Manitoba Hansard — 7 May 2008 (Sitting 37, 39th Legislature, 2nd Session)

39-2-37

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LX No. 37 – 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 7, 2008 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARCELINO, Flor Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P.

SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1809 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 7, 2008 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYER Mr. Speaker: I'd like to advise the House that Hansard from yesterday morning is available and has been distributed to members. However, the Hansard from yesterday afternoon is not yet available. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Power Line Development Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

These are the reasons for this petition: Manitoba Hydro has been forced by the NDP government to construct a third high voltage transmission line down the west side of Lake Winnipegosis instead of the east side of Lake Winnipeg, as recommended by Manitoba Hydro. The line losses created by the NDP detour will result in a lost opportunity to displace dirty coal- generated electricity, which will create added and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to an additional 57,000 vehicles on our roads annually.

The former chair of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has stated that an east-side bipole and a UNESCO World Heritage Site can co- exist contrary to NDP claims. The NDP detour will cu t through more forest than the eastern route and will cut through threatened aspen parkland areas, unlike the eastern route. Former member of the Legislative Assembly Elijah Harper has stated that the east-side communities are devastated by the government's decision to abandon the east-side route, stating that this decision will resign them to poverty in perpetuity.

The NDP detour will lead to an additional debt of at least $400 million related to the capital cost of line construction alone, to be left to future generations of Manitobans. The NDP detour will result in increased line losses due to friction leading to lost energy sales of between $250 million and $1 billion over the life of the project. The added debt and lost sales created by the NDP detour will make every Manitoba family at least $4,000 poorer.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to abandon the NDP detour on the basis that it will result in massive environmental, social and economic damage to Manitoba. To urge the provincial government to consider proceeding with the route originally recommended by Manitoba Hydro, subject to necessary regulatory approvals. This petition is signed by Caleb Jones, Doug Dobrovolski, Mark Anseew, and many, many other Manitobans. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.

Child-Care Centres Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba: These are the reasons for this petition: There is an ongoing critical shortage of child- care spaces throughout Manitoba, particularly in fast- growing regions such as south Winnipeg. The provincial government has not adequately planned for the child-care needs of growing communities like Waverley West where the construction of thousands of homes will place immense pressure on an already overburdened child- care system.

The severe shortage of early childhood educators compounds the difficulty parents have finding licensed child care and has forced numerous centres to operate with licensing exemptions due to a lack of qualified staff. Child-care centres are finding it increasingly difficult to operate within the funding constraints set by the provincial government to the point that they

1810 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 are unable to provide wages and benefits sufficient to retain child-care workers. As a result of these deficiencies in Manitoba's child-care system, many families and parents are growing increasingly frustrated and desperate, fearing that they will be unable to find licensed child care and may be forced to stop working as a result. In an economy where labour shortages are common, the provision of sustainable and accessible child care is critical. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr.

Mackintosh) to consider addressing the shortage of early childhood educators by enabling child-care centres to provide competitive wages and benefits. To urge the Minister of Family Services and Housing to consider adequately planning for the future child- care needs of growing communities and to consider making the development of a sustainable and accessible child-care system a priority.

To urge the Minister of Family Services and Housing to consider the development of a governance body that would provide direction and support to the volunteer boards of child-care centres and to consider the development of regionalized central wait lists for child care. To encourage all members of the Legislative Assembly to consider becoming more closely involved with the operations of the licensed day-care facilities in their constituencies. This petition is signed by A. Pawlyshyn, Emma Milaska-Tinman and Amanda Jones and many, many others. Long-Term Care Facility–Morden Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr.

Speaker, I, too, wish to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background for this petition is as follows: Tabor Home Incorporated is a time-expired personal care home in Morden with safety, environmental and space deficiencies. The seniors of Manitoba are valuable members of the community with in creasing health-care needs requiring long-term care. The community of Morden and the surrounding area are experiencing substantial population growth. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Minister of Health (Ms.

Oswald) to strongly consider giving priority for funding to develop and staff a new 100-bed long-term care facility so that clients are not exposed to unsafe conditions and so that Boundary Trails Health Centre beds remain available for acute-care patients instead of waiting placement clients. This is signed by Norma Sanders, J.D. Sawatzky, John Olafson, Elda Schroeder and many, many others. Lake Dauphin Fishery Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition. These are the reasons for this petition: Fishing is an important industry on Lake Dauphin.

To help ensure the sustainability of the Lake Dauphin fishery, it is essential that spawning fish in the lake and its tributaries are not disturbed during the critical reproductive cycle. A seasonal moratorium on the harvesting of fish in Lake Dauphin and its tributaries may help create an environment that will produce a natural cycle of fish for Lake Dauphin, therefore ensuring a balanced stock of fish for all groups who harvest fish on the lake. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Minister of Water Stewardship (Ms.

Melnick) to consider placing a moratorium on the harvesting of any species of fish on Lake Dauphin and its tributaries for the period April 1 to May 15 annually. To request the Minister of Water Stewardship to consider doing regular studies of fish stocks on Lake Dauphin to help gauge the health of the fishery and to consider determining any steps needed to protect or to enhance those stocks. This petition is signed by J. Pshebnicki, E. Perzylo, Ernie Harrison and many, many others. * (13:40)

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1811 Pharmacare Deductibles Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. These are the reasons for this petition: The NDP government has increased Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent each year for the past seven years, with the curious exception of the 2007 election year. As a result of the cumulative 34 percent hike in Pharmacare deductibles by the NDP government, some Manitobans are forced to choose between milk and medicine.

Seniors, fixed and low-income-earning Manitobans are the most negatively affected by these increases. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba to consider reversing his decision to increase Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent in budget 2008. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider reducing health-care bureaucracy, as previously promised, and to consider directing those savings into sustaining Pharmacare and improving patient care. This petition is signed by Gayle O'Greysik, Lil Hamilton, Laurie Roots and many, many others. Mrs.

Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition: The NDP government has increased Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent every year for the last seven years, with the curious exception of the 2007 election year. As a result of the cumulative 34 percent hike in Pharmacare deductibles by the NDP government, some Manitobans are forced to choose between milk and medicine. Seniors, fixed and low-income-earning Manitobans are the most negatively affected by these increases.

We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: To urge the Premier (Mr. Doer) of Manitoba to consider reversing his decision to increase Pharmacare deductibles by 5 percent in budget 2008. To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider reducing health-care bureaucracy, as previously promised, and to consider directing those savings into sustaining Pharmacare and improving patient care. This is signed by Mychelle Houde, Anne Schmidt, Larry Tafer and many, many other Manitobans. The Elections Act Amendments Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows: In the constituencies of The Maples and Wellington, serious allegations were made about inappropriate behaviour by high-ranking NDP members, and the Premier (Mr. Doer) failed to show leadership in enforcing a political code of ethical conduct. Elections Manitoba has made it clear that it does not have the jurisdiction or any authority to enforce in any way a shared code of ethical conduct.

The '99 Monnin inquiry clearly wanted an effective code of ethics, not the current non- enforceable code of ethics that the Premier and others continue to ignore. The '99 Monnin report states: "If the political parties fail to implement a Code of Ethics by December 31, 2001, that a standard Code be made compulsory by legislation." We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the Manitoba Legislature to consider acting on the 1999 Alfred Monnin report and include the principles of a shared code of ethical conduct into The Elections Act. Mr.

Speaker, this is signed by Gerry Green, Pat Ferguson, Craig Hildahl and many, many other fine Manitobans.

1812 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I would like to table the following reports: Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 2008-2009 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Manitoba Enabling Appropriations and Other Appropriations; Manitoba Employee Pensions and Other Costs; Manitoba Civil Service Commission. ORAL QUESTIONS Bill 37 Government Intent Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, last year Manitoba taxpayers and ratepayers to our Crown corporations were forced by this government to put up at least $3 million of their money into pre-election advertising campaigns through six different government- sponsored campaigns to deliver the government's message. They continued this advertising campaign right up to and including the first day of the election campaign last year, and they only stopped in response to a complaint on the first day of the election campaign. Mr.

Speaker, now the Premier has introduced a bill, through Bill 37, to allow opposition political parties to spend $75,000, 2 percent of the amount that government is allowed to spend outside of election periods. Now, I know the Premier is afraid of debate. I know he's afraid that people may put out information that he doesn't like, but how can he justify political parties being allowed to spend 2 percent of what taxpayers are spending through the forced ad campaigns run by him and his government?

Will he put political parties, opposition parties with the voluntary contributions coming from Manitobans on the same level playing field as the state when it comes to communications in Manitoba? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, obviously government and Crown corporations are subject to prohibitions on any partisan ads. In fact, I can recall that an auditor general commented that a Crown corporation–no, actually a government department could not print a picture of the Premier presenting an award to a specific company taking out full-page ads.

It was very specific guidelin es about what is partisan and what is not partisan. To my knowledge, it hasn't been our government that has been cited by an auditor general in the past. It was members opposite. Secondly, the issue of advertising during election campaigns, there was a proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition in committee which we accepted in terms of Crown corporations and other limitations. Thirdly, this bill actually goes further than what we had in 1999 and what we had, actually, in 2007.

The proposal in this bill is to deal with a 60-day period prior to E day to gi ve even a further buffer to what happened in the past. But, clearly, it's illegal and inappropriate for partisan ads to be paid for by taxpayers. The member opposite knows that and, Mr. Speaker, we've actually added days to protect members of all political parties in this proposed legislation. In fact, instead of being the existing law which is during the election period, it actually extends that by another month to try to provide greater protection for the concerns that were raised by members opposite.

We had no such protection when we were in office–or in opposition, rather, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McFadyen: There was never a prohibition on how much his political party could spend when we were in office. The fact is that they were free to spend as much as they wanted. There was no government vetting of their MLA communications with Manitobans. There was no restriction on political advertising. The Premier has raised the point about government advertising and we've acknowledged that steps need to be taken to bring it back, but for him to say 60 days is also misleading. It's 60 days from election day.

It only cuts off some 22 to 28 days, depending on when the election is called prior to the writ period, Mr. Speaker. But the point is this: If the state is allowed to spend in excess of $3 million, why wouldn't opposition political parties who rely on voluntary contributions, except to the extent that he wants taxpayers to shovel even more money their way, but rely primarily on voluntary donations from Manitobans, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Premier, given the significance of the clampdown contained in Bill 39, given that it was not taken through the normal process, through the Chief Electoral Officer which involves all-party input, given that it was not taken to the Legislative Assembly Management committee to get all-party input, given that it wasn't even reviewed by his caucus before it was introduced, will he withdraw the bill?

