Manitoba Hansard — 26 September 1995 (Sitting 36, 36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-36

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No. 36- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, 1995 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Nam e Constituency b!iY ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETI, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK., Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norben P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. - MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Ponage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Tunle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fon Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

3329 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, September 26, 1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Federal Immigration Policies Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Walfredo Burtudez, Teodora Burtudez, Mike Legaspi and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Government of Canada that they cancel the fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Federal Immigration Policies Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Santos), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: The Clerk will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS Manitoba has been immeasurably enriched socially, economically and culturally by immigrants and their families, and;

WHEREAS it was for this reason that successive provincial and federal governments have encouraged immigration to Manitoba, and;

WHEREAS since 1993, the current federal Liberal government has reversed these policies by instituting a series of changes making immigration more difficult; and

WHEREAS the 1994 changes in quotas for family reunification class of immigrants were unfair and punitive; and

WHEREAS the fee increases for immigrants instituted in the 1995 federal Liberal budget are neither fair nor justifiable and border on racism, and;

WHEREAS the new $975 fee being imposed on adult immigrants is more than many immigrants make in their home country in an entire year, and will make it even more difficult for people from these countries to immigrate to Canada; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Government of Canada cancel these fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba. Point of Order Bon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, not disagreeing for a moment with the substance of the petition, I ask your consideration. This is petitioning the Government of Canada, not the government of Manitoba. We have had, I think, two or three similar types of petitions coming forward, and you say, well, while certainly you do not disagree with the substance of the issue particularly related to the matters raised within the petition, I ask for your consideration with regard to the appropriateness of being presented here in this House. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, it is an area of joint jurisdiction, and I believe that is why it has been tabled in this House. I would certainly await your ruling in terms of whether there are any difficulties in terms of the wording, but it is a matter that does affect both levels of government, although I do appreciate the comments of the government House leader. *

(1335) 3330 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 1995 Madam Speaker: As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I have reviewed the petition, and perhaps yesterday I did not hear all of the appropriate wording.

I have researched it and checked it, and perhaps for the benefit of the government House leader and all other members, I will just quickly read the WHEREFORE portion of the motion which is basically a request of this government to request that the Government of Canada cancel- So with your indulgence, I will quickly review the wording: "WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Government of Canada cancel these fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba." Therefore I rule that there was no point of order, that indeed the petition is in order.

Federal Immigration Policies Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes), and it complies with the rules and the practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS Manitoba has been immeasurably enriched socially, economically and culturally by immigrants and their families, and;

WHEREAS it was for this reason that successive provincial and federal governments have encouraged immigration to Manitoba, and;

WHEREAS since 1993, the current federal Liberal government has reversed these policies by instituting a series of changes making immigration more difficult; and

WHEREAS the 1994 changes in quotas for family reunification class of immigrants were unfair and punitive; and

WHEREAS the fee increases for immigrants instituted in the 1995 federal Liberal budget are neither fair nor justifiable and border on racism, and;

WHEREAS the new $975 fee being imposed on adult immigrants is more than many immigrants make in their home country in an entire year, and will make it even more difficult for people from these countries to immigrate to Canada; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Government of Canada cancel these fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Reports for 1994 for the Residential Tenancies Branch and the Residential Tenancies Commission. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw all members' attention to the loge to my right, where we have with us Mr. Harold Neufeld, the former member for the constituency of Rossmere. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Jets/Arena MEC Proposal Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to congratulate the former member for Rossmere being the first Conservative to admit about the $800-million plus deficit. You were right. My question is to the Acting Premier. Madam Speaker, on June 23, 1995, in legislative committee I asked the Minister responsible for

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3331 Infrastructure, Finance, Lotteries and the Jets a specific question on the forwarding of $10 million to the so called private sector group, the MEC group, for the deposit for the hockey team to be purchased. On June 23 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) took the question as notice. I note that on June 14 the Ministry of Finance issued a transfer of a cheque of $5 million as a so-called repayable advance to Thompson Dorfman Sweatman in trust for the Manitoba Entertainment Complex. I would like to know from the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) why his Minister of Finance did not disclose at the committee that $5 million was forwarded by the government as part of the deposit and did not disclose that to the legislative committee that was meeting at the time. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): If the Leader of the Opposition was putting all of the information on the record and reading his entire question from that day, I am sure he will recall, because we discussed it later, that he asked me about the advancing of the $1 0-million deposit and whether or not there were any elements of that which included money from the grassroots campaign, the campaign by CJOB, by the media outlets, by the banks and so on that raised approximately, I believe ultimately, some $12 million or $13 million.

I believe I indicated to him at the time that I did not think any of those funds had been utilized, but I would take the matter as notice. I ultimately informed him of that, and I am sure he can confirm that here today, that in fact in terms of the $1 0-million deposit, none of the proceeds used were drawn from the grassroots campaign. I would hope that he would put his entire question on the record. The question that he asked that day in Estimates, that was the question that he asked. I answered his question, and I would ask him to be comprehensive when he asks his question, Madam Speaker. *

(1340) Mr. Doer: I suppose there are sins of commission and there are sins of omission, Madam Speaker, and if the Minister of Finance feels itis appropriate not to inform the public at a legislative committee about the $5 million, I am truly disappointed and I think Manitobans should be. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am certain the honourable Leader of the official opposition has a question. Infrastructure Works Agreement Entertainment Complex Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, under the so-called Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program Agreement, contracts that are awarded for the implementation of projects would be entered into with the relevant provisions of this agreement referenced.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to table today the contract under the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Agreement that deals with all payments to the MEC group, the Spirit group dealing with the so-called infrastructure proposals and funds that will go from the people of Manitoba t<>-[interjection] Well, if the Deputy Premier wants to answer the question. I asked him the first question. If he would like to answer it: I would like to ask the Deputy Premier to table the contract pursuant to the Canada Manitoba Infrastructure Agreement. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, besides his direct question, the Leader of the Opposition had a lengthy

preamble and I think he seems to be suggesting to us that not only do we answer his questions directly, we speculate on what other questions he might want to be asking or thinking he should be asking and try to answer that. Talk about absolutely ridiculous. He asks a question, we answer his question, we provide him with that information. In terms of the infrastructure agreement, as has been indicated, in fact, the same process he is referring to back on June 23, we discussed at length the infrastructure program. In fact, the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) moved a motion deleting funding from the infrastructure program that we had indicated would be utilized for a new entertainment complex arena if one were to be built here in Manitoba

3332 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 1995 So, again, in terms of the tone of questioning, we had a lengthy discussion back on June 23 about the utilization of the infrastructure program. It is a program that has to be agreed to by the federal government and the provincial government. We did agree that if a facility was going to be built, that is where we would draw some of our commitments from, certainly the first commitments, and that has been the basis of our advances to date.

In terms of any particular documentation, I will take that portion of his question as notice and pursue providing him with any additional documentation I can, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance referenced the Kenaston underpass project. I would like to table the program description and the contract between the federal government, the provincial government and the City of Winnipeg dealing with the Kenaston underpass project.

Will the Minister of Finance agree today to table a similar contract or agreement under the Canada Manitoba Infrastructure program pursuant to the guidelines that the government released as the guidelines between the federal and provincial governments?

Will the minister agree today to table in this House-you have it in your files-can you table in this House that proposal similar to the Kenaston underpass proposal so that we can see · all the disbursements that are agreed upon between the government of Manitoba, the Government of Canada and the City of Winnipeg under an infrastructure program for an arena that was never built? Mr. Stefanson: Firstly, Madam Speaker-and the Leader of the Opposition refers to them-they are guidelines and just that, guidelines utilized in terms of the program.

At the end of the day, in terms of the utilization of the infrastructure program from the strategic pot of $84 million, those are decisions made by the federal government and the provincial government. As I have indicated publicly and in this House, in terms of all of the funds utilized in terms of the development of a new entertainment complex arena from the federal government, from the provincial government, from the City of Winnipeg, from the private sector, it is our intention that all of that information will be made public and will be audited by an independent auditing firm here in Manitoba.

It will also be audited by the Provincial Auditor and the city auditor, Madam Speaker, and as soon as all of that information is in and is compiled, we will make all of that information available. We have indicated we believe it is in everybody's best interest to see all of that information, to see how the funds were utilized in terms of the facility design, in terms of the preconstruction activities, in terms of the marketing activities and so on.

But in terms of where we directed our funds from, we have made it perfectly clear throughout the whole process that if we funded a new entertainment complex it would come from the infrastructure agreement. I told the Leader of the Opposition that on June 23, 1995, and nothing has changed today. The advances that we have made towards that facility were made from that particular agreement. *

(1345) The Pas Health Complex Funding Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). I sit here day in and day out listening to the Minister of Health telling people, telling this House that everything is A -okay in the health care system. Madam Speaker, The Pas Health Complex is facing a $1.3-million funding reduction for the next two years.

The board has expressed its concern to the government in that those funding reductions were strictly fiscally targeted and had nothing to do with the so-called health care reform that this government embarked on three years ago and for which Connie Curran received $4 million to do. These reductions are strictly fiscally targeted.

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3333 What I would like to ask the minister is this: Why are these guidelines for those cuts in The Pas Health Complex based strictly on fiscal targets and not on the so-called reform plans that Connie Curran got a million dollars to do? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the changes that we foresee for The Pas Health Complex and other rural and northern facilities are in line with the staffing guidelines that we have taken a long period of time to develop and in consultation with health care providers in the facilities.

An inordinately large representation on that review committee was from northern Manitoba. Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the North is always behind in terms of program funding and services and so on, could I ask the minister to advise the House how those 26 positions, what impact will it have on patient care at The Pas Health Complex and surrounding area? Mr. McCrae: We expect, Madam Speaker, by those guidelines to see health care delivery in overstaffed areas equalized with care delivery delivered in what were previously understaffed.

