Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 28 (34th Legislature, 1st Session)

34-1-28

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 37 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXVII No. 28 - 1:30 p.m., THUR SDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1988. ISSN 0542- 5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY Thirty-Fourth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME CONSTITUENCY ALCOCK, Reg Osborne ANGUS, John St. Norbert ASHTON, Sieve Thompson BURRELL, Parker Swan River CARR,James Fort Rouge CARST AIRS, Sharon River Heights CHARLES, Gwen Selkirk CHEEMA, Gulzar Kildonan CHORNOPYSKI, William Burrows CONNERY, Edward Hon. Portage la Prairie COWAN,Jay Churchill CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose du Lac DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin- Russell DOER,Gary Concordia DOW NEY, James Hon. Arthur DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Emerson DRIEDGER, Herold, L. Niakwa DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon.

Aiel EDWARDS, Paul St. James ENNS, Harry Lakeside ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood EVANS, Laurie Fort Garry EVANS, Leonard Brandon East FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo FINDLAY, Glen Hon. Virden GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface GILLESHAMMER, Harold Minnedosa GRAY, Avis Ellice HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park HARAPIAK, Harry The Pas HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland HELWE R, Edward R. Gimli HEMPHILL, Maureen Logan KOZAK, Richard, J. Transcona LAMOUREUX, Kevin, M. lnkster MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood MANDRAKE, Ed Assiniboia MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. Morris McCRAE, James Hon. Brandon West MINENKO, Mark Seven Oaks MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon.

River East NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. Rossmere OLESON, Charlotte Hon. Glad stone ORCHARD, Donald Hon. Pembina PANKRATZ, Helmut La Verendrye PATTERSON, Allan Radisson PENNER, Jack, Hon. Rhineland PLOHMAN, John Dauphin PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Turtle Mountain ROCH, Gilles Springfield ROSE, Bob St. Vital ST ORIE, Jerry Flin Flon TAYLOR, Harold Wolseley URUSKI, Bill lnterlake WAS YLYCIA-LEIS, Judy St.

Johns YEO,Iva Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBER AL NDP PC LIBER AL LI BERAL LIBER AL LIB ERAL LIBER AL PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBER AL PC LIBERAL PC PC LI BERAL NDP PC PC LIBER AL PC LIBERAL PC NDP NDP PC NDP LI BERAL LIBER AL NDP LIBER AL PC PC LIB ERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIB ERAL PC NDP PC PC PC LIB ERAL NDP LIBER AL NDP NDP LIBER AL

LEGIS LATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, September 1, 1988. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRA Y ERS ROUTIN E PR OCEEDI NGS MINIS TERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REP ORTS Hon. Jim Ernst (Mi nister of Sport): I have a ministerial statement. Earlier today, as the Mi nister of Sport for Manitoba, I had the honour of hosting a luncheon for Manitoba's Olympic athletes, as well as the support of people associated with the Olympic Athlete Trials which will take place in Seoul, Korea, later this month. Man itoba will be well-represented at the Summer Games in Seoul, Korea, later this month and in October.

Today, we have with us eight athletes, coaches and officials who are going to Seoul for the Summ er Olympics, beginning on September 17 and ending October 2. Thirty-two sports will be contested . In addition, we have 17 others present who will actively be involved with the Para Olympics, also being held in Seoul, Korea, on October 15-24. This is a quadrennial event for the disabled. To ach ieve this go al has meant sacrific e and dedication on the part of the ath letes, coaches, managers, officials, volu nteers and parents.

The hours of training and commitment toward their goals of excellence in sport is only part of the story. Not only are they represe nting Canada and Ma nitoba, but everybody involved in amateur sport throughout the province, and as role models for the future of our youth in this province. lt will be a memorable and rewarding experience for all those involved with the games. On behalf of the Government of Mani toba, we wish those with us today, and those who are already away in training, the best of luck at both games. Thank you. Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to join with the Mini ster of Sport (Mr. Ernst), and I am sure the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and all Members of his Government, as well as all Members of the Official Opposition, in congratulating the indi viduals who have been chosen to represent Canada at the Olympic Games in Seoul. lt is indeed an honour, and it is a particular honour for those indi viduals who have had to struggle with a physical handicap. Those individuals are among the finest athletes that we have produced in this country and in this province.

They take with them, as do all athletes, the very best wishes of all of us for a successful competiti on-s uccess 952 not in the medals that they will bring back to us, but success in pla ying the game; success in showi ng sportsmanlike qualities, which we know our Manitobans will show to the very best of their abilit ies; and success in representing Canada in the spirit of true Canadians, which is that we have an openness and a warmth for all people within this nation of ours. * (13 35) Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): I also would like to add our caucus's words and support to the team representing Canada, and indeed Manitoba, in the Olympics at Seoul- both the Olympic Games itself and the Para Olympics. We certainly wish all athletes of Canada, and indeed Mani toba, the best of success and experience at the Olympic Games. We certainly congratulate the parents and the volu nteers who have spent many long hours working at the athletic endeavours of our participants.

I would also like to say that, in addition to the Seoul Olympi cs, September is Special Olympics Month in Manitoba as well, and of course, we have another fine tradition of volunteers and community activists working in those very important events. I wish all of them all the best of success. Thank you. READING AND RECEI VING PETI TIONS Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I would ask leave of the House to revert to presenting petitions, if I could, please, with leave? Mr .

Speaker: Does the Ho nourable Memb er for Dauphin have leave to revert back to Reading and Receiving Petitions? (Agreed) I have reviewed the petition and it conforms with the privil eges and practices of the House and complies with the Rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? (D ispense) (Dauphin General Hospital Foundation) INTRODUCTION OF BILL S Hon. James McCrae (Attorney-General) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 23, The Regulations Validation Statutes Amendment Act. INTR ODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr.

Speaker: Prior to oral qu estions, I would like to dir ect all Ho nou rable Mem bers' atten tion to the translation booth, and also to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us here this afternoon the Olympians who will be attending the Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea. They are: The Canadian Olympic Association Youth Camp Leaders: Mr. Geoff Mclntyre and Sue Boreskie.

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Track and Field: Andre Smith, who will be competing in the 400 metre relay; his manager, Dave Lyon. Mission Staff: Dr. Peter Porritt, field hockey; Malcolm Hogarth, gymnastics. Medical Staff: Dr. Bert DePape, D'Arcy Bain. Exhibition Sport: 10-pin bowling, coach Sid Allan. Dis abled Sh ooters: Gl enn Ma rish, Adam Salamandyk and Bernard Gehring. Track: Doug Grant. Basket ball: Dianne Hrychuk and her coach, Gilles Boul ley. Swi mming: Krystan Topham, Colin Farn an, Joanne Mucz, Michelle Arnold and Tim Mclsaac. Senior Coach: Wilf Strom. Coach and Technical Director: Audrey Strom.

Cathy Arnold, Swimming "Tapper" for the Blind. Blind Track: Eugene Sigea. Blind Marathon: Shepp Shell, and Guide s Greg Brodsky and Fred Shane. On behalf of all Honourable Mem bers, we would like to welcome you here this afternoon. *

(1340) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Free Trade Agreement Western Diversification Fund Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Le ader of the Opposition): The First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon) of our province has repeatedly assured this House about the wonders of the Canada -U.S. free tra de deal. Ind eed, he has expressed absolutely no reservat ions whatsoever despite the frequent reservations that have been made reference to from this side of the House.

And yet, within hours, just before the free trade deal was passed in the House of Commons yesterday, a spokesperson for the Western Diversification Fund has said that all projects are being examined with respect to the free trade deal. Will the First Mini ster please tell this House: When did he first learn of this examination? Hon. Gary Filmon (P remier): Just becaus e I anticipa ted that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr s.

Carstairs) might ask that question-that being in today's newspapers-! was sent from Ottawa, this morning, a tax of a news release that was issued this morning in Ottawa. lt is datelined Ottawa, Ontario, September 1, 1988, and it says, "Recent press reports quoting me as saying that the Free Trade Agreement will adversely affect regional development assistance available in western Canada are not true," said Bruce Rawson, Deputy Mini ster of the Depart ment of Western Economic Diversification.

"M oreover, I did not say that free trade will impede, restrict, limit, violate, or put at risk regional development assistance. " Next question. Mrs. Carstairs: I am delighted with the fax ability of the First Minis ter. However, one wonders what happened to tha t particular Min ister ove rnigh t -th e Deputy Min ister. 953 Fr ee Trade Ag reement Im pact Co mmodity Subsidies Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Can the First Mini ster (Mr.

Filmon) tell this House if any examination has been made in his department of the omnibus Trade Bill and the limi tations on subsidies placed as a result of that trade deal? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, tha t has been done. 1t ha s been done no t onl y provincially by our department, but it has been done federally, and as the news release goes on to say, "He also noted . . . "-s peaking of Mr. Rawson, the Deputy Min ister who presumably is the origin of this inaccurate quote upon which the Leader of the Opposition (M rs.

Carstairs) bases her conclus ion -"H e also noted that there had been a thorough discussion of this point," meaning the point of whether or not regional economic development init iatives would violate the Free Trade Agreement. There had been thorough discussion of this point during the public commit tee hearings on Bill C- 113-th at is the Free Trade Bill-the legislation establish ing the Department of Western Economic Diversification.

A senior External Affairs official testified before the committee that it has been a long-standing practice to review signi ficant assistance proposals to determine any impacts they might have in the international trade environment. The point at issue is that the subsidies being provided to the red meat industry in Alberta, those being provided both directly to produc ers and those being given to companies such as Fletchers, such as Cargill, such as Gainers, will be countervailable, in all likelihood, under GATT. GATT is the existing international trade legislation under which we operate in Canada today.

There is a concern that the Western Diversification initiative ought not to be putting money into those kinds of initia tives that are countervailable under GATT, and that is the issue that Mr. Rawson was speaking about, and that is the issue that was spoken about under the discussions at committee in Ottawa. Her colleague, Lloyd Axworthy, knew that and yet chooses to try and distort this issue into saying that it was the Free Trade Agreement. * (13 45) Fr ee Trade Ag reement Compensato ry Funding Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the information that the First Min ister (Mr.

Filmon) has provided is very important because one of the issues that must be addressed is compensatory funding for industries that will have difficulty in meeting the challenge of any kind of free trade relationship with the United States. Can the First Mini ster inform the House if the whole issue of compensatory funding has been discussed with the Fi rst Min ister of Canada, and what kinds o1

Thursday, September 1, 1988 compensatory funding will be available to the Province of Manitoba, and will it be countervailable? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, firstly, compensatory funding is an issue that has been actively pursued by all of the First Ministers, and as a result of the identification of the fact that, for instance, the grape growers would be adversely affected by the Free Trade Agreement, compensatory funding resulted in the buy-out of the interests of the grape growers in Br itish Colu mbia, a major com pensat ion for the elimination of their production so that they could move into another field of production.

That kind of funding will be available and has been referred to by the Prime Mini ster and the First Mini sters upon identification of areas that could be adversely affected. To begin with, the red meat industry is seen as one of the areas that will be a major benefactor under the Free Trade Agreement. They will have in creased markets, increased demand for their products and they will be one of the areas that will be a major benefactor of the Free Trade Agreement.