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1813 Will he withdraw the bill? Will he go to public hearings, allow Manitobans a full opportunity to participate, and will he return this fall with a revamped piece of legislation that is fair, open and responsible for Manitoban taxpayers? * (13:50) Mr. Doer: Well, this legislation is fair, open and responsible to taxpayers. In terms of taxpayers, we're dealing with unfettered partisan advertising.

We see, in Ottawa, it's $7.5 million partisan– [interjection] Some federal incumbents now have 14 pieces of mail and partisan ads being mailed in–blank-cheque mailings into ridings with partisan nature. If you want to mail into a riding, under this law you can do so as a political party. You're just going to have the political party pay for it, not the taxpayers. That's one of the issues we're dealing with in terms of the taxpayers in this Legislature. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, there are recommen- dations that, obviously, we've brought in in this legislation that go beyond what the Chief Electoral Officer has proposed. We've done that in the past. The members opposite campaigned against public financing, then took it. They campaigned against the banning of union and corporate donations. I wonder what his position–would he bring in a ban if he was ever elected government? Would he keep the ban on union and corporate donations, or would he get rid of it?

Most Manitobans, in fact even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, first of all, opposed the ban of union and corporate donations. Then they polled their members. After the opposition complained about it, they polled their members, and the small businesses of Manitoba approved the ban on corporate and union donations in Manitoba. Of course, they did so because they can't compete wth large corporations in terms of the financial authority they have. That's why this law is fair to all Manitobans and that's why it is also fair to taxpayers.

You can mail into ridings as the Progressive Conservative Party and you can say anything you want in a partisan way, but you're not going to have the taxpayers pay it with the proposed amendments in this legislation. Mr. McFadyen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Premier to read his own bill. He's giving his party $250,000 of taxpayer money to do partisan mailings into constituencies, $250,000 every year contained in Bill 39. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear the questions and the responses, please. The honourable Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor. Mr.

McFadyen: Under Bill 37, his law requires taxpayers to put money into political parties, $250,000 for his party, a million dollars over four years that they can then use for partisan messaging, Mr. Speaker. So I don't know if he hasn't read the whole bill. I know that sometimes he takes a part of something and focusses on that and forgets about the rest of it, but the fact is when you look at this entire package of amendments, opposition parties' allowance are 2 percent of what government spent last year at taxpayers' expense. And let me just say where we stand.

We are opposed to union and corporate donations to political parties, never supported. We are opposed to a clampdown on third-party advertising. We believe in freedom of speech. We're opposed to a clampdown on political party advertising. We'll repeal it if and when we get to office. It's up to the people of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, why is he so afraid of debate that he needs to clamp down on opposition parties, clamp down on caucuses and use taxpayer money to prop up his own party going into the next election campaign? Mr.

Doer: Well, I'm pleased that we've had a flip- flop in position on– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Doer: I'm opposed we've had a flip-flop on the banning of union and corporate donations. This is a good development from the sky-is-falling position of the past. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I proposed third-party restrictions. We did not proclaim it because it was taken to court. If the member opposite wants to have a discussion, we have taken away the requirement in this act.

The media itself decides what is a partisan ad or not, as opposed to an issue-based ad, so I'm open to any discussion on that issue if there's another conversion on the road to Damascus. I know the members opposite opposed the partial funding of political parties and had 11 years to change that. In the last election campaign, they claimed more money from the taxpayers in their

1814 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 central grant because th ey actually spent more money on advertising than the government, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] I know the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) talks about how outrageous it is. I think the cheque was $14,000 for partial public financing of his constituency. Mr. Speaker, the money spent on Crown corporation ads and public ads were even longer before the 1999 election. They went right through the Pan Am Games because it was longer and more money because they didn't call an election at the four-year period.

They were hanging on by their fingernails spending money. He was the chief of staff. They spent money every day, and you know what? At the end of the day it doesn't make a difference because actually the public is smarter than all of us. It's the message and the messenger that will win or lose election campaigns. Partisan ads are illegal. They have been cited in past. We will not have it. We've not had it anytime we've been in office. We've even extended the buffer even longer, and, you know, we should get on with debating the issues that affect Manitobans because that's what the people care about, Mr. Speaker.

Public Accounts Documents Accessibility Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Speaker, the strange logic of this First Minister, when he is prepared to take $250,000 a year from taxpayers for partisan purposes and then disallow ordinary members of this Legislature to communicate with their constituents, is indeed difficult to comprehend and understand. But, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.

This morning I received, or all members of the Legislature received, a letter from the Minister of Finance indicating that we will no longer be able to have the hard copies of Public Accounts available to us. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will reconsider this and make available to the members of this Legislature a hard copy of Public Accounts so then, indeed, we can hold the government accountable, as we should. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, any member who wishes to have a hard copy of the Public Accounts will have it. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I rise, therefore, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, on a matter of privilege. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, this matter of privilege is one that is fairly serious, because when I received the letter from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) this morning I read it very carefully. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that matters of privilege and points of order are very, very serious matters, and I need to be able to hear every word because I will have to make some kind of a ruling here.

The honourable Member for Russell on a matter of privilege. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, there are two conditions that have to be met in order for me to satisfy this matter of privilege. The first is to raise this matter at the earliest convenience, and the second is to establish a prima facie case. Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister the question in order to give him the opportunity, indeed, to come clean in terms of what he meant in his letter, and I am prepared to read this letter for the sake of the media and people in this Legislature.

Secondly, I want to just clarify that it is Volume 4 that I was asking about, and Volume 4 is this volume, Mr. Speaker, and this is another example of Volume 4. Volume 4 contains all of the detail with regard to government business, with regard to government contracts, with regard to financial statements of Crown organizations and, indeed, it is a reporting system to Manitobans with regard to where government spends its money. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the minister did say in his letter that this information is available on the Internet and, secondly, that this information is available on a CD and a CD copy could be made available. But, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this Legislature, it is important that every individual member of this Legislature have a copy of this document so that, indeed, when we go to Public Accounts with it, as an example, we can take the volume with us, refer to ce rtain pages, to certain

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1815 lines and, indeed, have an informed discussion and debate and hold the Department of Finance, indeed, accountable to Manitobans. * (14:00) Mr. Speaker, additionally, I want to be able to take this to my office, a constituency office that I have in my constituency, lay it on the table and, indeed, allow Manitobans to be able to go through it and take a look at where government spends its money.

Having this on the Internet or having it on a CD does not allow each and every Manitoban who wishes to enter my constituency office and look at the volume that ability to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this Legislature, I feel that my rights and my ability to do my job has been restricted by the Minister Finance in not coming forward and making Volume 4 available to us in hard copy.

Now, he told us that he would make the Public Accounts volumes available to us in hard copy, but it is Volume 4 that he refers to in this letter and he does not indicate in this letter that the Volume 4 will be made available in hard copy. I will read the letter: We wish to inform you that Volume 4 of Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, is now available on the Internet. The letter goes on to indicate what this volume is about, and then it also indicates that: In order to reduce paper consumption, we no longer produce a hard copy of Volume 4.

A CD version for the 2006-07 Volume 4 is available upon request. Now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and his cohorts may think this is a frivolous issue, but we are just dealing right now in the House with matters where government has taken unilateral action in terms of restricting members' abilities to communicate with their constituents, to be able to communicate with Manitobans and to hold this government accountable for its actions. The Minister of Finance has a responsibility–and, yes, perhaps, there's quite a bit of paper in here; it's true. But, Mr.

Speaker, in order for us as members to hold this government accountable on how it does its business and with whom it does its business, it's important for us to be able to take this volume into Public Accounts and to be able to point to areas where we have some questions. Now, Mr. Speaker, technology today is available. I understand that. We can use technology to be able to reduce some paperwork. But it's for the very reason that we have Hansard i n h a r d c o p y i n this House. It's to ensure that members can read Hansard and then use it to be able to hold government accountable.

That is why Hansard is still produced in hard copy. That is why I maintain that Volume 4 must be made available to members of this Legislature in hard copy. Not Volume 1, Volume 2, not Volume 3, but, indeed, Volume 4 is the important one. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want to just take a look at what Volume 4 is, this is an example of Volume 4. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chomiak) appears to have some embarrassment on his face. I don't know whether he read the letter or not.

The matter of privilege refers to the letter that every member of this Legislature received in this House. Now, if the Minister of Finance is prepared to retract the letter or to add to it or to amend it, then he should stand up in this House say I will amend that and I will ensure that every member of this Legislature receives a hard copy, then the matter will have been put to bed. Mr. Speaker, therefore, I move, seconded by the Member for Springfield (M r. Schuler), that this matter be referred to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and be reported back to this House. Hon.

Greg Selinger (M inister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to this question of privilege motion that's been raised. Certainly, it's timely. The member raised it immediately upon after asking his question whereupon in his question he asked if I would make the Public Accounts available, all four volumes in paper. I said, yes. I said I would give that to him. I thought that would end it, but then he seemed to have a prepared speech ready that he wanted to roll out. He didn't hear my answer and then went into a question of privilege, saying that my letter had refused him a hard copy.

When the original documents were put forward in the Public Accounts, there was no such thing as the Internet that you could post these documents on. There was no such thing as a CD-ROM that could be made available to people. There was only one source of information, a hard copy. We have said in the letter, which I hope you will have a copy of, that it will be posted on the Internet. You can have access to it 24-7, and anybody, any

1816 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 citizen in Manitoba can have access to it 24-7. I've also said in the letter that a CD-ROM, a physical compact disc with all the information on it, would be made available to any member upon request. Then for greater certainty, when he asked me the question in question period, if I would make a printed copy available to him, I said yes, we would make a printed copy available to any member of the Legislature. So, I would like to suggest that we have tripled the number of means by which members can have access to the Public Accounts information, and the public.

Not only can they have it through hard copy, not only can they have it through a compact disc, but they can have it on the Internet. I therefore suggest that there have been no privileges of any member of this Legislature having been breached, but, in fact, they have been enhanced by the questions and the answers provided in the Legislature today and built upon in the letter which I provided to all members of the Legislature. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the privilege, I do believe that there's a very sensitive issue that needs to be addressed.