What the honourable members opposite forget is that what we have here, in some cases, the guidelines in some facilities were not being adhered to, and the staffing levels rose above the requirements for health care in those places. So the guideline review resulted in a more equalized sort of treatment throughout the province. Mr. Lathlin: Madam Speaker, since this government and The Pas Health Complex are at odds in terms of what is the level of funding reduction that should take place, will the minister agree to put the funding reduction on freeze and go back to negotiating with The Pas Health Complex? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, that is what we did in the fall of 1993. We put on hold the requirement that hospitals adhere to the staffing guidelines. We undertook a year-and-a half-long review of the staffing guidelines using the process that I referred to involving bedside nurses in the process, involving the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, hospital administrators and caregivers at the hospitals, and as I said, representation from northern Manitoba was inordinately high on the staffing guidelines committee.

Health Care System Role of Licensed Practical Nurses Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, LPN nurses have been completely eliminated at St. Boniface, heavily reduced at Health Sciences Centre and are in the process of being either eliminated or greatly reduced at Seven Oaks Hospital. Can the minister explain how the elimination of front-line nurses, who provide the majority of patient care and have contact with the patient, can possibly improve the quality of health care in our hospitals? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I have been involved in numerous meetings regarding this particular issue. The licensed practical nurse is facing the same pressures as other nurses in some of our institutions. Their services are very valued in many health applications, Madam Speaker, so much so that I am hearing complaints that facilities and others cannot find enough LPNs to get the job done. *

(1350) Seven Oaks Hospital Health Care Aides Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the minister: Is it government policy that the LPNs who are being eliminated specifically at Seven Oaks Hospital are going to be replaced by health care aides who will then provide that care, and what effect will that have on the quality of patient care? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Each institution, Madam Speaker, sets up its staffing mix

3334 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 1995 based on the requirements of its patient load and its budget. There are applications where you will see more LPNs in some places than in other places. That is a fact of life in our health care system. It is a reality. In some places, there is a higher level ofLPNs than in other places. Certainly in long-term care there is a need for LPNs. The challenge here is, and the honourable member did not mention it, but the challenge is to ensure that we have enough LPNs in the marketplace to provide the services that are required. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the minister confirm what I have in writing in a letter from the vice president of nursing at Seven Oaks Hospital that the LPNs who are being eliminated at Seven Oaks Hospital will have the opportunity to apply to be health care aides after they have taken a course at Red River Community College to qualify to be health care aides, to maybe have the possibility of working in the health care system that the minister says there are so many positions for LPNs in? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member will understand that it depends upon where and what facilities and what functions are required to be carried out where the demand for LPN services is going to exist. The honourable member knows that. Apprenticeship Training Federal Funding Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, there are concerns on this side of the House that the federal government proposes to phase out its support for apprenticeship over the next few years.

I want to ask the Minister of Education to tell us whether she has been informed of this, and can she tell the House what the impact of this will be on the already declining numbers of young Manitobans in apprenticeship? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for her question and her interest in this particular topic. I have not received information from the federal government in terms of specifics on details on many items that I would like to have more detail on.

The major overriding concern, of course, for those of us involved in education is the impending impact of the cut in transfer payments which will impact everything that we do. We have been working very hard in the department and in collaboration with those federal officials with whom we interact on a daily basis to make apprentice ship more relevant and to enhance opportunities for journeyman training and so on. Ms.

Friesen: Can the same minister confirm that developing federal policies on training will require the province to take greater responsibility for young people new to the labour market, women returning to the labour market and new immigrants, exactly the same people, Madam Speaker, who have been seriously hurt by this government's cuts to Access, New Careers, youth programs and Student Social Allowances? Mrs.

Mcintosh: I have to indicate in terms of Access that we have more students enrolled now than before, so the take-up on that has not decreased, has increased, because we believe it is a good program and so do the students who enroll in it. In terms of the dealings with apprenticeships, new apprenticeship registrations have increased by about 35 percent in the past fiscal year. In large part, that has to do with continuing emphasis in our department on preparation skills for the marketplace in community colleges and through apprenticeships, workforce training and so on. Ms.

Friesen: Would the minister undertake to be in contact immediately with the federal government to bring to the House the details on this withdrawal of support for apprenticeship and underline to the federal government that this is in fact flying in the face of the very means to post-secondary educational success that every one of our international competitors has? Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, we on a regular basis communicate our concerns on these types of items to the federal government. We have also had discussions on these types of items with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada meeting which was

September 26, 1 995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3335 just recently attended last week in the Yukon where all ministers across the nation expressed concern about federal offloading, federal cutbacks in terms of post secondary education in particular as it affected our particular jurisdictions. We are committ ed to working together with other ministries to ensure that the federal government lives up to its responsibilities in the terms of education and training component. I thank the member for her support on that issue. *

(1355) St Germain-Vermette Secession Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs. There has been a lack of good will from the provincial government to work with the City of Winnipeg in co-operation in trying to resolve the whole issue of areas of the city that are looking at secession. In fact, in the most recent edition of the Manitoba Taxpayers Association, I would quote the minister where he has said that he will allow taxpayers in south Winnipeg, in sections of St.

Germain and Vermette to vote on secession, as Headingley did last year, and he will abide by their wishes. My question to the minister is, has he set a date for a referendum to allow these two communities to secede from the city of Winnipeg and, if not, what are this government's intentions on this particular issue? Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I would like to point out to the member for Inkster that the procedures and the chain of events that are unfolding regarding the St.

Germain-Vermette situation are identical to what was happening in the position that Headingley put itself through a few years ago. The one thing that has come about even to a more thorough position regarding St. Germain-Vermette was the fact that every resident in that area was given a copy of the study. The study was there for them to peruse, to look at the consequences of secession, amalgamation with the municipality of Rosser, I believe it is, or staying within the city. Those are the parameters that the residents of the area are looking at now.

To the best of my knowledge, they have not had a public meeting to discuss this. They have not come back to this office or to me in regard to what their preference is or what direction they would like to take, so at this time it is hypothetical whether there will be a vote or whether there will be secession or whether there will be amalgamation, because nothing has come back to this office regarding their wishes. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister, does the minister or his department have any time

schedule when they would anticipate that a referendum will in fact be allowed? We do know that the minister has been having some meetings with both the municipality that is adjacent to it and no doubt some of the residents in the community. Does he have in his mind or does the department have any idea when there is going to be a referendum in this area? Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I have to remind the member that that is a hypothetical question because he is anticipating that something possibly could happen or the direction that may be taken.

To anticipate whether there is going to be a vote or when or anything like that, I just cannot speculate that way as to what he is asking. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, as the minister said and I would ask, his commitment was that he will abide by the wishes of these two particular communities. Is the Minister of Urban Affairs trying to say to any community in the municipality of Winnipeg that if they so choose, that they feel it is in their best interests to secede and leave Winnipeg for whatever reasons, that this particular government will abide by their wishes, whether it is St. Boniface, St.

Vital, Meadows West- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I was not sure whether you were ruling whether that was a hypothetical

3336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 1995 question or not because in my expectations that was another hypothetical situation that really cannot be answered until the situation is presented. Once the situations are presented, there is an evaluation of the procedures, decisions are made and then it becomes a direction. Until that time, everything is hypothetical. Social Assistance Food Allowance Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, Manitoba has the most disgraceful record on child poverty of any province in Canada, 10 out of 10, the worst record in Canada, and this can be directly attributed to the cutbacks of this government. Sister Lesley Sacouman, the co-director ofRossbrook House, says that poverty is structural violence. In view of the fact that structural violence is increasing in Manitoba and that one out of 11 people in the city of Winnipeg are on welfare, how can this minister justify cutting back the food allowance for children on city social assistance? *

(1400) Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow me to speak a bit to what we had some discussion on in the Estimates process. I think we have to put things into perspective when we look at the issue of child poverty and the definition of child poverty because, Madam Speaker, if in fact the numbers that were developed by Statistics Canada today were available in the days when I was growing up, I would have been considered a child living in poverty. I want to say to you that I do not consider that I lived in poverty.

I was loved, I was cared for and I was nurtured, even though we did not have the financial means to be above any specific income level. I think we have to look at what true child poverty means. In my mind and I think in the minds of many Manitobans, it is those children who live below the poverty line but are also neglected and abused and not properly nourished, and those are the children whom we have to focus on as government to ensure that they have the ability to thrive and flourish. Mr.

Martindale: Madam Speaker, will the minister comment on the context of the election campaign where the Filmon Vision, the Manitoba Strong document, promised a number of things including implementing recommendations on the health of Manitoba's children, one of which recommendation was to increase the food allowance for children on social assistance? Why is she cutting the rate of food for children on social assistance, contrary to their election promise? Mrs.

Mitchelson: Again, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because we did make a commitment, a very strong commitment to children and families during the election campaign, and we continue to work very aggressively on those commitments that we made. Madam Speaker, we are not in the situation where we are today overnight, and we are not going to get out of that situation overnight. It is going to take a lot of thought and energy and co-ordination of effort and resources to ensure that we move forward in a new direction with a new reality.

We are not the only province that is looking at changes in the way we support families and children.

At the ministers of social services annual meeting last week here in Winnipeg, provinces of all political stripes are struggling with this specific issue, and we have indicated that we are going to work together in a very unified way to share information and to share ideas on how, in fact, we can change our focus and the dollars that we spend to put money into early intervention, early child development and nutrition, and, Madam Speaker, those things will be happening, and as we move in that new direction, I will share all of that information with my honourable friend. Mr.

