Manitoba Hansard — 6 March 1997 (Sitting 4, 36th Legislature, 3rd Session)

36-3-4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVII No.4 - 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 6, 1997

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE. Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK. Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

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

P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. PC. PC. P.C. P.C N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C PC PC P.C N.D.P.

161 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 6, 1997 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. David Newman (Minister charged with the administration of The Communities Economic Development Fund Act): Madam Speaker, I would like to tender the Third Quarter Report of the Communities Economic Development Fund and also table the Third Quarter Report of the Manitoba Hydro Ele ctric Board. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS International Women's Day Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): I have a statement for the House.

Every year on March 8, hundreds of thousands of women and men around the world gather in cele bration of International Women's Day to cel ebrate women's achievements and to look to future endea vours. This year March 8 falls on Saturday, so I would like to take this opportunity to recognize this special day. International Women's Day had its beginnings in the strike by women garment workers in New York City protesting uns afe, overcrowded working conditions. Their cry was for bread and roses, bread symbolizing economic security for women and their families and roses symbolizing a better quality of life.

Our government is committed to enhancing the quality of women's lives, focusing on women's economic security, their education and training, and safety for women at home, at work and in the community. Our government has taken a comprehensive approach to dealing with violence against women. Our approach addresses prevention, crisis intervention and services to victims and families.

Init iatives we have taken include funding of 25 agenc ies offering support services to women and their chi ldren, the best crisis shelter system in Canada, second- stage housing which recognizes women's needs for varying degrees of support after the initial crisis, a dedicated Family Violence Court, a land titles protected name registry, a family violence policy and procedures manual developed in consultation with the province's police services, a women's advocacy program to assist women who are going to court in cases of family violence, and an aggressive prosecutions policy on domestic violence.

In the fall of 19 96, the Women's Directorate in partner ship with CIBC and our police services launched a province-wide safety campaign entitled Keeping Safe at Work. This initiative is targeted to employees working alone, as well as individuals travel ling alone to and from work. It is a common sense approach for employers and employees to assess their workplace, to maximize safety and minimize crime. Women's economic self-sufficiency is also a priority for this government.

To address this, the Manitoba Women's Directorate launched and now administers the Training for Tomorrow Scholarship Award Program which encourages women to expand their career options by training for well-paid, high-demand positions in today's high-tech labour market. Women enro lled in two-year programs in math-, scie nce- and technology-related areas at the province's three community colleges are eligible for the awards. To date, 141 students at Assiniboine, Keewatin and Red River Community colle ges have received the $1 ,000 scholarship.

The Employment Development and Literacy Branch ofManitoba Education and Training has invested $12 million in training and finding subsequent job placements for social assistance cl ients across the

162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 province. Training dollars are also targeted to single parent mothers and others on social assistance. We beli�ve that Manitobans want to work, and in order to work they must have training and skills useful in today's marketplace.

This government has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate its commitment to furthering the goal of equality for women in Manitoba Through the year, I will continue to work with my Status of Women colleagues across this country to address major areas of concern of women including violence against women, economic security, education and training and youth. Manitoba women have always been in the forefront of change in our country. I hope that we will continue to work together to make Manitoba the best place to live, work and raise a family, a place where all will have a share in the bread and roses.

I would like to invite all members of the Legislature and their staff to participate in a celebration of International Women's Day. It will take place at the Crowne Plaza Hotel downtown today, March 6, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. Please join us there to mark this important event. Thank you, Madam Speaker. *

(1335) Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne. Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne) Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I would also like to thank the Minister responsible for the Status of Women for her statement. Today, this side of the House wishes to join with sisters everywhere and acknowledge International Women's Day which will be officially celebrated, of course, on Saturday, March 8, but which various Winnipeg women's groups in various ways have celebrated all week.

International Women's Day or IWD, as most of you know, dates to the early 1900s when women textile workers in New York went on strike to protest their low wages and absymal working conditions. The strike of marginalized, mostly immigrant, women workers took tremendous courage. Their courage and willingness to fight back was the genesis of International Women's Day.

Since 1910, women around the world have recognized March 8 as International Women's Day, a day to celebrate their sisterhood and their determination to win full and equal participation, economically, culturally, and socially, equality indeed in every facet of life. IWD is the time to celebrate the lives, rights, courage and achievements of all women for our fighting spirits have taken us a long way and IWD is also a day to remember and renew our commitment to all our sisters, especially those sisters who live with ne:ither bread nor roses, many of whom live in this province.

By remembering this, we acknowledge there is some distance to go, and we commit, on tlh.is side of the House, to travelling those roads. Naturally, International Women's Day is closely aligned with labour and with the labour movement, a conjunction symbolically present in the most significant International Women's Day song, "Bread and Roses." Women want bread, the basics like food, housing, and jobs, but women want roses too: quality of life, education, culture, health care, a social safety net, the opportunities to realize their full potentials.

Unfortunately all throne speech and other puff pieces, including the minister's today-to the contrary both bread and roses have become receding possibilities for many Manitoba women, because in truth this government has to date turned its back on the full and equal participation of our women. Provincial government policies and cuts, augmented by federal ones, are impoverishing women and denying them services, economic security and respectful employment. At a time when marty women are experiencing economic desperation and are desperately in need of services, these very services are being eroded.

The principle of universality has been abandoned. Consider, for example, the changes to Pharmacare and to eye care. How many women do not have their eyes examined and indeed choose to support their children with this money? Women, particularly single-parent women, are hard hit as they are the primary caregivers to children and responsible for their children's well-being. Social assistance to single-parent families with children over six, and 85 percent of single-parent families are now headed by women, is under siege.

It is on its way to becoming workfare, and now we he:ar report after report of single parents with children under six being

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 163 bullied and harassed by their workers. Child care spaces have been frozen, post-secondary education for single women with children is almost impossible. The threats of privatization and the threats of layoffs and actual layoffs have created an insecure work environment for Manitoba's mostly female health-care providers, not to mention the staff here in the Leg., mostly women, all hard workers with families to keep and lives to lead.

There is a surcharge for Legal Aid, a backlog in the Family Violence Court, last year a 2 percent cut to Family Disputes, and the average hourly wage gap between men and women is growing, not shrinking. * (1 340) The minister's answer, seconded by the Premier, is to offer "Shaking the Tree, A Celebration of Women." All women are welcome at the Crowne Plaza, just as long as they have the day off and can pay the $35 registration fee, which of course leaves most women out in the cold.

In my opinion, this is an appropriation and usurpation that hits at the very core oflntemational Women's Day, a day initiated by the working-poor women to celebrate their struggles and to communicate the universal need for bread and roses. Even the title is co-opted. "Shaking the tree" is a populist expression referring to grassroots political movements and their determination to tum government upside down.

Maybe this minister and this Premier could tune into the music of Spirit of the West or Peter Gabriel who celebrate the real meaning of shaking the tree and know more about this than the Tory contingent opposite ever will. Fi nally, I regret my lack of enthusiasm and angry words, but poverty is a sobering reality. Tomorrow the minister may want to attend the luncheon at the union and hear Lynne Toupin tell us about poverty. Members of the New Democratic Party and caucus will certainly be there. Thank you.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon seventeen kindergarten to Grade 9 students from the Vermillion Colony School under the direction of Mr. Arlen Scharfenberg. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura). We also have this afternoon fifty Grade 9 students from Westdale Junior High School under the direction of Mr. Michael Greenaway.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Personal Care Homes Public Inquest-Recommendations Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yesterday I asked the Premier (Mr. Fi lmon) some questions about the follow-up of his government through three different ministers of Health dealing with the unfortunate death of Anne Sands and the Rusen inquest that was released to the provincial government and the Premier in 1994.

There were a number of recommendations made in that report, and the Minister of Health answered in this Chamber that all of the recommendations, he believed, were implemented in terms of the government report that was commissioned after the Rusen inquest to deal with the vulnerable and elderly in the personal care homes in Manitoba.

Would the Premier please outline the action that was taken following the Rusen inquest in terms of staffing levels and the other implementation and action taken from the 1995 report that was commissioned for the provincial government, withheld before the election and released shortly thereafter? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, with respect to the matter of Mrs.

Anne Sands who passed away while a resident of the Heritage Lodge facility, I understand that the circumstances around her death, from what I have been advised, was that she wandered out of her room and fell on a bed in another room and became entrapped between the side rails on that bed. When staff found her, 911 was called. She was not able to be extricated before she suffocated.

164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 The recommendation in the inquest of the Chief Medical Officer recommended-or one of those recommendations was that personal care homes have staff who would be on duty in hallways for the purpose, I understand, of watching people who wander. That was felt to be unworkable, but policies were developed, particularly in this case, that people who do wander would be checked every 15 minutes. As well, the beds in that particular facility were changed in terms of the rails so that particular risk or danger would not be there. *

(1345) Mr. Doer: The Premier (Mr. Filmon) knows and the government knows that Rusen and many other people examining the issue of personal care homes since the Premier issued his Speech from the Throne in 1990 have stated that the staffing levels are woefully inadequate. Furthermore, the government's report that was withheld and covered up by the government in the election campaign and released shortly thereafter recommended that the government initiate immediately random, unannounced inspections of personal care homes in the province of Manitoba. The Premier is responsible for these recommendations.

The Minister of Health said he would implement the recommendations, the former Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he has taken action and leadership to stand up for the vulnerable people in our personal care homes. Has he implemented that recommendation or has he failed to do so? Mr.

Praznik: As I am sure members appreciate, coming into this department, sometimes it takes a while for a new minister to be up to snuff on all of the details, but I can assure the member, from the reports that I have, that the department has done and does routine inspections, including unannounced inspections. At Heritage Lodge, I believe there was an unannounced visit made in November, just for an example.

That is certainly an area that I share with him because I believe very sincerely, as I am sure he does, that unannounced visits by staff from the Department of Health are an excellent way to check the ongoing operations of personal care homes. As the new minister, I certainly will continue that policy and hope there is opportunity to enhance it if it is not suitably adequate for the times. Mr.