Fortunately, we're in a situation where we had question period today where the member could raise the question, and the minister did appropriately answer by saying that we could have a hard copy. Mr. Speaker, the letter is what's important here. It's in the letter that there was no mention that members would be provided a hard copy and having a hard copy is very important. I know for one, personally, quite often I'll refer to a hard copy, whether I'm going on a car trip or going somewhere where I don't have access to the computer, so having a hard copy is important.

Now the reason why I decided to stand up on the privilege is that I think it's important that all ministers, not just the Minister of Finance, recognize even in today's technology that if you are circulating a note, because I've seen it in the past, Mr. Speaker, that it's very important to make it clear that all MLAs do have access to a hard copy if, in fact, they contact a set number. I think that's an important point that I wouldn't want to see lost, and I think that's ultimately what the Member for Russe ll (Mr.

Derkach) would have liked to have seen is on the letter reassurances that hard copies, no matter what the report, if it's supposed to be a tabled document, is available to all members of the Legislature. We don't want to lose that particular privilege, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Okay. Before recognizing other members to speak, I remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether an alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity, whether a prima facie case has been established. Mrs.

Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) today that's been talking out of both sides of his mouth. In one piece of correspondence that all members received on their desks today, this morning, it says and I quote: We no longer produce the hard copy version of Volume 4. Then when he stood up and answered the question in the House today he says, if you want it, you can ask for a copy. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't have to be asking for hard copies.

In order to do our jobs as members of the Legislature, the hard copy should be tabled in this Legislature and every member should receive a hard copy. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, when you take this under advisement whether you might ask the Minister of Finance to write to us again to withdraw the letter that he sent this morning that said that hard copies were no longer available and ensure that all volumes of Public Accounts are tabled in this House and that every member of this Legislature be afforded the opportunity to have that hard copy. * (14:10) Hon. Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, there have been many occasions in this Hous e when we've received correspondence that says we are trying to reduce paper consumption, and do you, as members, wish to have or not have something. I find it absolutely incredible. I find it astounding, in fact, that during the course of the member's question, the minister answered and said, yes, it will be available. The correspondents, themselves, said, we wish to inform you that in order to reduce paper consumption, we're going to give you a CD version and we're going to give an Internet version available to all Manitobans.

Then the member asked th at they should have a special privilege, as an MLA, to have a hard copy. The minister said, if that's what you want, that's fine.

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1817 But I think we should all strive in this House, where we can, to set an example and reduce paper and reduce consumption of paper. We've done it with bills. We've done it with Hansard. We've done it across the board. Now, if members opposite see some mal-intent in that, particularly in light of the member's answers, Mr. Speaker, then I'm almost astounded at the lack of research and the lack of capabilities in terms of raising matters. This is not a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The matter was dealt with. It was a matter that's of a routine fashion.

In fact, I suggest, this is the fourth or the fifth privilege we've seen in two days. I think that, in itself, and the fact that the minister answered the question, provided the member with a response– there is an issue of dealing with green, dealing with energy matters, that we ought to set an example of. I think, on the face of it, Mr. Speaker, this speaks for itself, and the matte r is settled. In fact, it's not a privilege. In fact, it's almost an abuse of the rules, in my view. Mr. Speaker: Order. This is turning into a debate here. I'll recognize the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. Mr.

Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): The stated reason given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) for not printing Volume 4 of Public Accounts is to save paper. Just as an example, here's some of the paper they provide us, some of it consisting of some very bad law. So I wonder if they could just clarify why it is they would apply the policy to that one volume that happens to contain all of the contracts awarded by government last year to all of those entities.

Why are they concerned about saving paper there, but they couldn't be bothered saving paper when it came to the garbage that's in Bill 37, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: Order. I'm going to hear the honourable First Minister, and that will be the last person I will hear. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I think it's an excellent idea to look at, also, putting on the Internet and computers the Hansard, as long as it's available to us and accessible. I think the key issue here is not only the rights of members but the rights of the public.

This process has enhanced the public right to know, to examine, to question, through their MLAs, through the media, through other means. This has actually increased and flattened out this Legislature to 1.2 million Manitobans if they have access to this technology. Now, I know not all Manitobans have access. Many First Nations communities, we're still working on that strategy for access to them. But I actually suggest that this increases the public right to democratic accountability, not decreases it. There are other ideas on reducing paper. Let's work on it. Mr.

Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I'm going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities and I will return to the House with a ruling. We will now continue on with question period. ORAL QUESTIONS (Continued) Bill 37 Consultations Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, Bill 37 is an affront to every member of this Legislature and, indeed, it severs the rights of members of this Assembly.

While the government continues to use its powers to be able to communicate with people right up until election day, members who are critics, members who are members of this Assembly, can no longer communicate with their constituents 60 days prior to an election. But I want to ask the minister whether or not he had consultation with the Legislative Management Commission prior to bringing in this bill, and can he inform the House what their response was when he consulted with them on this legislation? Hon.

Dave Chomiak (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The members retain their three rights of franks every year as opposed to when I was a backbencher in the opposition and the government cut our franks from three to two. We didn't stand up and whine, Mr. Speaker. Secondly, the budget for mailing is increasing. In fact, we are trying to prevent partisan mailings into places being paid for by the government. We're trying to prevent that. If the member is against that, he ought to stand up. Those ought to be paid for by the Conservative Party, not by government. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Let's have a little decorum, please. Order.

1818 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister could not have been more clear. It is an attempt to prevent critics of government ministers from communicating with Manitobans about the critic responsibility, as they have every right to, because he is sensitive to information flowing to other constituencies. Mr. Speaker, the government has now stripped the right of LAMC to consider extensions in mailings unless you, as Mr. Speaker, are going to allow that.

I want to ask the government, or the minister, why he has taken that right of extensions, of any extension to any member, being decided upon by LAMC and has now turned it over to the sole judgment of the Speaker of this House as is identified in Bill 37? Mr. Chomiak: In fact, that's one of the reasons we debate bills, so members can get a proper understanding of the bill and can make their concerns known, Mr. Speaker. The reason is that ev ery year the mailing budget of the government of Manitoba, as a result of members' mailing, goes over budget. In Ottawa it's $7 million over budget.

Every year, the LAMC meets, sets a budget. Every year, the budget's over. All we said is that everyone is responsible. Every MLA ought to do their part to save precious taxpayers' dollars, Mr. Speaker, and the public does not expect us to use precious taxpayer dollars to mail out partisan documents. If that's going to happen, it ought to be done under the political process. It's the same for every member of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, no differe nt no matter which the political party is. You're subject to the same non- partisan– Bill 38 Government Intent Mr.

Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): I find that absolutely outstanding, outlandish. It's totally outlandish. Here is a minister who is now blaming Ottawa for our overexpenditures in sending pieces of information to our constituents in Manitoba. Now he's going to blame Ottawa for that. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will not admit to it, but the so-called non-balanced budget legislation opens the floodgates to deficit financing. Let's see what a four-year rolling average does when you bring the Crown corporations into the equation. Year 1, you can have a deficit. Year 2, you can have a deficit.

Year 3, you can have a deficit. Year No. 4, oh, guess what? You can also have a deficit. You know why? Because the weather didn't co-operate. This minister will not have a balanced budget if there is unusual weather or climate conditions. Floods, drought, too many clouds, too much rain, forest fires. Is that goin g to be his excuse for his fiscal mismanagement and deficit? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): December '07, at the Public Accounts Committee, the Member for Brandon West asked the Auditor General, your recommendation or your approval would be to a

summary financial statement, one simple financial statement incorporating all the Crown corporations into the accounting of that particular financial statement. Is that what I hear from you? The Auditor General replied, that's correct. That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. One set of books, one bottom line. * (14:20) And, Mr. Speaker, the member in his explanation of how we could avoid balancing the budget is exactly wrong. There would be more discipline. If you ran a deficit for one year, you would have to make it up in future years. It gets harder to balance the budget, not easier.

The member should know that, if he would take a second, if he would just take a nanosecond. If he would take a nanosecond– Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, in fact, did talk about GAAP and did talk about a

summary budget. The Auditor General has also indicated that an annual operating budget is not out of line for this government to put forward to this House on a balanced basis every year. It's pretty simple. Revenue in, expenditures out. It's really simple. You can do that on an annual basis and not use the piggy bank of Manitoba Hydro to balance the budget on a four-year rolling average. You can have both. Make no mistake about that. You can still comply with GAAP and still have a balanced budget. The minister will not accept that.

What he's looking for is an excuse to overexpend in three years and, by the way, use the excuse of the weather to overexpend in the fourth year, too, Mr. Speaker. That's what he's looking for.

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1819 Mr. Selinger: I didn't actually detect a question there, but I did hear a rant. Look, Mr. Speaker, this is what the Finance critic said on April 14, 2005: "I can tell you that we believe that GAAP should be fully implemented." We're on the public record for that. We've got what we have right now which is the '03-04 financial audit report which includes both

summary financial statements and operating financial statements. The Auditor General has asked the Minister of Finance to focus on the

summary financial statements because that is what he has available to assess the fiscal performance of the government and not the operating financial statements. Simple as that. That's what the opposition critic said in '05. Perhaps the member could check the record and get on the same page as his predecessor. Mr. Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, this minister has blamed the feds. Oh, Gollum, it's nice to see you back in the House, Gollum. Let's see, the minister has blamed the feds. He's blamed the City. He's blamed the opposition. He blamed Filmon, and now he's going to blame Mother Nature, okay?

By the way, in 2005, I wasn't the Finance critic then. Perhaps at that time he should have looked at what this minister really– his real intent was was to fool Manitobans and snow Manitobans. And if it snows, by the way, that gives him an excuse to overexpend his budget as well. Bill 38 is too important for the future of Manitoba, yet the Minister has not allowed any input from his caucus, the financial community or the public. Will the Minister do the right thing, take a step back and allow the public to its rights to have input into this bill? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, we, in the pre-election budget, put it together on a

summary financial basis. We explained it to the media and all the people that came to the lockup. We explained to them why we were doing this. We showed them how it included more information. As early as 2005, we made a public declaration that we were moving to the

summary financial statements. After very serious criticism by the Auditor in a press release of January 8, '04, where they said, since '98 we've been asking you to move to full

summary budgets–the Auditor, in that press release, criticized the balanced budget legislation for leaving the pension liability off the books, for taking money out of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and counting it as revenue twice, for selling off Crown assets. All of those things are illegal under this new bill. It's more accountable. It's more transparent, and it's better for Manitobans. Waste-Water Treatment Facilities Government Funding Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr.