She tried to make an issue a month or so ago about the potato growers, only to be told by the potato growers themselves, which she should have known, that they are currently selling potatoes into the United States because they have a competitive advantage, and have had for some time, and will do nothing but have a continuing opportunity to sell under the Free Trade Agreement. Free Trade Agree ment Impact Textile Industry Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (l eader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, can the First Mini ster tell this House today what kind of com pen satory pro gramming he is investigating with regard to the textile indus try in this province, which has some 8,000 employees and who will be, in many of its aspects, adversely affected by this deal? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, concurrent I with the Free Trade Agreement, there is a reduction of tariffs on the importation of fabric, which is a major benefit to the textile industry in Mani toba.

The garment manufacturing industries will now be able to get their raw material, in effect, their cloth, their textiles, at a lower rate because of the reduction of tariffs. That goes hand-in-glove with the Free Trade Agreement and allows them to continue to be competitive. In fact, Manitoba industries, because of the removal and red uction of th ose ta riffs, Ma nitoba garment manufacturers will benefit immensely by that and they are satisfied that the Free Trade Agreement continues to allow them major benefits through access to the American market. Western Dive rsification Fund AB I Biotechnology Inc. Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): With a final question to the First Min ister (Mr. Filmon). 954 The blood products lab has requested $10 million from the Western Diversification Fund to make Canada self-sufficient in synthetic blood products. Can the First Min ister tell this House if that project has been recommended by his Government, and will th ey be receiving funding from th e Western Diversification Fund? *

(1350) Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi ni ster of Health): Mr. Speaker, I presume the Leader of the Opposition (Mr s. Carstairs) is referring to ABI Biotechnology in terms of their application before the Western Diversification Fund. That project is viewed by this Government as being lead ing -edge tec hno logy, is su pported by this Government, has tremendous employment, investment and export opportunities from the Province of Manitoba to our sister provinces, and is very highly supp orted by this Government. An Honour able Member: Hear, hear! Health Sciences Centre Bed Clo sur es Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the First Mi nister (Mr. Filmon). A week ago, the First Minister in this House reiterated that the policy of no permanent bed closures would be made prior to a comprehensive health review and would indeed be the policy of the Government. Later, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard), in a public statement, contradicted the First Mini ster in saying that the election promise was badly worded. My question is to the First Mini ster: Does the election promise stand today? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Health Sciences Centre Bed Clo sures Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Can the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon) please explain to this side of the House, and indeed Manitobans, why then the 22 beds that we raised last week have been permanently closed? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): This issue came up in an effort by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) 10 days, two weeks ago, to indicate that beds were permanently closed at the Health Scie nces Centre. The Health Sciences Centre has asked, in the review of their program, for permission to close those beds.

No permission for permanent closure has been given. Mr. Doer: The Mini ster of Health (Mr. Orchard) may want to be cute about the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) election promise, and he may want to be cute in this House,

Thursday, September 1, 1988 but those beds were open at this time last year. They are closed right now. All the employees have been redeployed and the space is now being made into offices. Could the Mini ster of Health please tell us what is the policy of his Government in terms of these 22 beds? Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend should be aware that those beds were not scheduled for reopening, I believe, until September 6. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, could the Mi nister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) please inform Manitobans and this side of the House why, then, after he toured this site himself, the Health Sciences Centre has told all their employees that it is indeed approved by the Government to be permanently closed and they are now having people in there in offices? Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend could help in the enlightenment of this House and the people of Manitoba by indicating who in the Health Sciences Centre has indicated to him that permission has been given by myself and Manitoba Health Services Commission for permanent closure.

I would be delighted to know who has made that accusation to him. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr . Speaker: Ord er, ple ase; order, pl ease. The Honourable Member for Concordia. Mr. Doer: All of the employees, some of which have 20 years experience, who have been redeployed and told it is on a permanent basis: nurses, hospital orderlies, aides and all the people who walk through the doctors' offices that have replaced the beds the Minis ter has said have not been permanently closed . *

(1355) Assiniboine Street Closure Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): On August 12, the Min ister of High ways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) gave assurances to this House that there would be no closure of Assiniboine Avenue before complete and full consultation with the residents and the shopkeepers who live in the area. Just yesterday, Mr. Speak er, I received a copy of an invitation for proposals initia ted by the Urban Affairs Department to redevelop Louis Riel Park.

Incredibl y, the scope of the project includes the possible closure of Assiniboine Avenue, and the deadline for receipt of proposals is September 19. Given the fact that the temporary closure of that street has produced an outcry from residents and from business people who are concerned about response time for emergency vehicles and also about safety in their own neighbou rhood , my question for the Mini ster of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) is this: Who are the people, who live in this area, to believe: the Mi nister of High ways and Transportation (Mr.

Driedger,) who promises consultation; or his own department which 955 is asking architects to spend thousands of doll ars finding creative ways to close the street? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): We will have full consultation with the Highways Mini ster (Mr. Driedger) and myself and the people in the area exactly as has been explained in our proposal. Assini boine Str eet Closure Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): With a supplementary question to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), just to give a little substance to the assertion by the Min ister.

Given the fact that crime is on the rise in the neighbourhood, given the fact that rowdiness and di sorderly behaviour has moved from behi nd this building into the residential area where people live, can the Min ister tell me what kind of feedback he has received from people and what sort of consultation has taken place to date? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Tr ansportation): I would like to once again repeat the statements I made in this House a little while ago. The fact is that the street has been closed on a temporary basis to gather information on the effect it would have on traffic.

I also indicated to the Members of this House, some time ago, that as of September 7, the street will be open, going west to east, and again we will be doing surveys to find out what impact the traffic will have. Before anything fu rther will be done in terms of proposals, we will be consulting with all the people involved. We will be dealing with it. This is not something that is going to be done on a short-term basis. Mr. Speaker, I also indicated that there has been no in tention to try and harm the commu nity or the busine sses in volved.

As we move along with this process, as we have outlined a few times already, we will be doing the consultation in a very adequate way with the people involved. Mr. Carr: With a supplementary to the same Min ister. He says that the street will move in the other direction on September 7. September 19 is the deadline for proposals, and, within the proposals, street information is going to be given to the architects. lt looks like it is going to be a pretty quick piece of business.

Will the Min ister assure this House that he will honour his Party's commitment to open Government and honour his own promise of community consultation by immediately soliciting the views of people who live in the Assiniboi ne-Broadway area before the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) digs a hole so deep they will never get out of it? Mr. Albert Driedger: First of all, the call for proposals is not a commitment to do anything at this stage of the game. I want to restate that. The other thing that I would like to addr ess, the Member has made allegations that we have affected the safety factor in

Thursday, September 1, 1988 terms of the time that it is accessible. We are addressing that by opening the street on September 7, going west to east, to address exactly that aspect of it. Once again, I do not know how often I have to confirm in this Ho use to the Member th at th ere will be consultation. That commitment has been made and I will keep that commitment. Free Trade Agr eement Impact Garment Industry Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): My question is to the First Mi nister (Mr. Filmon), and it concerns free trade.

Given what the official position of the apparel industry is- "The free trade deal, as it appli es to the apparel industry, is not a good deal."-due to the fact that they are looking at duty remission schemes, due to the fact that we have 8,000 people directly employed in Winnipeg in this particular industr y, do we have a player at the table negotiating on behalf of Manitoban textile � workers for our share of the money that is going to , be provided to assist this industry? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): I can tell my honourable friend that not only some of my colleagues but I personally have spent countless hours with most of the leaders in th e garment in du stry throughout the consultations and discussions. I personally intervened right to the office of the Prime Mini ster when the discussions were at a stage-and this happened to be during the election campaign. I took the time to talk with people about the duty remission, about the tariff removal and all of those issues. I spoke in a conference call setting with the president of the Garment Industry Association, Mr. Silver, with Mr.

Nygaard , with Mr. Steinmann, with many of the major players in the indus try thr oughout the course of those sensitive negotiations. Duty remission was only one part of what they were looking for. There was a prospect of getting the tariff removal and that was of more value to the industry � than duty remission itself and was the better long-term , answer. In the end, they got a partial duty remission and a partial removal of tariff.

The combination of the two has made it viable for not only the industry across the count ry, the garment manufacturing industr y, but particularly garment manufacturers here in Manitoba. Garment manu facturers in Ma nitoba, to my knowledge, continue to be suppor tive of free trade with the United States. They just want a level playing field, and that is what has been established for them. *

(1400) Free Trade Agreement Impact Canola Industry Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Is the First Mi nister (Mr. Filmon) prepared to set up the same type of conference call, Mr. Speaker, through you, in relation to the granola growers -canola growers, I am sorry. (lnterjection)- Well, it may be humorous but there is a 956 whole indus try, two crushing plants in Manitoba, that are losing some $20 million in subsid ies while tariffs are being removed over a seven-year period. Are you going to offer them any sort of tariff remission program, any sort of assistance or cooperat ion? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): lt is tariff removal and duty remission, not tariff remission ; and it is canola, not granola, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared, as a Government, to ensure that we do everything possible to protect our industries in this province. We want to make them healthy, we want to make them grow, and we want to see them take advantage of all the immense opportunities that are provided by the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

We will be able to do that, and are happy to do that, to put the resources of our Government, the Mi nisters of our Government, together with any industry that wants our assistance in implementing the Free Trade Agreement to their advantage and, therefore, to the advantage of all Manitobans. We are committed to that and we will do that. Mr. Angus: 1 am pleased that the First Min ister (Mr. Filmon) has finally seen the light, that he is going to try and cooperate and help Manitoba industries. Free Trade Agreement Fo rmation All-P arty Ct te Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): A final supplement ary.

Will he look at forming some sort of committee, an all Party legislative committee, that will identify those areas of the Free Trade Agreement that will have a negative impact on Manitobans, and to process and recommend a course of action to reduce and eliminate that negative impact? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): lt is the Member for St. Norb ert (Mr. Angus) who needs to see the light. He and his colleagues got together with the Chamber of Commerce in Winnipeg to try and find out about their views on the Free Trade Agreement.

When they found out that the Chamber of Commerce were totally su pportive of the Free Trade Agreement, then they ignor ed their views and went running off with the NDP, trying to find ways to pick holes in the Free Trade Agreement. They have no idea about the benefits of free trade for the produc ers of Manitoba, for the manuf acturers of Man itoba, for the emplo yers of Manitoba and, indeed, for all Manitobans. Now they are trying to raise red herrings about the deal because they have lost the fight with the people who are committed to create jobs and investment in Man itoba. Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear!

Land Titles Office Delay Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (M innedosa): I would like to dir ect a qu estion to the Attorney-General (Mr . McCrae).

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Now that the end of August has come and gone, and in view of the concerns raised by the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) regarding backlogs at the Winnipeg Land Titles Office, can the Mini ster gi ve a report on progress since June 17, when he announced measures to reduce this backlog? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. James McC rae (Attorney-General): Just as I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, by the enthusiasm the First Mini ster (Mr.

