Manitoba Hansard — 26 February 1990 (Sitting 133A, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-133a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, February 26, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I dir ect Honourable Members' attention to the loge to my right, where we have with us this afternoon the former Member for Minnedosa, Mr. Dave Blake. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUE STION PERIOD Arts Policy Review Committee Misma nage ment Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, the Arts Policy Review Committee was obviously set in place to review arts policy in the province.

As laudable a goal as that was, this Government has fumbled again the pro cess. First, Mr . Speaker , this Government appointed committee members from the so-called big six cultural gr oups. Then, when the commit tee met in rural Manitoba, they were verbally berating the presentations made, and now Mr. Gordon Mackie has resigned and been replaced with a member from the Manitoba Arts Council. Can the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation explain why this pr ocess has been so badly mismanaged? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Mi nister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand and talk a little bit about the Arts Policy Review and, Mr. Speaker, correct some of the facts and the inaccuracies that were put on the record just a few minutes ago by the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles). Mr. Speaker, the Arts Policy Review was struck. I will table today the pamphlet that was put out by the Arts Policy Review Committee indicating its mandate.

I can read into the record tha t the Arts Policy Review Committee was appointed by the Manitoba Government to review Gov ernment policy and make recommendations concerning the arts, not just the big six, whoever the big six might be in the Member for Selkirk's mind. I am not really quite sure who the big six are. Mr .

Sp eaker, the review committee's terms of reference are to inquir e into the condition of the performing and creative arts in Manitoba, to identify 5533 trends and to propose remedies where appropriate, to examine the participation of individuals, groups and regions in the arts, both as artists and as an audience. I will table it because the mandate is much broader than looking at any specific arts group. * (13 35) Mrs. Charles: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister rereads the question because in no way did she answer it.

One hundred thousand dollars is being spent on the policy review that would appear to be setting its own agenda. Can the Minister explain what value Manitobans will have received from a commit tee staffed in Government's favour? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the arts community has been without a review, and I am sure the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr . Carr) can attest to the last Arts Policy Review that was done. He was the staff of that policy review and it certainly was not stacked in favour then, as it is not now in favour of anything to do with Government.

It is stacked in favour of a community, the arts community, that deserves an Arts Policy Review after 10 years. An inaccuracy that the Member for Selkirk put on the record in her first question was that Mr. Gordon Mackie has resigned. In fact, that is not true. He is continuing to work along with the person who has been seconded to look at the recommendations that are already in pl ace, will not be developing the recommendations; the recommendations are there. All he is going to be doing is editing the words that go along with those recommendations. Man itoba Arts Cou ncil Mrs.

Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Can the Minister explain why the Manitoba Arts Council is being asked to sit on this board when the Manitoba Arts Council member should be kept apart from the policy review? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): The Manitoba Arts Council has been comp letely independe nt of the review . The recommendations have been set by the Policy Review Committee and they are looking for someone who can edit the words that surround the recommendations.

The contract that has been put in place with a staff person from the Manitoba Arts Council is a contract that swears him to secrecy that while he is working on the policy that information will not be shared. I am certain that the hours, the volunteer hours, that have gone into both at the community level and at the Arts Policy Review level are hours that have been well spent. The policy that will come out as a result of this review will be one that will be very favourable for the arts community.

Monday, February 26, 1990 Agend a Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Selkirk, with a new question. Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): I have a new question, Mr . Speaker. The Arts Review, after a stalled beginning, eventually heard presentations from individuals, arts and cultural groups throughout the province. However, since December 7 at the last called meeting, the committee has not approached anyone for further input. It would have been appropria te for them to have met with representatives of the art industry at large, such as visual arts and authors and so on.

Can the Minister tell this House why the committee has kept within closed doors? Does it have an agenda to hide? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Min ister of Cult ure, Heritage and Recreation): Mr . Speaker, ther e were 3,000 volunteer hours put in by the Arts Policy Review Committee, and I want to say, "volunteer hours." There is not anyone who would accept that responsibility unless they were committed to the arts community and development of arts policy in the Province of Manitoba.

There were many, many volunteer hours put in by community groups and organizations to pr ovide and present recommendations to that committee. I believe there has been a very comprehensive review that has gone forward, a process of consultation, and obviously the y have to sit down and come up with recommendations that are going to benefit the arts community in the Province of Manitoba for the next decade. * (13 40) Rural Presentations Mrs.

Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Will the Minister explain why this group then has in rural Manitoba set the tone of being confronta tional, argument ative with rural presenters to the Arts Policy Review? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Cultur e, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Member from Selkirk is coming from, but I believe that the recommendations that come forward from the Arts Policy Review will address issues and concerns of all Manitobans throughout the Province of Manitoba who have an interest in what direction the arts are going to take over the next decade. Mrs. Charles: Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister explain why she allowed the attitude to be confrontational and argum entative by this committee when it was outside of the Perimeter Hig hway reaching rural communities in that they would question them at end of why they did not just move to the City of Winnipeg where they could get culture and arts? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, there are members on that Policy Review Committee who are from both the City of Winnipeg and rural Manitoba, and those that have a specific interest in community arts and arts throughout the province.

So let not the Member for Selkirk indicate that there was no concern by the Policy Review Committee for all parts of Manitoba, whether it be north, south, east or west. Mr. Speaker, the policy review has been completely independent of Government. We appointed the review committee with a specific mandate to look at funding of arts over the next decade. They have put their lime and their effort into doing that, Mr. Speaker, and the arts communit y has nothing to fear fr om the recommendations that will come forward as a result of the review. Arts Policy Review Committee Report Author Ms.

Judy Wasylycia-leis (St Johns): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the same Minister. If one is going to go to the gr eat lengths of reviewing an arts policy, it must be done completely and must appear to be done completely. It must be done impartially and appear to be done impartially, especially in the context of the ominous thr eats we face as a result of free trade. It is more important than ever to have a comprehensive, strong cultural policy that reflects our unique Canadian identity. The news over the weekend put this all in jeopardy and cast doubt over the whole process.

My question to the Minister is: If Gord Mackie was not fired and he did not resign, but has been displaced, why has Gord Mackie been displaced in terms of the final writing of this very important document? Hon. Bonnie Mitchels on (Minis ter of Cul ture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, let not it be left on the record that the former NOP administration had much concern for arts when in six and half years of administration they did not even look at or contemplate an arts policy review. The last one was done under a Conservative admin istra tion 10 years ago in this province.

Gordon Mackie, who has been working as the staff person for the arts policy review is still working on the process, Mr. Speaker. The person that has been hir ed is only there to assist him and helping him to accomplish and helping the Policy Review Committee to accomplish their goal of putting out a comprehensive policy that will lead Manitoba into the next decade for funding for the arts. Impartiality Ms. Judy Wasylycia-leis (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, the previous administration was operating on the basis of a policy that covered the whole range of artistic and cultural efforts in our province from the majors right through to community grass-roots efforts. My question to the Minister is: Given that whole focus now appears to be in question, and given that there is an appearance of lack of impartiality, will the Minister tell this House how she plans to restore much needed confidence and impartiality in this process? If not, is she prepared to begin the review all over again? Hon. Bonnie Mitchels on (Minister of Cult ure, Heritage and Recreation): Mr.

Speaker, from the comments by 5534

Monday, February 26, 1990 the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles) and now the comments by the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia Leis), it appears that they would just like to throw the $1 00,000 out the window and start all over again and spend more money. There have been volunteer hours, over 3,000 volunteer hours by the Arts Policy Review Committee and numerous volunteer hours put in by community groups and organizations in making their presentations to the Policy Review Committee. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing for the arts community to fear.

These people who have been working tirelessly have the best interests of the arts community at heart, whether it be gr ass roots up to the major arts organizations in our province. The end result of the recommendations will be what determines whether it was a good process or not. Winnipeg Ed ucation Centre Minister's Position Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): I have a new question to the Minister of Education pertaining to the propo sal for a new Winnipeg Education Centre. Mr. Speaker, the Minister received a letter on Janua ry 25 from representatives involved in this new proposal.

To my knowledge, our knowledge, the Minister has not yet responded to the fact that these groups and individuals must have a response by February 28 in order to go ahead. Given that the report is in, as the Minister knows, that it is a good report in terms of the proposal, can the Minister tell us what his plans are with respect to meeting the deadline of February 28? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the deadline that the Member for St.

Johns is referring to, because our information is that the February 28 deadline that the Member refers to is simply not there. We have been discussing the whole issue of the Winnipeg Education Centre with the groups that have indicated their support for it. We have been discussing the whole area of prog ram stability at the Winnipeg Education Centre, and we have been discussing that with the universities and with the Winnipeg Education Centre themselves. The intent to proceed with the centre in due course is certainly on track. That announcement will be made in due course. * (13 45) Ms. Wasylycia- 1..eis: Mr.

Speaker, once again the needs of inner city residents have been put on hold. For two years these groups have been waiting for this Government to move on a new Winnipeg Education Centre. My question to the Minister is, given in the past he has said he is waiting for this report on the effectiveness of the programs, he has received the report, the report says they are effective, will the Minister now respond immediately to the Core Area and to other interested players in this whole exercise and give an indication of provincial support before February 28? Mr.

Derkach: The NDP Opposition see ms to be indicating th at we have some magic dead line of 5535 February 28 to make these decisions, when in fact they had rejected that proposal on several occasions. They had six years to implement that particular decision. Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate to you very clearly that we have now the report before us. We are acting on it as has been rec om mended . We are acting on the recommendations. As a matter of fact, if she looks clearly or closely at the report, it goes beyond just indicating that the programs are good programs.

It suggests ways in which those programs can be improved. In consultation with the Winnipeg Education Centre, with the university, we will move ahead with those recommendations and in due course we will move ahead with the construction of the facility as has been recommended. Repap Ma nitoba Inc. licence Suspension Request Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, for months the Liberal Party has been raising concerns about the environmental impacts of the Repap expansions in The Pas. We have argued that the environmental impacts were rushed and are incomplete. Concerns have been proven to be factual.

On Friday TREE issued an appeal to that licence, Mr . Sp eaker, to Repap and brought forward new evidence that had not been previously known. Given that Dr. Miller of the federal Environment Department and a member also of this Minister's own advisory group, the Environmental Council, has quoted, and I state: The CEC report does not reflect the current state of scientific evidence of organochlorine emissions from pulp mills. Will the Mini ster of Environme nt suspend the licence until an adequate and thorough re-examination of the impacts have been conducted? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, I suspect the Member knows the answer without having asked the question. The fact is that under the environmental licensing process in this province, as I have stated previously, the appeals, during the time of appeal to the licence, unless the Minister specifically requests for a suspension of appeal or suspension of the licence the licensee will continue to proceed to comply with the original licence during the period of time that appeals are heard. I will be hearing appeals and looking at the issues that they have raised and give it full and careful consideration. Mr.