Martindale: Madam Speaker, this election promise is worthless. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Burrows, this is not a time for

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3337 a demonstration. This is a time to pose a final supplementary question. Final supplementary questions are to have no

preamble, no midamble nor postamble. The honourable member for Burrows, to pose his question now. Mr. Martindale: My question, Madam Speaker, is, what is the Minister of Family Services going to eliminate from the allowance for children on city welfare, since it is based on a market basket of groceries. Is she going to eliminate lunch or supper or protein or milk? What is she going to eliminate from this food allowance? Mrs.

Mitchelson: There seems to be a disease on the opposite side of the House today in asking hypothetical questions and wanting answers to decisions that have never been made or have never been articulated. Indeed, I indicated last week that there would be standard rates for social allowances when the City of Winnipeg is amalgamated with the Province of Manitoba in a one-tiered system, Madam Speaker. There was no mention of what those rates might be. As we move towards that process, the rate will be set, and it is set on a yearly basis for families and for children. Public Housing Property Tax Credit Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Statistics show that 56 percent of families and seniors living in public housing have incomes of less than $10,000 a year. These are the same low-income families that are having their cupboards raided by this government in changing the food allowance for people on social allowance. I want to ask the Minister of Housing if he can confirm that last year, by including the property tax credit for these people renting in public housing, the same property tax credit that was used to buy eyeglasses, hearing aids, home care supplies, that it netted over $300,000 for this government.

Can he confirm that? I asked the question in Estimates, can he confirm it for the House today that this has been a tax grab- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): I believe what the member is referring to is something that was allowable in the sense that the people, if there was an objection to the issuance of the taxed rent, there was an appeal process put in. Their situations were analyzed. In fact, I believe they are still going under an appeal process for any type of hardship that was realized by these people.

There was a realization that if there was a need, it was recognized. There was an appeal process so the people were able to come back to this government for recognition. Ms. Cerilli: The minister has not answered the question. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Cerilli: The grab by this government on low income Manitobans, $300,000 or more- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson, with a supplementary question. *

(1410) Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister answer the question that I asked in Estimates? Has the government netted $300,000 or more from low-income tenants in public housing by adding their property tax credit into their rent geared to income? Would they not admit this is balancing the budget on the backs of those least able to pay? Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Radisson that a supplementary question is to consist of one succinctly worded sentence. One question. Mr. Reimer: No, it was not a tax grab. Ms. Cerilli: I would ask the same minister, can he tell the House how much money has been collected by

3338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 1995 adding this property tax credit into the rent geared for income and if that money is at least going to stay in public housing going to repairs and maintenance? Can the minister answer that question for the House? Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, let it not be said that this government does not have a commitment to the maintenance and improvement of public housing. If we are looking at the expenditure of what this government-as ofMarch 31, 1995, total expenditures are well over $113 million towards maintenance and improvement of this.

The commitment, the conscious decisions towards maintenance and improvement in social housing in Manitoba has been recognized and consistent with this government and will continue to be of a priority. Infrastructure Works Agreement Entertainment Complex Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has confirmed finally, although he did not see fit to put out a press release on the issue congratulating the government on infrastructure grants for the Winnipeg Jets, he has apparently confirmed that the $3 million of total grants that were to be made pursuant to the meetings in January were flowed during the spring and early summer period.

Will the minister then confirm that an agreement does exist that he will table very shortly in this House, since under the infrastructure agreement such agreements must be completed before the project is entered into? Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Well, Madam Speaker, the member for Crescentwood seems to be functioning from a selective memory because he, I believe, participated in some of the discussion during Estimates of the infrastructure program and other initiatives that fall under my areas of responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was certainly there.

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was there, and we discussed that any funding that we would be providing towards a new entertainment complex, new arena, that the initial allocation would come from the infrastructure program. We said, out of this year's budget of some $34 million, approximately $11 million was available to be utilized for an entertainment complex. In fact, they opposed trying to find a solution so much that they introduced a motion to remove that allocation from the infrastructure program. It was moved by the member for Thompson. We came back in this Chamber, and we defeated that motion.

That is in keeping with their whole objective through this whole issue. They have never tried to be constructive. They have never tried to be a part of a solution. They have never tried to help the community and the people that have wanted to keep the Jets here in Manitoba, Madam Speaker- Point of Order Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on a point of order. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, you have pointed out to members in the opposition asking questions that they must ask questions with one short sentence on a supplementary question.

Similar instructions should be issued to the ministers of government not to debate issues. If they cannot table the agreement they should just sit down, rather than entering into the debate as we have seen from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). This is totally off the mark from the question raised by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I would remind the honourable minister that the response should not provoke debate, Beauchesne 408(2) and Beauchesne 417. *** Mr.

Sale: Could the minister confirm that under the infrastructure agreement the province ensured that the project that was discussed in January of 1995, approximately the 19th or 18th of that month, was structured so as to ensure that the ongoing operating costs are borne by the project proponent and that

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3339 satisfactory financial arrangements were in place and were approved by the province at that time, Madam Speaker? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, in terms of the infrastructure agreement, as I have indicated, it was agreed by the federal government and the provincial government that if a new facility was going to be built, that that would be one element of providing some of the funding.

I should again remind members that if you go back to the first element of funding that occurred in terms of finding a solution to keep the Jets in Manitoba, that goes back to 1994 when there were some amendments to the interim funding agreement, Madam Speaker. But this project was agreed to by the federal government and the provincial government, that the infrastructure program would be a portion of the funding if it were to be built, not unlike other projects, not unlike, as I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) yesterday, the Kenaston underpass, that was a project that was started.

Certain costs were incurred and then for various reasons that project was not proceeded with. But in terms of the total utilization of funds, Madam Speaker, I have indicated that that information will be made available. It will be audited and it will be subject to scrutiny not only here in this Chamber but by Manitobans. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, is the minister then saying that no such agreement was ever drafted or exists, or is he going to have to create one and backdate it? Point of Order Hon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, clearly the member for Crescentwood in posing that question imputed motives to the Minister of Finance which are highly inappropriate, and he should be asked to withdraw them immediately and unconditionally. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I will review Hansard, and I will check the wording of that question very carefully and report back to the House.

But at this time, I want to remind all honourable members that I know emotions run high, but I would prefer and I insist that you select and choose your words most carefully, as well as the context within which those words are said. *** Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the creation and backdating of agreements may be the style of the member for Crescentw ood or the party that he is associated with, but I want to assure you it is not the style of this minister or this government. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, with one short question. Immigrant Referral Centre Funding Ms.

MaryAnn Mihychuk (StJames): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Madam Speaker, in response to a question that I asked the minister last week, he indicated his department and his government was committed to providing settlement services for immigrants. Given that the project for the recent immigrant centre is on the verge of collapsing because this government has not made a commitment and the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) has refused to fund ESL for that project, will this minister make a commitment and ensure that that project goes ahead? *

(1420) Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I do have to point out that the honourable member is factually incorrect. This government and this department have been involved and we have committed some staff to that project. I know that the member has a strong affiliation with Winnipeg No. 1 School Division and it is really their project that the member is here promoting.

3340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 1995 We have dedicated some staff time to that and are working with the group to see if this project is doable. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin); Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Transcona (Mr. Reid); Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale), for Thursday, September 28, 1995, for 10 a.m. Motion agreed to. NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT Royal Canadian Legions-Korean War Plaques Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, do I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Gimli have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Helwer: Madam Speaker, this past Sunday, September 24, I had the opportunity to represent the Province of Manitoba at the unveiling of plaques recognizing the Korean War.

I had the privilege to witness the Royal Canadian Legions of Gimli, Winnipeg Beach and Selkirk unveil a plaque, a Korean plaque, on their respective war cenotaphs. As well, I had the honour of laying a wreath at each cenotaph on behalf of the province and on behalf of all Manitobans. The plaques recognize the contribution of 26,791 Canadians who served during the Korean War from the 25th of June, 1950, to July 27, 1953. When Canada decided to assist South Korea in resisting invasion by the forces of North Korea, we had only a limited idea of what we were becoming involved in.

However, the sacrifice of the 516 individuals who perished and those who served allowed one more nation to live under the flag of democracy. I hope all Manitobans join with me in extending our thanks to those individuals who made this sacrifice and to also congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion branches of Gimli, Winnipeg Beach and Selkirk for recognizing this. I know that other legions throughout Manitoba have done the same. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Bon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I intend to introduce at this point, by leave, two motions related to the visit of the Governor General next week. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave to introduce two motions relating to the visit of the Governor-General? [agreed] Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Mcintosh), that the members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, invited guests and officers in the service of the Legislative Assembly are requested to take their places in the Assembly Chamber and the galleries thereof at 10:55 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4, to receive the address of the Right Honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Governor-General of Canada. Motion agreed to. Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), that notwithstanding subrule 3(1) of the rules of this House, the ordinary daily sitting of this House on Thursday, October 5, shall commence at 2:30 p.m.

Motion agreed to. Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, would you please call Bi11 2, Bill 5, Bill 27 and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper?

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3341 DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill2-The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, Bill 2, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson), The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'equilibre budgetaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, in many ways, I am sorry to have to rise on a bill that is destined to make Manitoba the laughing stock of the financial management world.

This is a bill that is designed, Madam Speaker, to take us back to the Dirty Thirties, which seems to have arisen out of some baleful memory of times long past on the part of the members opposite. I can just imagine that some time-about a year and a bit-ago, when the government thought it was facing defeat at the hands then of another party other than our own, they had to figure out some strategy that might appeal to the far right. So they said let us balance our budget, not only let us balance our budget, let us allow ourselves to sell our assets to balance our budget.

Let us balance our budget every year, even if economic conditions are so bad that it requires that we go deeply into people's pockets and create more and more poverty. This is a bill from the 1930s. I would remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the older ministers opposite that R. B. Bennett used to get letters from poor people on the prairies, including poor people from this province. He would get letters begging that something be done to relieve their deep, deep poverty, their starvation in some cases. R. B.