Filmon) shows about issues relating to areas outside the Winnipeg district, I am pleased to see the int erest shown by the Honourable Member for Minn edosa (Mr. Gill eshammer) in a matter of great interest to the people of Winnipeg. At the end of July, the progress on the backlog at the Land Titles Office was so good, I was a little cautious about looking ahead with the kind of hopeful ness that you might have expected, because I know it is a busy time. We have come out even better at the end of August, Mr. Speaker. The target for acceptance of transfers at the end of August was 35 days backlog.

That has been reduced to 30 days. With respect to acceptance of mortgages, the target was 16 days. We have achieved an eight-day turnaround on that one. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; order, please. Mr. McCrae: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) might have wanted to ask that question today. The fact is we are delighted today, on September 1, to welcome Alexandra Mort on as Registrar-General for the Land Titles in Manitoba-the first woman ever to hold that position in Manitoba. We think, with the kind of leadership tha t Ms.

Mo rton can provi de-an associate of the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards)-1 think we can look ahead with confidence at the Land Titles Office in Winnipeg and in Manitoba. Free Trade Agreement Impact Cd n. Wheat Board Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Since the First Mini ster (Mr.

Filmon) is so confident that he can answer all of the questions on the trade deal today, even though he has not read it, much like John Crosbie assures everyone that his vacuum cleaners are excellent, even though he has not used them, I want to ask the First Min ister about the trade deal and its impli cations on the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Whea t Board is clearly a great Canadian institution. it has served Canadian farmers well over the years, even though we do not always agree with every one of its policies particularly, as we have stated, with regard to the Port of Churchill.

We, I am sure, all agree that the Wheat Board has our full 957 support and it is not something that we want to see jeopard ized in any way. Yet, Sections 70 1, 703, and 705 of the trade deal clearly ind icate that the Canadian Wheat Board's pooling system, its pricing system and its imp ort licensing systems will indeed be jeopardiz ed. This is supported by the Canadian Federation of Agricultur e, as well as the advisory board to the Canada Wheat Board and a number of other farmers' organizations such as the National Farmers Union. Can the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) indicate to this House if his Government has conduc ted studies to determine the implications of the trade deal on the Wheat Board; and, if so, will he table those studies in the House today? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the tremendous support of the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) for the Canadian Wheat Board.

I will remind him, as well, that it is the Canadian Wheat Board who has been refusing to ship grain through Churchill, and the people who he has been berating are the very people now that he says are the best people to make judgments on behalf of the farmers in the way in which they market the wheat from this country. I will further remind him that every single commodity grouping under the Keystone Agricultural Producers, who are the largest farm group in this province, support the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

Producers such as the Western Wheat Growers and all of those people whose wheat must be marketed worldwide support the Free Trade Agreement. There have been many, many groups who have evaluated the Free Trade Agreement. They believe that it is good for our grain producers, for our canola produ cers, for our red meat producers, and for virtually every agricultural commod ity tha t we produc e. Therefore, we support it because it is good for the farmers and they support it. * (14 10) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speak er, it would be interesting to know if the First Minis ter (Mr.

Filmon) has contacted the Wheat Board and they have told him that they are refusing to ship grain through the Port of Churchill. An Honourable Member: Table that information. Mr. Plohman: Have him table that information and give evidence. In view of the fact that these troubling concerns are coming not only from Canadian sources, but also from American sources who have made no secret of the fact that they would like to replace the Canadian Wheat Board with what th ey call a public price-s etting mechanism that is transparent to the U.S. Government, produc ers and processors, will the First Min ister (Mr.

Filmon) now meet immediately with the Prime Min ister and demand that he admits that he has made a colossal mistake with regard to this trade deal and its impact

Thursday, September 1, 1988 on the Wheat Board and grain, and demand that the Wheat Board be excluded from the trade deal with the United States? Mr. Filmon: The Canadian Wheat Board is not part of the Free Trade Agreement. The Canadian Wheat Board can continue to exist, can continue to market wheat worldwide, on behalf of the producers of Western Canada; and, indeed, it can continue to pool grain and do all of the things that are necessary in order to sell grain worldwide for the farmers of Manitoba, and we are delighted that is the case. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, all we are getting is more rhetoric and more of the Mu lroney position on this very important issue. Will the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) endeavour to find out the facts by meeting with the Pools, with Keystone Agricultural Producers, the National Farmers Union and other agricultural organizations to determine precisely what the concerns are with regard to grain and the Wheat Board and the trade deal? If he will not do that, when will he get his head out of the sand, quit defending Mulr oney and John Crosbie on this trade deal, read the trade deal, face the facts and stand up for the farmers of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, it is better to have admitted not to have read every word , every line of the thousands of pages of the Free Trade Agreement and understand the principles of the agreement and understand the analysis of the agreement provided for us by experts than to have read the agreement, as he claims to have, and not to understand it. Mani toba lntercultural Council Review Mr. Mark Minenko (Se ven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, on August 4 of this year, the Mi nister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs.

Mi tchelson) advised us that people from the ethnic communities had approached her with respect to some of their concerns about the Mani toba lntercultural Council. She also further advised us that day that she had requested a review of the council to be conduc ted by the Provincial Aud itor, and that she would have the results of that review by the end of August. My question is to the Mi nister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mr s. Mitchelson). Can the Mi nister advise us of the status of this review and when she will table it in the House? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minis ter of Cultur e, Heritage and Recreation): I thank the Member for that question. I have been in touch with the Provincial Aud itor's Office this week, and they have indi cated to me that they will be ready to meet with me the begin ning of next week. We will be meeting with the Provincial Auditor to get the results of their reports in the first part of next week.

What I want to indicate to the Member was that my first commitment, after receiving that report, was to 958 go to the multicultural community and to MIC to discuss the results of that audit with them before it is tabl ed in the House for the Opposition and the media. Mr. Minenk o: No multicu lturalism policy was heard from the other side during the last election. There were certainly no directions in the Throne Speech with respect to the multiculturalism policy in general or specifics.

When will we learn of the fate and futur e of multiculturalism in this province and, more specifical ly, the Manitoba ln ter cultural Council? The ethnic communities are indeed waiting for this response from the Government. Mrs. Mitchelson: Sometimes actions speak louder than words. I have been meeting with the multi cultural community. I have great concern for what has been happening and what will happen in the future.

When we get the results of the audit, together with the task force report, we will be discussing ways and means of developing a poli cy, in consultation and coordination with the multicultural commun ity, so that we, as a Government, can meet their needs. Intervention Sally Espineli Deportat ion Mr. Mark Minenko (S even Oaks): With my fina l supplemental, directed to the First Mini ster (M r. Filmon). Manitoba is indeed a multicultural province with people coming to Ma nitoba from many dif ferent countries.

As the person perhaps best able to do so, has the First Min ister intervened on behalf of Sally Espineli, who has been deported; and, if not, will he call the federal Mini ster of Immigration today and intervene on her behalf? Hon. Gary Filmon (P remier): I have no t been requested by anybody to intervene on behalf of Sally Espineli. I take it from the Member that it is a case that has been ruled upon by the Immig ration Appeal Board. I am not familiar with the details and, subject to becoming familiar and dis cussing it with relevant parties, I may choose to do that.

Depar tment Ministers Clerical Staff In timi dation Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My question is to the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon). On August 12, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) raised some very serious concerns about comments that have been made by the Mini ster of Labour (Mr . Conner

y) in regard to long-time employees in that department-comments related to pink slips and other totally unacceptable comments. I would like to ask the First Min ister, since he indicated at the time that he would be raising this issue with the Min ister of Labour, what action he, as First Mi nister, has taken in regard to those totally unacceptable comments.

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Since the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is acting on behalf of his Leader, the Member for Concordia (Mr . Doer), I might say that I have been shocked with his attitude toward civil servants when he called the Deputy Mini ster a second rate Deputy Minis ter, the Min ister of Labour (Mr . Cannery). I can tell the Member for Tho mpson that my Min ister of Labour (Mr.

Connery) was as concerned as I was that no misunderstanding be taken, whether it be for political purposes or whether it be for the purpo ses of trying to create an issue here in the Legislature, and so I spoke directly with the president of the MGE A. I called him into my office and we had a meeting at that time.- (Int erjection)- Sorry, I apologize. I do not want to imply that in any way I could order or request the president of the MGEA to see me. I requested that he come and visit me and have a meeting so we could discuss it openly, face to face. We did. We had such a meeting and it was a productive meeting.

At that time, I found out that he was concerned about the possible misi nterpretation of the remarks that have been made by the Mini ster of Labour (Mr. Connery). We agreed, therefore, that the Minis ter of Labour would issue a letter of clarification and apology to all members of MGEA to ensure that there was no misunderstanding taken of his remarks, and that was done. Mr. Ashton: Since the First Mini ster (Mr.

Filmon) has obviously taken a direct interest in regard to this case, and seems to feel the matter is settled, could he please indicate whether he raised with the Mini ster why senior departmental officials, including the Deputy Min ister, subsequently harassed employees in that department, asking them who talked to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), who talked to the union? Can he also ind icate why long-tim e emplo yees, clerical empl oyees in that department, have subsequently been transferred to dead-end jobs, jobs that have been redundant for years?

Can the First Mini ster indicate why, given the fact that the Min ister of Labour (Mr. Connery) supposedly has apologized for this incident, there is continuing harassment of long-time public servants in the province? Mr. Filmon: The only harassment that is going on in this House is by Members of the New Democratic Party putting forth false information and false allegations and their Leader (Mr. Doer) who called the Deputy Min ister a second-rate Deputy Min ister. Mr. Ashton: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order. Mr.

Ashton: I believe the comments of the Min ister are totally out of order. He has indicated that there is some suggestion those are false. I can indicate, as a Memb er of this Ho use, I ha ve un dertaken to substantiate every item that I raised just previously, including talking to some of the employees in that 959 department, which perhaps the First Mini ster should do before he throws out those kinds of spurious and unparli amentary claims. Mr . Sp eaker: Ord er, pl ease; ord er, please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. A dispute over the facts- Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) knows that prior to anything going on in this Legislature, or in this Government, any discussion of this issue, there was a reorganization of those two departments going on under one Deputy Mini ster with the subsequent and consequent combinations of staff. One of the reasons why that was put forward was to save on bureauc racy, save on support positions, save one Deputy Minis ter and some senior department official positions, doing, as the Leader of the Opposition had said, cutting bureaucra cy, not services, to people.

That is precisely what we are going upon and that is why there are fewer clerical positions in that area. That has absolutely nothing to do with any statements made in this House or any allegations, however false they may be, raised in this House by either the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) or the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Concordia, on a point of order. Mr. Doer: When I first raised this issue in this House, the Mini ster of Labour (Mr.

Cannery) denied it, and three ti mes today the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has put into question my integri ty. When I made the statement in the House, the Mini ster of Labour went outside of this House and admitted that he had misled the public in this Cham ber, and I am sick and tired of these integrity qu estions from the Premier. My word was straight and was verified by the Mi nister of Labour and the Premier knows that. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speak er, we are talking about people here.

We are not talking about cutting bureau cracy. We are talking about people that have been harassed or been told that they had better cough up as to who talked- Mr. Speaker: Order; order, please. Mr. Ashton: -to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) and who talked to the union, which is their democratic right. So my question to the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon) is- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson.

