislation that did address mul ti cultur alism . Consensus em erged on many thoughts, ideas and suggestions for that act.

We listened and we acted in response to what was being said, including a clear statement that this Assembly is committed to the promotion of racial harmony. We have continued our efforts to combat racism, an issue which is of major concern to the community as a whole, and we have within governmen t appoint ed an antiracism co-ordinator and an outreach worker. We have developed and adopted a code for a respectful workplace within my department which is now being offered throughout the civil service by the Civil Service Commission.

We established a grant program, the Bridging Cultures Program announced in December of 19 91 , which provides grant supp ort to ethnocultural organizations for projects that combat racism and promote citizenship. We have under taken funding for the City of Winnipeg for the 19 94 Year of Racial Harmony which will encourage the community to undert ake projects and initiatives to promote racial harmony. Many of our community organizations, Madam Deput y Speaker, have condu cted activities designed to combat racism and promote racial harmony.

Each and every one of those people that has provided some input and some organization into the initiatives that have been going on in the community is to be commended for individual and collective efforts to address this most serious issue. The dedication and commitment of co mmu nity groups, organizations and individuals who have devoted so much time for the betterment of our society is to be lauded, su pported and ever encouraged. I hope that all members of the House on a regular basis do that.

We have seen the business community, labour organizations and voluntary and other private organizations promote respect and appreciation for our cultural diversity to encourage full participation by all Manitobans in all aspects of our society and to recog nize the bene fits of a mul tilingual, multicultural society. Multiculturalism is one of our greatest strengths, and as a province we must strive to ensure the realization of the full economic potential that this asset can bring to Manitoba for all Manitobans to make Manitoba stronger.

The recognition of the economic aspects and impact of multiculturalism continues to grow, and we mu st explo re , prom ote and seize these opportu nities. It is important to realize these opportunities are increasing almost daily. As we see major portions of the world undergo rapid transformations, we are coming to under stand our unique advantage. Our knowledge of languages and cultures of the world enable us to better compete locally, nationally and internationally in this ever-sh rinking global marketplace.

2235 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said before, the bill before us today responds to what was said by the community. It is essential that the community be able to determine its own needs and develop the structures necessary to meet those needs free of the perception of government control and influence. We recognize that we cannot dwell on the past; we must focus on those new and emerging issues which challenge all of us today. The Manitoba Intercultural Council has played, and I am sure will continue to play, an important role in our community.

There have been many, many individuals who have served with dedication and commitment over the past 1 0 years, and I know there will be many more to come in the years ahead. Clearly. there is much to be done and many great challenges lay ahead for both the community and the council. The community, Madam Depu ty Speaker, will continue to come together in discussion to focus on the needs to determine what role they want the council to play in meeting those challenges.

I know that there is the leadership and strength within the community to rise to the challenges ahead to seize the tremendous opportunity to form and develop a fully community-based organization, fully representative of the ethnocultural communities within our province. Indeed, the comm unity has sh own its determina tion and ability to do so throughout our history. We are privileged to have ethnocultural organizations throughout our province which under take diverse activities and programs which meet the needs of the community and enhance the qua lity of life we now enjoy.

The dedication and commitment of countless thousands of volunteers who give so freely of their time to ensure that Manitoba is a better place for all of us to live. I look forward to the support of all members of this House for early passage of this legislation to enable the Manitoba Intercultural Council to embark on its new beginning and to meet the needs of the communities it serves. We are tru ly, Madam De puty Speaker, em powering the ethnocultural commu nities of Manitoba to make the decisions on the structure and mandate of the Manitoba Intercultural Council.

The communities are able to come together to make these decisions free from the influence and control of government. One of the three fundam ental principles of our multicultural policy is to enhance the opportunities present in our diversity by acting in partnership with cultural communities and encouraging co-ope ration and partne rship bet ween ethn ocu ltur al communities. This principle recognizes that it is essential that we all work together to achieve the multicultural ideal and to ensure that programs and policies are meeting the needs of the community.

It reflects, Madam Dep uty Speaker, the neces sity of ethnocultural communities working together within an ethnocultural community, in partnership with other ethnocu ltural commu nities and with government. We look forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, to continuing to work together with the community to achieve our shared goals and aspirations; to meet the challenge of living together in harmony and equality; and to achieve the ideal of a multicultural society based on the principles of pride, equality and partnership. Thank you very much. Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that de bate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS 811116- The Public Schools Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume deb ate on second reading of Bill 16 (The Public Schools Amendmen t Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publ iques) , on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable me mber for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and standing in the name of the honourable membe r for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) . An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain stand ing? (agreed] Is the leave being requested to permit the name to be allowed to be standing in both names? [agreed] Thank you. For clarification of the record, is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable memb er for Swan River

April 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2236 (Mrs. Wowchuk) and the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)? [agreed) * (1 450) Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like leave to speak on Bill16 .