Doer: The government, in a document that was released last year, stated that they had not implemented recom mendation No. 24 dealing with random, unannounced inspections in the personal care homes, which contradicts what the minister said in the House and which contradicts what the minister said in June of 1995. It said that they will leave the issue of random inspections of personal care homes to the new regional health boards. That was a document tabled in this Chamber. Now the Premier, of course, has the temerity to go on radio shows and accuse our member for Kildonan (Mr.

Chomiak) of fearmongering when he asked questions about personal care homes generally and Holiday Haven specificaJiy last year in this Chamber.

I would like to ask the Premier, who will be investigating his responsibility of not implementing the 1990 Speech from the Throne, not implementing the recommendations from the Rusen inquest, not implementing the policy alternative recommendations dealing with private and public nursing homes, not implementing fuiiy the 1995 recommendations that were made to his government, and for saying that we were fearmongering when in fact he should have been moving in to Holiday Haven last year?' Who will be investigating his lack of follow-up and action for the most vulnerable people in our nursing homes here in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Praznik: Firstly, with respect to the issue of unannounced visits, I can inform the member from the information that is provided to me as minister that in this particular case there was an unannounced visit of that facility- An Honourable Member: Holiday Haven? Mr. Praznik: No, we are talking about the Heritage manor here as one-[interjection] Would the member please just bear with me. If that is not the case, if they are inadequate, I have undertaken as minister to look at that to ensure that we are doing adequat1� unannounced inspections. I think aii members would agree, that is a

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 165 very reasonable way of checking on that. They do occur now from what I understand from the department. If there are not enough of them, I will endeavour to look at that. With respect to comments about fearmongering, we know from time to time there are going to be problems and issues that come forward. What is absolutely critical is we deal with the facts, that we try to deal with the facts that are before us in a rational and reasonable way.

When the Leader of the Opposition comes to this House with information that is not quite accurate or not quite descriptive of the facts- An Honourable Member: Name it. Mr. Praznik: Well, the member says to name it. Yesterday in Question Period, Madam Speaker, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) talked about this particular incident as if there were huge problems in that particular facility. What came to light is a problem with old beds that have been changed-that was brought to light-and the issue of how wanderers are monitored. Those have been corrected.

That is not worthy of bringing fear to every resident of a personal care home in the province of Manitoba. * (135 0) Personal Care Homes Public Inquiry Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I do not know what it takes for this government to realize there is a problem. The '93 Manitoba Centre for Health Policy Evaluation indicated problems with private personal care facilities. The '94 Rusen report-and, by the way, for the minister, he should read that report which points very specifically to problems with inadequate staffing, woefully inadequate.

We have the interdepartmental task force making numerous recommendations, the minister announcing random inspections and then no random inspections. We now have the minister reannouncing that in 1997 after a death. I would like to ask the Premier, since he is ultimately responsible for this matter, will he do the right thing and call not an inquest into one specific death but an inquiry into the absolute negligence of this government in dealing with personal care homes in this province? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if members of the public are looking for examples of rhetoric, we have just had one, because we know the reality of the situation of personal care homes. We know that the level of care in personal care homes across this province has been increasing, the needs of patients who go into them or the residents who go into them are much greater than they were over the last number of years because our home care system is allowing people to live in their own homes longer. We know that that puts greater pressure on the system, greater pressure on staff.

We know and I would not deny that personal care homes are under a great deal of pressure today-there is no doubt-as they deal with an ever-increasing workload and more serious cases. We have to work to address that with them and find the right levels of staffing to provide the kind of care that is needed in those facilities. It is not always an easy solution to find, but we are working towards that, and that will probably be an ongoing matter because needs change over time. Every personal care home resident has family who visits them.

The kind of fear that the member is engendering and the kind of arguments that are being made are not representative of the kind of feedback we get from the public, Madam Speaker. Mr. Ashton: Supplementary, Madam Speaker. I want to address this again to the Premier who is responsible, ultimately responsible for these years of negligence. I want to ask the Premier if he will recognize that what we are talking about here is not fearmongering. These are reports; there is an inquest report, clear recommendations that were made.

Will he recognize that, due to the negligence of his government under his leadership, those recommendations were not put in place and that, indeed, serious questions have to be raised about whether people were at risk and are still at risk because this government will not deal with the private nursing care home issue? · Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson, if I may understand this correctly, is no

166 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 longer just dealing with the issue of personal care homes or nursing care homes, but the issue of public verSJ.ls private. I can tell the member that there are from to time public facilities, whether they be supported by municipalities or operated by nonprofit organizations, that also have problems.

Often this is very much a function of the management group that is in place, of how they operate, of personalities, et cetera, and sometimes it is the result of faulty equipment or equipment that is not appropriate in the case of those beds. [interjection] The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) says money. Yes, we have to make sure that we are getting value for our dollar, but it is our intention to ensure that we are providing adequate resources to properly and adequately staff those facilities. That has been changing over time, and it will continue to do so, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Ashton: I want to try one more time to the Premier. I want to ask the Premier, when will he stop sitting there silently and allow his ministers, his new minister to rationalize some very serious concerns that have been identified in report after report? When will he do the proper thing and appoint an inquiry that will also be able to look not only at the specific situation of Holiday Haven but the absolute negligence of this government in dealing with problems that have been identified as early as 1990 and 1993 and 1994, Madam Speaker? Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, as I have said before, we know that the needs of our personal care facilities in this province are changing because the load that they carry in terms of care requirements of their residents is increasingly greater each year as more and more people who go in are in greater need of care. We are thankfully being able to keep more people at home with the use of home care. Consequently, we know that the resources, the appropriate resources to deal with that, we have to work continually to improve those to meet those standards. It is not always easy.

You have to keep working at it, and we continue to do that. *

(1355) Holiday Haven Nursing Home Public Inquiry Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, it is a failure of our system and of this government that after months of failure to act at Holiday Haven, the only way a forum of investigation can take place at Holiday Haven is through an inquest, through a death. That is not enough. There has already been an inquest; there have already been three reports that have not been followed.

Will the minister today tell the House how the outstanding issues at Holiday Haven we have dealt with, like why it took five months for the management to change when it was identified five months ago; why the only way people were able to raise their concerns was through the member of the Legislature; why the Department of Health failed to fiollow up on recommendations and failed to follow up with concerns of staff; why the government did not implement the recommendations of its own committee; and why two days ago the minister said there were not problems in other nursing homes, and today he is saying there are problems?

Where will the forum be to investigate those issues? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member for Kildonan certainly offers a host of questions for me to answer, and I hope I get that opportunity to do so in a number of answers and certainly in Estimates. First of all, what I did say to the member the other day was not that there were not problems at other nursing homes. I said, let us put it in perspective; there are from time to time. It is a human system; you have human beings delivering a service with all that entails. From time to time, it is never always going to be perfect.

Can we minimize that? Can we work to ensure that when those things happen, that appropriate action is taken to correct them? Absolutely. That is, I think. all that one can reasonably expect to do because it is a human system. Madam Speaker, with respect to Holiday Haven, the matter has come up a number of times that he has raised. As we indicated, the department last fall requested that Holiday Haven management

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 167 commission an independent report. They did; they had a proprietary right in that report. They developed a plan; it was not acceptable to the department. There was a process of negotiating going on when the events of early February intervened, and we made the decision to put in a new management team. So the short answer to the question of what is happening at Holiday Haven today. We have a completely new management group in there who are ensuring the quality of care and working towards accreditation over a two-year period. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister, who knows an inquest will not answer all the questions, explain and tell this House how issues like Paula Black who resigned because of incompetence there will be investigated; how the patient who was transferred and had to have the wounds photographed at another nursing home was dealt with; how the patients who were abused by management are going to be dealt with? How are those issues going to be dealt with, with an inquest that is only going to be narrowly defined towards the death of one resident?

There should be a public inquiry to the broader issues of not only how Holiday Haven was operated but how the Department ofHealth failed to protect the residents of personal care homes. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all let us understand that the inquest from a Chief Medical Officer is one tool in getting to the facts of any situation. I welcome this inquest. Obviously, within the mandate of the Chief Medical Examiner, we will find a report that will give us the facts relating to the death.

If, given the other information that comes to me through the department, through the new management group that is in place, through this inquest, we find some significant problems that have to be dealt with, it is my responsibility as Minister of Health and we as a government to address those and ensure that they are corrected and steps taken to the best of the ability of the system to protect people who are in our personal care homes. Madam Speaker, we will do that. Public Forum Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, will the minister today outline for the public something that the minister failed to do in the fall, something the minister failed to do in '95 and '93, et cetera? Will the minister commit today that there will be a forum where all of the individuals who have concerns about Holiday Haven and the way matters were handled; where the 19 concerns that we raised with our letter to the minister; where the unexplained deaths can be reviewed and can be dealt with; and the political responsibility of a Premier saying that we are only fearmongering?

Can all of these issues be dealt with? Will the minister commit today to a forum to permit those issues to be dealt with so Manitobans can have assurance that their loved ones are cared for in personal care homes in the future? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree with the member for Kildonan that there has to be some avenue for that information to be brought forward. I would separate the two types of information, however.

With respect to deaths, it is an automatic procedure that they be reported to the Chief Medical Officer of the province, who makes a decision on whether an inquest is required and determination. So, with respect to deaths, let us not confuse the two because there is already a well-established process in place. But the particular point the member raises about complaints that go back for some period of time, I am currently working with my staff on a number of options to have a model because I am interested in that information. I am interested in it as minister.

I want to know if it can tell my department and me as minister and my colleagues in cabinet something that we need to do to improve the system, so I certainly want to ensure that that mechanism is in place, and I hope to be able to have something for the member shortly. *

(1400) Personal Care Homes Northern Manitoba Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed also to the Minister of Health.

168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 In the south here we have been trying to bring to the attention of this Minister of Health the state of personal care·homes, the need for better management so as to avoid the unnecessary demise of our elders. That is a really, really sad situation. The government should be ashamed of that and do something immediately to correct that problem. In the North, however, we are not talking about personal care homes to fix up because we do not have any.