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Mr. Ashton: So my question to the First Minister is since he took direct responsibility by talking to the Minister of Labour , and since those facts I mentioned on the record are true , will he now raise once again with the Minister of Labour actions which are seriously jeopardizing the relationship of this Government with the Civil Service of this province? *

(1420) Mr. Filmon: We, as a new Government , are doing our utmost to establish a good working relationship with our em ployees. We are doing our utmost to conduct ourselves in a very professional manner . When the Membe r for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) comes forth with allegations that he is not prepared to put in writing or to put names to the allegations and specific incidents to, I cannot do anything about it. I do not know who to talk to . I do not know who to follow up with.

If he would put forth a specific allegation with information, I will be happy to follow it up and do my responsibility as Leader of this Government and Leader .,, of the Cabinet. I will do my responsibility and investigate it. But if it is going to come in the form of an unsubstantiated allegation made here in the Legislature , nothing will be done about it. ,, Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired . Mr. Ashton: On a point of order . I once again would indicate that I realize it is a Member 's duty to ascertain the facts before bringing them to the House.

I have done that , I am quite willing to discuss the allegations with the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and I would just hope that he would accept them for what they are, which are true statements , and will act on them. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member does not have a point of order . The Honourable Member for Assiniboia . Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): Question Period , is it expired? Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired . Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! SPEAKER'S RULING Mr. Speaker: Order , please; order , please. I have a ruling for the House . On August 30, the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr.

Cowan) rose on a matter of privilege respecting discrepancies between the account of my ruling of August 26 as it appeared in the Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard for that day. For the information of all Honourable Members , parliamentary privilege is defined as the sum of the rights enjoyed by a Legislature collectively and by its Members individually , which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers . Improper 960 interference with the rights of Members indivi dually or with the rights of a Legislature collectively may constitute a breach of privilege.

A bona fide question of privilege is a most serious matter and should therefore be taken seriously by the House. There is no question that the matter raised by the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) arises from a serious error which should not have been allowed to occur. I have studied the Honourable Member 's motion and his remarks on the matte r with care. There is no doubt that a deliberate falsification of the official records of a Legislature would constitute a breach of privilege.

However, the Honourable Member, in his remarks and in his motion , has referred only to the existence of "a serious discrepancy ," the addition of " a substantive issue " and the fact that the Votes " do not accurately reflect your ru ling ." The Honourable Member , in his motion and in his remarks , also has claimed the inaccuracy in the Votes and Proceedings referred to is a breach of the privileges of all Members of the House. In my opinion , however, the Honourable Member has failed to substantiate that claim .

For both of the aforementioned reasons , I must rule that the Honourable Member has failed to establish a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has occurred. His motion is therefore out of order as a matter of privilege. Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): Mr. Speaker , with all due respect , I mu st challenge your ruling . Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged . Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? All those in favour , please say Yea. All those opposed , please say Nay. In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Cowan: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker . Mr. Speaker: Call in the Members .

The question before the House is, " Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? " *

(1510) A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows : YEAS Alcock , Angus, Burrell , Carr, Carstair s, Charles, Cheema, Chornopyski , Cummings , Downey , Driedger (Emerson), Driedger (Niakwa), Ducharme , Edwards , Enns, Ernst , Evans (Fort Garry), Filmon , Findlay, Gaudry , Gilleshammer, Gray , Hammond , Helwer , Kozak, Lamoureux, Mandrake , Manness , Mccrae , Minenko , Mitchelson , Neufeld, Oleson, Orchard , Pankratz, Patterson , Penner , Praznik , Roch , Rose , Taylor.

Thursday, September 1, 1988 NAYS Cow an, Doer , Evans (B randon East), Ha rapiak, Harper, Hemphill, Malo way, Plohman, Storie, Uruski, Wasylycia-Leis. Mr. Clerk, William Remnant: Yeas 41; Nays 11. Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair ha s been sustained. SPEAKER' S STATEMENT Mr. Speaker: I have a statement for the House at this time. I would also like to take this opportunity to advise the House that I have personally inquir ed into the events brought to the attention of the House by the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr.

Cowan), and have established that this very serious error occurred entirely because of a bona fide mistake. Cons equent ly, I have ens ur ed that satisfactory safeguards were put in place at once to protect the House against recurrences of this kind. I have also inst ructed the Clerk of the House, following House of Commons precedents, to issue an erratum to correct the error in the Votes and Proceedings of August 26. I trus t tha t this con clude s the matter to the satisfaction of all Honourable Members. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, before Orders of the Day, I would like to advise Honourable Members and staff of this place that the House Leaders have- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. Mr. McCrae: I would like to advise all Honourable Members that the House Leaders have agreed that the House shall observe Monday as a holida y, and that Tuesday shall be treated as a Tuesday. Be it moved, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the Ho use resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Ma jesty , with the Honourable Member for Min nedosa (Mr. Gi lleshammer) in the Chair for the Department of Community Services; and the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks (Mr. Minenko) in the Chair for the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. * (15 20) 961 CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUP PLY SUP PL Y-CO MMUNITY SERVICES Mr. Chairman, Harold Gilleshammer: The committee will come to order. This

section of the committee will be dealing with the Department of Community Services. We are at Admin istration and Finance, item (c)(1), Salaries, $752,000.00. Shall the item pass? Ms. Avis Gray (EIIice): A couple of questions before proceeding to this appropriation. I was wondering if we could ask the Mi nister of Community Services (Mrs.

Oleson), in the Sup plementary Estimates, on page 55, reference number 13, External Agencies, and page 57, reference number 14, and page 66 under Child and Family Services, we have an indication of the '87-88 dollars which were allotted to External Agencies and a number of other agencies. Would it be possible to get a list tabled of what exactly the amounts will be for the '88-89 fiscal year? Hon. Charlotte Oleson (M ini ster of Commun ity Services): Mr. Chairman, we will provide those lists when we get to those lines. Ms.

Gray: Could I ask: Would it be possible to get the lists ahead of time if they are prepared? Mrs. Oleson: I am sure, if we happen to take a long time getting to those lines, then I can provide it beforehand but I have not got it tod ay. Ms. Gray: Could you possibly have it by some time next week even if we are not to those appropriations, those lines yet? Mrs. Oleson: Yes, we could provide those a little earlier. Ms. Gray: Mr. Chairperson, in reading through the qu estions tha t were asked on the Research and Planning, I had noted that the Member for St. Johns (Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis) had asked a few questions in regard to any new legislation or revisions, and she had specifically mentione d The Social Services Adminis tration Act. Reading through the information, I was a little bit unclear as to exactly what the Minis ter's response was. Could we get some clarification from the Minister as to whether that par ticular Act is being reviewed, amended? Mrs. Oleson: lt is being reviewed to make sure that it is appr op ri ate to new services tha t are being developed. I have not authoriz ed any amendments at this time. Ms.

Gray: Could the Minis ter elab orate on what specifically is being reviewed or what is the intent of the review of this particular Act? Mrs. Oleson: Over the years, there has been new funding given to various agencies and programs, and we want to be sure that the Act covers and allows those

Thursday, September 1, 1988 things to flow. In other words, we want to be sure that we are dealing with this properly. Ms. Gray: Has the Mi nister's staff identified to her or has she been made aware through other avenues of any particular difficulties or problems associated with this particular Act? Mrs. Oleson: I have just seen some preliminary material on it. I have not seen anything in a final draft. Ms. Gray: Could the Mini ster tell us what the nature of that prelimina ry information was? * (1 530) Mrs.

Oleson: That, for the Member, is to do with the contracting of services and the appropriate ways in which we fund agencies. Ms. Gray: Is there any other area of concern to the Mi nister or her department under the regulations or any part of the Act? Mrs. Oleson: We are looking at all of those matters just to be sure that we are on track. I cannot give you anything specific at this time, but all these matters are being reviewed. Ms. Gray: Could the Mini ster tell us if the review is currently under way? If I understand what she is saying correctly that there is a review on the way with this particular Act.

Is there a time frame under which this review of this Act would be completed? Mrs. Oleson: One of the things, of course, that is holding us up is the Estimates process; then we will have to be looking at next year's Budget. We will be getting to it and working on it as soon as possible. Ms. Gray: Could the Mini ster tell us if in fact the review of this particular Act is a priority with her department? Mrs. Oleson: lt is one of the priorities. Ms. Gray: Can we expect a review, even a prelimi nary review, to be completed say within the next two or three months? Mrs. Oleson: Proba bly, we would be able to it.

If you allow us time to do it properly, we would need until the end of the fiscal year. Ms. Gray: Just again to clarify, my understanding is that it has been mentioned that in fact there will be a review. One of the concerns in this particular Act is the contracting out of services. Mrs. Oleson: Yes. Ms. Gray: And to this point, the Mini ster is not aware of any other particular concern that follows to the jurisdiction of that particular Act? Mrs. Oleson: As I said before, we are in preliminary stages.

I have not completely reviewed all the materials, 962 so it would be difficult for me to say that yes or no, that there was not anything else that concerned me. I will be looking at all -1 will be making sure that it is appropriate and that it answers any concerns that come to us. Ms. Gray: The Research and Planning area also includes some contracting to other agencies. lt mentions the Social Planning Council. Has Research and Planning, within the last fiscal year, contracted to the Social Planning Council for any kind of research or evaluation? Mrs.

Oleson: During '87-88, we had contracts with tha t agenc y for th ree stu die s. We were studying overcrowding at the Remand Centre. Of course, that is no longer in the purview of this department so that anything to do with that will be sent directly, I would imagine, to the Attorney-General. We were doing an evaluation of in-home services and an analysis of base line Welcome Home data. Ms. Gray: I understand in my question before about the Welcome Home review that we agreed to discuss that further on in the reference num bers and appropriations, and that is fine.

Could the Mini ster explain to me what in-home services is? Mrs. Oleson: lt is homemaker services that go in to help people in their own homes. Ms. Gray: What was the purpose and the scope or the intent of this particular review, and has it been completed? Mrs. Oleson: The study was done to see whether there are any policy overlaps to make sure that it was properly coordinated and it has not been finalized? Ms. Gray: With regard to homemakers, what types of services do hom emakers provide in Community Services? Mrs. Oleson: They provide services to children through the child welfare. Ms.

Gray: Was part of this review or study or research to look at client satisfaction of homemakers and homemaker services? Mrs. Oleson: No, it was not. This study was initiated before I came on the scene, so I am not terribly familiar with it, and I am hoping to get the results of that survey soon, but, no, that was not the case. Ms. Gray: Do I understand then that the results of the survey or research or study have been completed and perhaps we can know? Mrs. Oleson: The results are in the process of being finalized. Ms.

Gray: Does this particular in-home study have any ramifications which spill over to the Department of

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Health since those departments have direct service workers? Mrs. Oleson: Yes, it may do, and of course, not having seen the final results of the study, I cannot be that clear on it, but it may have because some of it could be perhaps home care. Ms. Gray: When Research and Planning contracts out studies or research to third parties such as the Social Planning Council or, I might assume, other agencies, what criteria is used to determine what types of Government information would be released to the agencies? Mrs.