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this is kind of an auspicious occasion that I have been given the opportunity to speak on Bill 16 after the minister's rather spirited defence of her decision and the government's decision to delay release of the resu lts of the pub lic consu ltation on the amendmen ts to The Public Schools Act and the dir ections we should be taking in Ma nitoba education. It reminds me that Bill 16 was also tabled in this Legislature after the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Vodrey) had received the report of the advisory group and unde rstood what was needed and what was being asked for in terms of the edu cational system in the province of Manitoba. The minister knows and the government knows, and now the public of Manitoba knows, ! guess, what consultation really means to this government, and what consultation means is a means of attempting to pacify people while the government goes about its own agenda of slash and burn, of undermining in one way or another the province of Manitoba.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken on other occasions about the failure of this governmen t to put in place an economic agenda which will support the aspir ations of Mani tobans looking for work, Manitobans who want to contribute to the economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill16 contributes to the un der minin g of the educ ati on syste m, the foundation on which those people are going to build their opportunities in the world of work. We often say that our youth are our greatest resource, and sometimes even we hear words like that, similar words, from the Minister of Education and from the government.

But what the government chooses to do belies its real commitment to the education of our children and, I add somewhat sadly, commitment to the public school system in particular. Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this government, over its six budgets, over its five years, a little less than five years, has not only failed to support the public school system but has chosen without regard, in my opinion and the opinion of many, for the implications for public schools, has increased funding to private schools by approximately 150 percent, perhaps even more than 15 0 percent.

I shu dder to think that not only has this governmen t increased funding substantially, that there remains taxpayers' dollars to be committed to private school education. I am not sure whether it was the Liberal Leader, the memb er for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), who led the charge to increase taxpayer funding to private schools. The Liberal Leader I believe was the first to publicly campaign on the notion that somehow the private schools should be entitled to 80 percent of what public schools were receiving on a per-pupil basis. The Liberal Leader did that, and her colleague the member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock) perhaps supports it, perhaps he does not. We have not heard him speak on this matter, but the fact of the matter is that there was not one scintilla of consultation with those in the public school system about the implications of that- An Honourable Member: Scintilla or iota? Mr. Storie: It is a foot and a half. Madam Deputy Speaker, the member did not know that a scintilla was a foot and a half and now he knows. So he learned something here today.

The fact of the matter is that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives deemed it important enough when they decided to move to 80 percent funding of pr ivate schools to consult, to start to review-[inte rjection] I did not hear. They did not think it was important that Manitoba Association of School Trustees and the Mani toba Teachers' Society or the parents of the 200,000 public school students deserv ed an explanation, deserved some sort of a review of what that would mean in the long run to the public school system .

I guess I can say as a former teacher in the public school system and as a parent whose children attend public school that I have grave reservations about the government's policy and about the policy that was enunc iated by the Liberals in terms of not only the quality of education in Manitoba but, more importantly perhaps, paradoxically the quality of life in Manitoba.

Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that some of the symptoms that we begin to see in cities across this country, certainly in cities in the Un ited States, stems from a reflection of the fact that we have forgotten that the way to bring people togeth er, the way to crea te tol er ance and

2237 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 understanding is to have people live and work together. I have always said that the public school, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the only social institution that brings people together from all religions and all races and requires them on a daily basis to co-operate, to work together, to learn together, to be together.

I believe the end result of that is tolerance and under standing of what it is like to be with people who are different, to be with people who may speak a different language, who have come from a different place, who understand the world in a different way. But what the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) sees and what the Liberal Party apparently sees is a series of schools based on a philosophy, a religion, a cultural group, a policy of exclusion, a policy which denies fundamentally the reality of Manitoba which we talk about often, and that is the multicultural reality of Manitoba.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this in my opinion is a serious matter, and Bill 16 , in my opinion, and the governme nt's policy with respect to private school funding undermines that important characteristic of the pu blic school system which brings people together and creates tolerance. That is why it is so disconcerting to know that the Minister of Education is now putting roughly $20 million-plus into the private school system for not one more student, although it is certainly possible that we will see an escalation in the number of private school students in the near future. Why would that be?

That would be because of what Bill 16 does, because the government in its wisdom is choosing to underfund the public school system in a very serious and, I think, an inappropriate way. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, that will only escalate the process of creating a two-tiered education system in the province of Manitoba.

As we underfund the public education system, as we eliminate some of the existing additional programs that are available in some, and only some right now, of our public school system , we are going to only encourage people to look for alternate ways of providing edu cation to their children.

Madam Deputy Speaker, instead of taking on the task of creating an edu cation system that is based on equality, that says a student in Flin Flon is entitled to the same quality of education as a student in River Heights; the same quality of education is the right of a student in Leaf Rapids or South Indian Lake as it is in Brandon, Manitoba; the reality is that that equality is being undermined.