My question for the minister is, where in his planning and priorities has he placed the issue of personal care homes in the northern communities? Hon. Darren Pramik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I really think it is important in debates on these issues that when we get into exaggeration for the purposes of Question Period, and I do not want to engage in that, but the member for The Pas said there are no personal care homes in the North.

I do not want to get into a-it is so tempting to be able to say, when is the last time he has been in The Pas, because one of the big issues in The Pas is a personal care home in that community now that has a host of problems and probably needs a major capital injection in the next few years. It is something that we are struggling with. It has been brought to my attention by the regional health board when I was there last week, so to make the blanket statement to this House that there are no personal care homes in the North, that is not accurate.

If he had raised the issue of the one in The Pas, I think his comments would have more credibility, but I am pleased to address more of this in his next question. Mr. Lathlin: Did not address anything. What is he talking about? Madam Speaker, let me ask the minister then, out of the 53 Northern Affairs communities, how many have personal care homes, and does the minister agree that there is a real need for these personal care homes? I do not know when the last time the minister was in the Island Lake area, but the last time I was there, they were looking for a personal care home.

Could I ask the minister whether he agrees with me that there is a real need for personal care homes, particularly in the isolated areas? He knows what I am talking about. I am not talking about The Pas, Flin Flon or Thompson. Because right now we are having to send our elders elsewhere in Manitoba, you know, often in place:s away from relatives, friends and community. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, as we narrow the focus somewhat, the member for The Pas is absolutely right. There is a need in many larger communities. He mentioned the 53 Northern Affairs communities.

In asking that opinion, having been Minist,er of Northern Affairs, many of them are communities of only several hundreds of people. I think the largest one would probably be Wabowden. Mr. Lathlin: You know what I am asking. Mr. Pramik: I know, and I will get to that, but to say to the media and the public and this House and to ask me if you want personal care homes in communities with several hundred people, you m:ver have the numbers. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): We do not even have one in Thompson. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the: member for Thompson mentions Thompson.

Yes, that is a need that has been identified in that community. I do not deny that. The member referred to Island Lake. Island Lake is a large enough grouping of communitiies that would probably justify having a personal care !home. One of the issues there obviously and makes it even worse is the fact that there are not Home Care programs in that area to take off some of the pressure. So I am very much aware of that nc!ed. How we address it gets into a host of issues, and I look forward to a discussion with the member on that matter.

Madam Speaker: The honourable m1!mber for The Pas, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Lathlin: Promise even a budget, too. Madam Speaker, my last question is to the same minister. Will this minister recognize and accept the fact that aboriginal people are human beings and citizens of this province and convene a meeting with MKO and NACC together for the purpose of

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 169 identifying concrete action plans to address the situation that we were just discussing? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, health care for aboriginal people is a very serious matter as it is for all Manitobans, and for any member of this House to get up and ask if a minister would recognize aboriginal people as human beings I find offensive. I find it very offensive and unworthy of the member, for any member of this House.

Madam Speaker, in the first few weeks of my tenure as Minister of Health, following a meeting in Dauphin in which MKO was part of that meeting, I wrote to both MKO and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs inviting them to work with us and UMM and MA UM in finding a way of putting together some form of co ordinating function that we could provide some liaison with the regional health authorities in developing and dealing with some of these issues. As of this date, I am still awaiting their reply and input. I would hope I would have it shortly, and I would welcome that input. Economic Growth Manufacturing Industry Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. March 14 we are going to be anticipating yet another budget, and in that budget what we are going to see is a lot of stats that are going to attempt to prop up this particular government. What I did, because no doubt all members of this Chamber will talk of the benefits of having a well diversified economy, is I looked at the manufacturing industry, and I went back to 1988. In the month of April when they were elected, there were 64,000 manufacturing jobs. In January of '97, there were 61,500.

Madam Speaker, if you put all the stats to the side, if you like, in terms of here is where we are doing well, the bottom line is that in the manufacturing industry where there are decent, well-paying jobs, this government is failing. It is failing miserably. My question to the Premier is, why? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I know that the member may want to try and paint things as negatively as he possibly can, which is unfortunate because most observers, whether it be economic observers, the banks, the Conference Board, the independent forecasters of this world, are all saying that Manitoba faces a period of buoyancy and economic growth and strength like it has probably not seen in its history. In fact, today Manitoba has more people employed than it has ever had before in its history.

It continues this year, last year, and probably next year, to be in the top three or four growth provinces in the country. Its export growths have been in the upper echelon of the nation, first or second, for several years now. It also is the only province in Canada that with 1997, the new forecast just out, we will have had six straight years of increase in capital investment, the only province in Canada that can say that. With all of these indications, one of the strengths that keeps coming forward is the manufacturing sector.

We have companies expanding today, places like Vansco Electronics, places like Boeing, places such as Loewen Windows, Willmar Windows, Palliser Furniture-[ interj ection] Madam Speaker, I would ask the members, please, please calm down. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: We have had major, major increases in our exports. In fact, our exports to the world have more than doubled in the past six years. Our exports to our largest export market, the United States, have increased almost 150 percent in six years.

Eighty-three percent of those export increases have been in value added processed or manufactured goods. So it is clear that the Manitoba manufacturing economy, like virtually every area of our economy, is extremely strong and growing, Madam Speaker. I would think that that is something he would want to celebrate rather than not. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am not going to celebrate that this Premier has lost 2,500 manufacturing jobs since he has been the Premier. My question to the Premier is, did the Premier do anything with respect to Molson's where we lost 91 jobs, to Rogers where we are losing 82 jobs?

Was the

170 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 Premier even aware that these companies were going to be moving out of the province of Manitoba? Does the Premier care about the manufacturing industry? Because, if he does, he has a funny way of showing it because we are losing jobs. *

(1410) Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member opposite I know is not aware that there are massive changes taking place in the economy of the world and many of them do impact on Manitoba. The fact of the matter is, yes, we have lost a few hundred jobs in some areas of the old economy where we used to have employment numbers that were greater than today, but the other side of that coin is that January to January, according to Statistics Canada 1997 over 1996, we have almost 24,000 net new jobs. That means, after all of those jobs were lost, we have replaced them and added an additional almost 24,000 net new jobs.

Now the member opposite talks about the loss of some jobs at Manitoba Sugar and indeed every member on this side is very concerned about it. We have people involved in the sugar industry right here in our caucus. We have tremendous amounts of concern for it. That is directly attributable to the fact that his colleagues in the Liberal government of Ottawa by their trade policy destroyed those jobs, destroyed those jobs. Point of Order Mr.

Lamoureux: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways and blame the loss of jobs on Ottawa and the gaining of jobs on him- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Lamoureux: The province is the one that is losing the jobs here. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. *** Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his response. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member has put the loss of jobs on Ottawa more succinctly than I could have, so I will leave it at that. The fact of the matter is that this province is showing tremendous signs of growth as new opportunities are being accessed not only in the high-tech manufacturing areas but in areas of the new economy, in areas of computers, in areas of telecommunications, in areas of high-tech consulting. We just met with a group this morning in our Eonomic Development Board who are in that leading edge, high-technology field creating significant numbers of jobs in Manitoba.

That is the way of the future, and that is what we are ensuring that we keep Manitoba focused on because those are the kinds of opportunities that will continue our growth. Bristol Aerospace Employment Protection Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): C<m the Premier tell this House what exactly is he doing to ensure that the jobs are going to stay with Bristol Aerospace as we all know that it is up for sale?

Is the Pre:mier involved in any way to try to protect those jobs and ensuring that our aerospace industry remains healthy in the province of Manitoba? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, this government has been very interested and very supportive of the continued operations of Bristol.

We have been in communications with both the company that is in the business of putting the company up for sale as well as the company that is handling the sale, ck:arly indicating to them that we want Bristol to be maintained as a unit here in Winnipeg and able to expand and grow with the activities that are available in the overall world economy of aerospace development.

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 171 AIDS Strategy Hospice Funding Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, last fall Manitoba Health released its provincial AIDS strategy promising education, prevention, support, care and treatment for people living with HIV-AIDS. Last evening a coalition of eight service organizations, funded until 1998 under the federal government's AIDS Community Action Plan, sometimes known as ACAP, this group held a public meeting at which the community after two years of research and consultations determined that Manitoba needs an AIDS hospice.

My questions are for the Minister of Health. Given the provincial commitments in the AIDS strategy document and given the government's promises in the throne speech to target palliative care, am I right in assuming that Manitoba Health will be a partner in funding the AIDS hospice? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that that recommendation that came out of the meeting last night that the member refers to is a logical conclusion from where we are in the AIDS strategy and the needs of people who suffer from that very terrible illness.

Obviously today I cannot make a commitment to funding that, but I do want to recognize the importance of that recommendation, and I am sure that I will be seeing it brought forward to my attention through various channels in the near future. It is certainly worthy of consideration. Services for Women Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, because the AIDS strategy document completely ignores women and because last year 15 new women tested positive for HIV, which is a record number as far as I know, how does the minister plan to respond to women living with HIV and to their families when these women die?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I think for anyone who suffers from AIDS, whether they be male or female, and there may be unique issues involved, it is always a great tragedy for them and their families. So it is something we obviously have to be cognizant of. That is part of what the AIDS strategy, I would imagine, is about, issues of palliative care and hospice. Certainly an area that I have managed to have some meetings on this subject since my appointment. I know it is one that the previous minister was quite concerned with as well.

We are certainly open to working with people involved in the partnership in dealing with this particular illness to find good, workable solutions to many of these issues. So I make that commitment to her today. Implementation Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to hear the minister is open to these organizations because an official from communicable diseac;es has already told those AIDS service organizations funded by ACAP to expect no money from Manitoba Health, so I am wondering how the AIDS strategy will be implemented and how the hospice to which he apparently is also committed will be realized. Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I do not want the member to assume today. I see it as a very logical recommendation coming from that group. I have not seen it yet.

All of the detail is something that has to work into consideration. I have systems in government in which to address that, including capital and other issues, so to say today, "I am committed, it will happen tomorrow" is just not accurate or realistic given the systems of government, but we are certainly committed to working on these issues and hopefully to find solutions, whether it be hospice that we can accommodate within our systems and budgets.