Oleson: That matter would depend on the terms of reference of the study as to what information they were given. lt would certainly depend on how much information they needed in order to do the study. Ms. Gray: Is there a specific kind of Government information that in fact can be released to third parties, or is there a policy regarding what cannot be released to third parties? Mrs. Oleson: The confi dentialit y with regard to individuals would be maintained unless they had the permission of the individual to have information used.

In other words, confidentiality would be maintained; that would be one of the criteria of the study. Ms. Gray: Am I clear then in understanding that before any type of information can be released to third parties that the permission of the client or the individual must be sought? Mrs. Oleson: If they are protected by confidential ity, that will be the case. Ms. Gray: Would the Mini ster clarify for us who would be protected by confidentiality and who would not be? Mrs. Oleson: One example will be famili es rec eiving Child and Family Services. Ms.

Gray: Is there a written policy statement abcut confidentiality guidelin es and release of information within this department? Mrs. Oleson: The Child and Family Services Act, which would be the legislation that would govern in this department. * (15 40) Ms. Gray: Other than Child and Family Services, the other components of the department where Child and Family Services would have no jurisdiction, is there a policy statement and/or guidelines regarding the release of information and confidentiality for the rest of the department? Mrs. Oleson: Yes, there are statements but we do not have them with us today.

I could not give you the policy because I do not have it with me today. 963 Ms. Gray: Could the Min ister confer with her staff and at least give us an indication of what the nature of those guideli nes are? Would she be prepared to table that policy or guidel ines with us early next week? Mrs. Oleson: Mr. Chairman, yes, I can provide the Member with that. I further would say that when The Freedom of Information Act is proclaimed, then all those things would be available through that. Ms.

Gray: Is this polic y statement and guidelin e something that has been communicated with all staff at all levels within the department? Mrs. Oleson: Yes, it is my understanding it has. Ms. Gray: So I can assume then that it is not left to the discretion of indi vidual regions or branches of the department to develop their own guidelin es and policy regarding release of information? Mrs. Oleson: No, definitely not. Policies would be given to the staff and they would be instructed to abide by them. Ms.

Gray: Could the Minister tell us if the foster parents were notified and asked permission if their names and addresses could be released to a third party? Mrs. Oleson: Under my request, the names were given to me by the agencies and, under the Act, that is allowed. You can use that sort of information for surveys and reviews. The Member is referring to the foster parents survey. The only information that was there were names, addresses and phone numbers. There was no other information given. Ms.

Gray: Could the Min ister assist me and tell me where in The Child and Family Services Act that provision is there regarding the release of names, addresses, etc.? Mrs. Oleson: What the Member would be referring to would be Clause 76(3)(

d) of The Child and Family Services Act. Ms. Gray: Could you explain that for us, please, because I do not happen to have the Act with me? Mrs. Oleson: Clause 76(3)(

d) of the legislation allows for retaining or consulting a person to conduct reviews or surveys. This practice is used often for external reviews. Ms. Gray: So the clause refers to consulting a person. Does that mean that those persons then would also include clients? Mrs. Oleson: Foster parents are not clients. They provide a service to the department. Ms. Gray: Yes, I understand that the foster parents are not, in the true sense of the word, I suppose, how a social worker would define a client as a client. But when the clause refers to "person," how does one know

Thursday, September 1, 1988 whether those persons are the clients or are people such as foster parents who are providing a service. Mrs. Oleson: We have a legal opinion that advises us that foster home files are included under

Section 76 of the Act concerning confidentia lity. In this case the Member wants to discuss, no files were given to the survey company. No information was given from files. The only people that have that information is the Child and Family Services Agencies. Ms. Gray: Is it clear to the Child and Family Services Agencies that in fact information of this nature, under the Child and Family Services Act, as interpreted by the department, can in fact be given to third parties at will? Mrs. Oleson: I am sure that they understand the Act.

I am going to be meeting with the president of the Child and Family Services Agencies next week at which time we will probably be discussing that. Ms.

Gray: Does the Mini ster of Community Services feel that perhaps this particular clause of The Child and Family Services Act, that there needs to be some clarification or changes given the expressed concern of foster parents across Manitoba about the fact that their names and phone numbers that were given out to a third party and that they were called and asked all of these questions with some implications that some of the foster parents interpreted as being very negative? Mrs.

Oleson: I think, perhaps, for the Mem ber's edification, maybe I should comment on some of the rumours and so forth that are going around about that survey. I was very concerned when it came to my attention, through media and otherwise, that people thought they would be asked que stions of matters that were confidential, so I had this looked into. The survey company that did the survey identified themselves as phoning on behalf of the Government. They asked a series of questions.

What happened , we did not realize, that at the same time that survey was being done, the Child and Family Services Agencies were also phoning some of the foster parents to make inqu iries about placements in case of a moratorium and that sort of thing. They were getting information which is their duty to do. We believe that is what happened. Some of the people were phoned by the survey, others were phoned by the Child and Family Services Agencies and that is why there is confusion and mixup. Naturally, the Child and Family Services Agencies had this sort of information.

We are legitima tely asking-and had the information about whether or not how many childr en they had and so forth. Legitima tely, if they were asking someone that they knew by the file was on social assist ance, they were asking them legitima tely whether or not it would be suitable for them to take more child ren in the case of moratoriums. I firmly belie ve that is the mixup that occurred. There were no personal questions asked.

There was no information given to the su rvey company that would 964 cause them to ask anything in the nature of the feedback that we have been getting, for instance, of how many foster childr en or whether or not they were on social assistance. That appears to be what happened. lt was very unf ortuna te th at ther e was a gr eat of misunderstanding over this whole matter. Ms.

Gray: Could the Min ister explain to us why her Government department would not be aware of what the Child and Family Services agencies were doing in preparation of a possible moratorium in regard to the agencies making continge ncy plans such as phoning foster parents to get an indi cation? Why would there not be that communication between the agencies and the department on this crucial issue? Mrs. Oleson: There was a great deal of communication back and forth between the agencies and the department. The agencies had been instruc ted to prepare for a contingency plan and they were doing their job.

We found it to be necessary to have a survey done to give us some quick information so that we would be able to see what position we were in. Unfortunately, this happened at the same time. * (1 550) Ms. Gray: Is the Mini ster then sa ying th at the department had no knowledge at all as to what the Child and Family Services Agencies were doing in regard to checking out with their particular foster parents for contingency plans? Mrs. Oleson: Yes, I said that we knew that these Child and Family Services Agencies were working on the contingency plans.

We did not know that they were specifically phoning at that time, and that, I believe, is how th e problem occurred. We were see kin g information; they were seeking a different type of information. Ms. Gray: Who would have been the staff people in the Child and Family Services Agency who would be doing the phoning? I am assuming staff did it, and another third party. Mrs. Oleson: As far as I know, it was the agency staff. I do not know personally who made the calls. Ms.

Gray: If it was the agency staff, one would certainly-or at least I would assume, that in fact the staff of each particular agency are known to the foster parents since they have an ongoing relationship and would probably identify them as such when they made those phone calls.

The concern coming from the foster parents- I want to clarify the word "rumour." In fact, we have had specific information from specific foster parents who said that, in fact, when they were phoned and asked , they were told that it was someone calling on behalf of the Manitoba Government, and a number of foster parents specifically asked if they could identify who they were because there was some concern. Anybod y can phone and say, I am calling on behalf of the

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Manitoba Government. In fact, they did not get any responses at aiL Would !he Mini ster like to comment on that? Mrs. Oleson: There have only been two complaints that I am aware of about this. I am concerned about this misunderstanding and the problems that were caused by that, but I genuinely belie ve what has happened was that the people got confused between the two different phone calls. Some of them may have even been phoned twice, which would add to the confusion.

I cannot explain to the Member exactly what was said on each telephone line and I think sometimes people do get mixed up about these surveys when they get them. I know I have been surveyed and I am sure the Member has, and at the end of the phone call you do not always remember exactly what was said at the first part of the phone call. Ms. Gray: The comments ab out surveys and it has been made by the Mini ster here and been made by the First Min ister (Mr. Filmon) in the House , obviously about some difficulties people have with surveys.

Did it not occur to the Mini ster and her staff that in fact if they wanted to get some good information from the foster parents in Manitoba, that if they had solicited the support of the Foster Parents Association in conducting that kind of survey, then in fact they may have gotten cooperation and some good answers from the foster parents, rather than responses which were cloaked in fear, as one foster parent put it to me?

Did it not occur to the Mini ster and her staff that if they had gotten the cooperation of the Foster Parents Association, who would certainly be willing to help out in any kind of information gathering, and to do it that way rather than going to some third party doing a survey which all indications are from this Mi nister and the First Mini ster tha t in fact surveys do sometimes upset people? There is misi nterpretation that there would not have been this very unfortunate reaction that had occurred because of the result of the survey. Mrs.

Oleson: I do not think the Member is being realistic when she says that the foster parents should have been helping with the contingency plans for a moratorium. I think that is stretching it a little bit far. The survey quest ions were read from a script by professional people, a professional polling firm. I am very upset that there were people confused about it and upset about it and it is unfortunate that happened. But I have explained to the Member that a professional polling firm did this and we had very good reason for doing it.

We had a great deal of concern for the child ren of this province and that is the ultimate concern. I think if I or my department or this Government erred on the side of helping to protect children, then I think that we were in the right. Ms. Gray: Mr. Chairpers on, the Mini ster has brought up the subject of what was discussed in the survey, and there seems to be two thoughts here. The Mini ster of Community Services (Mr s. Oleson) has indicated today, and indicated in the House as well, that the 965 purpose o! the survey was to better plan for contingency planning in the event of a moratorium.

The First Min ister (Mr. Filmon) in the House, as well, said that, but then a day or so later, in fact expanded and somewhat changed his mind and opinion and said , as well as contingency planning, the survey also was seeking information as to what kind of support the Foster Parents Association had from the foster parents across Manitoba. Was then that survey more than just contingency planning, as indicated by the First Minister in the House? Mrs. Oleson: All that was part of contingency planning. We needed information and we sought to get it. Ms. Gray: The Mini ster of Community Services (Mr s.

Oleson) and some of her department and/or the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon), were they concerned that the Foster Parents Association were not representing the views of foster parents across Mani toba? Mrs. Oleson: We wanted to assure ourselves that we could meet the needs of the childr en of this province. That was our primary concern; that still is our concern , that the childr en who need our protection and our help get that protect ion. That is one of my responsibilities as a Minis ter, and that is why all the information was needed.

We needed to know exactly where we were because we were faced with a possible moratorium. Nobody wanted that moratorium but we could not just sit back and wait and see whether it happened. We had to prepare ourselves in the event that it happened. Actually, also if I may add, at this time the Foster Parents Association are canvassing their membership to get support for this agreement that we reached, which is a very important agreement.

I do not think it is very productive to be going off on these tangents, discussing things which may have the potential of jeopardizing those discussions and a good conclusion to this agreement. We want that agreement to be ratified by the foster parents of this province, and I think that the association wants that to be ratified. I know they do, or they would not have signed it. So I do not think that any of this extraneous talk and rumour and so forth has any place and will in any way help the situation. Ms.