Every time this government cuts funding, every time this government spends another taxpayer dollar on the private school system when it could be used to support the public school system, the public school system is being undermined. Its future is being eroded.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves what is going to be the long-term implication of that for our society. * (1 500) If we look down the road, if we under stand that there are right now private schools which have not even applied for support from the public purse but who will be eligible as a result of criteria established by the Conservative government, we recognize that the potential for the escalation of the number of private schools is significant.

We can see in five years and 1 0 years, if we allow this to continue, a society in which we are in fact segregated by virtue of our income, our ability to pay, by our religious background or religious orientation, by our cultural background, our country of origin, or a host of other identifying characteristics. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think members on that side unde rstand the implications of that kind of process.

It is conceivable that individual religious sects, which hold no particular sway in Manitoba at this time, may be eligible at some point in the very near future for public support; that the Church of the Aryan Nation, by virtue of meeting the rather, I was going to say, liberal criteria that were established by this government, may in fact at some point in the very near future become eligible for funding.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that there are no obvious, at least, impedimen ts to any interest group, any ideological group, beginning a private school in the province of Manitoba and at some time in the future at least asking the province and the taxpayers to support it. I think that the public school system is much too important to be treated in this frivolous kind of way. When the former Minister of Education embarked on this new policy of 80 percent funding, I asked him on a number of occasions to begin the process of identifying the possible implications of this policy.

What was going to happen to enrollment in public schools? What was going to happen in terms of funding? Was the change in funding model likely to increase the number of private school students?

April 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 2238 What was going to happen to the school divisions in the province which were already struggling to provide basic services, never mind the services that are provided in some of the wealthier school divisions? What was going to happen to the governmen t's, at least, apparent commitment to a qu ality education across the province as their dollars flowed into the treasuries of private schools rather than into the public school system?

Well, there has been no consultation on those issues, and to my knowledge at least, the provincial government, the Department of Education, has done no thorough review of the ramifications of this policy and the cost to the public school system as a result of this policy. We know in dollar terms now approximately how much money is being funnelled into private schools.

What we do not know is what the implications are and what the consequences are for public schools other than to say that apart from the money not being available, that $20 million-plus not being available for the public school system-and it is a little ironic that the provincial government this year provides approximately $1 6 million additional funding to private schools versus the 19 87-88 school year. That figure just happens to be, coincidentally, the exact number of dollars, $1 6 million, which are being withdrawn from the public school system this year-$1 6 million.

That is the figure that the Minister of Education (Mr s. Vod rey) used when she announc ed her reduction in edu cation funding. Madam Deputy Speaker, we can only surmise at what damage is going to be done to the public school system as a result of that reduction, that $1 6-million loss. We know that all of the goals and aspirations of those divisions who are currently struggling just to provide a base edu cation can forget the hope that they may have had that they are going to be able to offer their students some additional and optional courses and programs in the future.

Certainly, in some divisions, we know that schools now offer quite exceptional band programs, vocati onal educ ation pro grams, bus iness programs, student services and su pports. We know as well that there are too many divisions that are struggling to provide their high school students with the minimum 20 credits that are required to graduate. An Honourable Member: Antler River. Mr. Storie: My colleague mentions one Antler River. I was in Antler River. I am glad my colleague mentioned that, because I was in Antler River School Division.

I was in Waskada School back in December, at which time the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey), the member who is responsible for that area, was in attendance, and the school division chairperson and the superintendent were on stage tal king about what the government's funding formula was going to mean to that division. Of course, you can imagine their surprise when the superintendent said that as a result of this new formula the contribution from the Province of Manitoba to the Antler River School Division would be by 19 96-97 approximately 55 percent.

So here is the lunacy of this proposal and of this government's approach to quality edu cation. We have a government committed to providing 80 percent of public school support to private schools and 55 percent support to a school division in southwestern Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, that kind of subverted logic when you are talking about the public school system is difficult to under stand. Those kinds of statistics could be replayed across the province. Each school division is going to see significant, negative implications because of the approach the government has taken to public school funding.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the funding issue, I think, is critical. I wanted to spend a few minutes, however, talking about the broader social objectives that we have for educat ion. I hope that I have made it clear, and I would like to see some members opposite, perhaps the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), talk about the role of education, the role the public school plays in socialization, in giving us that common under stand ing. I often thought about what role the public school played in dispelling some of the prejudice and the racism and the intolerance that was obvious in Manitoba only 50 years ago.

I know that a number of Ukrainian friends who were second-generation Canadians, their parents may have immigrated from the Ukraine or from parts of Russia. Perhaps there are people here of German descent who can talk about the same stories or people of Chinese descen t or Japanese d escent, people who immigrated to Canada, to Manitoba from other parts of the world, who came here.