Speaker, in this year's budget it says, and I quote: "Manitoba is also providing one-third of the funding for upgrading Winnipeg's waste water plants, an investment of $235 million." When asked in Estimates about where we'd find this commitment in the budget, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote: It is part of the infrastructure commitment. Well, Mr. Speaker, when I went to the Minister of Infrastructure (Mr. Lemieux) and asked him where in his government department I could find this, he said, well, why don't you pose those questions to the Minister responsible for Intergovern- mental Affairs (Mr. Asht on)?

So, Mr. Speaker, I went to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I asked him where it would come from and he pointed his finger back to the Minister of Infrastructure. So my question for this government: Where in this budget would we be able to find the $235 million that is apparently earmarked to go towards the upgrade of the waste-water treatment facilities in the city of Winnipeg? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Inter- governmental Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, after being pointed all through the Estimates process, it ended up in my department where I gave the member a comprehensive background of what has happened in waste water. The member still doesn't get it. The member– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I can't hear a thing. Order. I can't hear a thing. Come on. Order. Let's have some decorum, please. The honourable minister has the floor. Mr. Ashton: She still doesn't get it. The member insists on putting on the record that the cost will be $1.8 million when, in fact, waste-water plant upgrades, Mr.

Speaker, according to the City's own documents are $668 million. We committed to our one-third share. We also have committed to infrastructure funding. We put in our share of $28 million. We flowed $16 million of that, and in fact, under the infrastructure section, under the

1820 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 strategic infrastructure program, there'll be money flowed this year. What happens, Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg does the work and we provide our one- third share. We're still looking to the federal government to come through with its one-third share. Ours will be there through the end of the project in 2014. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, this is like a three- ring circus. We've got the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who can't answer the question who made the announcement in the first place. We asked the Minister of Infrastruct ure (Mr.

Lemieux), who pointed the finger at the Minister of Intergovern- mental Affairs, who then po inted the finger back at the Minister of Infrastru cture, who, apparently, doesn't have it in his budget. So where is it? Is it in some separate document, some secret budget that's out there, that second set of books or something that we don't have? Where would we find the $235 million that has been earmarked towards the waste-water treatment facility in the city of Winnipeg? Where is it? Who over there is going to stand and answer the question? Mr.

Ashton: I realize the members opposite don't have much sense of major capital projects, but the operating to the waste-water system should've happened in 1993-94. It's already under way. We've already flowed $16 million. We've already committed $28 million-plus under the infrastructure program, but the work continues until the year 2014. Maybe the member should just phone the City, because she will find, for example, the total capital works this year for the City in terms of their water utility is $26 million. This will peak in the year 2012 at $197 million.

Our cash flow has been there and it will continue to increase over the next number of years. The project runs until 2014. We already have the West End treatment centre improved. We're putting our money in. We're flowing the money when the City needs it. The members opposite did absolutely nothing. Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, our question was, where would we find it in this budget? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Se linger) announced the $235 million.

If it's not in this budget, are they then waiting for yet another federal government handout to pay for the announcement that they made, that they said was in this budget? This is absolutely outrageous. So, if it's now the federal government that's supposed to come up with the funding for this Minister of Finance announcement, is that where it is or are they planning on paying for it once their Bill 38 or whatever passes, th at they can then run a government deficit? Is that how they're then going to pay for it? Where is the money coming from? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): The last federal- provincial agreement–and the former chief of staff of the mayor would know this–dealt with the Kenaston underpass, sewage treatment, and it dealt with rapid transit which was amended to be recreation. Our share of the money has flowed under that agreement with Ottawa and the City, and 50 percent of the funds for the West End treatment centre have been funded by the provincial government.

We obviously have already announced it and already dealt with the capital expenditures, and so the question raised by the member opposite is best put to the former chief of staff for the mayor of the City of Winnipeg. * (14:30) Waste-Water Treatment Facilities Government Funding Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Mr. Speaker, this is incredible. We have the Premier standing up trying to blame the member of the opposition for a budgetary announcement of $235 million that was in this year's budget, not the 1999 budget, but the 2008 budget.

Where is the $235 million that was announced with great fanfare in the budget 2008? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Intergovern- mental Affairs): Now I know why the members opposite didn't deal with this, because they simply don't get it, Mr. Speaker. The City of Winnipeg is upgrading the waste- water treatment plant. Mr. Speaker, there are three separate waste-water treatment plants. It went to the CEC. It is licensed. The project will run through to year 2014. Our cost-share is for the entire project up until 2014. It's one-third. Yesterday, in Estimates, I gave the members opposite the specific line item, Mr.

Speaker, under the infrastructure agreement, where the cash flow will come this year. I also pointed out we have been there with $16 million. There will be additional money this year that will

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1821 flow when the City of Winnipeg completes the work, and let me explain once again for the members opposite: it is a one-third share of a project that runs to 2014. This is the year 2008. We'll be there 2009, 2010, all the way through to 2014. Mr. Speaker, I answered the question yesterday. The members just don't get it. We're fixing waste water. They're not. Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, this is absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. When we asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday where the money was in his budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger) and the Minister of Infrastructure (Mr. Lemi eux) said it's in the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. When we asked for a line in the budget, he referred us to a line in the Department of Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, where is the money in the budget 2008 for the commitment to the City of Winnipeg for sewer waste-water treatment? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I was in Estimates yesterday. I also read Hansard. The Minister of Infrastructure pointed out that as Minister for IGA, I'm the lead minister in dealing with the City of Winnipeg on their infrastructure issues, including waste water.

I pointed out the specific item it is. It's under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. That was what the Premier referenced earlier, and I would hope members opposite would get up on the record and correct the fact that what we're talking about, this runs till 2014, and we will be there every year to fund it. The bottom line though is, Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is, why did members opposite do nothing in government? Why do they still not want to have the removal of nitrogen? They want to go against the Clean Environment Commission. Why don't they get the fact that we're there for one-third?

The City's there for its one-third. We're looking to the federal government to do the same thing. Mrs. Mitchelson: I'll try one more time. I will try one more time. There was an announcement with great fanfare that there was $235 million for the City of Winnipeg to improve their sewer water infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, a very simple question to the government: Show me the money in budget 2008. Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, and I can appreciate members opposite didn't have much experience in government with any kind of capital developments. People in Brandon know that.

People throughout the province know about hospital projects, but just for the information of the member, again, we have flowed money. Prior to the infrastructure agreement, there was $4 million from Intergovernmental Affairs. With the infrastructure agreement, we have flowed, Mr. Speaker, the last two years, $16.7 million. There will be additional flow, our share of over $3 million this year, under the CSIF fund. I pointed out the exact line item which that appears under, yesterday. But the members, you know, the bottom line is, they don't care.

They still don't believe that we should improve waste water and save Lake Winnipeg, where this government does. We're there, Mr. Speaker, not only with the regulations but with one-third provincial funding, as well, through to 2014. Bill 31 Government Intent Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, Bill 31, which creates a privacy adjudicator, is yet another bill that dupes Manitobans into thinking they are getting something that they are not. The changes to FIPPA will not increase the flow of information. In fact, this bill locks down the release of information. In 1999, the Premier (Mr.

Doer) promised he would establish a privacy commissioner as is the case in other jurisdictions. Those were his words. He said this would have dealt more effectively with the public interest in the disclosure of information. Now, eight years later, this government is expanding FIPPA to allow governments to withhold infor- mation from the public. I ask the minister responsible: What is this NDP government doing that they so desperately need to hide from Manitobans? Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage, Tourism and Sport): Mr.

Speaker, I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to this very important progress that our government's making. We all know that the legislation itself has to be updated, and it's time. We've gone through a review process, and actually we've been deemed to be one of the better jurisdictions in Canada as far as the dissemination of information.

1822 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 Our staff will be providing a briefing for the critic, as we previously committed to, but the adjudicator that we're proposing will deal with a very small number of cases where a public body does not follow the recommendation of the Ombudsman. So that would be the role of the adjudicator that we're proposing. Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, a privacy commissioner, as in nine other provinces, has a duty to the public, yet this NDP government has chosen not to include the public interest, only the interests of government.

In 1999, the Premier said the main tool in enforcing a freedom of information legislation is a prospect of embarrassing the government. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister responsible why his government refuses to install a real privacy commissioner like nine other provinces and territories already have. What secrets do they desperately need to keep hidden? What is it that is embarrassing them? Mr. Robinson: Well, allow me to reiterate, Mr.

Speaker, the adjudicator will be an officer of the Legislative Assembly appointed in the same manner as the Ombudsman, and he or she will be equal to and independent of the Ombudsman. Allow me to say that the Newspapers Association deemed Manitoba to be one of the most open governments in Canada, and at the same time we are going to be opening Cabinet records from what was previously 30 year s to 20 years, so I think that's some significant progress we're making. Asperger Syndrome Government Programs Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, a big thank you to the members of Asperger Manitoba for their presentation to MLAs this morning to explain how people with Asperger syndrome are physically healthy but their brains work differently so they're often singled out. Government programs indeed single out Asperger syndrome by having them dropped through the cracks too often because under the conditions of this government's programs, in many circumstances you need to have an IQ of less than 70 in order to qualify for support. I ask the Premier (Mr.

Doer) why he's not moving away from the government's focus on IQism and instead using a more realistic measure of disability, a measure of adaptive function as indeed is used in the disability tax credit? Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Healthy Living): Mr. Speaker, I, too, enjoyed the hospitality of the Asperger society of Manitoba. Asperger syndrome is a unique condition that's part of the autism spectrum disorder. Each child diagnosed with that diagnosis as an adult has varied specific individual characteristics. Our government has been working cross- departmentally as well as with families.

Family Services and Housing, Education, Manitoba Health and Healthy Living have come together to provide services. The diagnostic services through the Child Development Clinic as well as Children's Special Services provide treatment, therapy and respite, as well as school-based services through Education, Citizenship and Youth through the funding formula for level 1 and level 2 and 3 students. As well, Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre is working on developing a program that will continue to provide services to people that are afflicted with Asperger Syndrome. * (14:40) Suicide Rates Reduction Strategy Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, many adults with Asperger syndrome are continuing to drop through the cracks due to the way this government has organized things. Indeed, a recent Canadian Medical Association Journal

article exposed shocking statistics that Manitoba's–and I table this–suicide rate is higher than in any other province in Canada, and more than one and a half times the national average. Time and time again in this Legislature, I've raised concern about Manitoba's high suicide rate and about people dropping through the cracks, and, yet, the government has bungled and bungled and bungled. One reason for Manitoba's high suicide rate is that government programs miss the mark. They miss too many people at risk, whether it's people with Asperger syndrome, with brain injury or others. When will the government address these important needs?