As a new minister, the commitment I give her is that it is an area where I recognize the concerns that are related there, and I am certainly prepared to work with people in that community, people who are dealing with this particular illness to find what solutions can work. Madam Speaker, the withdrawal of the federal funds from this particular area is really a tragedy, and I would hope our friends in the Liberal Party can pursue that with their federal colleagues in the coming federal election.

172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 *

(1420) Legislative Building Royal Doulton Product Promotion Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, yesterday I took a question as notice from the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and I would like to respond to the issue raised by the honourable member and put on the record the background to the issue and the result. First off, the reference made to Legislative Assembly Management committee had no connection to this issue, nor does the Speaker's office.

The real issue is the contractor who operates the cafeteria and Legislative dining room allowed Royal Doulton to display and sell their products in the private dining room, which is in between the cafeteria and dining room. When it was brought to my staffs attention, they indicated to the contractor that this particular use of the private dining room was not a permitted use according to the contract. The contractor, who has just recently taken over the food services, was not aware of this restriction in the contract.

The order given was to cease and desist from this kind of use, and a letter to this effect has been issued to the contractor. Winter Road Shamattawa, Manitoba Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I only have one question. In the last couple of days I have been dealing with the Department of Indian Affairs with the Shamattawa First Nation and their housing crisis that is currently going on there, and my question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

As the minister knows, the people of Shamattawa are living in one of the most remote areas of Canada and certainly this province, and a community where the winter road is vital to the shipment of goods and services for a few short weeks of each year. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to use part of the payment recently made by the band towards the construction of a road in order to keep the road open longer to allow a shipment of needed supplies for construction and would be showing good will on the part of the province in assisting these Manitobans in remote Manitoba. Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, and the member, I acknowledge what he has asked. I will inquire with the department to determine the technical safety of the use of the road, the weights and th•:! timing and naturally hauling at night is a little sat:er than in the daytime under certain weather conditions, but I will take the question as notice and contact the department immediately to determine what is possible. Naturally, the department will manage it over the course of time as the weather warms up.

Hopefully, w�: may achieve his objectives and improve and guarante'e safety at the same time. Youth Gangs Reduction Strategy Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, we now hear that the federal government yet with only limited jurisdiction to deal with the issue, is trying to get some co-ordinated, comprehensiv(: response to organized criminal gangs, and I think this speaks not just to a coming federal election but mon� loudly to the pitiful leadership vacuum on the gang issue at the provincial level.

My question to the Premier or to the Minister of Justice, I ask again, would the government please consider acting-an action--based on our liS-point Gang Action Plan to deal comprehensively with gangs, and would they explain, given that gangs are on the mind of everyone, why this threat is not acknowl•:!dged or even mentioned once in this government's pllans set out in the throne speech? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the issue of street gangs in our communities is a very, very serious one, and last week I in fact raised that issue with th�: other Justice ministers.

I raised that with the federal Justice minister. I asked for closer co-operation between levels of government. Today, I read in the newspaper about how the federal government unilaterally makes announcements in respect of the street gang issue as though there are no provincial Crown attorneys working on this problem, as though then� are no police officers in our streets working on this problem. We

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 173 have been working on this problem. We are committed to solving this problem, but the federal government needs to be an active participant in this solution. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT Sisler High School Girls Basketball Team Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a nonpolitical statement. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to congratulate the Sisler Girls Varsity Basketball Team who yesterday defeated Kelvin 51 to 44 to advance to the city finals on Friday. It always feels good to see a multiracial north end team kick butt against a predominantly white south end team and especially since many of our players are six inches shorter than their competitors. It proves that talent is more important than height even in basketball. I wish them well in their city final game on Friday. Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DA Y THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (Third Day of Debate) Madam Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion ofthe honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) and the amendment moved by the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), the honourable member for Pembina who has 16 minutes remaining. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Continuing on the theme of education, parents benefit fr om working with school as well. They can gain another perspective on their children's growth and development and incites into how to support learning at home.

Parents who have been involved in school tend to have a better sense of directing their child's learning at home. Parental involvement benefits the school in many ways. Parents form a natural link between communities and school. They bring a community perspective to planning and decision making. Parents can be involved in a number of ways, including participation and decision making. Parental involvement in this sense has been formalized through advisory councils for school leadership. The regulatory support for advisory councils is now law.

It is the first time in the province's history that parental and community involvement have been legally empowered. It is no longer discretionary and cannot be taken away. The regulation provides for inter dependence that should characterize the relationship between school and the community in an increasingly interdependent world. Facilitating the creation of advisory councils for school leadership and working with parents and other members of the community to prepare school plans constitute a new era of responsibility and commitment for school principals. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the comments fr om the honourable member for Pembina. I wonder ifl might ask for the co-operation of those members having small meetings, if they would do so either in the loge, on the chairs-pardon me-or outside the Chamber. Mr. Dyck: I am pleased that 194 advisory councils have been formed since this initiative was announced. Our government continues to encourage the participation of parents and community members in the educational process. School planning follows closely on the heels ofthe establishment of advisory councils.

With parental, community and staff input, principals are now being asked to prepare school plans that may include such elements as curriculum, cultural and extracurricular activities, student discipline, community use of facilities, grading and evaluation, reporting student achievement, student retention and promotion, staff development and areas requiring improvement. *

(1430) Our government advocates and requires a school based planning because it allows individual schools to respond to the unique needs and strengths of the communities they serve. Effective planning zeroes in on the questions concerning education purpose. It allows school communities to create and develop or

174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 rethink and reconsider underlying philosophies of education. School-based planning allows staff, students, parents and community members to examine the challenges and choices the school faces. The process allows them to identify strategies that benefit all students, identifying desirable results that are being met or need to be met along with ways of achieving them. It also allows participants to address how various programs and services support school-wide goals.

There are benefits that go beyond these, since this collaborative approach contributes to an effective learning environment by creating a consensus among the partners on educational purpose and direction. It helps to create a greater acceptance of change. School-based planning has been known to improve communication among staff, improve their morale and that of students and create more effective relationships among schools and parents.

Greater teaching effectiveness, more effective ways of handling discipline, better co-ordination of programs across grades and disciplines, and better use of resources have also been identified as benefits. A school plan is the result of a continuous planning process and is not an end in itself but the beginning of a process of guiding change. This government has earned the trust of the people of Pembina and Manitoba. This has been earned not on words that have been spoken but rather on actions that have been taken, actions that have seen Manitoba prosper and grow.

I have trust in the destination of this government and the path it will take getting there, as do the residents of Pembina. We trust our government to take the necessary actions to ensure that the young people of Pembina and Manitoba receive an education that will prepare them for the challenges they will face now and into the future. However, reductions in federal financial support have not only affected educational programs but have also caused the government to look closely at how health care services are provided. The constituents of Pembina value affordable, accessible, quality health care.

Yet my constituents also realize that change to the health care system is necessary if those things are to be maintained. Their willingness to change was demonstrated by the establishment of one of the first regional health districts with the amalgamation of Morden and Winkler hospital boards. Madam Speaker, there is a growing realization that institutionalized health care does not necessarily equal quality health care. While there is certainly a place in the health care system for this type of treatment, other community-and preventative-based alternatives need to be reviewed.

Indeed, rural health boards are often better able to deal with the regi onalized health needs and priorities of their communities. Madam Speaker, our government recognizes that the best way to protect quality health care in light of federal cuts is not to remain stagnant but rather to explore alternatives that will be fiscally responsible while still protecting the well-being of Manitobans. The ultimate goal of all Manitobans is to maintain a quality health care system that is affordable and accessib le to all. I am confident in our government's ability to achieve this goal.

Our government's throne speech has given clear direction of achieving our common goals and is a continuation of the mandate that the people of Manitoba elected us upon. Madam Speaker, I began my speech with the analogy of the road map. Together Manitobans are travelling on the road to prosperity. With our government firmly committed to the needs and aspirations of all Manitobans. we will get to our destinatio111 successfully and without incident. Thank you very much. Point of Order Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

I would like to unequivocally withdraw the expression I used in my nonpolitical statement, namely, "predominantly white·." I think it is inappropriate to use an expression like that. I think it would be better if I and all of us her(: were colour blind. and so I apologize and withdraw. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourab ie member for Burrows. * * * Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is indeed once again and always has been a pleasure to be able to comment on throne speeches. Not ever

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 175 wanting to take it for granted that I will get re-elected, I enjoy every opportunity I get to respond to a motion of substance, whether it might have a Jot of fluff in it at times or not. I also wanted to acknowledge at the beginning the efforts put in from the table officers and right down to individuals within your office, Hansard and a very special mention to a gentleman by the name of Andy Drummond, who is our researcher, receptionist.

In essence, you name it, he is the individual that does it for the Liberal caucus, just puts in a yeoman's effort at ensuring that we are able to operate as much as possible as a caucus. Hopefully someday in the not too distant future we will be able to have someone working along with Andy because of the amount of workload that is put on us as three Liberal MLAs that operate, in essence, as a caucus.

Madam Speaker, whether it is through surveys, discussion groups, interest groups, one-on-one talks or informal meetings that I have at McDonald's, I believe that the common thread that ties most concerns together is that people want a sense of security. People want to know that the quality of health care will be there for their family and friends if and when they need it. They want to feel safe in their homes and neighbourhoods. They also want to know that jobs will be there in the future. In short, they want a government that has a long-term vision that provides hope for our communities.

Madam Speaker, there was at the beginning of the session a great deal of discussion about you, yourself, and the need to have an elected Speaker. I have given a great deal of thought to that over the last couple of days, and I think it goes far beyond that. I think that what we really need to do is to look in terms of the institutions in parliamentary progress, if you like, into the tum of the century.

I can recall we had Wally Fox-Decent and his committee that went and looked at the MLAs' pensions and benefits and came up with some recommendations which were ultimately supported by every member inside this Chamber. Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that maybe it is time that we reconvene that particular committee and start looking at electoral changes in reforms that might be on the horizon or needed.