2239 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 Even second-gener ation Ukrainians who could speak English fluently were the target of criticism, were the targets of prejudice and racism. They had names for Ukrainian students in the province of Manitoba only 40 and 50 years ago. Madam Deputy Speaker, what happened? I believe, largely because of the influence of the public school system, largely because of the fact that I went to school with people of names representing every ethnic group on the face of the earth, over a period of time it tends to desensit ize you to the differences.

It tends to heighten your knowledge and your un de rsta nding of the similarities, to heighten your under standing of the fact that deep down we are all the same. We are all equal, and we are all the same. We have the same concerns. We find the same things funny and we find the same things sad and we share a lot more than the superficial differences that sometimes set us apart. Madam Deput y Speaker, today I do not think there is any Manitoban who believes that the name Derkach, the name Plohman, the name Santos, the name Cerilli is anything but Manitoban. Those are Manitoban names.

That is what the public school did. The public school brought us together, made us work together and made us understand each other.

What we are doing now is, we are creating an education system , a two- tiered education system that is based on differences and that is going to take us down a path that is going to ensure that the kind of racially motivated violence that we see creeping into our society, into the city of Winnipeg, into parts of rural Man itoba is going to escalate, because we have forgotten that the education system, the public school system, was one of the institutions that tied us together. * (1 51 0) I am not blaming all of those problems on that propensity to isolate ourselves, whether it is in private schools or in cultural and social ways, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am simply saying that the school was the only institution and has been the only institution that provided young people with that opportunity. It was not a matter of choice. People did not choose to go to the public school where they could be the targets of racism or intolerance or prejudice. They went because we had a public school system, and the end result is tolerance and understand ing.

If you want to find examples of tolerance and under standing, if you want to find examples of young people working to prevent racially motivated comments and attitudes and racially motivated violence, then I sugg est that the Minis ter of Education go to some schools in Manitoba where you have that kind of mix, that very pleasing mix that represents Manitoba, and they are in our public schools.

I think that we need to protect that institution with all our vigour, and my concern is that the Minister of Education, and other people have commented that it is hard to unde rstand the commitment of a Minister of Education, who clearly has made a choice which, in my opinion, shows contempt for the public school system. Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 16 , in my opinion, is not just showing contempt for the value of the public school as an institution. I think Bill 16 shows some contempt in other ways, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about the shortcomings of this legislation in that respect as well.

We have tal ked about the un preceden ted cutback. We have talked about the government's decision to keep funnelling money into private schools, while it cuts the public school system. We talked about the ultimate end of this legislation as being one of undermining the school divisions' ability to offer choices to their students, and the poorer the division, the more binding, the more restrictive this legislation is going to make that. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that there are many divisions that cannot offer the options that perhaps Assiniboine South or Fort Garry School Division can offer.

But the fact of the matter is that this is going to make it worse. It is going to entrench the inequities that exist in our school system, in our school divisions across the province. It makes no pretense even of attempting to address the problem of those inequities, makes no pretense of attempting to build on the resources that are available in public schools in rural and northern Man itoba in particular. Madam Deput y Speaker, I think people under stand that this bill also targets students and teachers, trustees, parents and the public school system to bear the burden of the education cuts.

The government quite frankly had choices. Other people have men tioned the fact tha t the

April 28, 19 93 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 2240 government, who speaks so glowingly about no tax increases at the same time as it has limited school divisions' ability to raise local taxes to pay for educ ational programs, has gone ahead and seen fit to increase those individuals' property taxes by four or five or six times the amount that school divisions have been allowed to pass on increases in terms of the special requirement.

Madam Deput y Speaker, of more concern certainly to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees and to the many school districts across the province is the government's clear attack on local decision making. The government in this bill is basically underm ining what has been a very, very long period of independence on the part of school boards. They have done it, in my opinion-and I think this opinion is shared by many-i n a very und erhanded way. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many types of tyranny, and this government has chosen the type that is disguised as a choice.

The fact of the matter is the school divisions basically have no choice. The governm ent has prete nded, in its public comme nts at least, that some how the school divisions have a choice. They have pretended that by not following the "recomme ndations" of the minister, that they do not have to make sacrifices somewhere else in the system. The minister has essentially left them no option by limiting the amount of money, the amoun t of increase that they are allowed in terms of the special requirement. The minister knows that as well as anyone else.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this move is going to cost us al l. There is no doubt that this measure which is only temporary, we know that at some point the school divisions are going to be faced with undoing the damage that this bill created. We know that school divisions are going to have to look at their systems again. I can use some examples, and perhaps I will just so it is perfectly clear to m embers opposite the kinds of choices the school divisions are being made. It is a Hobs on' s choice . I am aware of one school division- An Honourable Member: What is a Hobson's choice? Mr.