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1823 Hon. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Minister of Healthy Living): Mr. Speaker, suicide is an issue that concerns all members of this House and all communities as we come together. Our services around mental health supports– we've provided over $40 million since 2005 to provide supports. Yesterday we announced $1.8 million for mental health workers across the province of Manitoba. Twenty new mental health workers will provide that support. We take it very, very seriously.

We're going to work with our community partners through health, social services as well as parents and ensure that we're dealing with these issues. It's about providing prevention services as well, and making sure that children are, through early childhood development, developing with strong self- esteem and the supports that they need. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Premier (Mr. Doer), how can you tolerate the appalling situation in this province where our suicide rates are about three times that in Québec and four times that in Nova Scotia? It's disgraceful.

When you could have acted, you failed time and time again, even to action to prevent suicides in people with eating disorders, as an example. Straight forward is following the Saskatchewan model of setting up an eating disorder centre like that in Bridge Point, in Milden, Saskatchewan. Elaine Stevenson and others have been calling on the government to act for years, but this government has done nothing. Far too many of our young people have died. When will the government act, Mr. Premier? Ms. Irvin-Ross: Mr.

Speaker, as I stated before, suicide is an issue that concerns all members of this House as well as every citizen of Manitoba. We are very concerned. We will continue to work with all of our partners and ensure that we provide people with the supports that they need through our mental health workers across the province as well as through prevention programs. As well, specific around the eating disorders, there are services that are available for eating disorders. We have the Adult Eating Disorders Program and the Child and Adolescent Eating Disorders program at the Health Sciences Centre.

As well, there are self-help programs that are throughout the province. We will continue to work with all partners as we address all mental health issues in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS North American Occupational Safety and Health Week Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, May 4 through 10 is North American Occupational Health and Safety Week. In this era of globalization in which goods, people and information rapidly move across borders and into foreign jurisdictions, we can easily take for granted the increasing standardization.

Yet, while the speed of commerce and commu- nications has made the world seem smaller, it has not necessarily made it any safer for workers. This week is an opportunity to renew our commitment and awareness of occupational safety issues and to ensure that all workers from Canada to Mexico are equally protected from the hazards of the workplace. North American Occupational Safety and Health Week was born out of the strong tradition of safety awareness and promotion which have been provided by the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering since the mid-1980s.

In 1996, CSSE partnered with safety organizations, governments and other groups to expand the scope of this important awareness campaign continent-wide. Despite the international scale of this safety campaign, it is imperative that we recognize that safety implementation is decidedly local in nature. Successful safety strategies often require the work of employees, management, volunteers and the surrounding community to build a foundation of mutual respect, trust and appreciation of human life.

While there is much work yet to do, because of the awareness raised by the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, workers in North America are closer to enjoying the same safety standards, no matter their location. Mr. Speaker, every worker deserves a safe workplace. I would like to commend the members of the business community who have taken on this challenge with respect and concern for their workers. We also honour those workers who have been injured or whose lives were lost in the workplace.

1824 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 Parish of St. Norbert 150th Anniversary Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, this year is a milestone in my constituency of St. Norbert. The parish of St. Norbert was established on November 30, 1857, and it is celebrating its 150th anniversary. It is the third oldest parish in western Canada. In the 1860s, St. Norbert was the largest community in the North-West Territories, as Manitoba was once known. Today, 150 years later, it is still a vibrant and essential part of our city and our province.

Located at the junction of the Red and LaSalle rivers, the French-speaking Roman Catholic parish of St. Norbert has enjoyed a long and eventful history as one of Manitoba's earliest and most significant French Canadian and Métis communities. The community of St. Norbert was witness to the formation of a provisional government of Manitoba on October 20, 1869, the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the Red River in the first rectory in the St. Norbert parish in December of that year, and the creation of a representational provisional government of 24 delegates with Louis Riel as president in February of 1870.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, th e very creation of our province is intimately connected to the history of the community I represent. Today, St. Norbert is still a cornerstone of our provin ce. Its French culture, historical roots and vibrant arts community make it a truly unique part of our city. A series of activities to mark this milestone anniversary in my constituency have already taken place over the course of the last year. The formal celebrations were kicked off in July 1 of last year with a community picnic and the celebrations will wrap up with the grand finale banquet to be held this spring on June 7.

I ask all honourable members of this House to join me in congratulating the volunteers who have been working very hard on ensuring the success of this year's event and the pa rish of St. Norbert on its 150th anniversary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pilot Mound Hockeyville Finalist Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to congratulate the community of Pilot Mound in finishing in the top five in Hockeyville 2008.

Kraft Canada together with the CBC, the National Hockey League and the NHL Players Association hold an annual challenge in the search of the community that best demonstrates pride and passion for the game of hockey. This was Pilot Mound's third attempt to claim Hockeyville's top prize. In 2006, they were one of 25 finalists. Pilot Mound has a very unique history. In 1947, after fire left the town without a rink, volunteers travelled to Souris to dismantle an old air force hangar. By 1949, they had transformed it into the Pilot Mound Arena which is still in use today.

However, in desperate need for a new hockey rink after 60 years of use, the community's volunteers once again travelled across the province to bring a new rink to Pilot Mound. In 2000, a recreation facility from Sundance, Manitoba, was purchased. Volunteers travelled 1,200 kilometres north and dismantled the complex in 40 days. They then transported the materials and 50 truckloads back to Pilot Mound, and they have since been constructing the Pilot Mound Millennium Recreation Complex, set to open in the fall of 2008. Since 2000, community members have dedicated over 150,000 volunteer hours on this project alone.

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely remarkable. Over the weekend of April 26, they held a community auction where they made $80,000 for the new arena. Included in the night's events was a pie sale. Pies were made by local residents and were auctioned off for between $200 and $850, one of which I purchased. As a finalist, Pilot Mount was awarded $20,000 to be used for upgrades in their home arena and had the privilege of hosting CBC's Hockey Night in Canada from the Pilot Mound Arena on April 1. * (14:50) Mr.

Speaker, it is remarkable that the people of the area have committed so much time, energy and talent to making something so special happen for this community. The volunteers have worked tirelessly. If it were not for them, the great citizens of Pilot Mound and area would not have had an arena in which to learn and play this great Canadian game. They have undoubtedly made the community of Pilot Mound and the province of Manitoba a much better place to live. Mr. Speaker, I ask the members here today to join me in congratulating the community of Pilot Mound for a job well done.

We are very proud of their accomplishments and look forward to the grand opening of the complex this fall.

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1825 Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, the Scout and Guide movements provide excellent environments for the development of citizenship and leadership in our youth. I was very pleased to join the 1st Kirkfield Park Venturers Troop when they raised the Canadian Cancer Society flag during the recent Daffodil Days event here at the Legislature.

The Scout's mission is to seek to contribute to the education of young people through a value system based on the Scout promise and law to build a better world where people are self-fulfilled as individuals and to play a constructive role in society. It was a pleasure to collaborate with these fantastic young people who are working to make a real difference in their communities. Manitoba Girl Guides and other fantastic youth groups celebrated 2008 International Earth Day with a tree planting and environmental education session on May 3 at Optimist Park.

Working in partnership with the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba Conservation, Environmental Youth Corps, Mountain Equipment Co-op and the Assiniboine Watershed Network, the Girl Guides assisted with the reforestation of the bank of Sturgeon Creek, planting over a thousand trees in one day, adding to the over 2,500 they have already planted. These two organizations play an important role in building citizenship skills. Their philosophies have instilled qualities like strong work ethic and a sense of social responsibility in hundreds of Manitobans.

The young men and women who come out of these programs are skilled leaders and have training and values that hold them in good stead in their daily endeavours. I was thrilled to get to know these young up-and-comers. Learning at an early ag e about cancer prevention and protecting the environment are two important issues that are facing all Manitobans. Having young advocates for such important issues truly makes a difference in how we all think about cancer and protecting our natural areas.

On behalf of all honourable members and as a former member of the Guide movement, I would like to congratulate the 1st Kirkfield group and the Manitoba Girl Guides for their ongoing commitment to building a better society full of conscientious citizens. I take great solace knowing that we are leaving our future in such caring hands. Early Childhood Education Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): For a long time, Liberals have been calling for improved provincial support for early childhood education.

As one example, I remember February 5, 2007, when about 80 concerned parents, day-care providers and children braved the very cold weather and came to the Manitoba Legislature to plead the need for much better support for early childhood education in Manitoba. I want to recognize those who came that day, and particularly Don Woodstock, who's in the gallery, and Diane Hale from the Rainbow Day Nursery, and many others. At long last, after much effort by those who were there February 5, 2007, and many others who've contributed in one way or another to the cause, there has been some movement.

In my own constituency of River Heights there have also been many who've worked hard in the effort, including Karen Ohlson and others at KIDS Inc. day care at Montrose School. Thanks are due to all those who've contributed to the effort to improve su pport for early childhood education in Manitoba. Yet, as we know, there is still a huge need now for increased support with long waiting lists, some up to four years in length. For children in their early years, four years is far too long to wait. I hope we will not have to wait the full five years of the government's plan to dramatically reduce the waiting times.

It's needed now. All too often in the past, there've been reversals in support for early childhood education. Most recently, with the change in federal government in 2006, there was an abrupt move away from a national program for early childhood education. As Liberals, we commit to moving forward on early childhood education, and I hope the other parties will similarly make their commitment as well. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon.

Dave Chomiak (Government House Leader): Would you please canvass the House to see if there's unanimous consent to waive rules 154(1), 157(1) and (3), regarding the requirements for the

1826 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 deposit, the publishing of a notice of application for a private bill, and the proof of publication for the Royal Lake of the Woods Yacht Club? I should note for the House that publication had already previously taken place in May 2006. Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to waive rules 154(1), 157(1) and (3), regarding the requirements for the deposit, the publishing of a notice of application for a private bill, and the proof of publication for the Royal Lake of the Woods Yacht Club?