A lot of that comes from some of the problems that we have incurred in being a caucus of three, whether it is an operating budget, whether it is a staffing complement, through the experience of mine in going through four provincial elections ·as a candidate in terms of the way in which campaigns are financed. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) If we talk about the way in which MLAs are in fact elected, I am not entirely convinced that the current status quo, 57 ridings, one MLA in every riding, is necessarily the best way to go, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I think we are long overdue for a good, hard look at reform of our institutions to ensure that the will of the people will, in fact, be represented inside this Chamber and that out of that, I am sure, you would see recommendations such as what we had talked about, an elected Speaker. Things change, and what we should be trying to do is to try to manage some of those changes. Having said that, what I wanted to do for the throne speech is just to comment somewhat briefly on some of the questions that I asked during the week, to start off with the question I posed today, and that is with respect to the economy.

Shortly, a week from tomorrow, we are going to be receiving the next provincial budget, as I indicated in Question Period. What I am anticipating is there are going to be a Jot of statistics that are going to be padded in the sense of trying to make the government look as good as it can. It will go out of its way to condemn the federal government, whether it is transfer payment cuts and other potential issues that are out there.

It is almost completely predictable in terms of what we can anticipate in the next budget. * (1 440) I guess ultimately what I would like to be able to see is the government take more of a hard look in terms of what it has achieved over the years. I picked out today the manufacturing industry, because I think that one of the greatest strengths that the province of Manitoba has over many other provinces is the diversification of our economy. Our economy has really never had the great booms of Alberta in the '70s or Ontario in the early '80s or, some would ultimately argue, in what is happening in B.C.

But, equally, we have not had the great bust, if

176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 you like, where the economy has completely fallen apart, and the reason for that is because we do have somewhat of a diversified economy. When I was first elected, one of the industries that I had looked at-and it was primarily because of my concern with respect to the garment industry-was the manufacturing industry. So earlier today what I did was I pulled some numbers, and I found, as I illustrated, that in April '88 there were some 64,000 manufacturing jobs compared to January '97 where there is 61,500 manufacturing jobs. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon), in response to the question, said, well, look, all in all if you look at the overall job picture that we have a net gain of jobs, and he says 10, 20 , whatever thousand of jobs. Well, what I was wanting to focus on is the fact that stats can be used to be able to manipulate a case and put it in a favourable light on the side of the government or on the side of the opposition. If we all agree, and this is where it was a bit confusing, that the manufacturing industry is an important, vital industry not only for today but also for tomorrow, why then did the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) virtually completely ignore the question of, why are we losing the manufacturing jobs? Instead he started to focus on the service sector where it has expanded, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a big difference in the type of jobs that the Premier was talking about and the type of jobs that the Liberal caucus is talking about through Question Period. What we are talking about in essence is relatively decent jobs that are paying decent wages. What we have seen over the last couple of months is Molson, 91 jobs gone; Rogers Sugar, 82 jobs that are going to be leaving. It is interesting.

The other day I was on the computer, and I believe it was Encarta that I was on. I went into manufacturing, and it showed Manitoba manufacturing, and it had a brewery as using the example. Well, today we really do not have the major brewers. We lost Labatt, and now we are going to be losing Molson. What role did the government play, if any role at all, in trying to ensure that those jobs could stay in the province of Manitoba? [interjection] The Minister of Justice asked if I did my share of partaking in beer consumption.

Well, I do not drink, so, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on which way you want to look at it I guess, I did not partake in drinking Molson's. But that is in essencf:, from what I understand, the primary reason why they left the province, because I believe that they had 12 percent of the share, and they were hoping to increase that share, and that never occurr ed. At least I understand that that was one of the reasons. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was in the Garden City hotel and other facilities, and on1� of the little sugar packets you see, they say Rogers Sugar products.

Do not quote me on the exact word, but it is from Rogers. You know, whether it is that Molson beer or whether it is that sugar, these are all products that are being consumed in the province of Manitoba in good part, and we are losing these jobs. What did the government do? Was it even aware of it? Was it prepared to even contact the CEO over at Molson to see if in fact there are some things that we can do? I did not hear any sort of news reports saying that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was down visiting or picked up the phone and made the phone calls.

Our Premier has a very different approach at trying to lure jobs to the province of Manitoba, and I am not convinced that it has been all that successful with respect to the manufacturing industry at 1the very least, especially when we talk about retaining those valuable jobs. That is unfortunate. You know, in the second sup I asked earlier today, I asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon), what is he doing with respect to Bristol? We know Bristol Aerospace is now up for sale by Rolls Royce.

Has the govf:rnment or has the Premier done anything to see what we can do to ensure those jobs or that we can increase the chances of retaining those jobs? Instead of answering the question, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) answered the question. Am I then to read into it that the Premier of the province has not done anything? We are talking about the aerospace industry that employs hundreds of Manitobans, and one has to wonder in terms of what sort of action the government has done:. We are not trying to imply that you can put up a brick wall at the Manitoba borders.

But I will say one thing, the Premier of this province needs to get a lot more aggressive at keeping jobs in the provinc•e of Manitoba that when we hear these budgets and when we hear these throne speeches and the governmt�nt gives itself

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 177 a big pat on the back is quite fictitious in the sense that the things he is talking about are extremely selective. When we look at the bottom lines on many important issues, this government has been failing and failing miserably. It saddens me to see that we are losing these manufacturing jobs, because they are quality jobs, and those are the types of quality jobs that I believe the Premier has to be more aggressive.

You know what is unfortunate is that when we hear an announcement, there is some attention that is generated, but we have come to a point in which, you know, one, two, maybe three days of some attention is given to those jobs being lost and then it kind of just dies off as an issue. That is unfortunate and maybe in part what needs to happen is that we have to start holding the government more accountable on some of the actions or lack of actions that this government has taken in terms of trying to retain some of these very valuable jobs. Look at when we talk about diversification.

We look at what is happening in the agriculture area and the controversy that is being created in some areas. Remember the hog industry, which I will acknowledge as wonderful, fantastic opportunities. Yes, it could potentially double over the next decade, and one has to start asking the question in terms of to what degree this government has been working with the industry.

I remember hearing presentations from reps from within the industry when they were making a movement towards the single-desk check-off system, where they are saying, look, this government is catering to the elite, the large, corporate hog producers. We want to ensure that the future of hog production in the province of Manitoba will be there for the small hog producers. [interj ection] The minister says, talk to them today and see how it is working. Time will tell, but there was a genuine concern. How much consulting did the government do prior to invoking some of these changes?

There was not any, because there was not any consulting done, because I will tell you something, we had strong Tory cardholders that were coming, making presentation which I heard, and they were going to give up on the Tories. They were talking that we have to get-you will have no problems in rural Manitoba, just in the hog industry in itself. That is how frustrated they were feeling. *

(1450) Look at the elk and what is happening with the elk farming. One of my constituents by the nickname of Tiny comes up and attends our local, and he is a relatively large man, but he comes down to a local restaurant in my area and he says, you know, this is a quote that the Minister of whatever, the former Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Natural Resources said, trust me, Kevin. Exactly, as the ministers laughed, so did my constituent.

Then he went and he explained how the minister in about 15 minutes, of what would appear 15 minutes, because he is actually reading Hansard, I would take it, that the minister was wrong in what he was saying. He was talking about where these elk were in fact being caught. He started to talk about some of the problems in terms of the elk disease and all it takes is just two elk to rub noses and the blue-tongue disease can be transferred over. He started to talk about elk that were being poached, and I do not even know if the government is aware of this, and if they are not aware of it, I will forewarn them.

It is going to be an issue at least that I will bring up in the Estimates, and if I get the opportunity for Question Period I will bring it up for Question Period. One of the issues that he raised was that there were elk being captured in the province of Manitoba and being brought over to Saskatchewan. Hopefully, we will get one of the ministers to respond to that particular statement. It is a very serious allegation. If, as a Liberal caucus, we had the resources, trust me, we would be doing a lot more research into that particular issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

So it is only a question of time, and we will get some sort of confirmation on it. Maybe the government should do some homework now and try and find out if in fact that is the case and then they can maybe make a ministerial statement or something of that nature, but at least they have been somewhat forewarned, and I will be sure to, at the very least, address that particular issue when we go into the Agriculture or Natural Resources Estimates. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we could talk about education, and actually I could talk about education for 40 minutes quite easily, and what I did was I picked out three areas in which I thought I would focus some

178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 attention. First and foremost, the Liberal Party and I personally believe in public education as the No. 1 concern for the province of Manitoba; when it comes to education, this government has to give more attention to public education. The type of attention that I am talking about is that a public education should challenge the abilities of all students.

That means that, if you are learning disabled or if you are a gifted child or if you classify as the average, if one can use the word "average," the purpose of the public education is that you have to challenge their abilities, because only by challenging their abilities are you going to be able to see them excel. If they excel, then they are going to be able to realize opportunities, and that is what government is here for, to try to provide opportunities- An Honourable Member: You are a Tory. Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Education says I am a Tory. An Honourable Member: No, you have got a heart. Mr.

Lamoureux: No, I am not a Tory. As my colleague from The Maples says, I have a heart. To me that is what a public education is about. I brought up the question of special needs the other day. For years the government has been talking about special needs in reviews and studies. You know, I used to be the Education critic a couple of years back, and the then minister was Mr. Manness. Mr. Manness was talking about reviews of special needs, and now we finally see it in the throne speech. Not much more on the K-to-12 education, but they did say there was going to be a review on the special needs.

Hopefully, we will see an actual study, and not only see the study but see action, and that is in fact what we want from the government when it comes to special needs. The crux of the question that I posed was, why did we have to go external, and I know the Minister of Education is going to be responding. When I say "external," it is external in the sense of going to outside people in order to have this review because I believe we should have the expertise within the department to be able to do a review of this nature, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But why did we have to do that?