Storie: It is a choice in which there is no real winner. An Honourable Member: It is like being between a rock and hard place. Mr. Storie: It is like being between a rock and a hard place. Madam Deput y Speaker, one div ision in discussing Bill 16 and looking at its options basically decided that they were going to have to reduce staff to meet the obligations under this legislation. You compound that with the implications of Bill22 which forces school divisions into the same kind of box. So school divisions, the public school system is sitting ther e having be en trampled on twice essentially in the same session.

The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) in a letter that she wrote to individual teachers and concerned citizens is calling it an option, and the word option is emboldened in the letter to make it sound more real. There is no option. That is what I said earlier about the worst form of tyranny that is disguised as choice. Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister has not only cut education, but in attempting to impose the reduced workweek legislation on school boards is creating a whole set of secondary problems for school divisions.

Madam Deputy Speaker, although it is disguised as options, school divisions are genuinely concerned, teachers are concerned and many, many parents, to the surprise of some perhaps, are concerned about the implications of the reduced workweek, particularly the rec omme ndations the minister has made about how those should be imposed. Again, another Hobson's choice, do you- An Honourable Member: Jerry, wait a minute, you were the guy who recomme nded that the teachers take no salary increase at one time, I think. * (1 520) Mr.

Storie: Madam Deput y Speaker, the former Minister of Education talks about a proposal ! made in 19 87 to have the teachers take zero. The minister chooses his words carefully because this was not imposed on teachers or school boards. In fact, if the minister wants to discuss this, I think we want the record to be perfectly clear. What the government did was not only increase funding to public schools abov e the rate of inflation, we introduced an edu cation resource fund of a $5 million- An Honourable Member: In lieu of what? In lieu of no salary increases.

2241 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the minister will jus t control himself for a mo ment, I will explain exactly what the proposal was. The proposal was that if school boards and teachers, in the collective bargaining process, could achieve a zero increase on the base salary, they could negotiate on all other issues. If they could achieve zero, which would freeze the base, they could access the $5-million resource fund. It was completely voluntary.

It provided an option for teachers and school divisions who had told me that the- An Honourable Member: How successful were you? Mr. Storie: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not successful at all. I quite acknowledge that fact. The point is that there was no coercion. The point is there was no imposition of the governmen t's will. The point is there was no interference in the collective bargaining system.

There was absolutely no interference- {interjection] Well, the proof is, of course, that there were no zero percent negotiated increases, that the teachers and the school boards to their-1 was going to say chagrin but that is probably not accurate-b ut unfortunately fell back on the same old system using arbitration. What I was trying to do was inject a note of creativity in the collective bargaining process, and I failed. I freely admit that. I do not regret, however, making the effort.

I do not think that school boards that I met with, the people that I spoke to, ever suggested- An Honourable Member: The point is that creativity, there is nothing wrong with it. Right? Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, there is nothing wrong with it. Certainly, I learned something and I think the Teachers' Society learned something by it, as did school divisions- An Honourable Member: So acknowledge it now. Mr. Storie: So acknowledge what? I acknowledge the fact that we were funding educ ation and this government is not.

I acknowledge the fact that we were giving inflation-co ntrary to what the Minister of Education says, we were giving increases at inflation, and as my colleague from Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) pointed out yesterday, this government is not. I mean, you cannot call a 2 percent reduction, you know, matching inflation. The bottom line is that this whole process un derm ines the aut hority of school boards, un derm in es the conf ide nce of teachers un der m ines the confidence of parent s and jeopardizes students. That is what it does.

In plain and simple terms, every school division, every parent in Manitoba knows that is what it does. You did not have to attend the rally that was here at the Legislature Monday night that was sponsored by the Seven Oaks concerned citizens group, supported by lots of groups from the north end of Winnipeg and other school divisions, to know that that is the result, that this Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and this governmen t is un dermining the public school system. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not accept that this government did not have choices.

I have already said that they are giving private schools, the same people that are paying $7,000 or $8,000 tuition for their students to atte nd private schools are being given a break by the taxpayers of Manitoba for that privilege. That $1 6 million could have been used to support the public school system. I do not know whether the Min ister of Education has yet realized it, but if there is genuine concern over the increasing cost of edu cation, and there should be, that the proposal that they have worked in Bill 22 does nothing to change that.