Taylor: We are well aware that licence was issued in undue haste when the company did not even want it. Emission Standards Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Now can the Minister tell the Hous e why so many of the emission standards tha t Repap will be re quir ed to ope rate under - (interjection)- if the Premier can hold his words I will comp lete my ques tion- why so many emis sion standards that Repap will be required to operate under were not included in the licence but instead have been left up to the director to set at some future date at his discretion?

Monday, February 26, 1990 Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Member opposite would choose to make disparaging intimidations against the licences considered to be at least a couple of years ahead of its time in the pulp and paper industry. This is deemed to be a very significantly tightened-up licence compared to the majority of pulp and paper industry in this country. I stated that I will carefully consider appeals on a factual and one-by-one basis, but I resent the fact that he implies that a full and careful hearing was held (sic).

The fact that he now thinks that licence was issued prematurely simply does not give any understanding into whether or not he apprecia tes the process. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the pro cess was rushed. * (13 50) Licence Suspension Request Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley ): The federal Government's presentation, before the Al-Pac hearings in Alberta, had indicated that project should not go ahead because there were insufficient base line data available on such things as loss of fish habitat and fish reproductivit y. Mr.

Speaker, given that there are also insufficient base line data on the Saskatchewan River, can the Minister justify why he will not suspend the licence until this information is finally available? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr . Speaker, it is now becoming abundantly clear that following on the beer-an d-p izza caper that was precipitated by the lib eral Caucus last summer-la st spring, as a matter of fact-o n the Repap sale, that they have now clearly come out and said they do not want Repap here under any conditions.

We have just finished one of the most stringent environmental impact hearing pro cesses that has ever occurred in this province. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , please. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Wolseley, on a point of order . l\ll r. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I really find it quite exceptional that a matter of privilege that is before the Committee of Elections and Privileges of this House should be treated in that cavalier fashion by the Minister of the Environment (Mr . Cummings)- Mr. Speaker: Order , please.

The Honourable Member does not have a point of order . ***** Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, without trying to attach any hidden meaning to the fact that they are continually stating th at th ey are oppo sed to thi s type of development that is being proposed by Repap, I have stated clearly that I am pr epared to hear the appeals. I will hear them with an open mind. I am the appeal and therefore will not be stating my reaction to those appeals.

It is my feeling that there was a very clear, in-depth study of this proposal, one which would have been licensed without a hearing under the pr evious administration and, therefore, I will continue with these appeals in a normal manner. West Broadway Fa mily Centre Funding Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Wolseley, with a new question. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): My question will have to be to the Premier (Mr . Filmon). Mr. Speaker, accessible and flexible child care has been emphasized again and again by the Minister of Family Services (Mr s.

Oleson), in the Ho use, in Estimates, and in public addresses. The Family Centre at West Broadway does answer, or did answer, the very goals that Minister espoused and in so doing reduced human suffering, other social services and justice costs. Given the success of a very innovative respite care centre consistent with the Government's goals, will the Premier state why they will not consider funding that operation? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Wolseley (Mr .

Taylor) would read the news media reports or even the comments made by the people who operate that centre, he would know that in fact this provincial Government is considering funding it. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Wolseley, with his supplementary question. Mr. Taylor: It is interesting that now we are supposed to read the papers; other days we are not supposed to. The expectation of-that community and that day care were led to believe there would be funding as a certainty because provincial officials participated for two years in a formal planning exercise. Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister explain, can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) explain, why the Family Services staff raised the expectations of the community and the day care itself and wasted their time when there was net going to be any funding following through on it? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, because of the Member for Wolseley's reputation for not sticking to facts, without accepting any of the

preamble of his question, I will 5536

Monday, February 26, 1990 take it as notice on behalf of the Minister of Family Services (Mr s. Oleson). Mr. Taylor: We hope that others on this side can take the high road because obviously the previous speaker cannot. We are looking forward then-and I would ask the Premier (Mr . Filmon) to put on the record that they are prepared to offer funding by the provincial Government for the West Bro adway day care in itself and so that it also is eligible for federal funding and core area funding. Will he put that on the record now? * (1 355) Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, we now know why the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr s. Carstairs) had to say that she saw no other option than to raise personal income taxes in this province in the future, because we are asked to take the position of the Liberal Party, which is to commit resources and support for something on a priority basis before you have even evaluated it, before you have had an opportunit y to compare it to other priority needs in this province. You are asked to make a commitment before you even evaluate it. The answer to his last question was, we are going to evaluate it.

His response was, commit now before you evaluate it because that is the Liberal way of doing it, spend, spend, spend, drive up the taxes to everybody in this province, put everybody in difficult circumstances, but do not concern yourselves about the plight of the people of this province who are the highest taxed of any province in the country because all they want you to do is spend money. That is the Liberal Party's opposition, mindless opposition- Mr. Speaker: Order , please; order , please. Brandon, Mani toba Red evelopment Fund ing Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner). We were very pleased-I am sure all Members will join me in this-to see a very major private development announced for downtown Brandon last week. Last year the Minister of Rural Development was on record as saying that he had no program money for downtown development in Brandon.

This was reported in the local paper, but now that the city has endorsed a five-year funding program for downtown Brandon, contingent on equivalent funding from the provincial Government, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether his Government is now prepared to fund the five-year Brandon business improvement area. Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Rural Development): The Honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr .

Leonard Evans) of course knows full well tha t pr ovincial Governments, the same as local Governments, have to do their budgeting and have to do their planning for the various programs that are established in the province. Similarly we are in the process of doing our 5537 Estimates for next year and evaluation of the various programs. Therefore, those kinds of considerations must be made at this time of the year.

The Honourable Member should also know that under the budgetary offloading that we have seen Ottawa enter into, it will cause us to have to significantly re evaluate some of the considerations that we were making. Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the Minister for the answer. Provincial Government funding is crucial, however, to help Brandon move into the'90s with vision and strength. Can the Minister be a bit more definitive? I appreciate the budget process, I understand that, but will approval of some level be forthcoming in this next fiscal year? Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting.

The Member for Brandon East (Mr . Leonard Evans), having been in Cabinet and also been in Government a substantial period of time, certainly realizes that under the Estimates program and questioning you have to present a budget to the Legislature before you can of course answer questions to what is in the budget. Therefore, I would suggest that he is going to have to wait until we table our budget and then are into the Estimates process and he can ask those kinds of questions at that time. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I know the committee is very anxious to meet with the Minister and Members of the Government on this because there has been a lot of preparator y work, includin g officials from his department. Will the Minister be prepared to meet with the local officials, with the comm ittee, at an early date to put the finishing touches on hopefully a positive agreement? Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the House here that I just did come from Brandon. I just finished almost an hour's meeting with the mayor of the City of Brandon.

I heard what he had to say and the priorities that he was placing on various initiatives that they were taking. I also heard him say that they had developed a fairly long-term strategy for the City of Brandon which I was very interested in. Of course, he and his council want to at some point in time sit down and discuss that strategy. I would imagine that the program the Honourable Member is talking about would not be included in that long-term strategy.

I look forward to meeting with officials from the City of Brandon, including the Downtown Business Development Association, in Brandon to discuss their priorities. * (1 400)

Monday, February 26, 1990 Biomedical Waste Disposals Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, I have a qu estion for the Mini ster of Environment. It is regarding the disposal of biomedical waste. Winnipeg incinerators cannot meet hospital demands and that leads to the question of, what about the waste produced in our dental offices and veterinary clinics? Needles and dressings from both hospitals, waste from dental offices and veterinary clinics, are being sent to landfill sites. Is this acceptable to this Government, and if not, what are they going to be doing about it? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I wonder if the Member could repeat the first part of his question; my earpiece was not working. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the question is, there seems to be a need to add ress the di spo sal of biomedical waste. What is this Government doing to ensure that particular need is being met? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, yes, certainly I will be pleased to respond to that question, because as a matter of fact it is an issue that we are examining. We are getting information regarding health facilities, and of course veterinary facilities would be included with that.

It is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a long term basis and one with which we would be only too pleased to work with the institutions to make sure that we reach a global conclusion to deal with any of this type of material. Safety Standards Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, faster action is needed in regard to biomedical wastes. I would ask the Minister, when will this Government provide a policy and infrastructure to ensure protection of the public and workers who handle the waste by setting standards for segreg ation, packaging, transportation and storage of biomedical waste? Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I would not want the impression to be left that no controls or regulations regarding health control are in place. It seems to me that what we have to make sure and what we are working on is developing an overall approach. Part of that is, as I already indicated, to make sure that we have the information as to what is being produced and how it is being handled presently. Leading from that, Mr. Speaker, I have already had some preliminary meetings to determine what possibilities there are for options of disposal. Disposal Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr.

Speaker, I do not believe that the Government is in fact working fast enough in addr essing this par ticula r issue. What assurances can this Government give us that biomedical waste is being properly disposed of currently right now? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Dispo sal of biomed ical waste begins with the designation of what is biomedical waste, what needs to be disposed of in a particular manner. We have the capability right now to deal with a fair amount of this within the province.

There is also custom work if you will being done outside of the province on behalf of operations within this province. The fact is tha t the development of additio nal regulations is a direction in which we are moving in order to deal with this issue. For the Member to imply that nothing is being done and nothing will be done is quite far from factual. Federal Budget Impact Northern/Nat ive People Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Can the Minister advise us as to whether he has been in touch with the federal Government in regard to the budget cutbacks and how this might affect the northern and aboriginal people? Will he advise us whether he has talked to the Secretary of State, the Department of Indian Affairs in regard to the cutbacks and the effect it is going to have for the people of northern Manitoba? Hon. James Downey (Mini ster of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have indicated that I am having the department do a review of the impact of the federal budget on Northern and Native Affairs.

As well, we will be doing a review of the previous Government's treatment and funding of our northern and Native communities as well. Native Organizations Fun ding Mr. Elij ah Harper (Rupertsland): I thank the Minister for that answer. On Friday I received some information, shocking news that MKO , Fir st Nations Confederacy South East Resource Development Council will be totally eliminated. There will be no further funding available this year. They have been totally wiped out. Also, the Manitoba Metis Federation will be cut back by 7 .5 percent.