And it is long overdue, and hopefully we will see the government materialize on taking some very concrete, tangible action with respect to it. The third issue is that of the financing of education. The financing of education in one sense has been a complete and absolute disaster from this government in terms of commitment to public education, and I could even say it even went on in the years of the New Democratic administration. An Honourable Member: I do not think so. Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Fllin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen), if you took a look at the budgt!ts, the dollars that have been allocated, I can assure all members of this Chamber that the reliance on property tax to finance public education has grown every year virtually because the provincial government, this government and the government before it, well over the past decade has held back and cut back on public education. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that that is being very shortsig hted, that the role of the teacher at the same time has been greatly enhanced. Not only are they teaching, they are also counsellors.

In some areas, they are babysitters, at least it would appear at some times that they are babysitters. They are doing far more today than was requested of them in the past. The member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister) asks about the feds, and I can see this member's comments already on the budget or on the throne coming up, because we all know that he wants to make it to Ottawa. and we do not know if he will. You never assume. You never take it for granted. But, I know where his focus is going to be, and no doubt he is going to be focusing a great deal of his efforts on the federal scene.

I do not blame him for that because now that is the line that he has taken to go in terms of his career. Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted also then to touch upon health care. Some are asking the question about me. I am not running fe:derally. I am quite content on being an MLA and hope to run in the next provincial election. We have a wonderful, dynamic lady, the name of soon to be announced, who will be running in Winnipeg North Centre as long as she is able to get the nomination, of course. Having said that, I did want to comment on health care. Health care is again a critical issue.

It is an issue which I address in every throne speech and budget that

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 179 I get the opportunity to speak in. Virtually anytime I get the opportunity to speak on anything that comes before the House dealing with health, I like to believe I am expressing my thoughts. In fact, we have introduced the private member's bill on the five fundamental principles for consecutive years now, and we will likely be doing it again even for this session, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know what the constituents that I represent want, and they do want to have those five fundamental principles of health care maintained, not only for today but for many, many future generations. *

(1500) The regional health care authorities was another issue which I had raised during Question Period. We within the Liberal Party opposed the creation because we were concerned with the amount of volunteers that this government is just throwing to the side who participate in so many ways throughout the province on volunteer boards. We were saddened to see that now the government, the current Minister of Health (Mr. Praz nik) is using a very heavy-handed tactic to try to get these volunteer-based boards to succumb to these regional health care authorities.

They have indicated that they have the resources and they are going to be taking care of the debts but only if they are prepared to give up today, in essence, as opposed to allowing for more of a natural flow. I would suggest to the government that maybe they might want to reconsider that, because if they allow for more of that natural flow, what we will see happen, I believe, is that more people will at least remain interested in continuing on in some other capacity. The greatest concern about the regional health boards and advisory boards today, I believe, is the way in which these boards are put together.

What the communities want, whether you are in Thompson or Dauphin or Winnipeg, anywhere throughout the province, what you are seeing is that the people want to see some form of an election to these boards. They do not want the government to be appointing 1 00 percent of the board membership. And it would be tragic if in fact that does occur because I can recall speeches that I gave last session, when you have a politically appointed board they are just going to carry out what it is that the government wants. For me at the time, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the real reason why the government was bringing in these boards was to try to confuse the public in terms of accountability so they can say that they are not the ones that have closed down this particular facility or they have shut down this particular service at a particular facility; that it was the regional health board, and those are the people that you go to. Then on the other hand they would condemn the federal government for the transfer payments for any other changes that might have to be brought through the system. They do whatever they can to avoid responsibilities.

That is one of the primary reasons why we opposed the regional health boards in the first place. And now that we are going to get the regional health boards, at least, Mr. Deputy Speaker-you know, the ministers I know in the past and I trust the current minister has implied that there will be some form of an elected positions on these boards, but there is no real time frame that is set up. This is something that has to be addressed. My time is quickly running out. There was one other area-actually a couple of other areas.

There is community clinics-I say this because the Minister of Health is here-is something in which I feel-and is always generally speaking, here. The community health clinics and the future role of the community health clinics is absolutely critical for a positive change or a positive health care reform.

You know the minister nods his head in the affirmative, and that is something in which the former minister said that he himself would put emphasis on, and I trust and hope that the current minister will do that because that is in essence I believe one of the greatest opportunities for us to ensure that we are bringing health care services to the people and improving the quality of health care services. It does not mean that it is going to be in additional dollars.

Also, another thing that I would like to flag, like I flagged the elk going to Saskatchewan potentially, another issue that I would want to flag to the Minister of Health is the Health Links program. If that particular program was to disappear I think it would be an absolute disgrace. It is something which has to be there. In fact, I would encourage the Minister of Health to make a long-term commitment to the Health Links program; to promote it and to actively promote it.

180 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 We actively promote the number 911 as an emergency number. For those of you that do not know, the Health Links is a 24 hour, seven day a week health service where it is operated by registered nur ses. They do a fantas tic job. If you wake up at two o'clock in the morning and your child is feeling ill, ins tead of going to emergency services you can pick up that line. You make the phone call, and you can be helped out. They might end up telling you to take him to the hospital but I would appeal to the government to make that long term comm itment.

It is an excellent idea, and they need to have that comm itment because after you get that commit ment then we can start advertising the number that much more broadly. That is what the government should do. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you can advise me when I have a minute left to go because I do have an amendment that I would like to move. How much time do I have? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Seven min utes. Mr. Lamoureux: Seven minu tes. Not enough, I am afraid. Not enough. I wanted very much so to talk also very briefly on the gambling issue.

The gambling issue is something which this government created in its inf ancy back in 1989. We have a problem in the province of Manitoba today. It is a social problem. This government has failed to recognize that. Even in the province of Alberta-and it took the provincial election-they have finally ack nowledged, and they are going to respect the will of different communities, and that is something which this government should be doing. They have to listen to what those rural communities are saying, what some of these social advocacy groups are saying.

There is a very serious, negative social consequence because this government has adopted a gaming policy that is based on raising cash. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not opposed to gambling per se. I would argue that a gambling policy should be based on tourism, a tourism-driven policy, and there is a big difference. You do not need VL T machines in every community. We were saying that for years, and then the Desjardins report came out and reinforced that. It talked about realigning some of these VL T machines. They had the VL T machines close by to The Maples Col legiate. *

(1510) An Honourable Member: Across the street. Mr. Lamoureux: Across the street, says the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). Is that what we want? At least we should have consulted witlh the people before we started putting them in every 'corner of the province. There is a role for gambling. I will concede that. In fact, a number of years ago I was very explicit in terms of what I thought we should be doing with the province with respect to gambling. I know I have missed a number of ve:ry impo rtant issues. No one really has enough time to address all the issues that they would like to do.

I will get another opport unity, no doubt during the budg,et as lon g-it depends what happens, of course, with the throne speech vote. There are a few possibly disgrun tled members, which speaks a lot about personal ities, but I will not talk about the individuals. Personalities, possibly of the Premier, and style, of course. It was interesting reading the

article about the group of four, the four most influ ential people. The only one that made me feel somewhat comf ortable is that Mrs. Filmon was, in fact, listed as one ofthose individuals, someone which I do have a great deal of respect for. Having said that, I look forward, if we do make it to the budget process, to add more words on the budget. At this time, I will move, seconded by the member for St. Bonif ace (Mr.

Gaudry), THAT the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words: THAT this House further regrets: THAT this government has failed to provide leadership in managing change in our health care, Education, Justice and other government departments; ins tead, they have shortchanged Manitobans by blaming the federal government for their own shortcomings and failing to provide services the citizens of Manitoba deserve. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to be

March 6, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 181 able to speak today on the throne speech at the beginning of this legis lative session. I have been fascinated by how in four short days we have come full circle back to, in many respects, the kind of questioning that I thought would be gone, the kind of attitude that I thought would be gone from the members opposite because they had made such a kafuffle about courtesy, decorum, manners, following the rules that I really thought I would see them reforming their own attitudes and behaviours in the Chamber this session. I am not including the Liberals.

I am saying the official opposition. Because while I disagree with a lot of things that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) just said in his speech, they have remained courteous and, unfortunately, the official opposition, the NDP, have not made any attempt. The first day we were back, again we saw the member for Well ington (Ms. Barrett) mouthing very rude comments to and about the Speaker, and we had not even been here 48 hours, so that is par for the course. I thought, given all of their pontificating, that they would come back wanting to set an example.

Unfortunately, the example they are setting is not the one that I thought they would want to reflect to us, and that is regrettable. It is very regrettable, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we have so many good initiatives in the throne speech and we have so many things outlined in the throne speech that I would think they would believe in and would want to support. I would throw a little challenge out to them. I would invite them to be part of the solution. I would invite them to work with us rather than consis tently against. I would invite them to look at the other side of the coin.

I would invite them to see the other side of the pic ture. They come in prepared to be negative on principle just for the sake of being negative, sheerly and only and totally for the sake of being negative, because I have seen them speaking against things that they urged us to do in earlier times. When I say I ask them to look at the other side of the coin, the member for Burrows (Mr.

Martindale) just now, after we expressed horror on this side of the House, realized what he had said and had the good grace to completely withdraw a statement that, had he paused to consider the other side of the coin, would never have made. In making a statement as he did that he was glad to see-I will not go through the statement because- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable minis ter but, at this time, I would ask the minis ter to be more towards the issue that is before us at this time, and that is the throne speech.

I do believe if the minis ter continues on this track, we will be going on a bit of a fishing exhibition, and it will not help the decorum of the House at this time. The honourable minister, to continue. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I realize that as we do decide to go through the throne speech and we seek to implement the many good initiatives in it that it would be helpful if the opposition could be suppor tive of those things that in the past they have said they were or alleged they were supportive of.

I do accept the member for Burrows did withdraw his statement, because he heard us call out and say, think about what you have just said, and he did withdraw it. It is in Hansard so I do not need to repeat it. It is there for the reading. But I say, if you take pause and look at the other side of the coin, to see the other side of the issue even if you have to wait until someone on our side draws it to your attention, you may find that the other side has some merit.

I invite them to do just as the member for Burrows did and withdraw errors you have made in judgment when you look at what we are saying in the throne speech and not just be negative for the sake of being negative. I take a look in four days that we have been here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and already just to give you some examples of how, instead of concentrating on the good things that are outlined, the plans we have, and seeing how together we can move forward on them, the opposition has already attempted to divert us away from those things onto a different venue.