Bennett was a wealthy man, and he used to take $5 out of his pocket, and he would put it in an envelope and send it back to the person who had written requesting some kind of assistance, at the end of their rope. He never seemed to realize that it was his preoccupation with balancing the federal budget at the time of the deepest depression since the 1880s that was causing those letters to arrive on his desk in the first place.

The bill seems to ignore the fact that Herbert Hoover was driven from office in the United States for precisely the same kind of narrow-minded annual preoccupation with balancing the budget, that it was only when, under some significant pressure, President Roosevelt introduced the New Deal and began to invest in the people of the United States and began to allow them to pull themselves out of the depths of recession. Like the Health minister (Mr.

McCrae) opposite who would ask us to tell him about each case that is going wrong in the health care system so he can fix the case, on a case-by-case basis, the government seems not to realize that when you impose this kind of legislation you create hundreds of cases, and you cannot solve them case by case, you have to solve them with good public policy, and this bill, Madam Speaker, is bad public policy.

I am sad to have to talk about such elementary ideas as the business and fmancial cycle to my honourable friends opposite, but it seems that they have failed basic economics again and they need to repeat the class. The problem is for Manitobans that, while they may be bad students of economics, they also happen to be in charge of the public purse. So for a short while yet and perhaps through this baleful bill, they are going to do great damage to the province, to our people, our businesses and to the health and education of Manitobans. *

(1430) Madam Speaker, through this bill, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his wizard, the Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson), would try to stand on Manitoba's financial shores like some maniacal King Canute and rebuke the financial waves which characterize global capitalism. It is well known to even the most elementary student of capitalism that it is characterized by extreme booms

3342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 and busts, but even its great defenders call for a moderating influence on the part of government to moderate those cycles so that the depths of despair are not so extreme as to cause the overthrow of the state, which is one of the points that a number of historical capitalist writers make. The members opposite, Madam Speaker, would say to the business cycle-be still. They would say to the depths of poverty created by the business cycle-wait. But most fundamentally they simply do not seem to understand public finance.

Opposite we have business people who have been more or less successful in their businesses. I would ask them to think through their own business history. Have they never taken out a loan? Have they never had a year in which they lost money and were unable in that year to balance their business's budget? Have they not met their farmer friends who had loss after loss because of world trading predatory policies of the United States and the European community? Have they never understood that in order to make money as my Tory friends often tell me, you have to invest money?

You have to go to the bank, that it is possible to pile up a very successful business, but it is almost never possible to do so without having years in which the losses overwhelm the revenues in which there is a need to make a substantial investment in new equipment or training for your workers or the plant in some form or other. It is simply not possible to manage major enterprise without cyclical investment and without from time to time having years which your banker gets kind of concerned about because you lost money.

Madam Speaker, we have ministers opposite who are partners in business, whether they are funeral homes or whether they are inns or whether they are farms, whatever businesses we see represented by members opposite. I would ask them to at least in the privacy of their caucus ask the Finance minister how you could run their business under this legislation. How could you make it possible to do business if you can never have a loss, you can never borrow money if it puts you in the hole, you can never have a long-term view of your business? How is it possible to stay in business?

Madam Speaker, Manitobans are often told by this government that government is like a family. It should balance its budget and live within its means. In simple terms, none of us would disagree with that. It is what I try to do every year. It is what I am sure you try to do and what other members opposite try to do. That is one reason, of course, why we left government and were happy to have a $58-million surplus in the year that we left, not of our own accord naturally, but nevertheless we left with a budget that produced the only surplus for provincial governments during the 19 80s.

But unfortunately the government's balanced budget legislation would cripple most families if it applied to them, just like it will cripple the government's ability to meet our needs for health care and education and special projects like, for example, the Winnipeg floodway which could not have been built under this legislation unless the government resorted to a fmancial trick, that is to borrow the money for the flood way of f budget. Is that what they are going to do?

They are going to take whatever capital needs they have that cannot be accommodated within the annual cycle and suddenly we will fmd them being borrowed off budget so that they can continue to do what they want without being constrained by their own legislation. Let us assume for a moment that both spouses in a family are working, and they have a small total income, only $30,000, which is not unusual for families today and the kind of poverty that families have to suffer under the kind of government that we have. A $30,000 income from two people working full time. One needs a car to do her job.

One has got some student debts to repay. So they borrow to buy a car. Not a big car, just a car. And they start paying off the student loan. Are these bad things? Your legislation would say so. Under the planned legislation our family could not buy their car. They could not have even taken out a student loan in the first place because their budget would not have been balanced in the year that they did it. What happens if they decide to take a break from the work force and have a baby? What happens in that situation? Well, anybody who has had a child arrive in their home recently knows it is not cheap. But, after

September 26, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3343 all, they are young, reasonably educated, committed to hard work. So for that year they decide that perhaps they are going to take on a little more debt. They are going to buy some things they need for the baby. They are going to buy a crib. They are going to decorate the kid's room. They are going to buy some toys. Do you know what? Their budget would not be balanced for that year. So what are we telling them? Do not have any babies? Are we saying that you cannot go into debt to invest in your family?

That is what this legislation would say. * (1 440) What about buying a home? That is a favourite thing that most people like to do. How many in this Chamber have mortgages? I venture to say, Madam Speaker, a good number have mortgages. The mortgage is likely much greater than the annual income of the family. Often it would be two or three times the annual income of the family. Could not do that under this legislation. Could not buy a house because there is no ability to borrow for capital under this legislation. Under this legislation you have to balance your capital and your current account every year.

Silly legislation. If you applied it to a family, families could not buy houses, could not buy cars, could not do any of the things that sustain and stimulate our economy that build employment, that build communities. Not possible under this legislation because it says you have to balance the capital and the operating account. What about investing in education? What about if the family decides that their child needs a university education or a community college education or technical school education?

What happens if they decide that, like a constituent in my area who happens in fact to live on Wellington Crescent, has a daughter who is totally deaf, profoundly deaf? He is putting $20,000 this year into that child's education so that she can go to Gallaudet college, the only university in North America that will deal with totally deaf people. He could not do that under this legislation because he has to borrow the $20,000. He does not have the income. His budget is not balanced, so his daughter could not go to university.

If this legislation applied to families, they could not buy houses, they could not buy cars, they could not invest in their children's education. They would have difficulty taking time off work to have a baby. This is not good public policy. Today, Madam Speaker, Manitobans pay only about 11 cents of each dollar of provincial income to service our accumulated debt. That picture has not changed much in the last eight to 10 years. It has been pretty stable. This government has managed its finances tightly. The previous government managed its fmances tightly.

We have not had a great escalation in the public debt in this province. We are not in bad shape, as the minister opposite likes to keep reminding us, but, in fact, we are second or third in Canada. There is no debt crisis in Manitoba, Madam Speaker. There may well be in Canada at 38 cents on the dollar, and who accumulated those debts? Not New Democratic Party governments. Conservative governments and Liberal governments piled up that debt. Madam Speaker, who piled up the worst debt in the province's history? This government-$8 19 million revealed last week in Public Accounts.

The worst provincial situation in all of Canada was piled up by a Conservative government in Saskatchewan, the Devine experience of the Saskatchewan people. It piled up the worst per capita debt in Canadian history. Madam Speaker, when a family's income rises, many families decide that they are able to expand their standard of living. Many of the families opposite, I am sure, have done that very thing. In fact, during this debate today, the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), the member for River East, stood up and said, when I was a child, I was poor. I lived below the poverty line.

Well, Madam Speaker, she does not live below the poverty line anymore. She has a house. She has a car, and she got those things presumably by investing an increasing proportion of her income. As her income

3344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 rose, she was able to do more. She could service more debt. There is nothing particularly strange about a family deciding that it will invest more in its house or its standard of living as its income rises. The Government of Canada, through Statistics Canada, makes available what is called the fixed capital flows in stocks. This is essentially the record of the public assets of Manitobans. It is not an overstated amount of money. It is stated on the basis of depreciated approaches, depending on your choice.

You can have any one of three depreciated choices. But the gross fixed capital stock of this province in 19 95 was $66 billion. Sixty-six billion dolla rs was the gross fixed capital stock in Manitoba, about I 0 times the general purpose debt, about five times the total provincial guaranteed and general purpose debt. We are wealthy, wealthy Manitobans, Madam Speaker, all of us. I would just recall the conversation that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) and the former Finance minister had on the occasion of our Leader's welcoming his new child into the world in which the former Finance minister talked about the burden of debt the child had inherit ed. Our Leader correctly pointed out and obviously knew these numbers, that there was also an enormous asset and that the assets far outstripped the debt. Do we like to have more debt, Madam Speaker?

No, we are not arguing for more debt, but we are also not arguing that investment in public infrastructure, investment in hospitals and roads and education-in fact, we would love to see some investment in northern roads. That would really be a new thing. We are not arguing that we should not invest in those kinds of things, as this legisla tion is arguing. It is saying that something is wrong with public investment. There is something bad about it. Why is it that Tories, Madam Speaker, think that public investment is such a bad thing and private investment so good?

What is this dichotomy that allows us to say public investment is evil, private investment is good? Do Tories not drive on public roads? Do they not benefit from public parks and hospitals and schools and univers ities? Do they not enjoy the same clean air that is secured by reasonable environmental standards and air quality protection? Do they not fly out of public airports with safety standards that are unparalleled anywhere in the world? Do they not enjoy the public infrastructure put in place by their and our taxes and use it and benefit from it?