Will he sit down with those organizations and try to meet their needs and also maybe lobby with the federal Government as to the disastrous decision made by the federal Government? Will he do that on behalf of the aboriginal people? Hon. James Downey (Mini ster of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the province has lived up to its commitment in support of our northern and Native communities. I am prepared to lay that before the Hous e.

As well, I think it is important to note that he has to appreciate that if he is asking for us to reprioritize some of our expenditures, then it could well put in jeopardy the northeast Hydro which would in fact provide services for his communities in northe rn Manitoba. I think he would like to see those kinds of projects go ahead. It is that kind of assessment that has to be made if he is asking for us to take funds from different parts of our department to in fact support those organizations. 5538

Monday, February 26, 1990 Northern Ma nitoba Programs Fundi ng Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I know we had the Northern Development Agreement which was worth over $270 million and that is gone. Also Special ARDA that was in place is already gone. A lot of the initiatives that were carried on by the previous administration with the federal Government have been gone. Can the Minister indicate to us what other programs might be available in northern Manitoba, because the federal Government seems to be cutting us back much further? Can he indicate to us what other areas he will be looking at? Hon.

James Downey (Mini ster of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Member is well aware of the fact that there has been a $5.5 billion Hydro project that is being worked on for the development of hydro which is extremely im por tant to the northern commu nities. We have seen a billion dollars committed to the development of Repap, which has a major impact on the North, and we are currently working with the federal Government on a memoran dum of understanding which will in fact do some of the things in northern Manitoba that are a priority to the northern communities.

Crime Prevention Programs Government Initiatives Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Jus tice (Mr . McCrae). Yet again Manitoba is ranked No. 1 in this country in terms of murders per 100,000 people. This is the fourth year in a row that Manitoba has ranked first and at least the fourth time that I have raised this issue, this shameful record with the Minister. Mr. Speaker, despite grand rhetoric on a regular basis from this Government, we have yet to have an outline of any crime prevention strategy for this pr ovince.

The Minister of Justice could not find the time to go or even send a delegate to Montreal a few months ago to a bilateral conference on crime prevention. My question is, where is the real commitment to crime prevention? Manitobans want to participate. They are looking to this Government for some kind of leadership. Will the Minister table some kind of a crime prevention strategy? Hon. James Mccrae (Mi nister of Justice and Attorney General): I would be hap py, Mr. Speaker, to hear specific ideas from the Honourable Member on how he would prevent the crime of murder in our province. Mr.

Speaker, the conference in Montreal to which the Honourable Member refers was attended by thr ee officials of our department. Perhaps the Honourable Member will remind me of the last part of his question. It was lengthy. 5539 Crime Prevention Counc il Establishment Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, in terms of guidance, the Minister need look no further than Resolution No. 46 put on the Order Paper by myself, which suggests the establishment of a crime prevention council. Mr. Speaker, for the same Minister, I had waited for a long time from this Minister before I took the initiative.

I wanted to give him a chance to take some initiative and put some meat to his words with respect to crime prevention. He did not do that. With our crime rate we have every reason to lead, Mr. Speaker. My que stion to the Minister is, will the Minister state today when he is going to take crime prevention seriously and lead through the establishment of a crime prevention council which I have suggested? Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): There are few more initiatives that could be more important than the prevention of crime. A crime prevented is a crime that has no victim.

It is a crime that we do not have to prosecute in the courts, so the Honourable Member is correct to want to talk about crime prevention, but just talking is one thing. I would like to see him attending more meetings of Neighbourhood Watch, for instance. The Citizens for Crime Awareness are doing an excellent job in this province. I would like the Honourable Member to join us in some of our initiatives, for example, against impaired dr iving, instead of always bad mouthing everyt hing that we are doing. We are achieving some real results with respect to impaired and suspended driving in this province.

I would like the Honourable Member to join with the winners in this area. * (141 0) Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the Minister obviously does not know what he is talking about. I have been very pleased to attend regular ly, to be in constant contact with the Citizens for Crime Awareness in my area, and I am very pleased to have been suppor tive of them since Day One. Firearms Legislation Enf orcement Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister a question on December 7 last year and he took it as notice.

I would like to ask again if the Minister personally, or through our Chief Provincial Firearms Officer, Mr. Duncan, has been assured by the federal Minister of Justice that effective enforcement of firearm legislation already in place will be addressed imminently by the federal Government. I asked that in early December. It has obviously not been done since then. Has he any assurances that firearm legislation is going to be dealt with soon by the federal Government? We need it right here in this province. Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member, if he

Monday, February 26, 1990 has questions for the federal Government, he can put them to the federal Government. I am in the habit of making regular contact with my federal counterpart who has now been replaced with a new federal counterpart whom I look forward very much to getting to know and working with. Investment Canada Varta Batteries Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr . Speaker, I have just returned from a meeting with the federal Department of Investment and the employees and union -(interjection)- 190 people are losing their jobs. Perhaps we can keep the levity for another occasion.

The 192 workers will be losing their jobs at Varta Batteries, and meetings with Investment Canada have given us no further answers than we had before. I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology why Manitoba provided no other alternatives to Investment Canada for the sale and closure of the Winnipeg plant. Why did they provide no other alternatives to the federal Government as commun icated by Ha rvie Andr e in the Hous e of Commons last week? Hon. James Ernst (Mini ster of Indust ry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, this matter occurred just prior to Christmas when Investment Canada approached the Province of Manitoba and asked for our opinion on the question of the purcha se, not the closure of anything, but the purcha se of Varta Batteries by a U.S. company. We were given about 10 days or so notice in order to provide our opinion. We did so within the time frame and we opposed the sale of the company accordingly. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the frustration of the workers in Manitoba having one Conservative Government and another Conservative Government is leaving them very, very distraught in terms of this closure. My question to the Minister is: Investment Canada today advised us that consistent with the workers' fears, the gr eatest fears that batteries would be shipped into Canada from United States now under the Free Trade Agreement, confirmed that 9,600 batteries had been shipped in from United States to Canada, many of them through the plant here in Winnipeg.

Can the Minister tell us why there was no condition set to protect Canadian jobs with this agreement by the federal Department of Investment Canada for the purchase of this company and the closing down of the jobs here in Winnipeg now that we see the plant being serviced by United States? Hon. James Ernst (Minister of Industry, Tr ade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this Government does not set conditions for Investment Canada. Investment Canada does that. We were asked for an opinion, an opinion as to whether or not we thought that the sale should take place. We said, no, we did not think it should. Mr.

Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Hon. Leonard Derkach (Mi nister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have leave to make a non-political statement? (Leave) Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today I am very pleased to announce the winner in the Canada Day Poster Contest. Some 636 entrants from 65 communities participated in the contest, and the overall winner was Ryan Gilmore, a Grade 10 student from the Dauphin Regional Composite High School.

Ryan was also judged to be second best in Canada. Also, there were two other students from Manitoba, one from Sitton by the name of Natasha Mcla vy, and Heather Hinam who were runners up to this contest. Ryan will be receiving a $15 0 gift certificate for his efforts, and he and his parents will have the opportunity to travel to Ottawa to partici pate in the Canada Day ceremonies on July 1. It is a pleasure to congratulate Ryan Gilmore and all of those students who participated in this competition which recognizes the importance of Canada Day. ***** Hon.

Edward Connery (Mi nister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like leave for a non-political statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to say how pleased I am, and the people of Portage la Prairie, that the MDC, the Manitoba Developmental Centre in Portage has been given a two-year accreditation from the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation. The review is a very in-depth review of the care and training that goes into the development centre.

There are some 550 residents of the centre and some over 600 employees who give daily loving and very considerate care to the people who are there. I think it is a very appropriate time that the centre gets its accreditation, because this is also the 100th anniversary of the Manitoba Developmental Centre in Portage. There is a saying, open up the door so I can thr ow my chest out. This is one of those days when I am so extremely proud of the facility in Portage and of those 600 people who are giving care to the residents.

Part of the comments made by the group was that we also have an advisory board linking Government, the centre and the community, and also that it allows input from the community for the first time through the Minister to ensure that we have the best health care facilities and the best health care delivery for those residents. Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House to join with me in saying to all of those employees at the Manitoba Developmental Centre, thank you for a job well done. 5540

Monday, February 26, 1990 ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James McCrae (Government House leader): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: 98, 59, 60, 56, 84, 50, 51, 52, 57, 47, 48, and the remainder as listed on today's Order Paper. DEBATE ON SECOND READI NGS Bill NO. 98- THE MANITOBA DATA SERVICES DISPOSITION AND CONSEQUE NTIAL AMENDM ENTS ACT Mr. Sp eaker : On the pr oposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness), Bill No. 98, The Manitoba Data Services Disposition and Consequential Amendments Act,

Loi sur I' alienation de la Commission des services d'informatique du Manitoba et modifications correlatives, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr . Doer). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Agreed. The Honourable Member for Dauphin. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill 98, the Bill for the divestiture of the Manitoba Data Services.

As my colle agues have indicated before or previous to my speaking, as well as my Leader when he speaks, we have some serious concerns about the direction that the Minister is moving, and the Government is moving, with regard to the divestiture of Manitoba Data Services. We have concerns, not only from the point of view of the motive that the Government has for divestiture of this money-making corporation, Crown corpora tion, we have concerns from the point of view of confidentiality.

We have concerns because we believe the Government is moving to divest solely because it wants to mo ve towards pr ivatizat ion of Cr own corporations as opposed to because it makes a great deal of sense. (Mr . Neil Gaudry, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) We know that there are other ways to accomplish the goals that the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) set out in terms of using the Manitoba Data Services as a lever to develop industrial opportuniti es in the high- tech field in this province. It does not have to be done through divestiture.

For those reasons and of cour se the pr ice as well, and the value of this corporation, we will speak forcefully against the way that the Government is proceeding with this particular Bill. I might say first of all, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that the fact is in this particular instance, despite the fact that the Minister of Finance in his speech indicated that this divestiture, if it should take place, would provide for a gr eat deal of economic spinoff, that there are 5541 other ways to ensure that this spinoff and economic activity could take place over a long period of time, because we are dealing with what is acknowledged as a valuable asset.

The Minister, in making his references to MOS, acknowledges that there is a valuable corporation with valuable assets, valuable staff, well-trained, highly productive staff who are in demand in the industry.

That is one of the reasons why companies want to move in to take ownership of this particular-and of course the fact that they would be getting a monopoly for a five-year period on Government busi ness in this province. * (14 20) That is not the only way to accomplish a gr eat deal of economic activity as a result of this valuable asset, by selling it, by divesting it, because then it can only be done once and it is gone. There is no other way in the future that this asset can be used to the advantage of taxpayers in this province, the Manitoba citizens.