Gray: I take objection to the fact that this is consid ered extraneous. lt was the foster parents themselves who brought the concerns forth to us and other Members in the House regarding this survey, and I think, unfortunately, and it happened, what we would want to do is ensure that this kind of survey, with these obviously negative results, do not occur in the future. The Mini ster mentioned that there were two specific complaints brought to her attention. Has she pursued those two specific complaints with the survey company? Mrs.

Oleson: Yes, I was concerned about that, but they cannot be related to what the survey company did. I am following up on it to be sure, just to make sure, double sure, that there were no mistakes made

Thursday, September 1, 1988 by that company. I am sure that there were not. They read from the script; they did their job. Ms. Gray: My question to the Mini ster of Community Services (Mr s. Oleson) is-as hindsight is wonderful, I suppose-would the Mini ster again, if she had to do this over again, reconsider giving a survey to a third party and actually having that survey conducted? Mrs.

Oleson: I believe I said before that the care and protection of childr en is upp ermost, and when you are faced with a su bject like this, when you are faced with these sort of eventualiti es, you do everything you can, everything that is within your power to do, to be sure the children are safe. That is what was done. The president of the Ma nitoba Foster Parents Association, who was beside me at the press conference when we announced this agreement, was asked about the su rvey and did indicate that she was not pleased with it.

That is certainly her right to do so, but after that she said, "But some good really came of this. " Certainly there was no animosity with that group when I met with them on Mond ay. Obvious ly, if there had been a great deal of animosity and unhappine ss with us, we would never have signed that agreement. Ms.

Gray: Can we assume then, if future issues come up related to the area of foster parents as an example, that this Government has no dif ficulty in using third parties, pursuing information and asking telephone surveys with a group such as foster parents, who would appear not to be covered under that particular clause in The Child and Family Services Act? * (1 600) Mrs. Oleson: This is hypothetical because we do not know what situations may come up.

We would treat each situation as it arises, but there are many, many, many occasions where governments and others use consulting firms, polling firms to get information. That is not unusual. it is not the first time it has ever been done. I am not the first Mini ster that has ever used a poll to find out information and I certainly will, no doubt, not be the last. Ms. Gray: Mr. Chairperson, I am quite sure this Min ister is not the first nor the last who will be using polling companies.

However, I might point out to the Min ister that in all instances that I am aware of within the Department of Community Services a specific release of information has always been sought from indi viduals before their names and addresses were given out. In fact, there have been very stringent guidelines about that. Mrs. Oleson: Yes, the agencies were aware; they gave us the list. The agencies were aware we had them; they were aware we needed them for contingency plans. They were used in good faith; there was no information about individuals.

You could get the same information that we had from any telephone book in this province. Ms. Gray: Could the Mini ster assure for us here today that in the future, wherever foster parents or other 966 individuals who provide this service are being surveyed, that permission would be asked for ahead of time, either individually or by an association that represents them, such as the foster parents, rather than just going ahead and doing it without any consultation whatsoever? Mrs. Oleson: Is the Member suggesting that I phone them up and ask them if they want to be surveyed? Ms.

Gray: What I am suggesting in this particular instance where the Foster Parents Association were very, very interested and willing to work with the Government, and they certainly-my indications are from them that they would have been prepared to session a survey, or assist with the survey, and they could have understood the concerns that perhaps the Government had some difficult y, or was unsure, that was this particular association in fact representing all foster parents across Manitoba. They would have been glad to assist in giving that kind of information without having the negative impacts that have occurred.

What we want to do here today is to ensure that in the future, and assure to foster parents and to other Manitobans across the province, that the Government will act responsibly in terms of-and judiciously in terms of how they use names and addresses of service providers, or clients in terms of garnering and getting information. Mrs. Oleson: For the Member, the Government, this Min ister did act responsib ly. We were faced with a moratorium that was threatened by the very people she said should have been helping us get information for contingenc y.

I am just a little confused about how the Me mber fig ures tha t works. This was the organ ization which was thr eaten in g us with a moratorium, so we had to get information about how we could care for the children. To ask them, who are facing us with a moratorium, to then come and solve the contingency plans, I do not quite understand what you are getting at. Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St.

Johns): I, too, have some questions related to the surveys, since I think this has been a new event that has unfolded since our last meeting of Estimates last Thursda y, and I gu ess I would like to follow up with a question that I do not believe the Mini ster herself has actually answered, given the concerns she has expressed today with some of the problems that emerged with the actual telephoning of foster parents, and given the fact that this survey did almost jeopardize, it would seem, the reaching of a tentative agreement, and in fact put at risk the children. lt raises the very matter that the Mi nister herself has expressed concern about.

Given that kind of situation, could she indicate to us today, if she had to do the whole thing over again, would she do it differently? Does she now believe that survey was a mistake? Mrs. Oleson: The survey gave us some valuable information. We met with the foster parents the next Monda y evening, we came to a really good agreement. We sat down with them, and we had a lot of

Thursday, September 1, 1988 conversation. We talked about the survey, we talked about a lot of things, but we came to an excellent agreement. I think the agreement we came to is the important thing in this whole mess. We came to an agreement, we averted a morator ium. We hope that agreement will be ratified by the membership. We were making sure that child ren were protected. That is the responsibility of this Min ister, this Government, this department, to make sure that childr en are protected. Childr en who need our protection can count on getting that protection. That is the whole crux of the matter.

What I would do or would not do or might do is really immaterial to the whole discussion. Ms. Wasylycia-leis: I think all of us on the other side of the House, certainly want to indi cate that we believe that it was an important development to arrive at this agreement. We beli eve the agr eement, although tentative yet, is basically a good one and we will be anxiously awaiting the results of the membership.

However, I think there are real concerns on our part about the weeks and the days leading up to that agreement, about how a tentative agreement was reached at the very last moment just about, and how fragile discussions were and how much polarization was occurring around the issue. lt would appear from all of our discussions with foster parents, with agency people, with interested citizens, that this survey threw a real ringer into the discussions. lt jeopardized good-faith bargaining, and it could have caused the whole thing to blow up and lead us straight to a moratorium today.

That would, of course, been the ultima te wrongdoing for children and for foster parents of this province. Given the Mi nister's last words on this matter, could she indicate to us what information from that survey was useful in terms of rea ching a sett lement on Monday? What information was gathered? What was presented to the foster parents? How did that help in terms of actually arriving at a tentative agreement on Monday? Mrs.

Oleson: The important thing was that there was an agreement reached on Monda y. lt was no t jeopardized by the survey. lt was a good meeting which resulted in a good agreement, which we hope will be ratified. That is the important and overriding principle of this whole thing. I am sure the Member and I and the Li beral critic could sit here for days and argue, and we will not agree on this. I believe that a good agreement was rea ched. The child ren are protected. We do not have a moratorium on foster care today, and that is the important and overriding thing in the whole matter. Ms.

Wasylycia-leis: I guess I am still not sure I have an answer. I know I do not have an answer to the question. I am still not sure what information was useful from the survey, why the survey was necessary. I would like to know, given the Mi nister's comments in response to an earlier question that it was impossible to work with the Manitoba Foster Parents Association to gather the necessary information that the survey gathered, because they were the very people involved 967 with presenting the notion of a moratorium, could she clarify why-1 guess I do not understand her answer to that question.

Could she clarify why it was not possible to work with the Manitoba Foster Parents Associ ation as the representative official organization for foster parents in the province with a good wealth of information, why it was not possible to sit down and get the same information going that route rather than going the route over the heads of the association and directly to the members that it represents? Mrs. Oleson: I did not ever say that it was impossible to work with the Foster Parents Association. Obviously , we can work with them, because we came to an agreement.

I think the Member is missing the entire point of what I said before. If someone is threatening you with a moratorium, you do not ask them to make your plans for contingenc y. I mean, that would be stre tching it a bit. * (1 610) Ms. Wasylycia-leis: If I could ask a few questions about that survey in specific detail, could the Mini ster indicate when the notion of a survey was generated and when it was decided to go ahead with the actual survey? Mrs. Oleson: We had been concerned with this problem for some time. We had been discussing different ways of how we could deal this.

We needed a firm and quick way to know what contingency plans we needed to go further. We had some on the go, but we needed to know how many homes we could count on and how many we would need to take care of the children. Of course, we never know exactly how many children need to be taken care of at any given moment or how many homes are available. We needed information, and this did not happen out of the blue. We discussed it at great length, so I do not think the Member needs to be further concerned about the su rvey. lt provi ded us in forma tion, an agreement was reached, and we hope that it is ratified. Ms.

Wasylycia-leis: What role did her department and her Research and Planning Branch have in this matter? Mrs. Oleson: The Research and Planning Branch had no role in this. We hired a private company to do the survey. Ms. Wa sylycia-leis: Could the Min ister indicate for us who hired the firm of Western Opinion Research? Mrs. Oleson: The Government hired the firm. Ms. Wasylycia-leis: Could the Mini ster indicate exactly who was involved in executing the decision, who was involved in liaising with the agency, who cont racted with the agency? Mrs.

Oleson: I gave the information to the Member that the Government had cont racted with the firm.

Thursday, September 1, 1988 Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Who specifically in Government was responsible for this contract? Who signed the contract? Mrs. Oleson: I think that is immateriaL The Government hired people to do the survey. lt was done, and the agreement has been signed with the Foster Parents Assoc iation. Children are being taken care of and I think the rest of the thing is extraneous and immateriaL Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: We have just spent an hour discussing the matter of the survey. The Foster Parents Association tells me that-1 mean, the Mini ster is assuming responsibility for the issue.

I would expect her to be able to answer if it is her department that was responsible for it or another department or the Premier's (Mr . Filmon) Office or what. Who in Government, what part of her Government contracted with the agency, signed the contract? Mrs. Oleson: I, as Min ister, am responsible for this department, but I do not take every decision by myself. I discuss it with my colleagues, I discuss it with Cabinet. We work as a team. The Member may not be particularly familiar with that sort of route in Government, but that is how this Government operates. We work as a team, we work together.

We are very happy that we came to an agreement with the Foster Parents Association, and I hope that the discussions and the extraneous material that has been brought into this does nothing to jeopardize the ratification of that agreement Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just to indicate to the Minister , I am quite well versed about Government and how it operates. I know that someone has to sign the contract. One Min ister has fina l res ponsibil ity, has ultima te responsibilit y, has the responsibility for execution and admini stra tion. Who is responsible? Was it her department or herself? Could she be specific?

Certainly I think we are all here to look for information in this very serious matter. Mrs. Oleson: I do not think it makes one bit of difference who signed the contract. The department, the Government contracted to get a -(Interjection)- it may be to you. You are dragging in extraneous materiaL This Government contracted to have a survey done. lt was done, and that is it. Mr. Chairman: On Item (c)(1), Salaries, shall the item pass? Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: No, I have some further questions.

I think we are still interested in getting an answer to that question so I would ask , again, if the Mini ster could indicate what role her responsibil ity had in terms of the survey and who was responsible for liaising with the agency, who worked with the agency, who is responsible for the work, and who signed the contract? Mrs. Oleson: I will repeat for the Member- the Government contr acted with a company to do a su rvey.

The survey was done; the information was very usefuL 968 An agreement was subsequently reached with the Foster Parents Association. lt is the agreement that is the most important thing here; I think the Members are forgetting that. The agreement that was reached and the moratorium that was averted is the very, very essence of this whole thing , and who signed contracts and who did not talk to who, and did not do what, is really not important. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairman, okay, let me just back up for one moment.