Bill 22 does not reduce the base costs, is not going to reduce the subsequent costs, once this government is past this particular phase, once this government is gone, for future governmen ts. The fact of the matter is that this is a political solution that has been imposed on a very difficult problem. The minister and some members of the front bench over there may feel that somehow this is a politically and public ly palatable -that is alliter ati on-po litically and pu blicly pala table solution.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a charade, that it does not solve the problems in the public school system. It simply creates additional ones. It exacerbates it, if you will. The unfortunate fact is that Bill 16 is a result of a consis tent pattern that this gove rnmen t has displayed, certainly since it received a majority in 19 90. I am afraid to say, because I know that you are in some sense attached to that particular group, but I know that you do not share their philosophy, that you share the philosophy of this side, that our

April 28, 1 993 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2242 public school systems deser ve compassion, that we should not be treating the public school system with indifference, that it deser ves better. We cannot forget that the public school system educa tes still today almost 95 percent of the students of the province of Manitoba. To say, yes, well, we are going to increase money, taxpayers' money, being given to private schools by millions and millions of dollars when those students are already being supported by their parents to the tune of $5,000 and $6,000 tuition just does not make any sense.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say that this bill is part of a pattern, if you will, that developed shortly after the 19 90 election. That is a pattern of heavy-handedness, a pattern of disregard for the authority of other duly elected , duly constituted groups. There have been so many examples in the past few weeks of that that it is frightening. I relate only one, and that is, the government's and the Minister of Family Services' (Mr. Gillesham mer) reaction to the crisis centre in Flin Flon. The minister had alternatives.

The crisis centre board and myself met with him and presented him with alternatives, but there was no interest in those alternatives. The government, the minister had made up his mind, and in this case, Bill16 and Bill22, the minister has made up her mind along with her colleagues. It does not speak very well of the governmen t's su pposed commitment to consultation, to listening to the people- An Honourable Member: And partnership. Mr. Storie: -to partnership, to co-operat ion. Do all of those things simply go out the window as soon as this group gets around the cabinet table?

Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, the decisions we are seeing from this governmen t, and as much in the area of education as anywhere else, reflect an ideological approach, a political approach, a cynical approach to policy development in the province of Manitoba.

It is unfortunate and I think many of us feel that way, certainly those of us who have been involved in the educ ational system feel that it is a cynical ap proach and an unfortunate approach when it touches on the issue of edu cation, when it touches on the lives of the 19 5,000 students who attend the public schools, the thousands of students in our public school system who are looking for enh anced edu cational opportunities, enhan ced options, additional services. The Minister of Education (Mrs.

Vodrey), I know, did not take any kind of perverse pleasure in axing the 66 clinicians that she axed in her department, but the fact ofthe matter is that the minister does not have to put up with the repercussions of that decision. It is the public school system that does, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is unfortunate. Thank you. Mr. Doug Martindale {Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 16 , The Public Schools Amendment Act.

It is interesting to note that there have been some reforms before this bill, namely, a new education finance plan that was introduced last year, and for the first time the plan diseng ages divisions' funding patterns from some historical base and allows them to receive and spend what they require to deliver a given standard of servi ce.

This ap proach is called the resource-cost approach to edu cation finance, and it can be fairer or has the potential to be fairer, especially if all divisions are given the funding they need to deliver a set standard of services but are still left free to det ermine how they will actually do this in practice. The prob lem, of course, is that the government of the day sets the standards, which may be fair or may not be fair. • (1 530) Bill16 limits the right of divisions to raise funding from their tax base, and that is the main component of this bill. Of course, that is the main thing to which our party objects.

We believ e that the most objectionable part of limiting their ability to raise funds is the interference in local autonomy; that in spite of the fact that trustees are elected to represent their constituents and the people who voted for them, they do not have total control anymore, as a result of this bill, to levy the kind of taxes that they feel are suitable for their local district. What it means is that the government, through this bill, has decided that they know best, that they are going to det ermine what the upper limits are and how much money they can raise. We object to this.

We think that it is not demo cratic. It is interfering in the dem ocratic rights of duly elected school trustees. Just like all of us had to campaign and have our names on a ballot and go to a lot of work to get elected, the same is true for trustees all over the province of Manitoba. They knock on doors. They

2243 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 meet voters. They talk to people about educational policy. Once they are elected, including any memb ers in this Chamber who are former trustees, then it is their responsibility and I believe their right to det ermine what level of taxation is suitable to carry out the policies that they were elected for. As long as that system is in place, I believe we have a good system which normally is not immune but independent of political interference.

I believe that that has come to an end because this government has decided that they know better and they are going to put caps on. Therefore, they are going to interfere in local autonomy and decision making. There are some specific issues in this bill which are of concern to myself and to other trustees in this province. For example, several weeks ago I was talking to a trustee in River East School Division. Her concern had to do with surpluses. Now, I do not know very much about surpluses in school board budgets, but I as sume that they are there for a reason.

This trustee was telling me that one of the things that they had set aside the surplus for was a contingency fund. In fact, I think it depends on how you define it. I do not know how much the surplus is in River East School Division . I think it is also a matter of definition. You can call it a surplus; if you are the government of the day you are going to call it a surplus. I believe the school board would probably prefer to call it a contingency fund or an emergency fund. They may well have it earmarked or designated for special purposes. This is a very common practice in many kinds of organizations.