It is then at the mercy of the management of that private corporation -(interjection)- because they want to sell it or give it away as they have done with some other assets. I will speak about that more later. What they are doing is putting it in private hands, because they believe somehow that they are going to create more economic wealth than the Government can do through its ownership of this company. I say that the Government would do well not to put on its philosophical blinders, that private ownersh ip and divestiture is the only way to accomplish those goals. It should look more broadly.

Rather than accusing us in the New Democratic Party, who have expressed concerns about this, of having a narrow view of the world, they should look at their own view and determine whether in fact there is not a better way to accomplish goals on behalf of the taxpayers of this province over a longer period of time. That, I would suggest to the Government, would be through one of the suggestions that my colleague, the Member for Flin Flon (Mr . Storie) talked about earlier, when he spoke on this Bill, and that is through joint ventures.

Through continued ownership of this very valuable corporation the Government could dictate policies and direction to ensure that over the years economic activity could be generated. At the same time, jobs could be created and the amount of jobs, the kind of jobs could be created , the amount of investment could be controlled to a certain extent. There could be input contin uously by the Govern ment thr ough poli cy dir ections to th at Crown corporation working in partnership with the pri vate sector.

The influence could continue, the creation of jobs, the further expansions, the attraction of further investment dollars into this very important field that is growing dramatically across the world at the present time, the smart industry, as it is often referred to, the high tech industry. There are so many opportunities ther e. Once the Government divests itself of this particular Crown corporation it no longer has opportunities to influence

Monday, February 26, 1990 the development to the same extent that it could if it were involved with a joint venture with MOS, working in partnership with the private sector in developing new opportuni ties for jobs and industrial opportunities in this province. The economic spin-off could take place over many, many years, many generations. There will be new opportu nities develop, ones that we would not even be able to describe at this present time because of the rapid move forward in this particular area. We cannot predict exactly where it is going to go.

We do know, because it is a rapidly expanding field and new opportu nities are always being developed, that if we continue to maintain the lever that the Government could have at its disposal to influence that development directly then MOS could be very valuable to future generations of Manitobans. I think, and my Party believes, that the Government is taking its action that it is taking at this particular time for a philosophical reason is an end in itself to divest for the purp oses of divesting, ideological reasons.

We have seen that in other areas of the country by Cons ervative Governments, parti cularly in Saskatchewan where they wanted to divest of every Crown corporation and venture regardless of how important and profitable it was for the people of Saskatchewan. During the time that Allan Blakeney was Premier of Saskatchewan, Crown corporations were used to the benefit of the taxpayers of Saskatchewan, enormous benefits.

As a matter of fact when Grant Devine, the current Conservative Premier, took office he inherited a $1 billion heritage fund, which he has squandered over the last number of years and put the province in enormous debt. I find that qu ite ironic when the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) talks with a great deal of pride about what good managers Conservatives are, that he likes to brag as to the kind of great managers Conservatives have been. He fails to look at other Conservative provinces.

He makes his case solely on the basis of a windfall he happened to walk into in this province over the last couple of years, in which he is now finding, as a result of the federal budget, will not be there very long. He fails to look at the reality. He continues to perpetuate the kinds of stories that he was putting forward, he and his Party, pr ior to the 19 88 election when they tried to make the claim that the NOP Government was not managing the province well. They look at the deficits. They point to the deficits yes, spending, okay.

Then he fails to look at Saskatchewan and the way the Crown corporations were used there to, in fact, generate wealth for the benefit of the people of Saskatchewan, wealth that has now been squandered by the Devine Government in running into huge deficits over the last number of years. I wonder why the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) never mentions that when he talks about the good management of Conservative Governments.

Why does he not point to the record of Saskatchewan, at least try and make excuses for them, at least try and explain it away, try to put on the record the reasons why so that people looking at that would not be able to come forward with those arguments again and again as a reason for the fact that Conservatives are really not good managers at all, in fact have been responsible for the gr eatest mismanagement not only in Saska tche wan but in Manitoba over the years. (interjection)- Yes, we can look at Flyer Industries, the fact they were the first one to advance operating loans to Flyer.

It was a Conservative Government that did that. It was the Conservative Governments that began the CFI fiasco in this province, the beginning of Manfor in its early days, started by a Conservative Government. It was also the Conservative Government that started the exotic adventures in Saudi Arabia under the stewardship of the Member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), when he was the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, a Member of the Lyon Cabinet at that time. The Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) was not in Gover nment, but he remembers that well and has probably had an opportunity to review the records to apprise himself of the fact that indeed it was the Conservatives who began that. As a matter of fact, it was interesti ng, Mr. Acting Spea ker , dur ing th e last election campaign the Conservative candidate in Dauphin admitted that, during the debate we had, and apologized to the people for the fact that the Conservatives did get that thing started in Saudi Arabia. It was a very great revelation. It was a wonderful revelation for all of us to see it being admitted.

I give him credit for admitting it, something other Conservatives have not done in this House or outside this House. In fact, they would do well to admit it, say, yes, they were wrong to get started there as it turns out in retrospect, but in fact they were the ones that began that process. Getting back then to the divestiture of MOS, we look at profitable ideological reasons for being used. We look at a profitable Crown corporation being divested by the Government solely because they do not believe the Government should be involved in the operations of corporations of this nature.

I would think this is probably one of the primary areas where Govern ment should be involved, the pro tection of the public's records, confidentiality being a very im portant criteria in terms of Govern ment owner ship. There are certain monop olies that Government ownership has worked very well, the Telephone System and the provision of hydro services in this province. Manitoba Data Services was another area that was working very well for the people of Manitoba. So it is a poor choice by this Government to choose this divestiture. Now they say it is for economic develop;nent reasons, for opportuni ties.

Let us look at some of the opportuni ties. The recognition that was developed was there by the previous Government. The Minister said, in his remarks, that when he spoke to this Billthe previous Government should have recognized the 5542

Monday, February 26, 1990 importance of developments in the high tech field in this province. * (1 430) In fact, we did do that. Through lnfotech that was set up. We did, in fact, bring together many of the world's leading companies in high technology so that a nucleus, a critical mass of activity, would be present in this province to attract more developments. We did in fact recognize that with the Burroughs company in terms of the medical field in this province, because we felt that was an important development and we wanted to be at the leading edge of high tech development in this province.

We as a Government were continuously looking at ways of br oaden ing Manitoba's potential for development in the high tech area. MOS could have been used as one of the tools to realize that potential, but here we have a Government now giving away this company at a very low price, we believe it will be, because they have undervalued this company as they did with ManOil, for example, now worth some $20 million, and they received $3 million for it.

That was a terrible mistake in terms of the value that they received, but in their interest to expedite the sale they only received $3 million, this Government, for ManOil. Why would they be wanting to move so quickly just for a pittance, a small percentage of what it was worth?

Why in fact did they not wait until such time as it was an opportune time if they felt they had to divest it, an opportune time to div est it if they felt that was necessary in the interest of the Manitoba taxpayers, but ensure that they received a reasonable price for that particular company which had begun to establish itself in Manitoba and would of course be more and more valuable as the years went by? They choose to divest it at a time that they received one of the lowest possible prices for it.

I hope that will not happen with this company as well, with Manitoba Data Services, because in fact they have underwritten, or written down I should say, the book value of this particular company, it seems in preparation for sale. I find th at of course very unfortunate for the people of Manitoba. In fact, it will mean that the price will be lower simply because the book value is lower and it influences the price that the Government is able to get for that particular company.

I say to the Government that before they undertake this particular sale-they say they are at the point now where there is two final draft purchase agreements in process from two companies that will be considered by Executive Council for sale. I believe that it means that not both of them will be turned down, that in fact the Govern ment will move forward if it has the opportun ity to do so, to sell this particular corporation.

Before they do that they should back off from those negotiations, they should inform these companies that they have had a second view, another change of heart perhaps insofar as the directions that they were moving and that they would like to look at the whole possibilities of joint ventures. 5543 They should engage a consultant to review this concept for them, to review the possible opportunities in the short term and the long term with a view to determining whether in fact as a partner MOS would be able to leverage additional dollars, additional jobs, additional activity in the future, perhaps five, 10, 15, 20 years down the line in this province.

That way I believe we would have all of the options reviewed by this Government, by Government, and then a decision made that is based on the best possible option for all of Manitobans and not made for ideological reasons based on the preference of the Government simply to sell because privatization is a word that they like and a viewpoint that they feel is historic perhaps. It is historic with the Conservative Governments, and they are being consistent with their particular Party philosophy.

That is not a good enough reason to divest a company that has provided excellent service for all of its clients over the last number of years, lowering of rates each year, profit making each year. Why would that kind of a company have to be rushed for sale at fire sale prices under those circums tances? No, that is not the case. It is in a growth industry.

It is an area that has growing potential with each passing year, tremendous growth potential, another reason why the Government should be taking its time on this, ensuring that all of the options are considered before moving forward simply for ideological reasons. So I ask the Government and the Minister in all sincerity to review this carefully, to review it, to stop the process and take another look at what it is getting itself into in terms of the taxpayers of this province. What is the best for the future generations of this province? They have an opportunity here.

They should not squander it, because that will become their legacy. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) said last day when one of my colleagues was speaking that he would stake his future on it. My colleague pointed out quite aptly and accurately that in fact the Minister will not have a future to stake on it. In all likelihood by the time the taxpayers of Manitoba realize that this was done in haste and was not in the best interests of Manitobans, this Minister will have long left the scene in Manitoba.

He should remember that there is a legacy and that he will be the one who will be pointed to at that time wherever he is, whatever he may be doing. Whatever walk of life at that particular time he is involved in, Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is, he at that point will have to answer to the critics who point to the ill-conceived decision that he made at that particular time. That may not be too important to him at this time.

It may be that he thinks that is far too long down the road, he does not have to consider that yet, but I think he should because there may be some short term benefits that he sees now, but he should look past that in terms of the kind of leverage that this tremendous corporation could have for Manitobans in the future. So he has to look at not only whether he will have to pay politically in the short term on this, but whether in fact his legacy will be tarnished by this. That is something that will become more important to him as time moves along.

I say that the Minister and his Government have divested themselves of corporations in the past in a

Monday, February 26, 1990 way that has not been to the maximum benefit of all Manitobans. They have done that. Of cour se when we are thinking of Repap, this Minister directly involved with that particular, what he might call it, sale. I think we have paid a company to take Manfor off our hands is what this Government did in the worst-case scenario, which could very well develop. The Minister may find himself in fact using taxpayers' money.