It's been noted for the House that publication had already previously taken place in May of 2006. Is there agreement? [Agreed] Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House, and I wonder if we might now resolve ourself into Committee of Supply. Mr. Speaker: The House will now resolve into Committee of Supply. Would the respective Chairs please go to: the Chamber will be Competitiveness, Training and Trade; Room 255 will be Culture, Heritage, Tourism and Sport; and Room 254 will be Family Services and Housing.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSING * (15:00) Madam Chairperson (Marilyn Brick): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now resume consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Family and Housing. As had been previously agreed, questioning for this department will proceed in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): I want to go on to the issue of social worker caseloads. There have been over a period of time three separate judicial inquests that recommended the development of caseload standards. The minister in 2003 promised that those would be established. Can you indicate where the plans to develop caseload standards are at right now? Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Housing): The external reviews, which form the basis for our Changes for Children action plan, provided a number of recommendations directed at workload relief. As I recall–we're just looking for the quote–but in the external review, there was a conclusion drawn that any jurisdiction should be very cautious of using a standard caseload formula because of the great variations in work. Distances make a difference. The complexity of human nature can make a big difference with individual worker's caseloads demands.

I think that reflects what has been the conclusions by a number of organizations that have some good knowledge in this area. First of all, the Child Welfare League of America has concluded that there is no universally accepted formula for computing caseloads. The Child Welfare League of Canada has actually made a point of not recommending a formula for caseloads standards, as a result. That's because caseloads don't, as I said earlier, really, necessarily reflect workload. But most jurisdictions in Canada do not employ caseload standards due to the complications inherent in developing them.

Now what the history of caseloads in Manitoba has been, does reflect, though, an eagerness by observers to keep going back and computing numbers based on some kind of a formula. For example, in 1996's inquest report into the tragic death of Sophia Schmidt, Judge Conner, there, found that child protection workers involved with that case had caseloads of about 45. They said, there, that the heavy workload that he found had been the status quo since 1988. Those were his words.

We then had the inquest report into the '96 death of Nadine Beaulieu, and the child protection worker in that case, at West Region, had between 45 and 50 cases and, as well, had some other files that were being carried with less seriousn ess. The judge in that inquest found that that social worker would have had a caseload of 45 to 50 children in care and about 30 family files. So that was some earlier attempt at caseload measures in Manitoba. I think we've seen a real variety, a divergence of caseload measures and ratios right across the continent.

So when the external reviews said we had to address workload relie f without regard to a caseload measure, they said that the need was 150 more workers, which should provide front-end relief. Not necessarily, though, social workers. In fact, I think there was a theme in there that support workers were also very important and necessary to reduce the workload of social workers, for example. * (15:10) Now since Changes for Children commenced, then, and with a goal of 150 more staff resources, we are now at 91.5 more approved positions. I

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1827 understand that most of those, if not nearly all of them, have been filled. Those are at the different agencies across the province. The challenge, of course, with regard to adding more resources is that we are also seeing more children in care. So, by the time that devolution had begun and using the rough measures and with all the caveats that have been urged, I understand that the average caseload was around 28 or 29 in Manitoba. So, with the workload relief and in light of the added numbers of children, the caseload is down somewhat.

Average caseloads, I understand, range from about 27 in the north to 28 with a general authority, 29 with a southern authority. The overall caseload is somewhere around 28 or 29, if you use those kinds of measures. The unfortunate thing here is that the Province has been adding resources for caseload relief while there has not been a reconsideration by the federal government of its funding on reserve. Any enhancement to caseloads is skewed and can be lost because of a lack of federa l recognition of the need for more funding for on-reserve services. The challenge remains a serious one.

It was a subject of an Auditor General's repor t from Ottawa yesterday, on the need to address on-reserve, child-welfare funding. We'll have to continue with our efforts to bring the federal government to a new funding formula and a new partnership with First Nations– and the Province, for that matter, if all the provincial standards are to apply. The recent inquest report into the death of Tracia Owen commented that that is very difficult if not impossible to live up to when there isn't the comparable funding on the federal side. Madam Chair, we're recognizing that caseload doesn't necessarily reflect workload.

I also understand that the authorities are working on a workload-relief initiative to take this matter further now and in light of further resources that have been earmarked for distribution to agencies. One part of the strategy is to strengthen the information management system, the CFIS system, which can make work easier and is workload relief when it works for those on the front lines. Other methods of volume relief are being examined and so they are assessing workload and tracking it over time. They're using quality assurance with the agencies to implement workload assessment and tracking.

The administrative time and increasing time with clients, obviously, is a focus, but the funding model as well is being looked at. As well, it's important that the recruitment and retention efforts be continually strengthened because, when there's a big turnover of staff, it obviously can cause workload implications for the agency and for other workers. So management practices are important and that is under way. The standing committee has identified some steps, then, to look at the previous workload measur es that have been used and the approaches in other jurisdictions.

There are some improvements to this in light of the blueprint that was set out by the external reviews. Mr. Briese: I do understand some of the complexities to different cases, but the fact does remain that the minister, in 2003, promised that caseload standards would be implemented. In a more recent Manitoba Government Employees Union survey of social workers by Probe Research, 46 percent of the social workers identified caseloads as their No. 1 concern. Also, the Children's Advocate, in most recent annual report, has identified caseloads as an area of serious concern.

I know there's been a commitment made on another 150 social workers, but also the numbers in CFS continue to grow. I question whether we're doing any more than just keeping up to the extra loads that are going in. Mr. Mackintosh: Well, when you compare what were the judicially determined caseloads in the late 1990s with caseloads of 45 to 50, and another 30 family files for one soci al worker, versus the numbers that we have now, that's a very substantial improvement and very measurable improvement. But I do know, too, that the so cial workers and the child welfare workers in the 1990s also complained bitterly.

I think 80 or 90 percent of them in a survey said that they couldn't do, they couldn't fulfil the responsibilities under the act because of their caseloads. We have to continue our efforts there, and, as I say, the blueprint was set out by the external reviews and we are going to move to 150 more workers, strengthening the information management systems, strengthening management practices and, at the same time–I mean, you can deal with caseload in different ways. You can just keep adding more and more social workers and other front-lin e workers and just keep piling that on.

You can also reduce workloads by looking at why children are in care in the first place. What is driving this horrendous number, 7,000, 8,000 children in care in the province of Manitoba. What can be done better to strengthen families and reduce child abuse has to be part of the question. It's

1828 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 not enough just to say, well, we're going to keep adding and adding and adding resources to deal with what is undermining the well-being of children and families. Any discussion on this shouldn't only talk about staffing. We are adding 150, it's a sizeable investment; but, when you look at what's happening in Manitoba families, you can't help but come to the conclusion that there are serious troubles in far too many families. In terms of the role of government, first of all, let's remember, the children don't grow up in a program. They don't grow up in government.

They grow up in a family; they grow up in a community. What can government do as one agent to ameliorate conditions? You can provide parenting skills, and we've got a world-class program that's rolling out now, the Triple P–Positive Parenting Program. You can provide help in terms of getting people off of welfare. You can provide help in terms of addiction services and mental health services and all those issues. There are, of course, as well, the responsibilities that rest with being parents in a family and rearing children. Government can't be there all the time.

But there are efforts that are being undertaken, both through the child welfare system and through all kinds of other initiatives and with community organizations to help families become healthier. The focus of the differential response model that we talked about yesterday in some length is wholly intended to reduce the number of children that have to be taken into care because we are able to help families nip their problems sooner before children become actually abused.

We can deal with neglect cases and with an objective of strengthening parenting skills, dealing with the challenges, whether I say it's employment, literacy, addictions, mental health, all of those issues, in a much more focussed way. * (15:20) The plan there is to see the number of children in care decrease. That has been the experience in other jurisdictions that have introduced this differential response model, or this family enhancement stream that will be introduced in a formalized way in Manitoba. I just wanted to put that on the record that there are different sides to this here.

I don't think that the long-term strategy should ever just say, well, yes, we're just going to keep adding more and more social workers because of the number of children in care. You have to work together with families and communities to turn off the tap of those who are maltreated. Mr. Briese: Madam Chair, I would agree with that; there have to be the other approaches. The fact remains that the caseloads are there today, and what are we doing to deal with the high number of caseloads? One other question that I would have pertaining to that. You've mentioned 91.5 positions are filled out of the 150.

Would you have a breakdown on how many of those are actually front-line workers and how many are more of a supervisory capacity–or administrative, I guess, would be the word? Mr. Mackintosh: The external report said, and I'm just paraphrasing what they said here, but they said, get your social workers out of the file room and into the living room, you know. Give them some added support; fix your information technology up; get other people doing the photocopying and helping with the file preparation. But, as well, you can strengthen supports for front line by strengthening supervisory capacity as well.

So the reports were very clear. They didn't say just hire all social workers. They said, give front-line relief , so it was up to the agencies and the authorities, then, to determine how best to flow the first round. That was about $5-million worth of new resources and that was done over time. In terms of the 91.5, the department advises me that 60 are classified as traditional front-line workers. There are about nine supervisors; service assistants are 2.5, and admin is 19.3.

So, to a fair extent, we complied; we didn't put them all into just the front-line workers, but in terms of some of the other supports as well for those on the front line. I think what's important now is that, with the workload relief initiative and analyzing how to better gauge volumes, we'll continue to tweak that with the agencies on a go-forward basis. You know, we've got, what, another 60 or so to go for front-line relief, and we'll work with the authorities to make sure we're getting the best bang for our buck with the placement of those new resources.

Madam Chairperson: Just prior to recognizing the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), if the minister could please introduce the two staff members who joined us here at the table. Mr. Mackintosh: Yes. Deputy Minister Martin Billinkoff, and ADM Carolyn Loeppky.

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1829 Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes. I'd like to ask the minister: With the situation in Norway House, where there have been, I think it's 37 children who have been looked after at a very considerable expense by the First Nation, and Councillor Mike Muswagon has talked about this as, you know, important relationship to Jordan's Principle, that the child should be considered first. There were some statements over the weekend, I believe, from Health Minister Tony Clement.

Can the minister provide an update on the status of the children at Norway House, and of the status of the implementation of Jordan's Principle? Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in the last go-round in Estimates in the fall, we also had a discussion about the pilot project or the initiative that Norway House had undertaken as a result of accessing some funds that they had available to them, and I remind the member that this project was begun by the band itself.