How can it be a bad thing to have public infrastructure, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker, virtually every economist of any persuasion, even the most right wing, would understand that in a modern economy governments invest in productive assets and supports for their citizens so their citizens can invest and work creatively in both the public and private sectors. When it suits their purposes, the members opposite are very supportive of public-private co-operation. The Minister oflndustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Downey) hosted an event this week at which eight or nine Manitoba companies of various sizes and ages came to try and find a way to meet with Manitoba capital so that they could expand. Now, Madam Speaker, I assume the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism was promoting the idea that these companies needed access to capital. In fact, the minister has supported the notion that access to capital in Manitoba is inadequate, that the private sector needs to find ways of getting and keeping more of Manitoba's capital in Manitoba. We applaud that initiative and we support it.

We spoke in our election pl atform of the need to find creative ways of keeping our pension funds in Manitoba We see no virtue in allowing those who hold RRSPs to get a tax credit for 20 percent foreign holdings, investing their money someplace else than Manitoba or Canada. Madam Speaker, it seems that when the government's agenda is served by having public-private co-operation, this is a good thing but whenever we talk about the need for the public to invest in Manitobans' education or their health or their roads, this is somehow seen as second-class investment, something not to be supported by legislation.

The fiscal cycle seems to have totally escaped the minister in proposing this legislation. Most economists would suggest that the fiscal cycle is somewhere between six and seven years long, five to seven, let us say. Occasionally it is a little longer, sometimes it is a

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3345 little shorter, but it is certainly more than one year, Madam Speaker. I would just remind him that we can see this fiscal cycle from the beginning of the Lyon government through to the present day. The Lyon government began in a time of relative buoyancy in 1977 and moved into a time of recession. When government changed in 1981-82, the Pawley government inherited from the Lyon government a $250-million deficit.

So when the members opposite talk about how much debt was piled up in the Pawley years, let them remember that we started from $250 million in the hole. Yes, there were debts added during those years. Canada was in a deep recession. Manitoba suffered the least, came out of it fastest, suffered the least loss of people and built some very important infrastructure, which these members are now enjoying the fruits of, namely, the exports from Limestone.

They talk about the growth in exports, Madam Speaker; a good chunk of the growth in exports comes from the export of hydroelectricity produced by the Limestone Generating Station. Madam Speaker, the length of the fiscal cycle, if we think of the Lyon years starting in '77 from relative buoyancy to the depths of the worst of the 1981, '82, '83 recession, that is four and a half years into the recession, by the time the economy had recovered in '85, '86, '87, that was almost 10 years from peak to peak or trough to trough.

There is simply no way that you can rebuke that financial cycle with a piece of provincial legislation. Madam Speaker, let us take a look at the situation that this government inherited when it came to power in 1988. It inherited a situation which, through a combination of events including transfer payment changes, taxation changes, economic recovery, led to a surplus of $58 million. I am not claiming that we produced a budget with a $58 million surplus.

I am simply saying that at the end of the year things had conspired, events had conspired, to produce a very substantial improvement in what was forecast, to the point where there was a $58 million surplus. They took that $58 million surplus at the end of a relative time of prosperity, and they ran it to an $819 million loss in 1992-93 at the deep part of the recession-that is, from their best to their worst they went $877 million in the hole. That is a record that no Manitoba government should ever be proud of, should ever want to repeat.

Let them not talk about fiscal probity, fiscal restraint, fiscal management. They are the government with the largest single deficit. They have managed to produce significant accumulation of debt on behalf of Manitobans. Madam Speaker, there is in this legislation a promised referendum on various tax increases. Like Quebec's referendum, this is a phony referendum, a referendum based on false promises waged at great cost, but which is never likely to be heeded. As Monsieur Bouchard says, no simply means we will have another referendum.

Does the governm ent intend never to offload costs on municipalities as it has done for years now? Does the government intend to run a referendum when it harmonizes the PST and the GST? Does the government intend to run a referendum when it reduces tax credits again? Does the government intend to run a referendum when it broadens the PST tax base? *

(1450) How many ways there are to raise revenue without raising tax rates? As a former civil servant who participated in the exercise, I can tell you there are many. The government has closed for itself some avenues which, in fact, might be very attractive to the government's own constituency, but it leaves open to itself some avenues which I think it would not want to defend to any reputable economist. For example, Madam Speaker, last year the government sold a Crown corporation, McKenzie Seeds. It then had the unmitigated fiscal gall to apply the proceeds of that sale to this year's budget.

So we are going to sell off the family car, sell off the family house, and we are going to take the money into next year's income and call the budget balanced. This government accumulated $140 million in a lottery sock, in a trust fund outside Volume 1 of the Public Accounts and said, this lottery sock will be useful, come election time. Indeed, it was because they

3346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 proposed a budget which took the lottery sock and dumped it into 19 95-96 operating revenue and said, presto, a balanc ed budget. And presto is the right name, Madam Speaker. These people are more akin to Preston Manning than they are to any Progressive Conservatives. When you balance a budget using the English language in its normal meaning, you balance it with your current revenues against your current expenditures. You neither accumulate capital and pour it in; nor do you defer expenditures that have really already been made.

That is why the Provincial Auditor has expressed a serious reservation on the books of Manitoba, has said that the books misstate the reality of the government of Manitoba, and this is the government we are supposed to take seriously about balanced budget legisla tion, about fiscal probity. I think not, Madam Speaker. Does the government have any reputable economist ready to rise and defend the idea of annual balancing of the budget? Could the government find any reputable economist who would say that governments ought to balance their budget each and every year? It will be interesting to see if they can do so.

A responsible approach to budgeting would recognize that budgets can play an important role in stabilizing the provincial economy, in helping promote long-term growth of income, not short-term, long-term growth of employment. The stabil ization function of budgets is important because private sector spending is notoriously unstable. That is the whole history of capitalism. It, by its nature, runs boom and bust cycles. Without the hand of government to stabilize that, the suffering that people endure in such a boom and bust economy is extreme.

Governments can and should reduce those cyclical fluctuations by running budget surpluses during booms and by allowing deficits to occur during slumps. This government came to power with the capacity to run surpluses, and it did not do so. Instead of letting surpluses be run in the first one or two years of its time in office, what did it do? It gave up tax breaks to its friends in industry. It gave up tax breaks to its friends in corporations, and it defended these tax breaks as investments in the economy. No doubt, but they have not been very good on the running surpluses side of the ledger, Madam Speaker.

Their record speaks for itself. Responsible approaches to budgeting would permit government the ability to stabilize the economy, to stabilize the level of employment, but government also has a responsibility, in our economic system, to provide human and physical infrastructure, without which the private sector, that they are so defensive of , they are such champions of, without that human infrastructure, the private sector would wither and die.

Because all modem economies are based on an intell igent, educated workforce, all modem economies are based on a sound health care system, on sound environmental policy, on sound roads and bridges and infrastructure, clean water. There is not a modem economy in the world that does not depend on public infrastructure being excellent. Madam Speaker, the role in providing that infrastructure requires that government make investments that have a lifespan of many years.

In the case of the Winnipeg floodway, that is an investment which probably, save for the gaskets on the dams that come up out of the river bed, save for an occasional replacement of those gaskets, that is an investment that is essentially an eternal investment. That ditch will still be here after all of us in this House are long gone, and it will be protecting the people of Winnipeg from floods in a way that was achieved through a responsible government, a government led by a former Conservative Premier, Premier Roblin. He understood the need for long-term investment, and he made it when it was demanded.

The private companies, which are so much the beloved of the members opposite do not normally purchase their factories or buildings or infrastructure out of their current income. A rare few are able to, but usually not through their whole history as a company. They usually borrow. They usually issue debentures or stock. They do that because they know that the investments they are making are productive. When we are talking about private debt, let us remember that the stock of private debt far outstrips the public debt, that the stock of consumer debt far outstrips the public debt. The public debt is the

September 26, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3347 smallest of the three sectors, both in Manitoba and, in fact, in Canada. Manitoba does not have a huge debt problem. This essentially is also deceitful legisla tion in that it proposes a Fiscal Stabili zation Fund, which, by the way, does not exist at this point. It is virtually empty. The Fiscal Stabil ization Fund is proposed to have a level of $250 million. It is a nice round figure; it sounds okay. But in one year the government of this province ran an $8 19 million deficit-in one year.

What good would a $250 million stabil ization fund have done for them in 19 92-93? This government piled up over $2 billion worth of debt in its time in office from the late 19 89 period to 1994-95--over $2 billion. What good would a $250 millio n stabiliz ation fund have done? Madam Speaker, we have estimated that it would be a minimum of over $700 million required to stabilize Manitoba's economy from trough to trough, and I do not think many economists would think that that was enough.

The Fiscal Stabil ization Fund is simply a symbolic stalking horse that allows the government to say that it recognizes the cyclical nature of the economy without ever having to really take it into account in a true macroeconomic sense. The opportunities in this situation for playing games, as the member for Brandon says, are enormous. The reality of a $250 million stabilization fund is that in the first year of any reasonable economic downturn that fund would be entirely exhausted. So, Madam Speaker, we have to ask what the true purpose here is.

I think it is clear that the true purpose is to so arrange the finances of Manitoba that further cuts to the public sector are inevitable, that they will say with great sorrow, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is empty. We are constrained by balanced budget legis lati on. We therefore must cut our hospitals, cut our schools, cut our universiti es, cut our roads to fit our fiscal cloth.

They will use this legislation, they will cloak themselves in it, in order to continue their attack on the public sector which they have waged with great effect for the last six or seven years, unemploying hundreds of skilled Manitobans, thousands, cutting health care, cutting education, cutting universities, cutting infrastructure, all in the name of some mythical idea that cutting spending in the public sector is the way to health. I remind the members opposite that those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.

The history of governments attempting to rigorously balance their budget every year leads to stagnation and further decline of the economy. That is what happened in the '50s, late '40s under the Campbell government in this province, a very right-wing Li beral government. That is what happened in the '30s, in the Bennet and Mackenzie King governments of this country. When you try to balance your budget every year, the economy stagnates. That is not the role of government every year, Madam Speaker. It is the role in good times. It is the role in balanced times; it is not the role in bad times.