With loan guarantees and tax write-offs that the Government has allowed Repap to gain here, with the roads that have been built and the assets that were given to that company, in fact some say to the tune of some $342 million, that the company has actually been paid to take Manfor off our hands.

I guess the Minister may think then if he gives away MOS at a fire sale value, that in fact that will pale in comparison to the judgment that will be made of his record insofar as the giveaway of Manfor to Repap and all of those forests with it, because in fact if that situation develops in the worst-case scenario, as it may very well do in the years ahead, the Minister will long be remem bered for that fiasco, perhaps moreso than the giveaway of MOS, as he is intending to do in this Bill.

I ask the Liberals to closely scrutinize the other options that are available to this Government, other options that in fact would allow for flexibility in the application of Government policy in the future to ensure maximizing benefits for Manitobans. The Liberals have an opportunity here to demonstr ate that they are not going to rush into the divestiture business as this Conservative Government wishes to do as they follow the road of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, a road that is fraught with trage dy, a road that history has shown has been the wrong road for Saskatchewan.

That is why that Government will not be there after the next election in Saskatchewan. * (1 440) Let them not use that as their shining light, their example to guide them, this Government, in divestiture of Crown corporations, of profitable Crown corporations that are benefitting the people of the province. Let them not use that example.

Let the Liberals use the opportunity that they have in this Chamber, as with the New Democrats together, to in fact provide a majority in this House, to ensure that there is that second thought, that review by this Government, undertaken on this issue, that they in fact step back from those negotiations, break off those negotiations that they are involved with those two companies at this particular time, stand back and take a look at how else these objectives of industrial spinoffs in jobs, in economic activity can be maximized in this pr ovince other than by the one time use of that lever through the sale.

Once it is gone, it is ir revocable. They cannot get it back again. They cannot get that leverage back again to influence this industr y. The Liberals are in a position where they can do a great deal to have that second thought undertaken by this Government. They should at this time do everything possible. They can do that simply by standing in this House when the vote comes to vote nay for this Bill, insofar as this Bill is concerned. The Government will have a strong message sent to it, and I believe will use that oppor tunity to review the pro cess that they have engaged themselves in.

It is a pro cess, the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) admits, was not initiated by them. It came, as they said, as a result of an unsol icited bid and when that unsolicited bid came forward it made them realize, the Minister's own words: It made us realized what could be accomplished by using this Crown corporation as a launch for major economic development thrust within the high-tech area. That is what the Minister of Finance said when he moved the second reading of this Bill. The fact is, he is looking at that from a very narrow perspective, as I have outlined here today.

He could use a number of other options to realize this potential. Even though he did not realize there was this potential until this unso!icited offer came forward, he did not have to develop that opportunity only through sale offers. Ther e are many other ways. I say to the Government, the joint venture way is the most beneficial way to proceed in this particular aspect. I do not know what the price will be. The book value of $9 million is obviously low. We do not know what the price will be.

If we go by the experience of the Government in previous divestitures, as I mentioned with Repap, as I mentioned with ManOil, then in fact we are going to see a very small purch ase price, one that is not even close. As a matter of fact, if we look at the same ratio as the one used with ManOil, the ratio of purchase price to actual value of that corporation, we would be talking about one-seventh of the value. One-seventh of $9 million is just a little over $1 million.

If the Conservative Government in this province is not able to get more than $1 million for MOS, then we really have a travesty in this House, in this province, by this Government. They will live to regret it, if they in fact undertake it at a give-away price such as that. We can look at their record. It is not a shining record insofar as divestiture and the ability to negotiate benefits for Manitobans. The Member for Portage (Mr. Connery), the Minister, talks about Flyer and the price there.

He should remember that it was the Conservatives who started Government into the bus building business in this province through their loans. As I said earlier, they are the ones, the Conservatives, who started down that ill-fated road, and th ey should not blame a subsequent-and the fact is they should have divested durin g the Lyon years, Flyer, when the y had an opportuni ty at that time. They fumbled and bumbled their way through for four years and left the New Democratic Government in an untenable position, in a very poor negotiating position at that particular time.

We were not in a position to get a great deal of dollars for the assets of Flyer Industries at that time. It was a different story at Maniar, because in fact they were divesting at a time when the market was moving up, when there was a profit being made at Manfor. It was a profitable company at that particular time, a result of the management and stewardship of the New Democratic Government in this province over the last six years, before the 19 88 election. We had 5544

Monday, February 26, 1990 turned Manfor around into a position where, yes, it would in fact be a good deal for sale- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please. I would like to remind Honourable Members that they should keep their comments relevant to the Bill. I fail to see the comments on Manfor, ManOil and Flyer Industries -(inaudible)- think the Bill is quite clear. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Speaker, I respect your opinion on this matter.

I just want to point out to you that in every case where I have mentioned these other Crown corpora tions I have drawn the parallel between the divestiture of those particular corporations with the divestiture of MOS, the potential divestiture as we are discussing at this time with this particular Bill. It is important that when we talk about divestiture we talk about motives, we talk about track record and experience. These are all very relevant in my mind, Mr. Acting Speak er, issues surrou nding the potential divestiture of MOS that is being provided for in Bill 98.

I draw that to the attention of you and your staff so they can look at this issue from the broadest possible context, which is very important. I would like to begin to wrap up my remarks on this issue, Mr. Acting Speaker. In summing up, I would like to point out to the Minister, who is not able to listen to all the speeches in this House-a lthough I know his colleagues are trying to do their best to do so and some of the Liberals in this House as well-that we have to take a sober second look at what is happening here.

We have to see the assets of the people of Manitoba being considered from all angles before decisions are made. We cannot have the Government, if it is to be re sponsible, rus hing in with fir e sales of Cr own corporations that are being profitable and providing valuable service with confidential records such as MOS in this province. We cannot have the Government rushing in if it wants to be responsible.

It has to stand back and take a look at the options in the way that MOS can be utilized in the future, for future generations, to benefit Manitobans insofar as the provision of jobs and economic activity. * (14 50) I say to the Go ver nment, I say to th e Li beral Opposition, they should review this issue very carefully before they put their stamp of approval on this Bill. The Government could well do to withdraw this Bill. The liberal Opposition could well move a six-month hoist on it.

They could well stand back and say to the Conservative Government, you know, you have not shown us why this is the best way to proceed with MOS, why a sale is in the best interests of Manitobans, and we want to know that you have looked at all of the options.

We want to know that you have looked at the option of a joint venture, we want to know that you have looked at the confidentiality issue from all sides, and then in fact we could have a decision that is made in the best interests of Manitobans, either to retain it as a Crown corporation, after all of those options are considered and examined in detail, or a joint venture proceeded with in order to maximize benefits for Manitobans. So I say, Mr.

Acting Speaker, to the li berals, they have a responsibility in dealing with such a fundamental and important corporation to Manitobans that they demand the Government look at these options.

I say to the Government, the Members that are part of the decision making in caucus and in Cabinet, that they too take another look at what they are proceeding with and where they are going, and that they should not simply move in the direction that other Conservative Governments have gone in this country and in other provinces simply for ideological reasons, but in fact should look at what is best for Manitobans, as a truly pragmatic and caring Government, a Government that in fact believes in maximizing benefits for Manitobans would do. I say that is the dir ection they should go.

The issue of confidentiality is not a small issue, it is a major issue. The Health Records Association of Manitoba retains a gr eat deal of concern about how records would be kept confidential under a sale, under this legislation. Of course, the other issue that is most important in the minds of everyone is the fact that one company would be getting a monopoly for a five-year period, in which time they could drive out all potential competition and then be able to jack up the rates for the Government clients to unprecedented levels.

That is something we do not want to see happen, we do not see that protected in this Bill, and therefore would implore the Government and the Liberal Opposition to take another look at this issue, remove their ideological blinders to privatize. Well, why would the Li berals support this privatization of a money-making Crown corporation if it is not for ideological reasons? Have they moved that far to the right from some of their forefathers in the Liberal Party who saw the benefit of Crown corporations and the value that they could play, joint ventures and the value that they could play? (Mr .

Speaker in the Chair) We only have to wonder what motivates them to move down this road with this Conservative Government. It is an ill-conceived decision based on an overture made by the priv ate sector, by an unsolicited bid by a company. That is not a good enough reason to start making decisions about something as fundamental as this. The Government admits it came from an unsolicited bid.

They had not worked out the reasoning behind it, and now they have followed through because they say that they could have economic benefits, but they did not look at the other options, they just followed that one path, which is a sale. They did not look at the joint venture option which has so much potential. So I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of the Parties, the Government and the Liberal Opposition, review the other options before they blindly support this Bill, because I believe that it will hurt Manitobans in the longer term.

It will be counterproductive insofar as what is best for our children and our grandchildren in this province. Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr . Doer). 5545

Monday, February 26, 1990 BILL NO. 59-THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDME NT ACT Mr. Speaker: On the pr o posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach), Bill No. 59, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton). Stand. Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Agreed . COMMI TTEE CHANGES Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Gimli with committee changes. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Pr aznik), tha t the composition of the Sta nding Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows-this is for the Tuesday morning and Tuesday evening session-G illeshammer for Oleson and Burrell for Praznik.

I move, seconded by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr . Praznik), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as follows: Pankratz for Manness, Burrell for Praznik, and Connery for Helw er. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Agreed ? Agreed. BILL NO. 60-THE EDUCA TION ADMINIS TRATION AMENDM ENT ACT Mr. Speaker: On the pr oposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education (Mr . Derkach), Bill No. 60, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'admin istration scolaire, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brandon East, the Honourable Member for Brandon East. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to this debate on this particular important Bill. It is a very short Bill, but it is a Bill with an awful lot of implications. Maybe there is a lesson here or some kind of a message that when this Legislature comes up with very brief Bills we have to be very careful, because they may be dynamite pieces of legislation, who knows.

This particular Bill, innocuous as it may seem, has a couple of points in here that concern Members of our caucus. It may concern other Members of the Legislature, I am not sure. Not everyone has spoken on this, and I am not sure where other Members of the Opposition stand on this. There are some concerns of principle that are brought up when one considers Bill 60, The Education Administration Amendment Act, a Bill that is barely a page, a page and another small amount in length, a very, very short Bill but has a couple of sul3sections, a couple of amendments, that we have some concern with.