This did not engage the Province in any way, but I understand that it was ongoing for some period of time, serving 20, 30 or so children who had some complex needs in the community. When it looked like the funds were running out, clearly there was an interest in continuing with that program, and recognizing that the medical services jurisdiction, resting with Ottawa, was an important part of any solution, I had undertaken with the chief and with Councillor Muswagon to ma ke approaches formally and otherwise with federal officials and political leadership.

The next I had heard, then, was a concern that the monies were going to run out again. I mean, I think there have been some different time lines here. As a result, it was our c oncern that the federal government was not showing an interest in stepping in to fill that funding void, but recognizing that there was an important service at stake, the Province indicated to federal officials and to senior officials, actually, in Ottawa that we were bound and determined to see a resolution of this on a timely basis and asked the federal government to move with us to resolve it.

You know, we can talk about Jordan's Principle, and I'll just put on the table again that Jordan's Principle is accepted by this government, but for Jordan's–and I'll just assume for a moment that this is about Jordan's Principle because I think the member confuses and, I think, helps to confuse the public sometimes, perhaps unwittingly, in terms of what Jordan's Principle is about.

Jordan's Principle is about where there's a dispute as to whether the services should be provided by the Province or the federal government that th e immediate jurisdiction, in other words the jurisdiction where the child is currently receiving service, will pay the amount and then the bickering will be worked out. Without a dispute resolution process, Jordan's Principle is simply code word for federal offloading of fiduciary responsibility so the dispute resolution process is critical on how we move ahead with Jordan's Principle.

That's assuming, by the way, that there are available services in the First Nations community, then. We see this as an on-reserve service. There's no dispute about whether it's provincial or federal. It's on-reserve services, and last time I challenged the member, you know, Madam Chairperson, was he advocating that provincial jurisdictions now get involved in providing medical services on-reserve because that would be quite a remarkable position to take and one that I know would be of interest to all the provinces and premiers across the country.

There comes a time when there are established programs that are unique, that appear to be working, that we can sometimes step out and rise to a challenge to be part of a solution, and we proposed to the federal government that the Province was prepared to help these children with complex needs in Norway House to maintain the program, and that was offered to the federal government. I was pleased to hear the federal government– and this is all third-hand because I have not had a discussion–the Minister of Healthy Living (Ms.

Irvin-Ross) actually is a lead on Jordan's Principle on the one hand and, second of all, on the Norway House issue on the other because it crosses departments. It's not just a Family Services issue whatsoever. There would be significant funding on the Health side and Healthy Living side. * (15:30) I understand that the feds are prepared to step in, and I think that's a real win-win for everybody. I think they're doing the right thing, quite frankly.

If the federal government wants to continue with discussions following our correspondence to them where we had offered to try and help out, then we're prepared to have that discussion to solve the problem and get it behind us. The federal government has a role to play and so do the provinces, but this area of jurisdiction is becoming, I think, more marked.

1830 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 As the provincial government, through Changes for Children, has increased significantly and will continue to increase investments in child welfare for one, and the federal government's contributions, according to the Auditor General yesterday, are stagnant. I shouldn't say stagnant, actually. The member was at the table in Ottawa and pushed the button and stopped the indexing of payments on reserve for child welfare, and it's cost Manitoba, apparently, disproportionately more than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I think we're up to–what was it, $27 million?

I think the Wen:de Report, commissioned by INAC, said that Manitoba children had, as of even 2005, lost $27 million as a result of the loss of the indexing of that dollar. So, when the member speaks about Jordan's Principle and on-reserve services, I immediately have to remind Manitobans and the member, you know, of the role that the member played in hurting the well-being of Aboriginal children on reserve. You know, you can talk all you want, but you have to be measured by when you are in position to make a difference.

When you are making decisions, you have to be measured against that, and the member was there when that decision was made. Mr. Gerrard: Just clarification as to whether the federal government has indicated their willingness to help out, just in Norway House or to have a broader role for the federal government in other communities where there are similar issues. Mr. Mackintosh: Well the odd thing is, you know, we're getting information through the newspapers–or through the media, I should say, and we've been communicating with them.

I can tell you the ADM, the DM, others at the political level as well, you know, and with Mr. Bruinooge. I mean, we have been going and going on this issue with the federal government to get a new partnership to get them to address No. 1, child welfare on reserve; No. 2, Jordan's Principle; and No. 3, the Norway House situation in particular. But they're moving on it.

I know they're concerned about it, and I think with the recent pronouncements that we are hearing about through the media, I think that's a very positive indication that at least with Norway House they recognize that they have a ro le to play and they have to step in. In terms of the next one then, the issue of Jordan's Principle, there have been active discussions. I think more recently we're getting concerned that it's too quiet on the federal side.

They appointed someone to the working group with Manitoba, and then they said they wanted to study the cost of disability services, and to my understanding it's been quiet for some time now. What we saw from th e federal government, though, was a recognition of the importance of Jordan's Principle. There was a resolution of the House that the government spoke to and supported, and as well, there have been other statements in support of it. So I'm optimistic that we're going to have a deal with them because that's what they're saying publicly. It was just that we have not had a positive communication back.

We have from officials a real keen interest, I think, in coming to a conclusion, but we need the political level to sign off. Not surprisingly, that's where it goes. So we're optimistic that we can have a new relationship there. In terms of child welfare on reserve, yesterday in this room we talked about how the federal government has now earmarked dollars for child welfare in Alberta, and they are interested in the differential response model being supported on reserve in that province. So we're going to be in line, and I'm sure other provinces are too, especially those that are developing differential response.

Alberta is the first on differential response, but Ontario was there and Manitoba, I think some other jurisdictions. So, you know, there's some room for optimism right now. It's just that political assurance, at least we heard it on one of the three issues with regard to Norway House in the last few days. Mr. Gerrard: I hear the minister and gather that, while there is some optimism, there is still no agreement or anything firm at this juncture.

Let me move on to another issue which I've been raising, and that is that there are individuals in Manitoba with, whether it's Asperger syndrome or brain injury or complex medical cases, mixtures of autism and seizure disorders, for example, where individuals have an IQ above 70. They don't meet the criteria for support. I would ask the minister why he would not use an adaptive function index, as is used for the disability tax credit, instead of just using an IQ in making this assessment. Mr.

Mackintosh: I haven't done the latest number crunching, but I believe that we have, since coming to office, I think, increased the budget for Children's Special Services by over a hundred percent and for community living and persons with intellectual

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1831 disabilities by even more than that. Having said that, the question remains, is the money flowing to help those that need it? In order to determine that, it's important that we know what the internationally recognized measures of need are as best we can. Of course, IQ has served for a long period of time as a relatively objective measure of intellectual ability. Oh, and by the way, it's my understanding that an IQ of 70 has been used as a measure not just in Manitoba, historically, but far beyond our borders–I think across North America or the western world.

Having said that, though, the department has a built- in flexibility, and it has admitted clients to services with an IQ over 70 depending on other circumstances. I know, even with the IQ number, that there's some flexibility with in excess of IQ of 70. I'm advised that persons with IQs of 75, for example, as high as 75, perhaps even some flexibility on that number depending on certain particular circumstances of the individuals. So that's been the approach in Manitoba, and I say it's not one that was invented here in this province.

The department, though, continues to look at how it can assess need, but that has been a determination that is shared. The determination in Manitoba is one that has been shared across jurisdictions. If the member has other approaches, I welcome advice on that one, and the department can consider that, obviously, because we're always interested in making sure that those increased resources are, as I said at the outset, going to address what is our best analysis of need. Mr.

Gerrard: I would advise and suggest that the minister and the department look carefully at moving to something which would be an adaptive function index which would look at how people are functioning in the community rather than just relying on the IQ, and that people with Asperger syndrome are an example. They're of ten very bright, but their functional status means that, with some help, they can be productive citizens.

But all too many of them, right now, are falling through the cracks. * (15:40) The same applies to individuals with brain injury who may have a high IQ but because of the defects or the results of the brain injury, and certainly, there are adults with autism and seizure disorder. I give you an example. I've raised a number of these in question period in the last couple of weeks, and I think that one of the problems at the moment is that, because these individuals are not picked up, or they're falling through the cracks in the current system, that it's not as if there are not costs to the provincial government.

There are substantial costs in very different ways as a result of these individuals falling through the cracks and not being supported. Those costs may be seen in health care or costs in Justice budget and various other things, and surely it would be desirable to make sure that a small amount of help, given in the right way, can make a big difference and move people to being productive citizens and taxpayers instead of being adrift because they're falling through the cracks. Madam Chairperson: The floor is open for questions. Mrs. Bonnie Mitche lson (River East): Thanks, Madam Chair.

Just at the outset, I'd like to welcome the minister's staff. It's the first chance I've had to do that and would like to start to ask some questions on child care. The minister may know some of the issues that I have in my constituency, but first I'd just like some overall information on child care. If the minister could just go back–and I don't know whether he can provide for me, I would hope that he would have at his fingertips, or his staff would have, the number of new licensed spaces that were created last year and where they were? Mr.

Mackintosh: One of the staff is just going to see if we have some papers with us on that. For '07-08, there was an announcement of 500 more funded spaces, 500 more funded spaces last fiscal. As I recall, I think that was the number to conclude the five-year plan. The five-year plan, I think it was 5,000 that we had said we would additionally fund since that initiative was launched in '02. As well, I have some more information on this one, but as well, capital funding was allocated for '07-08. That was a $2.8-million capital program.

I do have with me at least a regional breakdown if the member wants that, I can read that into the record. I mean, Winnipeg region, there were–no, we'll have to get that for the member. Did the member want the actual child-care centres or would she like a regional breakdown? Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to make sure we're talking apples and apples. So, I know that, I think the last five-year plan that I know has been fulfilled. I have to say, in many instances, there's been a lot of good work that's been done on the child-care front. So I want to say that up front.

I think sometimes very often, we always look at the negative. There isn't any

1832 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 government that does everything wrong or everything right. I do want to say on the child-care side that there have been some improvements, so I want to indicate that. But I just want to make sure that I have all the facts and the information in front of me. I know that the commitment for the last five years, I believe, was 5,000 spaces which now, I guess, I would like to have some clarification on what those 5,000 spaces mean. Does that mean 5,000 more spaces in the system or does that mean 5,000 more licensed spaces?