For example, for three years I was on the board of directors of a housing co-operative. I also was involved with establishing a housing co-op. So I know that it is common practice in the co-operative sector in the housing market to have a contingency reserve, and normally it is 3 percent of your operating funds. This is something which is mandated by Manitoba Housing-well, it used to be Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, I guess they still exist on paper anyway-and also by CMHC, who provides 75 percent of funding for provincial housing.

They require co-operatives to have a contingency reserve, and it is there for a reason. The reason is that if, for example, all the roofs in your housing project need to be replaced in one year for some reason, because of some emergency that the money is there to do it so you do not have to go running to government and say, we need money to make these needed repairs. The money is set aside, a certain percentage of the budget is set aside every year in a contingency fund so that when it is needed the money is there.

I suspect that when school divisions have a contingency fund or an emergency fund or even if you call it a surplus, as the governmen t is doing, that it is there for a reason, that it is there to be used in emergencies or for some special purpose for which it has been earmarked. But the government has decided that they are going to require them to spend the surpluses. Another concern of school divisions, particularly School Division No. 1, is the funding for special needs students and special needs programs.

It is very interesting and very disturbing to look at their statistics and to talk to their teachers and talk to their school trustees. The most recent statistics that I saw which were presented by School Division No. 1 showed that 43 percent of all the special needs stude nts in Manitoba are located in Winnipeg School No. 1. There is a reason for that. First of all, it is a very large school division, and also it contains almost all of the inner city of Winnipeg. We know that in Winnipeg a lot of the high-needs population are concentrated in that area, and that has to do with socioeconomic conditions.

We have a very high rate of unemployment, the very high rate of social assistance caseload, the very high rate of single parents. Many of those people, because public housing is located in the inner city, because lower-cost housing is located in the inner city, that is where those parents with children live. So those children go to schools in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 . Consequently, they have this statistic which says that 43 percent of all special needs children are located in Winnipeg No. 1 School Division.

So this is a particular concern and a particular problem and a particular challenge for the trustees of Winnipeg School Division No. 1 . They have responde d to that nee d, and they have responded to that challenge with what I believe to be very innovative programming for those students. I suspect that there are many, many more teacher's aides in classrooms in that school division. I know some of those individuals, and recently I was talking

April 28, 19 93 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2244 to a teacher's aide about the high-need students in her classroom, and she was giving me the numb ers of students in one classroom who are diagnosed as having alcohol fetal syndrome, and that is a very big concern. There seem to be many individuals who have been di agnosed as having fetal alcohol syndrome. Those children have many problems, and they need the extra resources and the extra teaching staff to assist them. So Winnipeg School Division has responded by put ting staff and programs into place to meet the needs of that group.

Another special program they have that is very interesting is the adolescent parent centre where an old school building was completely taken over and renovated, beautifully renovated by School Division No. 1, for adolescent parents, and they bring their babies to school. It is quite fascinating to go on a tour of that school. I would recom men d that everybody go on a tour of that school. It is very, very interesting because they have nurseries. They do not have a child-care centre like many schools do; they have a nursery.

So there is a room full of babies in that school, and the students spend part of their day with their babies and the rest of the day in a classroom. That is a particular need to which Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has been very responsive. I think they are doing an excellent job. I happen to know one of the staff there, and I think the staff are very caring and very un der standing, and it is allowing adolescent parents to finish their high school edu cation.

Many of them in the past probably dropped out, but now, because of more concern by individuals and by the staff and the school division and parents and society, those students are encouraged to continue in school. Now, there are not jus t one or two schools, but I believe there are many schools that have child- care centres in the school so that parents can bring preschool children with them to school, have them looked after and continue with their high school education and indeed graduate.

It is good to see that that kind of response has been made and that the supp ort systems are in place to encourage them to finish their high school edu cation because we know, statistically, there is all kinds of information that shows that there is a very high correlation between level of edu cation and level of income and that the more education you have, the higher your income. There is also a correlation between educ ation and employment, that the more edu cation you have, the more likely you are to be employed. * (1 540) In fact, it is very interesting to compare it by geographic regions.

For example, in the city of Winnipeg, if you look at the parents' edu cation in River Heights and you look at their income, there is a very high income area but also a highly edu cated population. If you look at a neighbourhood like William Whyte in the north end, part of which is in my constituency of Burrows, there is a very low educ ational attainment level and very low income level and also a very high unem ployment level. So those are some of the current concerns that teachers and edu cators and school trustees have particularly in the school division that Bu rrows constituency is located in.