I guess generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned that the implications of this Act are that the publi c school system could be weakened by this particular measure. We have seen a considerable increase in funding for private schools; I understand $16 million doubling of the funding level, which may be all right in itself, but on the other hand, we have the public school system that is getting increases in the order of 3 percent to 4 percent, certainly not the same percentage amount as has been offered and has been given to private schools in the province.

I know there is a lot of concern about this out there among the public, the taxpayers out there who have to fund not only education by paying provincial taxes but who also have to fund by means of property taxes, by means of municipal taxes. There is a concern there that it certainly is a costly matter. Certainly it is an area of jurisdiction that the average person is very concerned about, because they do want to see quality education maintained in this province. I think we have been fortunate over the years. We have seen a high standard of pu blic educ ation developed here.

Manitoba has been unique inasmuch as it has maintained a strong public school system. It has not veered off into a separate school system as you have seen in some other provinces. That is our tradition. What we are worried about here is that the public school system may be th reatened, albeit in a rather innocuous way, albeit with a rather short Bill with a couple of phrases. Nevertheless, this taken with other measures and other statements and other actions taken by the Government add up to some kind of an erosion of the public school system in our minds. * (15 00) My concern, Mr.

Speaker, is not so much to try to attack or belittle the private schools. That is not my concern. Although we do have a lot of concerns about the implications of funding for private schools. I think if you talk to the average parent out there, and you bring this matter up with them you will find that the average citizen in Manitoba wants to ensure that we continue to have a strong public school system. If you talk to the average teacher, the average teacher is very concerned that the public school system not be allowed to erode in this province.

Certainly, if you talk to the trustees, the active tru stees we have-and we have a lot of good people who serve voluntarily on school boards right across this province-you discuss this issue with them and they too will express concerns as to the degree of level of funding for public schools and what is hap pening to tho se scarce dollars being funneled to the private school system.

I suppose particularly of concern is beyond the religious schools but of particular concern to the private non-religious schools-i f I can use that term, the more privatized commercial schools that could stand to receive funds under this, Ravenscourt and so on. The concern is growing, because we have read and we have heard of squeezing of established programs funding by the federal Government in the recent budget speech 5546

Monday, February 26, 1990 of Mr. Wilson, the budget pronouncements. It was stated very clearly that we were going to be squeezed, and I think the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness) has made some estimates as to the amount of money involved. One figure that came to mind, that I am reminded of, was $1 00 million within a year period. Then I have heard other numbers, but it is a lot of money. The fact is, Manitoba will have less funds available under EPF, which is usually meant to be available for health and post-secondary education.

Nevertheless, it is a squeeze on the entire budget of the province and therefore could cause the Government to have fewer dollars available for school funding. It would be a shame, Mr. Speaker, with the rapid increase in funding of the private school system that the public school system is starved for adequate funds. In the Bill there is reference made to any matter relating to the welfare of pupils enrolled at the private school. This amendment is being included. In our view, this is a rather passive approach.

The Minister, in our judgment, already has the authority and already has mor e responsi bility to ensure that standards are maintained in the private school system and to ensure that public monies are being properly administered in the private school setup. The change in itself may be a step in the right direction, bu! it is very limited. The onus still remains on the Minister to inquire after information he wishes to receive. I know that The Manitoba Teachers' Society is aware of the Bill and has made these statements.

They are concerned that there is not this adequate accounting, that there is this adequate public overseeing of what goes on in the private schools using public monies. The approach here is too passive. I mentioned The Manitoba Teachers' Society. I should have also referred to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, MAST, because it too has concerns in this area. To that extent, Mr. Speaker, you could argue that this particular clause is rather meaningless, that it is fairly soft and meaningless.

What we need is something of mo re subs tance and indeed we need mo re determination on the part of the Minister and the Government with regard to ensuring that public monies, precious taxpayers' dollars, are fully accounted for and are utilized in such a way that education standards are maintained at the highest level in the private school setup. I have talked to people in private schools, including in my own area of Brandon, recently attended an opening of a private school which was of religious bent.

It was not affiliated with any particular church, but they had certain concerns of promoting Christian ethics, Christian standards. While they try to maintain the regular curricula, their manda te as they saw it as a religiously oriented school, was to pay more attention to matters of Christianity. They are very good people, very well-meaning people and so on.

Whoever it is, I say there is res ponsibility on the part of the Minister, his department, his staff and this Government to ensure that public monies are properly spent and that standards are maintained at the highest. 5547 What we need are tighter regulations, Mr. Speaker, and we need more accounting of public monies. This is a thorny issue. The whole question of pri vate school funding is a very thorny issue. It is one that divides Parties from time to time.

It is one that is a growing concern in the public, particularly when you sit down with people who have children in school and who are most anxious to ensure that there is adequate funding of the public system. I would like to refer to a rather ideal setup. I do not know all the detail of it, but in the Brandon School Division, in the City of Brandon, the private schools, the Catholic schools at least, are very well accommodated in the public system. It is a very good system and it is satisfactory. It has been in effect for some time.

We know tha t hig hest standards are maintained and the schools are adequately financed. It seems to be something that could be copied, I would say, Mr. Speaker, by other parts of the province. Maybe this is the way to go, where you have a working compromis e so that the Catholic schools are able to survive, are able to carry on, are able to maintain standards, and yet they are fitting into the umbrella of the public system, so that you are avoiding the conflict; you are avoiding the aggravation that we see elsewhere whenever we get into this topic.

It is something that perhaps the Minister and his staff should be studying to see whether this could be brought in, perhaps in a limited way, within the other school divisions where th ere was a willingness on the part of the local authorities to do so. There you have I guess as close to an ideal setup that one might have to accommodate one particular group at any rate. I do not know whether other religious organizations would fit into that. I do not know whether a priv ate, commercial school would fit into that.

I would not think so, but certainly people in the City of Brandon seem to be quite satisfied with that arrangement. • (15 10) So, Mr. Speaker, we say that the way we have the setup now, we have private schools that are receiving more and more monies, considerable amount of monies. It is not a small amount now; it has grown and it is growing more quickly under this administration that there has to be this rendering of account, there has to be this greater accountability. There has to be more complete auditing, not only of specific monies spent, but on the programs.

If we do not, we may be headed into a dual system. I rather detect a bias on some Members on the Government side, and necessarily in their remarks as speakers, but more or less as comments made from their seats that there is some bias in favour of the priv ate school system. Well, I would caution those individuals to listen to the people of Manitoba, to listen to their own constituents, because this can be a very dynamite issue. They may not know of what they speak when they start urging more private schools. I say that you take on the public school system at your peril. We have a good public school system.

Surely what we want to do is to ensure that it su rvives, ensure that it grows, ensure that we have better standards in the future.

Monday, February 26, 1990 Someone yelled from their seat on the Government side, well, they are paying twice, those parents who send their children to the private schools. Yes, they do pay twice, buy they are paying twice by virtue of their own choice. A school is available to them under the setup of the public school system that their children could very well be educated in. I would dare say that most of us here have had our children educated in the Manitoba school system, and they have come out of it fairly well, Mr. Speaker. We have good teachers; they are dedicated teachers.

We have dedicated school board members. We have curriculum that meets good standards, guidance provided by the Department of Education-a good system by and large, could be impr oved, but very profess ional. It has grown and has developed over the years. Certainly there are a lot more facilities today in our public school system than when I was a child, or many of us here were children and went to school. We certainly did not have the equipment that public schools have today. In fact, even some schools are blessed with swimming pools and so on.

It may sound like a luxury, but nevertheless in this day and age, your Participaction and the need to have adequate health, fitness, concerns about adequate physical activity, it is not untoward to have swimming pools. Beyond that, even more important in my view, a lot of the public schools today have adequate libraries that they did not have two, three, four, five decades ago. Books were very hard to come by and they usually were old, tattered and torn and not even accessible to the students.

Today we have bright libraries, bright resource centres, we have programs in the public school system whereby those children can have access to a large range of books and are encouraged to read. To that extent they are far better off. Again in terms of other kinds of equipment, certainly we have moved into the computer age.

One would not have thought of introducing that type of technology, because it really did not exist 20, 30, 40 years ago, but now that we do have it we see our schools adequately equipped with computers and other kinds of machines so that our young people can learn this technology if they so wish. This is true of other areas of instruction. We have some very good music teacher s, a far gr eater percentage of teachers who can specialize in music than ever before, similarly with other specific skills.

We have people specialized in the industrial arts, specialized in human ecology and so on, so our children do have the privilege of receiving instruction from very well qualified people. I say without question, without hesitation, that the quality of teaching has improved substantially over the past several decades. Certainly since World War II there has been a significant impr ovement in my judgement at least in the ability and the standards of teaching, in the professionalism that exists. Hig her standards are required of the teachers.

They have to take longer training and generally come to their schools and do a very adequate, a very significant, a very professional job. There are more opportunit ies for teachers to up gr ade them selves as well, thr ough various conferences and so on. Generally speaking, we have seen impr ovements and we are all to the better on that account. I think our school system has produced a standard second to none in this province and probably in the United States as well. Mr.

Speaker, this bias there seems to be on the other side that I have detected, that we have to put more and more money into the private system, may end up eroding the public system. When someone asked why should I have to pay twice for my child to go to a private school of my choice, because I am already paying taxes, the answer is of course that is your choice, but you do not have to make that additional expenditure. You choose to do so.

That is your choice, but those who would argue, well, that is not fair that I should therefore receive, if I want to put my child into a particular religious school or some other kind of private school, then I should have that right, I should not have to pay school taxes and simply pay directly into that school institution, then I say you are setting up a dual system, you are setting up a separate system, and if you take it to its logical end we would indeed have a separate school system in Manitoba. That is not in keeping with the historical tradition of this province.

We have a proud tr adition in public educa tion, accessible to all regardless of race, religion or creed and one, as I described a few minutes ago, that has improved over the years and does cause our young people to come out of the system as better citizens therefore. As I said, we have a rather innocuous looking piece of legislation here. There are implications for dual funding, there are implications for a separate system, and I say, we cannot afford a separate system purely for financial reasons, but also we should not afford a separate system because there are other disadvantages with it. Mr .

Speaker, there are some other specifics. I have talked to some teachers about this matter and they mention too that often when they are compared to private schools sometimes people forget that the public schools do have to be available to all children of school age and the public school system must take these children on by legislation, by the right of the child, by the right of the family. Yet that is not true of the private schools.

Private schools as I understand can deny adm ission to handicapped children for example, and therefore this puts -if you just look at it in this respect because this is much more expensive of course, accommodating handicapped children. I agree that they should be accommodated. We should do more as a matter of fact to help handicapped children in the public system, but there is a cost, and that cost has to be borne by the taxpayers, by the provincial taxpayers and by the proper ty ratepayers.