Balancing a budget every year cannot be defended on any economic grounds. Families do not do it, businesses do not do it, and the truth is, governments do not do it either. This is deceitful legislation on another ground and a very important ground. That is that this government knows full well that this act does not even bind it. It cannot bind it because government cannot bind itself . Government, so far as we at least still have it in this country, is a representative democracy, and in this democracy government makes the rules, they make the laws.

This law can be made, can be held up, but ultimately it is a paper law. If the government decides to ignore it or to repeal it or to change it, it can do so. * (1 500) The Premier opposite has said at various times in the last several years, governments are elected to make decisions. Governments are elected to manage. Governments are elected to make tough choices. People elect governments in order to manage their economy. Now suddenly under this legisla tion such responsibility ends, Madam Speaker. The government goes on autopilot into an uncertain future. The people of Manitoba deserve better.

They need a government that understands public finance, a government that understands the simple first-year university macro economics of finance. This government does not

3348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 apparently do so. They need a government that does not try to rebuke the economic ways, the cycles of government, the cycles of the economy. If they want to balance the budget, Madam Speaker, they can do so. If they want to call this year a balanced budget, they can do so though that will not make it balanced. If they want to balance next year, they can do so. That does not require legisla tion. If the times require substantial investment in a floodway, they should do so. If the times allow a surplus to be applied against past debts, they should do so.

If the times require investment in Manitobans because of a recession, they should do so, Madam Speaker. This legisla tion neither adds to nor detracts from their ability to manage the economy. It is simply a chimera. It is simply the appearance of something which is not real and they know it is not real. They are caught with an election promise they would rather not have to fulfill. Madam Speaker, I am concerned that Manitobans are being asked to approve legis lation which I think they do not understand, because I think the government opposite is not prepared to make it plain to them.

I think the government would like them to believe that it is just bala nce your budget in general, that in terms of the broad structure of public fmance we should balance our budget. Well, we should, but they are not telling Manitobans the truth about this legislation. Let them tell Manitobans that if this legislation applied to companies or families, companies could not invest, could not lose money in a given year, could not buy a car, could not buy a house. Let them tell the people the truth about this legislation.

Let them tell the people that they could sell one of their four new divisions ofManitoba Telephone System to Faneuil or some other off-shore corporation and take the money and put it into their operating income and call it revenue. Let the government tell the people of Manitoba what this legislation actually says and it says we can sell our assets for the moment. We can draw down those things that generations of Manitobans have built up and throw them into a Tory balanced budget. We can sell off the family assets to pay for food. This is bad legislation.

I would say to the members opposite, someone once said be not afraid and I think we need to say that. Be not afraid. Be not afraid to take your responsibility to make hard decisions. Be not afraid to balance the budget if that is what is called for, but be not afraid to invest in Manitobans ifthat is what is called for. You do not need this cloak. It is not a cloak that binds you and you know that. Madam Speaker, the positive harm that this legislation is going to do will be seen in the future. The positive harm will take the form of further cuts to health care, cuts to education, cuts to our infrastructure.

The people of Manitoba deserve much better and in time, in four years specifically, they will get much better. Thank you. Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellin gton (Ms. Barrett). BillS-The Education Administration Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading Bill 5 on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), who has 16 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who has 19 minutes remaining. Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Speaker: Leave? Leave has been granted in all three names. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, it is a plea sure to speak on an education bill today. This subject is something that affects almost all Manitobans because either we have children in the

September 26, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3349 school system, or we are paying for other people's children in the school system through property taxes. I did not have time to look up the government's throne speech, but I think there are many problems in society that this government should be addressing that have a major effect on education, and I would like to briefly dwell on some of those before I get into the bill, understanding, of course, that at this stage I cannot talk about the bill clause by clause anyway. For example, what is this government doing about poverty issues?

We know, for example, that poor children do not do as well in school, and there are many reasons for that. For example, in the inner city, many children move, and move frequently, including during the school year, and it is not uncommon for inner city schools to have a turnover rate of more than 100 percent. We know from studies on these children who move that, if they move more than twice in one school year, they almost inevitably fail that year. We have many children who have moved 10 , 15 , 20 times.

Now, that is very hard to believe for people who live in the suburbs or live in stable families or in owner-occupied homes, but we have a very large transient population, mostly children of parents on social assistance concentrated in the inner city and in public housing projects who are constantly on the move to find safer housing or better housing or cheaper housing or housing that does not have cockroaches or mice or other problems, like violations of the health act and the maintenance and occupancy by-la ws of the City of Winnipeg.

This takes a toll on their education and their achievement in schools, and Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has instituted a program to follow these children. In fact, it is called something like a migrancy program, because the migrancy teachers assist the schools and the children by taking their work from one school to another, so that they do not have to be retested and to help these children to get integrated and get the services they need in the new school as soon as possible.

But in spite of this we still have schools that have more than a 10 0 percent turnover rate in one year, which is really quite amazing, and it may be that only 25 or 50 percent of those spaces are turning over, but they are turning over more than once, so that the total number of moves is greater than the school population in September. This government has some very good recommendations that I referred to today in Question Period in a document called the Health of Manitoba's Children. It was the result of input from many people and many committees, but it is submitted by Dr.

Brian Postl on behalf of the Child Health Strategy Committee, and it is dated March 19 95. It has recommendations on poverty which I referred to today, saying that the food allowance for child ren should be increased, and the food allowance for infants should be increased. * (15 10) We know that if children have adequate nutrition, it improves their brain function and brain capacity. This, of course, has a direct bearing on their education and on their ability to learn.

There are things that this government could be doing to help with the education of children by, for example, implem enting the recommendations of this very good report, a government-commissioned report. Also, there are recommendations about teen pregnancy. For example, No. 11 of the recommendations is on teen pregnancy. It says that renewed emphasis should be directed to the prevention of adolescent pregnancy.

This is something that is a problem in the educational system because, first of all, many adolescents when they become pregnant drop out of school or, as is more and more common now, there are daycare centres in the school and the teenagers are having their babies with their education, either at the parent and adolescent centre run by Winnipeg No. 1 or in many, many different schools in a number of school divisions. Of course, there is an increased cost to their education, and it is very difficult to balance one's obli gations as a student to study and one's obligations as a parent to raising a child.

It is rather interesting, Madam Speaker, that in a report I received from the Children and Youth

3350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 Secretariat, and I would like to thank Mr. Reg Toews for this, there are requests that he has received. One of these requests was for a River East community workshop. The reports says, this is a Family Services' initiative to develop local responses to teen pregnancy and parenting. Is it not interesting that this request comes from the same neighbourhood, even by the same constituency name as the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson)? Of course, she has talked many times about her concern for teenage moms.

There is really a need for the Children and Youth Secretariat to co-ordinate a program for all communities in Manitoba, not just the community in which the Minister of Family Services happens to represent in this Legisla ture. We hope that, as the result of Family Services being a part of the Children and Youth Secretariat, she will not get services and programs that are not made available to all members of this Legis lature or all communities in Manitoba.

We also have a very high dropout rate, and we think that the government could be doing more to stem the flow of students dropping out, particularly before they have finished Grade 12 and even Grade 12 is not sufficient these days. I have talked about this with my son who graduated from Grade 12 at Sisler High School last year, and he was the valedi ctorian. I presented an award to two students at Sisler High School. They had a safe grad, as most schools have a safe grad, and my wife and I as parents volunteered for security at the Fort Garry Hotel where they had their dinner and dance.

Their dinner tickets cost about $40, and some ofthe students including, I am embarrassed to say, my own son, rented a limousine and many students rented tuxedos. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) At his graduation I wanted to stand up and say, before I presented my award, I think that having this kind of a cel ebration for the graduation of Grade 12 is really quite unnecessary because this is not the end of your formal graduation. This is really only the beginning. Education is a lif elong learning process.

I do not think that the kind of cel ebration that people have at the end of Grade 12 really reflects that. It suggests to me that a lot of them do not intend to continue with their education. I was going to say that when I presented my award, and my son said, please do not, you will embarrass me, Dad. So I had decided I would not. But when I presented my award, the ceremony happened to be at Calvary Temple, and I stood up and I said, this is a pulpit, and I am a minister, and I feel a sermon coming on. And then I said, just kidding, son. Poor Nathan almost had a fit.

But he got in a good shot at me before he gave his valedic torian address. He got up and before he even addressed the audience, he said, this is going to be a short speech, unlike my father's long and boring sermons. He got an even better laugh than I did. But the dropout rate of children in high school in Manitoba is really a disgrace. We really need to work on that. But what is this government doing? Well, one of the things that they did was, they elim inated the Student Social Allo wances Program. This was an excellent program, because it allowed students who might otherwise have dropped out to stay in school.

For example, students who could no longer live at home because the home lif e was either violent or disr uptive or they have been kicked out or for some reason qualified for social assistance were allowed to rent an apartment get a small amount of money to live on on the condition that they were still enrolled in school. This provincial government elim inated that kind of funding, and I would really like to know what happened to those students. Did they drop out of school?

My guess is that many of them probably found it far too difficult to work part time and continue in school and at the very least became part time students. Adult literacy-! think this government could be doing a better job in adult literacy. It is something that I know a small amount about, because I am on the advisory committee for Open Doors Adult Literacy Program at King Edward School in my constituency. It is really quite wonderful to be involved with adults, many of whom have been out of school for 10 or 20 years and have now gone back to school in adult literacy programming. Some of them are immigr ants.

Some of them are people for whom English is not their

September 26, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 335 1 first language, including from Manitoba. Many of them are individuals who did not do well in the educational system when they were enrolled there as children, but now they have got the motivation, they have got the desire to learn. They make very good students because they are keen. But we need to get many more adults enrolled in literacy programs. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill has I believe three main parts to it. It refers to a defmition of a role for principals, and it talks about teachers, and it talks about advisory councils.