Two examples pertaining to me in my department, just by way of providing an example, they are not necessarily issues that I take extreme umbrage with, but they are typical of the kinds of things we have been hearing in the last four days, things that will not help

182 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 this government or help the people of Manitoba as they pursue a good agenda for the people of this province. Working together, the Leader of the Opposition in his speech spent a great deal of time talking about the need to co-operate. So I think I am entitled to the same amount of time to answer his par ticula r comments. When he says that we need to co-operate and then encourages his members to do the opposite, there is an incon sistency.

It reads well in Hansard from his perspective, and it reads well in Hansard to his supporters, but it does not ring true in what they say and do. The two examples I can mention, because we have only had two in these last four days, one was the establish ment of the post-secondary council where we named the members of the coun cil. We had been through the debate at the time of the commit tee hearings on whether these should be lay people devoid of conflict or the special interest groups on the council running the affairs of the university.

We went and adopted the model of the Universities Grants Commi ssion, which is a board of lay people. The council, of course, replaces the UGC, and it seems fitting to use lay people. There are a lot of other reasons it is good to use lay people. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at first I thought it was amusing, and then I thought about it a bit more and I thought, it is not amusing, it is kind of sad.

The Education critic for the NDP acted very surprised that this council was made up of lay people when we have been very clear that it would absolutely not have any of the special interest groups on it but that they would consult by law with the special interest groups. The opposite critic from the NDP, Jean Friesen, said she would have preferred this to be a broadly based group, which would include someone from the aboriginal community. Mr. Deputy Speaker, no research, no homework, no knowledge of what she is speaking, because we absolutely do have an aboriginal person on that council.

More than that, we have an aboriginal person in the person of Herman Green, whose whole background is in dealing with educational issues as they pertain to aboriginal people and self governance so, I mean, she did not do her homework. She did not know what she was talking about. She did not have a clue. But she spouted off to the Free Press as if she did, saying they should have an aboriginal person on there. *

(1520) Well, we do have an aboriginal person and a very good one with a background in just the area we need, but she did not know that, she did not research it, but she spouted it off just to be negative. If she had looked at the other side of the coin or done her homework, she would never have criticized us for not having an aboriginal person when, indeed, we do have a very capable aboriginal person there, so negative just for the sake of being negative. She also indica ted in there that we should have someone who had some abil ity to understand what is going on in the high schools.

She said that we needed someone who understood the lin kage between high school and university. She said, for example, one of the tasks will be to co-ordinate the connections with high schools to make the transition from high school to post-secondary education more smooth than it has been in the past. She accused us of not having a person there who is expert in that way and, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do.

We have a person who is a director at the South Winnipeg Technical school, which very clearly works hard on li nkages between high school, appren ticeship, colle ges, is both a high school and a col lege and represents three different school divisions. So she said, where are the trustees, where are the people who are knowledgeable about the transition from high school to college? Well, he is there, Mr. Deputy Spealcer. I would invite the opposition member for the NDP to go and do her homework. I will not name this person.

I invite her maybe to go and research who these people are and find out for herself which one is th1! one that is connected with South Winnipeg Technical school. It might do her some good to have to re:search things before she opens her mouth and spouts off to the Winnipeg Free Press on things about which she has no knowledge and has done no homework. So on the two things she criticized us for, three thi ngs-she criticized us, first of all, fi:>r not having anybody connected with the institutions. This she says when we have a former board of governor chairman. We have a former board of governor. We have a

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 183 sessi onal lecturer from the University of Manitoba, when we have past student council presidents, when we have a whole host of people who have spent conside rable time connected in leadership roles with post -seconda ry institutions. That was her first criticism, and she was wrong.

She was right in the sense that we do not have any people currently employed by any of those institutions on the council, and she knew that last year when we debated that issue and said we would not be putting on that council people currently employed with any of the institutions for obvious reasons of conflict. That debate was done. This was not a surprise to her. So she refused to acknowledge the academic connections that are there with these people. She then accused us of not having an aboriginal when we have one.

She then accused of not having people with connections to the tra nsition from high school to college when we have one. She had not done her research. She was being negative solely and only for the sake of being negative. The other issue that came up this week was an issue of how committed we are to early years intervention. This is a very important thing to us. It is something that we have been looking towards for at least two years now with the establi shment that we made of the Children and Youth Secretariat. Not their government, our government recognized the need to co-ordinate those activities.

We have now had in place for the better part of two years the Children and Youth Secretariat, which has been looking and working to plan how we are going to co-ordin ate the whole child from birth on. We have a very deep commitment to early intervention, to early childhood development, to helping families with children in the preschool years, with children who are at risk. I find this just so ironic. Again, the member did not do her homework, did not do her research. I was interviewed by the Winnipeg Free Press and asked about fundraising.

I think this is maybe not a bad thing to put these details on the record because I understand the history revisionists from the other side are still running around trying to take us off our commitment to early years intervention by grossly distorting in a very negative way, again for the sake of being negative, the reality of words that have been said. I got a phone call and was asked: Did I belie ve it was all right for the Winnipeg School Division to raise money for their school division by applying for a lottery licence?

At that time, I said, well, if they wished to raise money by applying for a lottery licence, they are duly elected; they have the right to make that decision. They would need to go apply for the lottery licence, and I do not know what Lotteries would say to them, but they certainly have the authority under the law to make that decision. I was then asked: Do you think it is a good idea to raise money by having a lottery in a school division? I said, well, again, that is up to them. It would not be my preference. I would prefer to see fundraising activities that in and of themselves were active rather than passive.

The fundraising activity of applying for a lottery licence is a passive one. You apply for the li cence and the money gets raised through raffles or whatever. An active fundraiser would be a car wash or some other activity where the students themselves are actually involved in a meaningful activity, or the people who are doing the fundraising themselves are actively involved in a meani ngful activity, the activity in and of itself having merit.

I used, by way of example, the initiative that Fort Garry School Division has which I am shocked to see the opposition now criticizing, and I would venture that the member for Fort Garry, I would suggest to her that she let the Fort Garry people know how much the NDP abhors their fundraising initiative. Their fundraising initiative involves bringing students over from foreign lands. The students pay a fee; the school division makes money from that fee.

The foreign students get to know and understand our Canadian culture and ways, and the students at Fort Garry get to know and understand and appreciate the people from those foreign lands. I am really disappointed that the New Democrats abhor that particular fundraising model to the depth and intensity that they do. I suspect that if it were one of their constituen cies doing it, they would like it. Again I say, negative for the sake of being negative, because why would a cross-cultural exchange that leaves money in a school division be so terribly bad?

Anyhow the NDP do not like that particular way of fundraising; that is beside the point. *

(1530) 184 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 I had said to the Free Press reporter at that time that I would pref er to see rather than a passive lottery-type fundraiser an active, involved educational-type fundraiser, because raising money by lottery has no educational merit in and of itself . I was then asked, does Winnipeg No. 1 need to raise money because the government is not meeting its educational needs?

My response was Winnipeg No. 1 is receiving enough money from government in its special levy to meet its basic educational needs, but they do have other things they offer in their division which are costly and are not funded by Education. They are enhancements and I was very clear in talking to the reporter, in the full conversation which of course was not reported, but jus t the capsules. These are enhancements; they are very good enhancements.

They are very worthwhile enhancements, particularly for children at risk, but they are enhancements in that they are not funded by the educational system which is giving money to hire teachers to teach academics and we do not fund the early childhood years through education. That is funded through another department of government. They have opted to do this for their own reasons which are good and worthwhile, but they are costly and they are enhancements, and that is true. They are definitely enhancements to certain schools in Winnipeg No. 1., and they are definitely costly.

Those are two pieces of inf ormation that are true and they are not reflections on the Winnipeg School Division nor are they in any way, shape or form critical of the need to have early years intervention. It is simply a statement that the Winnipeg School Division was and is redirecting some of the dollars given to hire teachers to provide early school intervention because they see a great need in some of their schools for early years intervention. We also see that great need, so we are not arguing about that. What we are talking about is fr om whence should that money come? What source should it be funded from?

The Head Start programs that are in existence doing extremely good work to address that very need are not in schools. The training at the teacher institutions deals with the teaching of academics for students six years old and up. It does not deal with early childhood development, early years intervention, or early needs. We do learn a lot about those things in our day care provider training out of Red River Community College, and those people have early childhood expertise, but the people with Bachelors of Education do not necessarily have expertise in dealing with children, two, three, four years old.

They are trained to teach academics and literacy and computation and citizenship and a wide variety of other things to students from age six up. So the training is all completely different. Anyhow, from those comments the Education critic again, solely and totally for the sake of being negative, got up and said that the Minister of Education thinks these are costly enhancements and drew fr om that the illogical conclusion that I believe that early childhood intervention and early childhood assistance for children at risk was not a good idea.

A wrong conclusion, and anybody who has followed my career of my 17 years as an elected official in education, my decade as a school trustee wherein one of my main focuses repeated ad infinitum to my colleagues was we have to do something to get to these kids before they come to school. What is the way to get to them if they are having difficulty when they start? Some of these problems should have been identified before they hit the school doors. We helped sponsor-here is the height of irony, again showing how the opposition is being negative just for the sake of being negative.

The opposition critic at the same time that she is hammering this side of the House, saying that because we acknowledge that these were costly and that they were enhancements to the current system-at the same time she was saying that, because we said that, we did not believe in early childhood intervention, we were, through the Children and Youth Secretariat, co-sponsoring a very good e:vent, I felt. I believe the opposition maybe thought it was good too because a number of them carne.

They were invited to come to hear a speaker of international renown come and talk to us on the benefit and the need for early childhood intervention, early childhood development. It is just so ironic that at 2:30 or mo o'clock the Education critic would say, you do not understand the importance of early childhood intervention, and then at five o'clock that same critic would come and sit with me in a room to listen to a speaker that we had co sponsored to come in to talk to all MLAs about that very topic. Again, negative for the sake of being negative.