The pri vate schools, as I am advised-i f I am wrong I would like to be told I am wrong-b ut I understand that private schools can simply deny handicapped children admission, and that does therefore in that respect put the public schools at a disadvantage, certainly when you are trying to account or prepare them on the cost-per- pupil basis or cost-per-student-day basis. 5548

Monday, February 26, 1990 Mr . Sp eaker, as I said earl ier, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees is concerned about this Bill. No doubt they will be making representation at the com mittee stage. Also The Manitoba Teachers' Society has concerns about this Bill and probably some specific parents groups, maybe parent-teacher societies or associations or whatever may be interested in coming before the com mittee dealing with this to voice their concerns. The last thing we want to see, Mr. Speaker, is our schools being sq ueezed of adequate funding.

I am worried that by trying to accommodate the needs, the growing demands of those in the private system, that we may not be able to adequately fund our public system, particularly in rural and Northern Manitoba, where it is certainly mo re expen sive to pr ovide standards of education simply because of the distance factor, because of the remoteness factor. Of course, we are into a day and age of the larger school division, whereby children are bussed into centres of learning, unlike the old one-room little red school house that others of us may have attended. I might add, I am reminded, Mr.

Speaker, of the action of a former Premier of this province, namely, Duff Roblin, who had the foresight and courage to bring in the larger school division. I know it was very unpopular in rural Manitoba, but I am convinced that the large school division has contributed to a significant increase in the standards of education in rural and northern Manitoba. has contributed significantly to improved quality of education. *

(1520) I just shudder to think how we managed to provide adequate standards without the larger school division, where you bring students to centres, where you can have enough students so that you can have teachers specialized in different disciplines so that they can have the benefits, let us say, of a science teacher or music teacher or industrial arts teacher, whatever, unlike the one-room school house, where you had maybe one or two teachers and they taught many, many subjects.

As dedicated as those people were and maybe are in some other places of the world, and I do not criticize them, some of them were excellent and some of them were very inspirational to their students.

I know some people in Manitoba who have had the experience of going through the one-room schoolhouse and have had the pleasure in some instances of having a most inspiring teacher in the one-room schoolhouse, but that poor teacher, he or she had to be prepared to teach on many su bjects, particularly when you get into junior high school and you get into sciences, you get into music, you get into other areas of learning. It is very demanding for one person to be knowledgeable, adequately knowledgeable, in all these areas.

With the larger school division, with the specialization, with the larger schools that are possible because of the large school division, you are able to have teachers with specialization in science, not only in science but in specific areas, the biological sciences, let us say, or the physical sciences, or yet teachers who can specialize in mathematics or teachers who can specialize in music. Our young people are therefore in my judgement better off on that account, but this costs a lot of money. I am worried, Mr.

Speaker, with the EPF squeezing by the federal Government, with other costs rising, and now with more and more funding of the private system, that the pu blic school system is going to be hurt. It seems to me that maybe those who will be hurt the worst will be those outside of Winnipeg, especially in the country, especially in the rural areas, and most especially in some of the northern areas. Mr . Speaker, I am trying to take this opportu nity to stress the importance of a strong, accessible, quality education system in Manitoba.

To do this we have to have adequate funding, we have to have the facilities, but we also have to have teachers of good quality. I recently noted in the media that there is concern about losing teachers in Manitoba, that we are not going to have enough teachers, lo and behold, in the next few years. Indeed there was one conference in Brandon addressing this subject of the trend of inadequate numbers of teachers in the Province of Manitoba. I do not know what is happening. A few years back we seemed to have a surplus of teachers. Certainly our population is not growing.

If anything, population is shrinking, regrettab ly. We do not like to see this, because in my judgement the population of Manitoba is below the optimum level. There is some optimum level for our population, but I know it is greater than 1.1 million which is roughly the number of people we have in the province now. As a matter of fact, the latest figures I have seen from Statistics Canada are, in the last year there has been an absolute shrinkage of the number of people outside of Winnipeg. Winnipeg, because of its size, can manage to maintain some population growth.

It may have slowed down, but it is maintaining some semblance of growth. This is not true outside of Winnipeg. We do not have the breakdown. I do not think it probably applies to places like Brandon or Thompson, but when you get into the small towns, the small villages, when you get into the rural municipalities, there the popu lation is vanishing, it is just going out of sight, so you would think that we would not have the need for teachers in some parts of the province. Maybe that will happen in the future.

Maybe there will be need for fewer teachers, but in the meantime we are being advised that there is this shortage of teachers looming on the horizon. I do not know what is happening, whether it is because we are not paying sufficient salaries, that is, maybe our salaries are not competitive. I do not have that information. There are people in the profession who are now spending time setting up committees. There has been one conference in Brandon dealing with this subject, and it is something that we have to concern ourselves with.

Unfortunately we live in a day and age of insufficient funding for all the needs of Government, although I must say our Government did leave this particular administration rather flush with money because we did realize that there was a need for greater funds. We did increase taxes. We paid the penalty for it, but 5549

Monday, February 26, 1990 nevertheless this Government has reaped the benefit of those increased revenues. Admittedly there has been some reduction in income tax that has been relatively minor in terms of the total spending of the Government or the total revenues collected by the Government. Of course there has been some reduction of the payroll tax, or the health and education levy as it is called. However, I would say that really is tokenism, if I could just have an aside on that. At the rate the Government is reducing the payroll tax, I have calculated it is going to take over a decade for that tax to vanish.

I say, Mr. Speaker, we will not hold our breath about the disappearance of the payroll tax. I would venture to guess it is going to be around an awful long time. Even though we took the bull by the horns and increased income taxes, the fact is the Government needs that money. I dare say that while we will get a lot of talk about eliminating it, that will not happen. You may see we have had minor reductions in totality. You may see a few other minor token-like reductions in the tax but the tax as such will stay.

Of course there is a good reason for that, if I can just have an aside, and that is because that tax brings revenue into the Province of Manitoba from the federal Government and other national corporations that we would not receive otherwise, particularly the federal Government and its agencies. I note just recently, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario Government has now brought in a payroll tax, and that the federal Government indeed has now formally agreed to pay these monies to the Liberal Government of Ontario which in their last budget introduced the payroll tax.

Now you have a payroll tax in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, and I would not be surprised if you will see it in other jurisdictions because there is a need for additional revenues to fund the growing demands made on Government. Regardless, the fact is that as we heard today in answers from the Question Period, the Government does not feel itself to be flush with money, and it wants to be very careful where it is spending. I can appreciate that because of the EPF sque eze, because of other increasing costs just simply resulting from inflation. When inflation occurs you need a bundle more money to fund the MDC.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr . Connery) for Portage was referring to the Manitoba Developmental Centre earlier in a non-political statement which is very nice to hear incidentally, but apart from that the MDC has a cost that just rises without any control over it because the cost of food goes up. You have to feed people. The food prices go up; the utility prices go up and whatever else it takes to operate a centre such as that. I am just using that as one example. We could look at dozens of examples of increasing cost that you almost have no control over, so there is that fact.

There is the fact of Government squeezing, and ther efore, Mr. Speaker, I agree. Money is precious. Funds are precious. Governments have to be very careful in where they spend the money because there is a limit to how much can be brought in. Having said that, I go on to say I, ther efore, regret that this Government has seen fit to double the funding of the private schools in our province when we already have these excellent school facilities that I mentioned before. As I said earlier, the pu blic school system has served the province well.

It goes back to the 19th century when it was established, and it has adapted over the years. There are some fundamen tal change s tha t have occurred in our society, but the public school system has indeed adapted to those changes.

It is adapting very well to some of the changes resu lting from the influx of new Canadians, the influx of immigrants, who have many languages, and they are doing an excellent job in teaching languages in the school and helping instruct English as a Second Language. * (1 530) We have-I understand 33 different languages are being taught somewhere in the system, so what we have is we have integrated a multicultural philosophy into the educational system, and yet at the same time we have this unique public school system that carries on, but it is the public school system that has met these challenges.

So we do not want to support a system of funding that is going to create enclaves or groups of religious, or cultural, or language, or national entities, we want ideally for people of all religious backgrounds, of all cultu ral backg rou nds, language backgrou nds, or whatever nationality backgrounds to be welcome into one fine system that they can together live and prosper and enjoy life as Manitobans. So we do not want to see this fine system dismantled. We do not think that we have some attack on this institution as we understand it, but that institution, Mr.

Speaker, is critic al in fostering understa nding, in fostering tolerance, in fostering harmony, among the various ethnic groups, among the various religious groups in our communities. I would dare say, Mr. Speaker, there is probably going to be more challenges in that respect as the years go by, as the world gets smaller, and as more people come to Canada from many distant lands. Mr. Speaker, I know the remarks that I have put on the record today are by and large I would believe supported by the major organizations concerned with education in the province today.

I believe that without question these matters are debated at the various conventions, have been debated I think almost every year at the conventions of the school teachers, The Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty, and also certainly at the various meetings of the school trustees. There are various resolutions passed. I note one submission referred to the Minister of Education and Training (Mr . Derkach) by The Manitoba Teachers' Society, which they do every year, a major submission based on the resolutions from their 1989 annual general meeting. This was tabled or provided to the Minister.

It is dated September 1989, and specific reference is made to the question of private schools. They have various critical comments to make about this. They have had news conferences on this matter. 5550

Monday, February 26, 1990 Mr. Speaker, I am confident that my remarks and the position of our Party support the position of the majority of teachers in Manitoba and indeed in The Manitoba Teachers' Society therefore. I am sure we are supported in our views by the school trustees because indeed they have, more eloquently than I, put their concerns on the record. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the dir ection that this Bill is taking us. We do not agree with the two tier system of elitist education, particularly funding of private schools in the province, the non-religious private schools.

We believe that there is an accommodation that could be made such as has been made in the City of Brandon where the Catholic schools have fitted very nicely, very well, in harmony into the public school system. This has been in existence for at least, I would say, between 15 and 20 years, and it seems to have worked very well. There is a lesson to be learned there, and maybe that is some workable compromise that enables certain schools, as in this example, Catholic schools, to survive and maintain a good quality, but at the same time does not undermine the public school system as we know it.