So I would like to deal with each of those in turn. This bill defines the role of princ ipals. This is something new, and principals obviously have a very important role in the education system, particularly in the schools where they are principal, because they are leaders and they set the tone for education in their local school. My father was an elem entary school principal for 25 years. Even when I was a student I had a lot of familiarity with principals because I spent a lot of time in their office. In fact, I can remember in Grade 6 being called into the principal's office for a consultation.

I remember there were many complaints from myself and other students about a particular teacher in Grade 6, and the principal asked me if he thought that the teacher was being too strict. I remember my response was to quote Scripture and say, spare the rod and spoil the child, not something that I would agree with today even though it is Scriptural. I would say, spare the discipline or the structure and spoil the child, but I would not say, spare the rod and spoil the child. In high school, I also became familiar with several vice-principals since they were in charge of discipline.

I remember quite well the policy in my first year of Grade 9 was that every time you got sent to the office you got one detention which was not really a very effective deterrent, but the next year they changed it to a week's detention for every time you got sent to the office and consequently there was a deterrent, and I got sent to the office many fewer times, I must say. [interjection] The member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) observes that I have trouble obeying rules. Maybe he has a point there. Perhaps also I have redeemed myself.

I have reformed because now I have a very good relationship with principals including my father. I think he was quite proud of me because I eventually did graduate from high school and from university with two degrees. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I had a few little problems myself. Mr. Martindale: Probably the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and I are not the only ones who had problems in school. Now I enjoy a good working relationship with a number of principals in Burrows constituency and in the north end. An Honourable Member: Did they teach you to tear up paper for public coverage?

Is that what they did, did they teach you that? To throw a tantrum? Mr. Martindale: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) probably would not understand what it is like to represent poor people not only for five years in the Legis lature, but to work on their behalf in the community for ten years, and to knock on doors and visit them in their homes, in their kitchens, and in their living rooms and to hear their stories and to have them phone me every day with their problems that they are having on social assistance and with Child and Family Services and other agencies.

I do not think the Deputy Premier gets phone calls like that, but I wish he would. I always encourage people to phone the government caucus with their problems so that they know what is happening on the ground on a day-to-day basis. In this bill the power of the minister has really been increased over principals, and there is an appearance in this bill that more control is given to local schools and to parent councils, but in fact by defining the role of principals and by being able to write the regulations there is an increase in the power of the minister.

There are a couple of other examples that I will come to later, but they really amount to a decrease in the role of local authority.

3352 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 * (152 0) This bill establishes advisory councils in schools; however, about 80 percent of schools in Manitoba already have advisory councils. In Winnipeg School Division No.1, 10 0 percent of schools have advisory councils and this is based on a poli cy-the document for which I have here, it is dated June 1, 19 88, and I have been a member of a number of those advisory councils -the Winnipeg School Division policy establishes and supports advisory councils in schools, and it gives them some interesting roles.

It is important that parents in particular, not just teachers and principals, feel that they have responsibility, because if they do not, there is no reason for attending parent council meetings. In fact, many schools have very poor attendance at parent council meetings. I think the reason is that they are not given any real decision-making power. Fortunately, in Winnipeg No. 1, they are given some power, and one of those powers is to interview and to assist in the hiring process of principals. I have been involved in that process, and parent council certainly appreciate being consulted on that.

Now, we do have a problem in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 because the date at which principals resign is too late in the school year to allow for adequate consultation. I understand that in Fort Garry School Division they requested a number of years ago that the date be moved up, and that was done. I believe Winnipeg No. 1 has made the request and are still waiting for a reply from the Minister of Education. Another example of the role of advisory councils in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 is to have input on capital building projects.

In fact, when I was on the parent council of Ralph Brown School, parents met with the architect to talk about the design of the new school, and I remember what I said. I said, since this is an English-Ukrainian bilingual program school, why do we not take some of the architecture from Ukraine and see if we cannot incorporate it into the school. I also suggested that most schools look like cardboard boxes and shoe boxes and they are quite unattractive; why do we not design something more attractive? Why do we not have a school with a pitched roof, for example?

I was quite surprised, when the school was actually built, that some ofthe-[interjection] Well, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) talks about money. That is really quite irrelevant to my example because the architect could only spend the amount of money that he was allowed by the provincial-what do you call that?-Public Schools Finance Board. They tell the school division how much money they have for the school, and the architect has to design the school within the parameters of that amount of money. In this case, the architect did. He listened to the parents that he consulted with.

The architect, Dudley Thompson, listened to the input from the parents, and that was reflected in the design of the school, If you are to drive down McGregor or, even better, to drive by the front of the school on Andrew Street, you would see a very attractive elem entary school that was completed about 19 89, I think. The Winnipeg School Division No. 1 policy also refers to consultation with native and ethnic groups, that there should be liaison with native people and with their organizations.

There is a great need for this input, because Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has a lot of students who are First Nations or aboriginal. We also probably have the highest proportion of immigrant students of any school division in Manitoba. So we have a Multicultural Advisory Committee, and they play an important role in advising the trustees and the administration. So when the advisory councils are given responsibil ity and when they assume this responsibility and when they are taken seriously, then they have a reason for participating in advisory council meetings, as many of them do.

In fact, people have to get elected to local advisory councils, and so I was a representative from Isaac Newton School to the St. Johns Advisory Council. One of the things that we did was we reviewed the budget information that was put before the trustees. I have here with me the pile of documents that was handed out to all the parents and the staff representatives and the support staff representatives on the St. Johns Advisory Council, and we were expected to read this and to review it before we went to the advisory council meeting, which we took seriously. Our recommendations were written up and went before

September 26, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3353 the trustees, and it is a very interesting process because the results of these budget consultations determined how much people's property taxes would go up or down or stay the same. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and I have both attended parent council meetings at Sisler High School, which my son attended for three years and now our daughter is in attendance at. We quite often discuss province-wide educational issues, for example, the school boundaries review, and we also discuss bills that the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Mcintosh) tabled in the House. That was an interesting experience, because we had a chairperson who did not really understand the role of the government and the role of the opposition. On several occasions she said she pointed her finger at the member for Inkster and myself and said, you guys did this, what is the matter with you? I interrupted her on one occasion and said, Madam Chairperson, I had nothing to do with this bill. I was not consulted about this bill, neither was the member for Inkster. We had no input into this bill.

We did not see it until it was tabled in the House, so please understand the difference in the role of the government and the role of the opposition. Many people do not understand that. They blame the opposition for things that are really a government's responsibility. Of course, we feel-[interjection] The chairperson, Emily, is a nice lady, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says. The member for Inkster and I have gone with the legislation to the parent council and helped to facil itate the discussion.

It is interesting to have two roles: to be there as an MLA having a little broader understanding of the legisla tion that is before the House; and to be a parent and be very concerned about the quality of education. The final thing that I would like to comment on this bill is that it authorizes teachers to suspend a pupil from the classroom. This is a departure from the bill that was before the House in the Sixth Session of the Thirty-Fifth Legisla ture, I think it was, where the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) wanted to give teachers the power to suspend students from the school, not just the classroom.

We are glad that the Minister of Education occasionally listens to the opposition parties, that occasionally she listens to parents, that occasionally she listens to school trustees. On this occasion she listened to the public and all the input that she got, and when she tabled a new bill in the First Session of the Thirty Sixth Legislature, lo and behold, here was this change.

We should give credit where credit is due and say, we are grateful that the minister for once listened to the public and listened to the opposition, because the old clause was really quite unworkable, because it would have led to terrible inconsistencies across the province. There would have been ad hoc rules depending on who the teacher was and how strongly the teacher felt about a particular issue. I understand that, in spite of this change, it still does not say why students can be suspended from a school.

Apparently, the old bill used the expression, for the welfare of the school and the community, and perhaps that should have been left in. I would be interested in knowing what the rationale of the minister is. I guess I will have to read her speech to see if she referred to why that change was made. Perhaps it will be apparent when the regulations are made public as to why that change was made. * (1 530) From time to time, there are requests from principals and from teachers.

For example, I am a member of the Selkirk A venue police advisory committee, and they say they get calls from schools where people come into the building who are intoxicated, either on alcohol or on sniff, or who are viol ent, and the school wants to phone the police and have them removed immediately. In the past, there has been a problem with inadequate authority, so we hope that the bill may address that problem. With those remarks, I will conclude my speech on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

3354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), and the honourable members for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Bill27-The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 27, The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'Association des el eveurs de betail), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed] An Honourable Member: What are you holding this up for? Get it passed. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) wants to know why we are holding up this bill.

I want to tell him we are waiting to hear his comments, when he is going to stand up and put some comments on the record on his position on where he stands with supporting farmers, because we have not heard it from this government very well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 27 is the bill that deals with the compulsory checkoff legisla tion for the cattle producers and also with a clause with vendor insurance. This bill is very similar to Bill 15 , which I spoke to earlier on with regard to the checkoff for farm organizations and for commodity groups. In both bills the checkoffbecomes compulsory.

The funds go to the organization, in this case, the Keystone Agric ultural Producers, and the farmers then have to apply back for their funding. This is a negative option checkoff legislation. It is legis lation that has not been petitioned to the farmers to see whether they want it, and it is not legisla tion we can support. I want to go back-a little bit of a hi story on these bills. Although I am speaking on Bill 27, I will refer to both bills that are agriculture bills.

Going back to the predecessor bills, that is, Bill 29 and Bill 28, which is the agricultural producers bill that was introduced in 19 88, I believe. At that time, commodity groups, if they wanted to have checkoff funding, they had to petition their members, and some 60 percent of the producers of the commodity had to have voted in favour of it.