There are also other issues that edu cators and we as an opposition party are concerned about that are the result of the budg etary decisions of this government, not only in the Education department but in other departments as well. For example, the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has eliminated the student social assistance program, an excellent program which was helping students who could in most cases no longer live at home to continue their education.

The Minister of Family Services has repeatedly said, well, this was the only one in Canada, the only province that had a student social assistance program, as if that was some sort of rationale for eliminating it, I think the rationale being that he and his cabinet thought that it was okay to be the only province and therefore dropping down to the lowest com mon denomina tor. I think that is a very fallacious argument. If you have the only program in Canada and it is a good program, why not keep it?

This is creating a huge crisis and a huge problem for approximately 1 ,1 00 students, because the Minister of Family Services is saying, well, some of them can go home. Well, some of they may be able to go home but others cannot, because they have been abused. They have been physically or sexually abused. That is why they have left home, so we know that those students cannot go home and are not going to go home and, if they do, they are at risk. The minister has acknowledged, I believe, that they can apply for city welfare. Well, yes, they can apply for City of Winnipeg or municipal welfare. The

2245 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 28, 19 93 problem is that the rules are that when you are on municipal welfare you have to be looking for work and you have to be available for work. You cannot be a full-time student during the day and be looking for work. You cannot be a full-ti me student during the day and be available for work by a telephone or available to go to a job. So those students are probably going to drop out of the educational system. The minister suggests that they should get a part- time job.

Well, some of them probably will get a part-ti me job, but will they be able to earn enough money from a part-time job to support themselves, to both live and go to school? I think that is dou btful. First of all, there is a dearth of part- time jobs. Secondly, most part-time jobs pay very low wages, probably minimum wage. It is unlikely that a high school student is going to get either enough hours or enough part- time jobs in order to suppo rt themselves so that they can continue in school. I think it is an unrealistic expectation by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).

The Minister of Family Services also made changes in the child daycare area which I believe are going to have negative impacts on students' ability to complete school. For example, the daily fees have been increased by $1 .40 a day for child care. This is of concern to parents who are saying that they cannot afford that increase, especially parents on social assistance. So they are going to say, well, if I cannot afford this, I am going to have to take my child out of child care.

Many of those parents are either in high school or un iversity or a community college or a business college and they are going to drop out of school. This is jeopardizing their future. It is jeopardizing their chances to get a better educ ation. It is jeopardizing their chances to get a better job. It is jeopardizing their chances to have a higher income. So we believe this decision by this Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is one that is going to be detrimental to securing an education for those parents who have children in child care who cannot afford the $1 .40-a -day increase.

The other policy of the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) that we and many parents in the child-care system are very concerned about is changing the number of weeks of paid or subsidized child care in order to find employment, which is being reduced from eight weeks a year to two weeks a year. I have been getting lots of phone calls about this. I presume that many other mem bers are getting phone calls about it.

I hope that they are getting phone calls from the staff and the board members and the parents of child-care centres in their constituency, because these parents are very upset and legitimately so. They are saying to us, we do not think we can find a job in two weeks. The result is, we believe, that they are either not going to be able to get employment, because they will not have child care or they will not be able to return to un iversity, because they do not have child care. Child care is one of the most important factors in women entering the paid labour force.

I think that is one of the reasons why our caucus has been saying that the policies of this government discriminate against women because many of these policies impact more negatively on women than on men in our society. and this is another example. In fact, it has been all women who have been phoning me about the changes to child care. I hope there are some single-parent men who have children in child care, but I have not had any phone calls from them. The Mi nis ter of Fa mily Services (Mr.

Gilles ham mer) has still not answered our ques tions adequately about the difference between spaces and cases, but we will have a chance to ask him that in Family Services Estimates in a day or two, either on Thursday of this week or Monday next week or the week after, whenever we get to the child care

section of his budget. We believe that far more than 400 children are going to be affected by capping the number of spaces.

The minister is decreasing the number of spaces from 1 0,000 to 9,600 and in their original press release suggested that 400 spaces would be lost, but now we have corre spondence from the minister's office, the child daycare office, going out to family daycare centres and to parents talking about the specifics of his policy, and they are no longer using the word "space." They are using the word "case." The way it has been explained to me by the staff at the Manitoba Child Care Association and by the Family Day Care Association and by parents who operate family child-care centres, they are telling me that in the past, two or three children filled one space because often there were two or three children who were part time and they occupied one space, but in

April 28, 19 93 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2246 the future, that is no longer going to be true. It is going to be on a case-by-case basis. So I have repeatedly asked the minister, does this mean that there might be 800 or 1 ,000 children who no longer have access to child care? The minister has not answered my que stion adequately, but I am looking forward to asking more detailed ques tions in Family Services Estimates. Once again, the point that I am making is that this is a policy of this gov ernment which is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-51
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 51.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9a62b2a08e93aa0170ad21eb72f79e7a929d0837

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