The last thing we need is to allow the public school system to be eroded into a dual setup, into a separate school setup. Mr. Speaker, I put a few remarks on the record that we have with this Bill. One other comment I wanted to make was, I was mainly talking about section- An Honourable Member: You cannot refer to sections. Mr. Evans: I cannot refer to sections. I am reminded of another point in the Bill and that is where now the Mi nister may make a gr ant to ju st about any organization, because we have struck out the reference to school division or school district. That is a pretty sweeping revision.

There is no mention of a private school here, but I am sure what this does is give the Minister authority now to do that without being illegal in the process, not that he wanted to break the Act or anything like that, or was not well meaning and so on, but nevertheless it must have been in contravention of the legislation or else this particular subsection would not be presented to us. Also, Mr. Speaker, there is reference elsewhere in the Bill to the welfare of pupils enrolled at the private school.

It seems to me that the Government has a responsibility here to be more concerned than it has been in the past about the welfare of pupils enrolled in private schools. Indeed there is a role here, not only for the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) but also the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson), to have them intervene ii necessary, where necessary. This is what I was talking about earlier, the need to have adequate standards and the need to have adequate auditing to ensure that the rights of the students are not being violated. In effect, Mr.

Speaker, this subsection-I guess I am not suppo sed to read Subsection 4(3)-but there is this reference that gives the Minister the right to provide grants to just about anybody he so chooses. We are going to oppose this legislation. I look forward to the presentations that will be made in committee. I am convinced that the bulk of the briefs will support the position that has been taken by myself today and other Members of the New Democratic Party. Thank you very much. Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Dauphin (Mr . Plohman), that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 56-THE WORKERS COMPE NSATION AMENDMEN T ACT

(2) Mr. Sp eaker: On the pr oposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Co-operative Affair s (Mr . Conner y), Bill No. 56, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du tr avail, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who has 20 minutes remaining. Stand. Is there leave that this matter remaining standing? Agreed . Bill NO. 84-THE WASTE RED UCTION AND PREVENTION AND CONSEQUEN TIAL AMENDMENTS ACT Mr. Speaker: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Environment (Mr . Cummings), Bill No. 84, The Waste Reduction and Prevention am;! Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur la reduction du volume et de la pr oduction des dechets et modifications correlatives, standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Dauphin, the Honourable Member for Dauphin. * (1 540) Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in participating in the debate on Bill 84, a waste reduction Bill, The Waste Reductio n and Prevention and Consequential Amendments Act. It has a fancy title, but as we shall see, and as many people have pointed out before me, many of my colleagues, this Bill really has very little substance in terms of action that the Government will in fact take.

It is, therefore, a lot of fluff, on a very important issue that we all should be more aware of as days and months pass. We see the impact of the tremendous amount of waste and garbage that is affecting people all over the world. in other countries, as well as in Canada, you point to some glaring examples where mismana gement of waste has caused environmental catastrophes. The one in Ontario with the i2 million burning tires is just one example where we see the cons eque nces of not handling waste in a prudent way, in a way that is consistent with placing the environment as a primary concern.

We do have an epidemic of garbage. I hesitate to speak on this Bill for fear that it may be called a garbage 5551

Monday, February 26, 1990 speech. In fact, that is what it will be. i know Members will resist making comments on that because it does leave it open to comments. However, I think that the Bill starts off well in dealing with this subject. It identifies, in a

whereas section, and in purpo ses and

definitions, it identifies the problem, and of course that is good because then there is some recognition that we do have a serious problem. It talks about the fact that waste is a thr eat to our environment, varying of course in different jurisdictions, it certainly is a thr eat, that action is required to reduce this thr eat, that all Governments and Government agencies and individuals are responsible for this potential action, for taking action to reduce the impact of waste. Of course all people are responsible for sharing in the cost of reducing waste in our society. Those are all very good things.

Under the Powers of the Minister, the Bill starts to become a bit more ambiguous. We go to the powers of the Minister. He simply is going to consult, he is going to encourage, he is going to monitor, he is going to undertake by means of grants, he is going to cause the preparation, he is going to enter into agreements. There is nothing too substantive in terms of specifics that he is actually going to undertake to reduce waste in our society. I think this has been well acknowledged by my colleagues when we looked at this Bill in caucus and reviewed it. The principles of it no one can disagree with.

We certainly ther efore do not speak against the principles in this Bill at all. What we do speak against is the lack of action in this Bill, the fact that the Government has chosen to do some window dressing essentially with this Bill, because it sets out all its action in regulation. It goes through to give powers to the Minister in terms of, as I mentioned, ambiguous terms, and then it says that all of the action statements would be carried out in regulation. For example in one

section they are talking about deposits and assessment. Assessments, it states that as their contribution towards the cost of waste re ducti on, prevention consume rs shall pay deposits and handling fees to produc ers on such products and materials in such amounts, at such times and in such a manner as may be pr escribe d in regulation. It sets no rates. It sets no targets, even initial rates that could be identified or the kinds of products that would in fact have a fee levied on them. They are not identified whatsoever.

Then it even goes further in its ambi gu ity by enshrining in the legislation the principle that all of us can agree with. It says that the Minister shall consult, undertake public consultation and seek advice and recom mendations from the public rega rding the propo sed regulation. That is just to make sure that it takes an awful long time to get them in place. Naturally the consultation should have taken place before the Bill was even introduced. The consultation should have taken place in developing the Bill.

Just as The Environment Act that was developed by the pr evious Government, and my colleague the Member for Radisson spent a great deal of time on the issues of the environment, as he led that Bill he undertook a great deal of consultation in developing that Bill thr oughout the province. When it was brought in it was a consensus Bill.

Basically it was not what the environmentalists wanted, to the extent that they wanted it, and it was not as lenient as perhaps some others would have liked it to be, but it was a consensus of moderate, although leading, breaking new ground, mode rately prog ressive in terms of break ing new ground, legislation for this province. It came about as a result of all the consultations. The regulations and action statements were developed as a result of that consultation. What this Bill does, it simply says that the regulations are going to be developed by consultation some time in the future.

It does not spell out what kind of action will be undertaken, so really we have nothing concrete, nothing of substance in this Bill that all of us could take out, or even the Government, though they will be able to make a great deal of, well, certainly some moderate I would think political hay out of this Bill, saying that they are so concerned about waste reduction they brought in a Bill in the House. They are not going to be able to define what they want to do because they do not know what they want to do or if they want to do anything.

Therefore, there is going be as little substance as possible that the public, as they become informed, will become aware that this Government is not undertaking any action of substance on this issue. What I see in this Bill then is a long drawn-out process perhaps to unde rtake some method of re ducing reduction at some time in the future through some methods that are not defined, and ther efore we would chastise the Government on this point.

I think it is a legitimate critique of the Bill, and in fact it then becomes debatable whether in fact bringing in a Bill of this type is serving any useful purpose other than public relations and window-dressing. I think that is something that the Government has to wrestle with insofar as whether they should be taking this back and developing more specific steps before they bring a Bill into the House to ask the Legislature to pass. I put that forward for the Members of the Government. At the same time I said earlier, and I would say again, that we find no difficulty with the principles of this Bill.

Of course, everyone I think can agree that waste is becoming a greater and greater global problem. It is thr eatening the environment in many different aspects thr oughout the world and in fact could lead to the overall destruction of humankind on this world if it is not controlled and if it is not dealt with over a period of time. In the past, we always thought that, well, yes, there is a problem with waste. There is a problem in the world but it is not really a big problem. It is not that pres sing. It is not something that is going to really hurt us; it is not really going to really affect us for a long time.

I mean, there is a lot of place to bury plastic diapers out there, is there not, a lot of landfill sites. It can go on forever. Then we start to find out in some highly populated areas that in fact they cannot find a place to put them any more. They have used all the available landfill sites, and they cannot find any others. They are 5552

Monday, February 26, 1990 starting to look at proper incineration that is not going to result in polluting the atmosphere in getting rid of these types of products, which are not biodegradable and which do not deteriorate for many, many hundreds of years. So it takes an enormously long time for the Earth to clean itself of the wastes, or the plastic wastes particularly, that human civilization is placing upon this Earth. So then we have to ask: Is the Mini ster of Environment (Mr . Cummi ngs) serious about this?

Is his Government serious about it to the extent that they will in fact put a charge on disposable diapers? Are they going to do that? Is that the action or are they going to consult first, or are they going to actually take some action on disposable diapers, for example? Are they going to put a charge on them so that people are encouraged to turn them into recycled depots or discouraged from purchasing them, going to reusable diapers such cloth diapers, for example?

Are they going to encourage people to go back to reusable diapers as opposed to the throw-away disposable diapers which are polluting our environment? There is no mention of the action that the Government is intending to take on specific matters. I do not say that they should identify every product in the Bill, but they could have identified some of the major offenders and some of the types of actions, specific actions, that they will take to address them in this Bill. Now another one that they might look at because of the serious problem that we have just become aware of in Ontario is the matter of used tir es.

Now should there not be a charge on tires so that they would be re tu rned and ther e would in fact be comme rcial operations recycling tires to the extent that they are being discarded in our society? They obviously are not doing that to that extent or else we would not have vast caches of them, some 12 million in one location in Ontario. * (1 550) They are laying there in that field waiting for an accident to happen, which did happen. Perhaps maybe it was not even an accident.

I do not know, but in fact a major, major fire, not only a fire, but the impact of the pollutants resulting from that fire are not even known at this time in terms of the acid rain that they may cause and the other impacts on the people who live in the vicinity, and ultimately all of the atmosphere of the earth which is affected through cumulative amounts as these things take place throughout the world. So it is very difficult at this particular time to actually quantify how much an individual disaster like that affects the health of our environment globally, but it does take its toll.

It does affect the ozone layer as more and more of us are becoming aware through scientific work that is being undertaken. So we are risking this beautiful planet. You know, I happ ened to watch a sto ry, th e "Challenger" last night, a movie. Some of the astronauts talked about the beauty of the earth when seen from space and how vulnerable it looks, no borders on that beautiful earth. The fact is that it is perhaps one of a 5553 kind in the universe. We have been blessed with the opportunity of living on this earth, and we should be protecting it. We lose sight of that in our own miniature worlds on this earth.

Yet if we could see it globally, we could see how vulnerable that world is that we all share. I think each of us would be committed environmentalists, working with all of our energy towards ensuring that environment is protected for future generations so our children and grandchildren will in fact inherit a cleaner environment than we inherited from our parents and grandparents, cleaner, not just as clean, but cleaner. In other words, begin to reverse the pr ocess of pollution of our environment. That is what we have to set as our goal, as legislators, as Governments, and as just members of the public. We hav

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-133a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 133a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ac2603762f205f9bee960f4b32f2d417d59b1115

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