That is going to be changed in the present legis lation, on the agricultural producers bill, but the predecessor ofBill 27 is Bill 29, the cattle producers bill, and in that bill when the government introduced it they gave a checkoff to the cattle producers without having first canvassed their membership.

So they had two bills on the record, one in which a commodity group had to have the support of the members before the group could have their checkoff, and then the cattle producers had the legisla tion which contradicted the other bill but gave the cattle producers the opportunity to have checkoff at point of sale. * (1 540) Farmers over the past few years have spoken very clearly on this bill, because they have taken the option that was given to them and they chose not to pay their membership fees at the point of sale. That has been quite clear.

Now, the government is bringing in legis lation which will make it compulsory, again without canvassing the farmers, the cattle producers, whether or not they want this. Now when we talked to the cattle producers about this we said, you know, there should be a vote by the farmers. We talked about the same thing to the canola growers. We said, you know, if you want this kind of legislation there should be a vote by the farmers. They said, well, you know, if we do that it is going to cost us a lot of money, and they said, well, which farmers should have the vote?

Is it farmers that have been raising cattle for a few years or is it farmers that have been-whatever. Well, I think it is quite simple. If you are going to collect their fees, they should have a vote. There should be no problem with that, and I think it is very undemocratic to legislate that people have to support a particular organization without having first had the

September 26, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3355 opportunity of having had a vote on it. That is the real problem with this legislation. We have talked about this to the producers, and we have talked about it to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).

I have discussed this with him, and I have informed the Minister of Agriculture that we will be bringing an amendment into the legislation that, when we get to the stage where they can be heard, will allow for farmers to have some say, in particular if there is a percentage of the farmers-we are looking at these amendments now-if there are a certain number of farmers, say 30 percent of them, who choose to have their funds taken back, that is an indication that they do not support it, then it should go to a vote.

Perhaps if farmers get a petition and a percentage of them again, 25 or 30 percent of them, say they do not support this, then the organization has to take it to the vote of the membership. I think that will bring back some democracy into this, because as it is right now, this legislation is not democratic and would not apply to other organizations. They would not be able to have a checkoff or collect dues or fees to their organization without first talking to the people that are involved in it. We have heard, and I have to agree, that farmers do need a strong voice.

In the farming community people are going through a very difficult time right now; we are having some dramatic changes in the agricultural industry. Certainly, I agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), there is a challenge there and we have to work with producers to meet that challenge, and we will see very, very great changes over the next few years in agriculture. When I talk to producers, they say that they need a strong voice when it comes to lobbying on different issues with the federal government, and I agree with them. I agree with producers.

There has to be a strong voice, but that voice has to be the choice of the producers. The producers have to have some say in it, and that is what we have, but what this legislation is doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this legislation is forcing auction marts to do the work of the cattle producers and that is collect their membership fees, just as the other legislation is forcing grain companies to do the work of the farm organizations, and that is a problem. They are being forced to collect the membership by legislation.

Grain companies do have a concern about this, taking money from grain producers; the auction marts have a problem with this. The government sees the way of addressing it is by forcing it through by legislation. My feeling is that if a farm organization, if a commodity group such as the cattle producers is doing a good job in representing the cattle producers of this province, that the producers will voluntarily pay their membership dues. As it is right now, there is obviously a problem because producers are opting out.

They are taking the option of not funding the organization, so that organization has the responsibility of going out there and talking to the membership, talking to the cattle producers and listening to what it is that they want, and in that way build a strong base, just as any other organization would. They build a strong base and then they will have built the organization that farmers want, but obviously there is a concern there right now that has to be addressed. Certainly, we feel that commodity groups should have the ability to collect fees to promote their organization. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the second part of this legislation deals with vendor insurance, and what is being suggested is that part of the fees that will be collected from the checkoff money will go towards buying what, according to the minister, will be an insurance policy that will go towards topping up the bonding provision. What we have right now is a bonding requirement for livestock dealers.

There have been a few incidents in this province where livestock dealers have bought cattle and then they have not paid the money to the producer, and as a result the person who did the most work ends up with the most money out of pocket. There certainly has to be-and there is in place a bonding policy right now, but this is going to require farmers to pay an insurance. I question that because, does that mean that every other person who sells a commodity has to take out an insurance to carry it through to market after it has left their hands?

Do the grain producers have to take out insurance to carry them through? [interjection] The

3356 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA September 26, 19 95 member says they are bonded, and that may cover it off, but I think that the cattle buyers should be the ones that should be bonded to the full degree to cover this off. Now, if this policy will cover some extra insurance, that is fine, but we have to be sure that it is not a policy that is being put in place that will let the cattle buyers off the hook. We have to have insurance in place. The cattle buyers are the ones that are buying the livestock, and the insurance should be in place at a level that will cover all the purchases that they make.

We should not be bringing in legislation that will reduce the responsibility of the cattle buyers who are the ones who have been at fault in a few cases here in Manitoba and left the farmer, the livestock producer, out of pocket money. I want to mention a couple of things here as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I spoke the other day I made reference to this, asking where next the government would go as far as checkoffs went, and I referred to this. I made a comment, and I do not have my comments in front of me here, but I said, you know, what is the next thing the government is going to do?

Are they going to then say that everybody has to belong to a particular political organization? And I offended them. From a letter I got, it appears that I have offended the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and I wanted to put on the record that I was not implying that they were a political organization, although there have been many comments that have been made saying that, you know, the philosophy of the Keystone Agricultural Producers is quite right wing.

My feeling is that if people want to change the philosophy of that organization and want to get involved, they should get involved and bring their views to the table. So if the Keystone Agricultural Producers took offence to the comment that I was making about forcing Manitoba citizens to join political-that this amendment was similar to forcing Manitobans to join political parties, it was not meant in that way. I was using it as a comparison of where I could see legislation should be going, where the government was going on some of its legislation. Certainly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the concept of farmers or any producers having to join an organization by legislation does not sit well. An Honourable Member: Does that apply to unions as well? Ms. Wowchuk: Now, the member across the way-1 have just been waiting for the member for Arthur Virden (Mr. Downey) to get into his rant about unions-he always gets on this rant about unions. I do not know why he has such a bad feeling about unions, because what are unions? Unions are representatives of working people. Working people make a decision that they want to belong to an organization, and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they have a vote.

If 51 percent of them vote for it, they have an organization to represent them, but this government is scared to take that vote to farmers. They are scared to give farmers the vote because they are afraid the organization that does hold their views, the organization that promotes right-wing philosophy, is not going to win that vote, so instead of giving the farmers a voice, they are going to legislate it. Well, my goodness, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am sure there are many other groups of working people across this province, across this country, who would like to have that kind of legislation but then that is not the way democracy works. The democratic process is that people who want to belong in organizations, people who want to become organized, workers who want to become organized come together, put their policies together and have a vote. That is what we should have here, but for some reason this government is afraid of that, and instead they are choosing to dictate what it is.

Now, the minister has said that he feels it is quite democratic because the farmers are having a choice because they have the ability to opt out. [interjection] My colleague for Transcona (Mr. Reid) raises a very good point, the farmers do not have the opportunity to opt in. They are being given a negative option. It is a negative option, and it does not work. You will see that farmers will be opting out because they are being forced. I guess on this legislation, as well, I would like to encourage the minister, as I did on the previous bill, to hold hearings on this bill in rural Manitoba.

September 26, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3357 This is legislation that does not affect the people in the city of Winnipeg. I think it would do the government a lot of credit if they were to recognize us and listen to the people. [interjection] The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) wants to know whether they should get more credit. I would give them credit. If they would take the hearings on this legislation out to rural Manitoba, I would give them all the credit that they deserve for going out there and looking. [interjection] The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr.

Downey) says this is more expense. Has he considered the expense this is going to be to farmers at a time when farmers are facing real difficulty because of changes that were begun by the federal Conservatives and carried through by the federal Liberals, changes to the Crow benefit, cutbacks to research and agriculture? Farmers are having a really tough time. Now they are going to have a checkoff, that they have a hundred dollars for the organization, which will be Keystone Agricultural Producers. They are going to have a hundred dollar checkoff for canola growers.

They are going to have a hundred dollar checkoff for cattle producers, if they happen to raise cattle as well. You wonder what other commodity group is going to be next that this government is going to legislate that farmers have to become members of without any say. They have not consulted; they are legislating. This is very undemocratic. I say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns), that he would do a great service to the farmers if he would make a commitment that he would hold hearings in rural Manitoba and take the suggestions, or if he does not want to take the hearings to rural Manitoban, then just give them a vote. Let them vote, whether or not they-1 would say that that is pretty democratic. Give them all a say, and they are going to say this costs too much money. How much money is it going to take into the hands? * (155 0) When we look back, when the checkoff was in place, before the checkoff, the cattle producers used to get some $20,000.

With checkoff legislation, they were getting some $200,000. That is a lot of money being drained out. When you look that only about a quarter of the producers belong to the Keystone Agricultural Producers, so there is another maybe 15 ,000 producers who are going to be paying out $10 0. That is a lot of money going out of the rural economy. The canola growers, I believe, said that their membership is not even a quarter of the producers. Again, that is going to be a lot of money.

Farmers do have to have a responsibility of contributing towards research and even more so now since we have had the cutbacks in research by the federal government and lack of commitment from this government towards research in agriculture. Farmers do have the responsibility to addressing some of those, but, again, it has *Q be by their own choice. They have to decide who it is, that they want this organization, and they want to have input. Now, we hear them say that they have held meetings, and this issue has been taken to the people, but, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have been at some of these meetings, and the attendance has been very low. People are not aware. I have called many producers in this province, and they are not aware that this government is bringing in this legislati

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-36
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 36.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c6afd0e72affdf06945cec82e6a13d8e32a5240e

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