Well, I'll leave it there and then I can ask a subsequent question. * (15:50) Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, very early on in my tenure in this department, I became aware that there was an important distinction that had to be made publicly always through this. The government does two things. It either it can license spaces and it can fund spaces. The commitment in the five-year plan was to fund spaces, additional spaces, as is the commitment in Family Choices, the new five-year strategy. It's to fund–the new strategy is 6,500 and the first one is to fund 5,000. Now, there may be licensed spaces that aren't funded.

In other words, the child-care centre doesn't get any operating grants in order to meet the operating costs for putting a child in that space. So, if you have a space that's unfunded, there's always a risk then that that space will not be filled. The commitments of the Province has been in respect to funding spaces. Mrs. Mitchelson: So, then, in the last five-year commitment, the 5,000 spaces were funded spaces. How many of them were actually new spaces as opposed to old spaces that hadn't been funded in the past? Mr. Mackintosh: We can provide that. That number is available.

In fact, I just saw a national study that had measured the number of licensed spaces as a separate measure. We'll get that for the member. There will be some correlation between the growth in funded spaces and the growth in licensed spaces but it may not necessarily be the same. Mrs. Mitchelson: I was hoping that I might be able to get that fairly quickly because my line of questioning would follow from that information. Can I get it within the next half hour? Mr. Mackintosh: I understand efforts are being made.

I might just add, as well, just by working with the media and educating them on the difference between funded spaces and newly licensed spaces, that's always a part now of our press conferences and addressing that. Madam Chair, we have committed in the Family Choices plan , with the 6,500 new, funded spaces, that approximately three-quarters of those will be newly created spaces. About a quarter of them will be to fund existing unfunded spaces. Mrs. Mitchelson: When the minister talks about newly created spaces, are these newly created licensed spaces? Mr. Mackintosh: It would work out to about 5,000.

I think actually CKY did an analysis of 4,900 or something but it would work out to about 5,000 newly created and licensed new spaces. Ms. Erna Braun, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mrs. Mitchelson: So that is not then taking spaces that are unlicensed that presently exist and counting them in the number of newly created spaces? Mr.

Mackintosh: In calculating how many of the 6,500 would be newly created and newly funded there was some analysis that indicated we had about 1,500 existing licensed spaces that were unfunded and were causing a real pressure on child-care centres and not, I think, fulfilling as well, the potential of those licensed spaces to be filled. But not always. Some of those spaces can be filled, but then the child-care centre has additional and sometimes very onerous operating cost demands. Mrs.

Mitchelson: I have a Freedom of Information response that we received on April 15 of this year that indicated that the total number of licensed spaces today is 27,189. And out of that, 23,396 were funded. I'm just doing a quick calculation here. That would tell me today that, rather than 1,500 spaces that aren't funded, as the minister just indicated, that there are 3,793 spaces as of April 15 of this year that are licensed but aren't funded. Now I believe the commitment for this year was to fund another 500 spaces in the new plan.

So 500 of these almost 4,000 spaces that are unfunded today would receive funding, and that would still leave 3,300, 3,400 of the licensed spaces today not funded in the next fiscal year. Am I correct in that assumption?

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1833 Mr. Mackintosh: We're just reconciling those numbers, but there may be different periods of time at play here. The 500 last year was about newly funded spaces, but in this fiscal year, we're going to fund an additional 1,500, just to correct the record. Mrs. Mitchelson: So the 500 spaces last year were not newly created spaces. They were spaces that already existed but just became funded. Am I correct in that assumption? Mr. Mackintosh: The funding was for 500 more spaces.

We have to provide, then, a breakdown for the member on how many were new spaces, new creations, and how many were funding of existing spaces, of the 500 from '07-08. Mrs. Mitchelson: I wonder if, then–and I would like the information for last year if we can get that, and if we can get it for all five years, that's okay, but I'm hoping that very quickly we'll be able to get at least last year. I would like, then, a commitment from the minister to provide for me how many actual new spaces were created in the last five-year plan and how many new spaces were funded? Mr.

Mackintosh: We'll obtain that information from our number cruncher over in the Child Care office and try and get that for the morning, if not earlier. What I'm also advised in terms of the numbers is that, what often happens is that child-care centres create spaces and put their name, then, on the list to get funding for those spaces. So there's that whole grey area there in terms of spaces being created in anticipation of funding, and sometimes there are commitments made for funding, and sometimes they're just on a list. Mrs.

Mitchelson: And then, I guess, if we're getting that information for the last five years, could we have a breakdown, also, of where those new spaces were created? And I would like it facility by facility, and I know it's not all facilities. There are many home day cares, so you may not want to identify an address of a home day care, and I understand that. But if we could have it, sort of on a regional basis, for the home day cares; for the centres I would like it on a centre by centre basis. Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I'm certain the information exists, so we'll get working on it. * (16:00) Mrs.

Mitchelson: Over the period of the last five years, were there any day-care centres or child-care homes that closed down? Was there any reduction in the number of centres or child-care homes that occurred? Mr. Mackintosh: First, I just want to make it clear that the Family Choices plan commits to 6,500 newly funded spaces, but that's net. That also, though, recognizes that, from time to time, centres do close down. We've seen a couple of those just recently, but for other reasons they may close down. The commitment is net. Mrs.

Mitchelson: So could the minister indicate, then, over the last five years–I know he says there are a few that have closed down just recently. Can he give me a guesstimate of how many spaces would have been shut down? Mr. Mackintosh: Did the member want the number of centres or the number of spaces? Mrs. Mitchelson: Spaces, please. So is the minister indicating, then, in the five-year action plan that's been fulfilled whether the 5,000 number is net more spaces or whether there would be a subtraction from that number? Mr. Mackintosh: The last five-year plan, I understand, was a net 5,000 more funded spaces net.

Mrs. Mitchelson: That wasn't what I asked. I wasn't asking funded spaces. I asked creation of spaces, was it net? With the spaces that closed down and the number of new spaces that opened, were there 5,000 new spaces created? Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the commitment was for 5,000 more funded spaces, which would be a net. It's not about the number of spaces because some of those funded spaces will be existing spaces that have never had funding. I mean, that's what the government can control is the number of funded spaces. That's within its direct control, and so that was the commitment of the five-year plan.

That was delivered. The member's asked how many new spaces created. We'll get that num ber for her in terms of those that aren't necessarily funded but those that were created. Mrs. Mitchelson: Of the new spaces that were created, would they be licensed spaces or would some of them be unlicensed? Mr. Mackintosh: The department only funds licensed spaces.

1834 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 7, 2008 Mrs. Mitchelson: I'm not talking about what the department funds. I'm talking about whether there are new spaces that have been created that would be unlicensed. Mr. Mackintosh: The challenge of the question is that unlicensed child care isn't within the ambit of the Province with the licensing requirement or the act, and I guess that one could say, from time to time, we relied on people we knew or people that we got to know in the neighbourhood to take care of our children when we couldn't get into licensed child care or have other arrangements.

Those aren't within the numbers that the Province has access to. Those are just informal, if you will, arrangements that are made outside of the legislative scheme. Mrs. Mitchelson: There were several facilities within my community that were child-care facilities, and they were child cares in schools that were classified as licence-not-required. Circumstances have changed, and now the Child Care office has forced them to become licensed.

I know that there were four in schools in my area, and there were another three, I believe, that were licence-not- required facilities, that have recently, in the last couple of years, been told that they have to become licensed. Was this unique to northeast Winnipeg, or is that occurring right across the province? Mr. Mackintosh: What I'm familiar with, just in a general way, was that there was a unique program run through the school division, I understood later, where there would be some before and after activities for children in–was it three or four schools?

Then, as I recall, the school division decided that they didn't want to continue that program as part of their school operations, but that would be operating outside of the child-care system. That was just like a before and after program that, you know, people can voluntarily agree to oper ate. But where we became familiar with it was, as I recall, the department then was solicited to determine if they could get involved in maintaining those spaces and, in which case, then the act would have to apply, and I think we then started funding those programs, Madam Acting Chair.

That's my recollection of that situation, which I understand, to the department's knowledge, is rather unique. Mrs. Mitchelson: So can the minister indicate and confirm then that there are no other facilities that have an exemption granted or a licence-not-required status in the whole province? Mr.

Mackintosh: We don't license on reserve unless requested, but, I mean, if there are child-care–you can call them spaces, but child-care programs operating that aren't asking for provincial funding, then they operate outside the system and, you know, that's happening all over Manitoba, I'm sure, in terms of people's homes especially. But it may happen in some schools. It may happen in some community centres, but where the Province gets involved is when there's a request for funding and a request for licensing. But we only fund licensed spaces is the advice is I have. * (16:10) Mrs.

Mitchelson: But I don't think the minister is getting the point. These weren't facilities that asked to be licensed or asked to be funded. They were programs that had been running in the River East School Division, some for over 20 years. I think the latest one that began to organize was in 1992, but there were programs that were running that were meeting the needs of families in the River East School Division dating back more than 20 years, longer than I had been in the Legislature, that, from all accounts, have been running.

I know that some are running in the River East constituency, some in Rossmere constituency, and have functioned extremely well over the years. There's never been one complaint about the before- and after-school program from a parent, from the school division, from a child, from anyone who works in the system. All of a sudden, a couple of years ago, there was a question, and yes, initially, the group that banded together from the four facilities, thought it was the school division that had changed the direction.

The Child Care office appeared to say it was not their issue, it was the school division who had changed the rules, and said that they were not prepared to support the facilities and that they would have to become licensed. Anyway, when they got together and made representation to the school division, the school division, all along, indicated that it was the Child Care office, not the school division, that had changed the rules.

Anyway, the school division was prepared, as a result of that meeting, to send a letter back to the Child Care office and indicate clearly that they were prepared to continue along the same rules as that had all existed for 20 years and that they were prepared to continue to support the before- and after-school programs. When that information went to the Child Care office, the Child Care office said, no, you will

May 7, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1835 have to become licensed and, therefore, these facilities have now had to jump through some additional hoops and, quite frankly, are not very happy about the circumstances that exist. The school division is quite prepared to continue those programs as they were before. But it 's the Child Care office, now, that is demanding that they become licensed.

Madam Chairperson in the Chair So I guess my question would be to the minister, because I've indicated to my community that I would raise this issue and I would work with them to try to find some common sense and some common ground. Now, some of the things that they're having to do is get another fire safety cer tificate on record. They're being told that the safety inspection certificate that the school has, is not good enough. They have to go thro

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-2-37
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 2nd hansardpdf 37.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bc56f021364d903d8d1f450d7a7a0953bbcab2c0

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