The Mini ster just gave a very lengthy answer to the question about why it was necessary to do the survey. She felt it was critical in terms of the whole situation. Therefore, she has taken considerable responsibility for it. Could she please indicate if it was her department and herself, as Min ister, that saw this survey through in terms of all of its stages, including the selection of the agency, the contract ing with the agency, the development of questions, the compiling of information, the use of that information? Mrs.

Oleson: As I said before, the agreement that was reached with the Foster Parents Assoc iation, the agreement that they are at this moment seeking to have ratified, is the important and overriding thing in this whole matter. We were very, very concerned that we might be faced with a moratorium this very day. We worked for a long time and we discussed this at great length and we were working on contingency plans. Our Government is very, very concerned that people under our care get the service they need and deserve, and that is the overriding principle under which we work. *

(1620) We recognize that foster parents in this province do a great deal of service for this community, this province. They have been having problems with rates. They discussed for years with the Government of which that Member was a part. They have now come to an agreement which is far greater strides than they have ever been able to manage under the former NDP Government, and that to me is the most important part of this thing. We have reached an agreement that reaches into the future.

We have not said to them, go away, here is a Bill of Rights, have this for dinner, and not negotiated and not planned for the future. We have planned for the future, the future rate increases for three budg ets. That is some thing that has never happened to this gr oup before and that is very important. That is the important, the overriding factor in this whole thing; that they have an excellent, very excellent agreement of which I can be proud, the Government can be proud, and the Members opposite should be proud.

They keep being preoccupied with things that are in the past and not really relevant to the agreement. The agreement was reached with all sides sitting down. One thing that I learned from the Foster Parents Association when we had that meeting on Monda y, one reason that they had wanted things written down clearly and signed was because they heard these sort of

Thursday, September 1, 1988 promises given to them before. They thought that this Government was just the same as the other perhaps , that we would say oh, yes, we are going to negotiate in the future and then it would never happen. We found that we had said that we would negotiate . We knew we were going to. But they wanted it in writing . So we gave it to them in writing. They had these sort of promises for years and nothing had come to fruition. When I realized that was the problem , I could certainly see it.

They have tried for years to give the NOP Government the information that their funds were not adequate . They have patted them on the head and said go away, we will give you this little , from this year . This Government has done more than any other Government for years to help the foster parents of this province . We came to an excellent agreement not only for this year-a large increase for this year -but the assurance signed in black and white that they will have an agreement, that they will have increments for three Budgets in a row and then the ability to negotiate after that.

We have assured them that their association will get its funding which was never a question of what form was in question but they are getting their funding . We have given them extra money by way of - we are paying their insurance premium . They could free up those funds that are within their grant in order to do some training which they tell us is needed . I believe that it is. I have met with foster parents over the last few weeks and learned of their con cerns .

When we we re finished , we had discussed this agreement on Monday , and we were waiting for the final draft in the "i's" to be dotted and the " t's" to be crossed . We had some good discussion on plans for the future and what were the problems that they faced as foster parents and as an association in dealing with agencies, in dealing with Government , and dealing with the children that they take care of?

I promised them at that time that we would sit down often in the future and discuss ways that we could improve the situation for the children, the ways that we could improve their relationship with the agencies. We will sit down with the agencies and discuss that . We discussed the ways that we could make things smoother through working with Government. We left that meeting in a very up-beat way. We had really accomplished a lot. I am very proud of that agreement.

I think to take anything away from it, in the manner that the Member is doing, in fact, possibly could put that agreement in jeopardy, is really not doing any service to the children of Manitoba . Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I think that the Minister 's answer really just begs the question: Why did it take until three days before the moratorium for the Minister to put anything on the table besides a counter proposal which only included taking money aware from the Foster Parents Association and to give directly to the foster parents?

Now, I think if we are talking about irresponsible action, if we are talking about accelerating tension s and about jeopardizing negotiations, I think we have the perfect example of that in this particular instance . There was no movement. There was no cooperation . 969 There was no sensitivity on the part of this Minister or the Government to the foster parent concerns until enough pressure was amo unted by Monday . Our quest ions tod ay have not to do with the agreement. They have not to do with jeopardizing the agreement.

They have to do with the policy of this Government with respect to relations and negotiations with sim ilar organizations, with non-profit community organizations in the Manitoba community . What we have here is a very fright ening situation. We are tryi ng to get an understanding fro m this Minister how she intends to deal with other similar organizations when talking about levels of operating funds, when talking about fees , when talking about any p artic ular fiscal or non fiscal related matter with any non-profit community based organization that she deals with .

So let us get back to the situation at hand which is why the survey. What info rmation was gathered ? Would the Min ister plea se indicate then if she, to go back to her statement which is that the information was so necessary from this survey to deal with the potential morator ium, to deal with the situation of having to find alternative arrangements after today, September 1, the date of the moratorium , what information that survey was going to provide her. What were the questions? How many question s actually asked that question?

How many questions got at the issue of alternative emergency arrangements in the event that a moratorium would take place? How many ques tions were the re in total? How many sought that kind of information? How many questions dealt specifically with trying to ascertain whether the members were prepared to go around their association's wishes, were prepared to break the association, were prepared to take money away from their association and put it in the direction of the foster parents? We would like to know what information was obtained through this survey , how it was put to use and how it is being used now.

Mrs. Oleson: I take excep tion with the Member 's comments about trying to break the association . That certainly was never the intent. However , let me take you back to the first part of these discussion s that I had with the Foster Parents Association . You must remember, I am sure the Member will realize that , when you are doing negotia tions, you make different sugges tions and they are either accepted or turned down . That is what negotiating is all about. I met with the Foster Parent s Assoc iation some time in early July.

The meeting I really want to tal k about is the meeting that was held the day after the Budget. The day afte r the Budget , I met with the Foster Parents Association executi ve and that was the earliest time I could meet with them to discuss Budge t matters, as the Member well knows. I placed before them the information that the rates that we were going to be paying wer e in the Budget for th is year and told the m that information . Of course, they were anxious to know. When I had met with them before, they had indicated

Thursday, September 1, 1988 and told me their problems and I had been told by staff about the problems. I had been briefed on them. They had indicated to me the years that they had tried to negotiate for that raise. At that time I also indicated to them that there was one possibility that they might consider in this whole thing, that they got a grant from the department every year for their association. Would they like to consider, would they consider using part of that as part of the rate for the children? I said that is an idea that I will put before you.

You can either say yes or no. lt will not jeopardize the grant. But take that and think about it with your membership and, when you discuss with them the rate that we are going to give you, the 3 percent increase plus the extra $1-a-day increase, think abo ut that too and let me know. • (16 30) We discussed the problems they have with insurance. We discussed the problems they have concerning legal fees because of the damage that sometimes is incurred by children. We discussed a lot of matters. But that was what I said to them. Now consider this and if that is not to suitable, then tell me that.

When they wrote back to me, they said they preferred not to use that fund for that purpose and I accepted that. Since then, I have learned some of the things they need their funds for and I quite understand that they would turn that down. The grant was never in quest ion, and for the Member to say that it was-they are going to get the money, and then as a result of the agreement they are getting more. They are going to be allowed to use that money that was for their insurance premium; they are going to be using it for training. So I am very pleased with the agreement as it turned out.

Sometimes the road to agreement, as the Member will very well know, is not a smooth one. But when you have reached an agreement and both sides are happy, th at is a tremen do us ach ieveme nt. I think this department has done well to reach an agreement like that with the Foster Parents Associat ion. I have had nothing but a good relationship with them over this agreement; they are happy with it. So to say that I was trying to break the Foster Parents Association is totally wrong. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Chairman, firstly, I would like to congratulate the Min ister on her efforts and on reaching a settlement on this very difficult set of negotiations. I think that the efforts she went to, it was obviously very tough negotiations, and they were conclude d cer tainly in the la st hours before the threatened moratorium. But for those who have been involved in negotiation, one realizes very quickly that often the most difficult negotiations are dissolved in the last moments, as parties are pushed by a time limit to resolve those issues. I am somewhat taken aback by the line of questioning of the Member for St.

Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis). I think her efforts in trying to raise the matter in the Legislature and bring the negotiations into the public forum, serve not to speed up the process of settlement but perhaps jeopard ized that agreement coming to conclusion. 970 Mr. Chairman, my question to the Mini ster is I would like her, if she could today, to put on the record just the rate increases for the information of the committee, that the foster parents received in the last six years. Mrs.

Oleson: We do not have that with us at the moment, but I can send staff to get it and give it to you or read it into the record in a few moments. Mr. Praznik: Certain ly, I think that would be most worthwhile. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Back to the Mi nister's response to my question on the use of the survey to gather necessary information. The Min ister has talked about the fact that she did not want to attempt to break the Manitoba Foster Parents Association.

Given that statement I would ask her, can she indicate whether or not the survey included at least one question on how foster parents felt about dolla rs going from the Manitoba Foster Parents Associations to foster parents? If that was the case, what was the purpose of that line of questioning, given her comments she has just made now, and given her comments made earlier about the need to gather information ? Mrs. Oleson: I do not have the questions in front of me so I would be paraphrasing, trying to recall exactly what was said. But as I said before, we used that survey to get information.

Even the Foster Parents Association said that some good came of the whole thing. The whole thing resulted in a very good agreement being signed. I will stand by that agreement. I am just hopeful that the foster parents in Manitoba ratify it. I have, for the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), I can read him part of the agreement that was signed which has to do with the rate increases that were signed and the other matters of course that were signed by myself and the president of the Foster Parents Association on Mon day.

One of them was an increase in the basic foster care rate, was effective April 1, 1988, will be 3 percent. lt is retroactive to April 1. And then $1 a day effective September 1, 1988, an average increase of 12.4 percent.

In the future, because this is an agreement that is not only for today but goes into three budgets, is the way we did it, foster care rates will be increased in equal and cons ecutive percentage incr ements in accordance with the following schedule: The date of September 1, 1988, ages 0 to 10, $10.84, which is an increase of 13.40 percent; and ages 11 to 17, $16.23, which is an increase of 9.7 percent. I might say, before I continue reading this, we have gone from a breakdown of four age groups.

We have translated that into-which did have four age groups before-at the suggest ion of the indepth report that was done on foster care rates. At that suggestion, we have moved to, instead of having the four age groups, we are having two age groups. We think that will help in the future to bring the rates closer in line. They were straying somewhat. By the end of this agreement, they should be fairly close in line.

Thursday, September 1, 1988 I will continue, that on April 1, 1989, the 0 to 10 age group will reach $13.53, which will be an increase of 24.82 percent. In the same year, the ages 11 to 17 will be $18.74, which will be an increase of 15.48 percent. When we get to April 1 of 1990, the per diem will be for 0 to 10, $16.88, which will be a 24.82 percent increase. When we get to ages 11 and 17, we will have a per diem rate of $21 .64, which is a 15.48 percent increase. In the last budget of the agreement, April 1, 1991, 0 to 10 will have a per diem rate of $2 1.06, which will be a 24.82 percent increase.