March 6, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 185 Those are just small examples. They are minor in nature in that they are not earth shattering in terms of public perception or any of those things. They are just little examples how after four days in the House even on two relatively minor things, my critic in her relationship with me can only be negative, rude, insulting, questioning my mot ives. I did not challenge her on them, but she has questioned them from her chair in the House, and we have only been here four days. I see others do the same thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We have some wonde rful initiatives in the throne speech. We have people who on the other side of the House, if they flipped the coin, as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) did earlier, and saw the other side of the picture and looked at themselves from the other angle and realized what they had said and done, would change their minds just as he had the good grace to do.

I invite everybody to have the good grace that the member for Burrows just showed, when he withdrew his racist-no, I cannot say that-when he withdrew his comments about white people and do what he did and withdraw their negative criticism about policies that I know in their hearts they believe. They believe in early intervention, just as we do. They may even believe in the Children and Youth Secretariat. They may even believe that dollars that need to go for chil dren at risk in their preschool years should come from another approved source other than taken away from teachers' salaries.

They may believe that it is wrong to let a teacher go to hire a nurse. They may believe it is wrong to let a teacher go to hire a therapist. They may believe that we should keep those two teachers and have Health and Family Services provide that nurse and that therapist where required. They may believe that, but because we believe that and we stated that we believe it, they will never allow themselves to support it because they are compelled to be negative for the sake of being negative.

I had really hoped that, after the way they grandstanded last year, they would be the ones to want to set the model for decorum, they would be the ones who would want to show that they can accept ideas that in their hearts they really like instead of pretending they do not like them so that they can just hammer. I think that, if they did that, perhaps, we could get a lot more done for the people of Manitoba. I throw out a challenge to the opposition on our throne speech. I say to them: examine your conscience, examine your hearts, examine how you conduct yourselves and the rhetoric you put forward.

Re-examine what you say, just as the member for Burrows re-examined what he said when he heard us all go, ah, listen to what you said. But as soon as we did that he realized, and he had the good grace to stand up and apologize and withdraw immediately rather than risk us maybe rising on a point of privilege tomorrow. I am not questioning his motives. I think he withdrew it sincerely as soon as he realized how he had revealed something that he maybe did not wish to reveal. I would invite them to do that with the other issues in the House.

I would invite them to look at the issues that they are maybe glibly spouting off on and recognizing ultimate ly the harm they could do by not supporting early childhood intervention, by not supporting the Children and Youth Secretariat, by not supporting a co-ordinated effort, by not exploring ways to deliver education wherein all the dollars set aside for education can actually go to education and provide those needs that are part of the development of a young child that in most instances could be and should be del ivered by the families.

The teaching the child to talk, the teaching the child to walk, the teaching the child to use the bathroom correctly, the teaching the child the appreciation of literature by sitting him on your knee and reading to him or her, by talking with the child and walking with the child, by holding the child and loving the child, those are things that normal ly happen in fam ilies, and in most fam ilies those things do happen. *

(1540) Where they do not happen, who should provide those for the child? They need to be provided. Statistics will show us the economic benefit, the health benefit. That speaker that we co-sponsored yesterday showed that even to the opposition. But for the sake of that child, that child needs those things. We have people trained in early childhood experience, our daycare workers . We have courses at Red River Community College that tell about early childhood experience. We have all kinds of vehicles in the community through community organizations. The

186 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA March 6, 1997 high scope speaker that we had in yesterday talked about training people in the community to do a lot of this work with these child ren at risk. And these things are not happening in schools, they are happening in settings other than schools where they are giving the child ren what they are missing in their home experience so that when they come to school they are ready to learn.

Now, if the opposition wants to take the dol lars that might be used to hire a teacher and let the teacher go and take those dolla rs to hire someone to come in to nurture and love and prepare that three-year -old for the day he might come to school, then they can carry on because that is what they have been saying the last couple of days. They can carry on repeating that. We are saying there is a better way. Do not let teachers go to do this. Do not fire a teacher because you cannot af ford them anymore to free up the money to do this very important work.

Work in a co-ordi nated effort with the del iver y age ncies that would otherw ise be caring for this child anyhow and provide those needs, address those needs, provide those things that child requires so that when they come to school they come fully ready to learn. That is what we are doing with the Child ren and Youth Secr etariat .

How many times did I used to hear when I was a school trustee, why cannot the government of Manitoba, which at that time was the Pawley government, get its act together and stop chopping the child ren up into little pieces and having Health look after them here and Family Services look after them there and Education look after them there? The child is divided into a whole series of pieces with a separate caseworker for each piece and no co-ordi nati on. Why can that Pawley government not get its act together and start co-ordi nating the effects, co-ordi nating the impa cts of at least four major departments?

At that time I used to argue for Health, Justice, Family Services -it used to be called Community Services at that time-and Educati on. We have now added a fifth department, but they did not do it. I can remember coming down here and talking to Roland Penner about this when Roland Penner was Minis ter of Education. I can remember coming down and saying, you have got to start co-ordinating the departments because we have chil dren at risk and the needs are not being met, and they did nothing. We have done it. We have got the Chi ldren and Youth Sec retariat.

We now have added to that secretariat a fifth mini stry, the Minis try of Native Affairs, and we have done that because we have seen and we have looked at the statistics. The numbers of child ren at risk who exist in that community who need help, they need our help, and the statistics are wor risome. In Health they are worrisome.

The number of cases of diabetes, the number of cases of fetal alcohol syndrome children, a whole host of health problems, a whole host of socie tal problems, the number of chi ldren in care�, the number of women in crisis shelters, those things are all things that need to be addressed coming from that community of aboriginal people who need our help. So we have added the Department of Native Affa irs to the secretariat. So when I go into schools as I do, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, on a regular basis, and I visit schools in rural Manitoba, and I visit schools in small towns, and I visit schools in downtown Winnipeg and in the suburbs and in fa rming communities, I have visited Hutterite colony schools, I have visited home schools, I have vi sited small Christian schools, I have visited innumerable public schools. and I find a vast numbc�r of students doing very well, being very happy, in good supportive fa milies with a top-notch educational experience. (Mr. Ben Sveinson.

Acting Speaker, in the Chair) I also find the students at risk, the fetal alcohol syndrome kids. those students with learning disabilities. the autistic students, the students who have cir cumstances at home that none of us would want for anybody and they come to school and they are at risk. They usually need remedial help, they will need special needs help, they are at risk, they requir e specialized care with dol lars, and it is costly. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is costly when it is costly.

The members opposite would put blinkers on and would say, if you say something is costl y, it means you are against it. What utter nonsens,e, what utter nonsense. To acknowledge that something is costly does not mean that it is bad, it simply acknowledges that it is costly, that you have to find money from some place to pay for it. I find that, again, m�gative for the sake of being negative, they will put a connotation, their own emotional wei ghting on every word that is uttered. I say something is costly, they say, that means you do not like it. I say back to them, that is utter

March 6, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 187 nonsense. You are putting an emotional weighting on a word that simply reflects fa ct. So these are very good things that we need to do, but they are costly, and we need to find money from sources that may not currently exist or from sources that do exist to fund them. We never had fetal alcohol syndrome children in the abundance that we currently have them. We now have many, many child ren in that category; we never used to see any. They are very costly to educate.

We need to do something to help those mothers as they become pregnant, and we are doing things there. We are doing them through the education system, which the opposition members might care to do some research on. So if we can help chil dren avoid being born with these syndromes, that is step one, but once born, they need care, and it is costly.

The fa ct that we have identified it is costly and that we need to source dollars from somewhere for it shows that we are rea listic, shows that we care, shows that we have identified the problem and that we are addressing it when the opposition, quite frankly, when they were in government, never took the time to address it. They never took the time to address it, and the member for Swan River is yelping again as he does in this House, and saying I have said that this is an enhancement. Again, an emotional weighting to a word. It definitely is an enhancement. It is a wonderf ul enhancement.

It is an excellent enhancement. What does enhancement mean, I ask you, my dear friend, from the North? What does an enhancement mean? An enhancement means that you make something better, that you make it-from Dauphin, pardon me-something better. An enhancement means that you have taken something and improved it. So, when you say that I say something is an enha ncement, why do you think I then mean that it is not good? [interjection] Now you are saying, but you said it was a costly enhancement, and you are proving my point. It is an enhancement. It makes the thing better. It is costly. We need to find money.

You know, Mr. Acting Speaker, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) is proving my point. He is proving my point by the comments from his seat. He is saying that, if I say something is enhancing, somehow I am saying it is not good. Well, I do not know, I can remember wearing a gardenia corsa ge when I was a young woman, and the young man who is now my husband said, that gardenia really enhances your hair. I thought it was a compliment, but then, of course, I put an emotional weighting on the word too, so I guess I am asking them to stop, stop, stop being negative just for the sake of being negative. They know.

They know beyond all shadow of doubt that we have done more to work with early intervention, with child ren at risk, than they ever did, and I can go back and I can tell you because I was a trustee in the system all the while they were in government, try ing to get the Pawley government to do something to help us with some of these emerging problems. They never helped us. They refused to help us. I went through Maureen Hemphill, Roland Penner and Jerry Storie. Jerry Storie was the best of the three. [interjection] Well, Jerry Storie would at least listen.

Jerry Storie tried to help, but Maureen Hemphill and Roland Penner did nothing when we came pleading with them for help. When we had special needs kids in our schools and I came to Maureen and asked for help, I would hate to repeat to you in the House the kind of help I got from that woman. It was nothing, nothing. So what I am saying is we identified these emerging problems. The Pawley government did nothing. We came in and we esta blished the Chil dren and Youth Secretariat. It has done two years of work in planning.

It has already put $450,000 from Hea lth into Education, so school divisions can hire nurses without having to first fire teachers. You never did that for us over there in the NDP benches. You made us fire teachers to hire therapists. We are correcting that. We have corrected that. That is in place right now, right now. We have $450,000 to hire nurses, from Health into Education, so the school division

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-3-4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 3rd hansardpdf 4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ad31a40d0c05770f7c603ec9b10d7d485be39033

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