The 11 to 17 year olds, in that same year, will be $24.98, with that being an increase of 15.48 percent As has been in the past, the Northern Allowance will be added to that. So that is the sort of rate increases that we negotiated with the foster parents and they seem pleased.

At least now they have a firm commitment that this is going to happen; where before they were promised, this is a firm commitment signed by both parties. * (16 40) I also might say that cooperative commitment to develop objective criteria by which special needs funding is to be allocated to foster parents on a fair and consistent basis is also part of the agreement.

Because I understand from meeting with foster parents sometimes that is a problem with how they have to negotiate individually the special needs, and sometimes they do have a problem with that I think it is a matter of sitting do wn with the association and with the agencies and working out what may be wrink les in the system and make it easier for both parties to come to agreement on how these funds can be allocated.

Because what we were negotiating in this set of negotiations was the basic rate and then above that some foster parents get a special rate increase depending on the needs and the spending needs of the child that they are looking after.

Also, I might add for the Mem ber, another clause of the agreement says the Province of Manitoba will cover the Ma nitoba Foster Parents Association annua l insurance cost on the basis of current coverage and will commit to an establishment of a joint working group with a mandate to develop a foster parents insurance plan; because that was one of the things they were concerned about-their insurance plan. lt is not adequate but of course we could not instantly, for the purpo ses of this agreement, come up with an in surance plan on Mond ay. lt should be easy to understand that.

We have to have that studied some more. By September 1, 1990, we will indemnify the damage insurance costs for members of the Manitoba Foster Parents Association in accordance with the plan that will be worked out. Also, we stated that the Province of Manitoba will undertake to have foster parents accepted as a class covered by Legal Aid, and not income-tested as the usual Legal Aid procedure. We still have to work that out with the Attorney-General but I anticipate certainly no problems with th at.

Foster parents do have sometimes problems in accusations and so forth and they were not covered previously by Legal Aid. Some 971 of them end up having incu rred qu ite substantial legal costs in defending themselves say, for instance, if they were accused of child abuse. This happens to foster parents and we certainly do not want to leave them with huge legal fees to protect themselves from this sort of thing. We also are going to direct current monies on insurance and I mentioned that before, the amount that we currently give them in their grant.

We are going to let them use that for training, and we are going to pay their insurance coverage for this year. Also in the agreement is the written intent of the two parties to negotiate further increases in foster parent rates after April 199 1. So not only do they have the stated rates that are being placed in this agreement and signed by both parties, but they have the assurance that after that date passes, both parties will sit down and negotiate future rates.

I think that is a very important part of the agreement That is one thing they raised with us, well, what happens after 1991, and of course that is a legitimate concern. So written into the agreement is that there will be negotiations to take place after that-probably prior to the expiry of the agreement-but this is the first time that the Foster Parents Association and the foster parents of Manitoba have had this kind of an agreement written and signed by both parties and I think we can be very proud of the achievement of having gotten that agreement also. Mr.

Praznik: I think what the people of Manitoba have come to recognize in the course of these negotiations is that the great difficulty in which Madam Mini ster was placed arise out a long history of unfair treatment of this particular organization by the previous administration. The specific question which I would like to put to the Minister, since we have heard a long period of discussion by other Members of this committee, asking about breaking the associa tion, etc., was what specific rate increases has the association received in the last few years prior to this agreement being signed? Mrs.

Oleson: I understand that over the last few years they have had a 3 to 4 percent increase every year in their grant. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just try a couple more questions and I will pass the mike over to whoever else is waiting. I have been trying to ask questions about the survey for the last half hour, or longer, but to no avail.

The Mini ster is obviously carrying on what happened in the House and stonewalling around any questions pertaining to that particular survey, giving the impression that she is implying that if we ask questions around the sur vey, it will jeopardize the tentative agreement that has been reached. To me that only suggests that there is something in that survey that is rotten, that somet hing is terribly wrong with the su rvey.

That accounts for the fact that no information can be released. lt would almost seem that the Mini ster either does not know, and that all of these decisions were made elsewhere and have not remained in her control,

Thursday, September 1, 1988 or have been dealt with by her department, or that she has some thing to hi de and the Government ha s something to hide. Could the Mi nister clear the air around this whole issue, clear the air , give us some straight answers, so that we can get on with other busi ness? Give us some answers about who was responsibl e for dealing with the agency? Who contracted with the agency? Who wrote the questions? How many questions were there? How many foster parents were surveyed? If she has not got the questions in front of her, give us a breakdown of the questions.

Could she please give us some details on some basic, fundamental issues around the survey to clear the air and to indi cate that there is nothing to hide from anyone, and nothing that was done that was untoward in terms of dealing with the Foster Parents Association that would have jeopardized the negotiations if they had been revealed? Let us clear this matter up here and now. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I am listening to the questioning by the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), and I cannot help but feel that she is up to no useful purp ose.

She really is not interested in seeing a proper resolution to the matter of differences between the Foster Parents Association and the Government. She is not happy that they have been satisfactorily resolved to the best interests and also, of course, to the pleasure of the Foster Parents Association who referred to it as an historic agreement, who referred to it as a very progressive agreement that sets a standard for the rest of the count ry.

She is unha ppy with that and wants to take that, discredit that process and discredit that achievement by simply being like a dog with a bone in conti nuing to chew away at the survey as somehow being a problem. The fact of the matter is that survey was done by the Government to ensure that full and complete information was in the hands of the Government when entering into final discussions and negotiations with the Foster Parents Association. * (16 50) If she will read Hansard, she has the answers to everything that she asked for.

If she does not want to take my word for what was in that survey, then she can go about anywhere she wants and try to discredit me. But I will tell her that information has been provided. Nothing was done in there that was untoward, and no information that was asked for was anything other than what was relevant to the issues that we were trying to settle. The final analysis of the situation is that we did settle the disput e.

After leaving the foster parents in an unha ppy position for six-and-a-half years under her administration, leaving them in a position where the Foster Parents Association did not trust Government because of the way they were dealt with by her previous Mini sters in Go vernment in the NDP and her administration, we resolved all those problems. We elimin ated the acrimony between the association and 972 the Government, and we arrived at a settlement that was suitable and very acceptable to the Foster Parents Association.

She now wants to discredit that by chewing away at the issue about whether or not there was anything untoward in those questions. I will repeat for her - (I nterjection)- I will tell the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) that at no time ever in the six-and-a-half years that he was in Government did they ever table any questionna ire, did they ever give -(I nterjection)- Yes, we did-did they ever give information on who was the pollster, did they ever give any information on what it cost - never, never! Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): This was an attempt to intimida te. Mr.

Filmon: lt was not an attempt to intim idate. The Member for Flin Flon is providing false information, false allegations, the like of which does nothing but discredit him and his credibility in this House. There was no intimida tion what soever . Th ey were straig htforward questions and there were 13 of them -(Inter jection)- I will tell the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia Leis) that they only want to try and further create divisions and dispute between us and the foster parents. They would like to see the- Mr. Storie: Let us see the questions you are hiding. Mr.

Filmon: When did you ever put one question on the table when you were in Government? Not once. You polled for six-and-a-half years and you never put any of them forward. Mr. Storie: I think the surveys are in the Libr ary, Gary. Mr. Filmon: They are not. Mr. Storie: Yes, they are. An Honourable Member: They are not. Mr. Filmon: For four years, we had Orders for Return for your surveys and your polling. You were so dishonest as to never, ever have the pollster reveal that the survey was being done for the Government of Manitoba.

We had the courage and the honesty to put that as the first thing that was said to everyone who was questioned so tha t the y kne w up front who was ask ing the questions. Ms. Gray: Since the First Mini ster (Mr. Filmon) is here, perhaps the First Min ister or the Mini ster of Community Services (Mr s. Oleson) would clarify for us-and the First Minister has made mention of his credibil ity. We are getting two stories. First, we were told that in fact the questionnair e, telephone survey simply dealt with preparation for conting ency planning for a possible moratorium.

Then we hear later in the Hous e that in fact it was more than that. As well as contingency planning, it also dealt with some questions around the supporting of foster

Thursday, September 1, 1988 parents of their Foster Parents Associ ation, and further information on whether dollars that go to the Foster Parents Association, regarding a grant, perhaps could or should be diverted to foster parents for an increase. Would the Mini ster of Community Services (Mr s. Oleson) or the First Mi nister (Mr. Filmon) clarify what was the situation? Were the questions strictly around contingency planning, or did they deal with those other areas which I have just mentioned? Mr. Filmon: At no time did anybody say it was only to ask questions about . . . .

An Honourable Member: Yes, you did in the House. Mr. Filmon: No, we said it was primarily to ascertain information that could be used for contingency plans. Among the plans for contin gency were, first and foremost, not to have to face a moratorium. That is our fi rst conting enc y plan is to avoid ha ving a moratori um. Now that may not be something that the Lib erals or the NDP wanted. They might very well have liked to have seen that kind of chaos in this province, but we did not want to as responsible Government. Mr. Storie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson.

I believe it is customary to have questions directed to the Chair and to the Mini ster responsible. I do not know that we want to get into a debate with the First Mi nister (Mr. Filmon), despite his attempt to impose his view. Mr. Filmon: Just for the benefit of the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the Member for Ellic e (Ms. Gray) said she- Mr. Chairman: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. Mr. Filmon: I will carry on. But the Member for Ellice (Ms. Gray) specifically said she did not mind whether the question was answered by the First Minis ter or the Mi nister of Community Services (Mr s.

Oleson). The Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) may want to try and muzzle me and prevent me from answering questions, but the Member for Ellice is very open. I know that she asked that question in good faith, and I am happy to answer that question for her. We said that we were asking primarily for contingency plans, and continge ncy first and foremost means avoiding the moratorium and eliminating the conflict. I will say that every day we gave more and more in formation until yeste rda y I indica ted that approximately a dozen questions were asked.

I have since gone back and taken a look at it, and there were 13 to be exact. I said approximately 165 calls made, and I have since gone back and checked and there were 168 calls made. I told her yesterday that the questions surrounded the availability of homes should there be a moratorium, which we wanted to avoid. I am trying to recall now, but I gave here four specific areas in Question Period yesterday that were surrounded by the 13 questions that were involved. I repeat that we have all of the 973 information available to us that allowed us to come to a satisfactory solution of the problem.

We arrived at a satisfactory solution of the problem and, under no circumstances, was any confidentiality breached and, under no circumstances, did we act in a way that breached our responsi bilitie s or our legal obliga tions as a Government, and she can bank on that. Ms. Gray: In this discussion that has gone on this afternoon, the Mini ster of Community Services (M rs. Oleson) spoke of negotiation and talked about what it meant. I have been thinking perhaps her and I have a different idea of what negotiation is. Some Honour able Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Chairman: Order, please; order, please. Ms.

Gray: Perhaps, for the clarification of people sitting around this table, maybe this is where some of our difficulties in the discussion have been. Would the Mini ster clarify for us how she defines "negotiati on"? Mrs. Oleson: I did not realize I would have to bring the dictionary today. Negotiation takes place when two groups want t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-1-28
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 1st hansardpdf 28.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a915b960865d9eac310fff4a5a61eea0788e5b49

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