Manitoba Hansard — 8 July 1985 (Sitting 85B, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-85b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 8 July, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I don't remember if the motion was made to go into Committee of Supply. I would so move, seconded by the Member for Ste. Rose ... MR. SPEAKER: The motion has not yet been moved. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Ste. Rose, that we go into Committee to consider the Supply for Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River East. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speak er, I would like to take

part in this debate on the motion that we have, that you just presented to the members of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Yes, just a matter of clarification. To which motion is the Min ister wishing to speak? We have a motion before us to go into Suppl y, and . HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's right. MR. H. ENNS: . . . we agreed to it. Are we now in Supply? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, we are not in Supply; that's a debatable motion and I am speaking to that. MR. H. ENNS: Ok ay, that's all I wanted to determine, Mr. Speaker .

I though perhaps he was wishing to speak to the Supply Motion before us which is Executive Council. MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House which has not yet been approved. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the statement was made that a Mi nister doesn't usually speak on a qu estion of grievance. I would like to speak today not as Minister of Health or not as a member of the Treasury Bench, but rather as the ML A for St. Boniface and a member of the Franco-Manitoban commun ity. I don't intend to be too long, Mr.

Speaker, and I will speak in English only because I want this to be a little more than a gesture or a symbol. I want to make an appeal to reason and justice, Mr. Speaker. One of the grievances tha t I have is that for too long now I have heard especially one member of this House telling the rest of the members of the House that we as French Canadians proceed to tell the people of Manitoba what the French Canadians want. I think we can speak for ou rselves, and I think it is time that we speak for ourselves. I would like to speak as a member of the Franco-Manitoban commun ity.

I am tired of being used as a pawn in political expediency. it's not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that this happened. Remember that a strong and important minority was also used as a pawn just a few years ago on the question of private schools. What is sad to me is that many members at the time believed In the principle of state aid to schools. I do si ncerely believe that many of the members of the opposition also today and a couple of years ago believed in the rights of Franco-Man itobans and many of the things -and bilingualism in this country.

I refuse to think that it's just a question of being anti French or being a red neck. But what I deplore, Sir, is that not more than a question was said when we talked about aid to private schools a few years ago. I think that we should remember, and if any of the members need to refresh their memories, I think they should remember tha t the Premier of the day, Mr. Schreyer, brought in a resolution. He made the mistake of saying that If he did not settle this question of aid to private schools, something that had been debated for so many years, that he would resign. Of course, Mr.

Green at the time, felt that that might be his chance. I think he remembered that he resigned from Cabinet when he went around to try to muster support and the Opposition thought what a way to get rid of Schreyer and then face Green because we know we could beat Green. But were there any winners at all? There were only losers and at the time, if there not had been this political expediency, this would be all settled now. My honourable - (Interjection) - friend . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Min ister. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: If my honourable friend is finished and he will allow me to continue, I'd like to do so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the fact is this, tha t at the time it was political expediency and many of the people including my honourable friend who always supported aid to private schools, couldn't resist the temptation of political expediency. He knows that as well as I do. There were no winners. They didn't win the election and the people that was used against, suffered. They're the ones that suffered and this is not settled at this time.

Where did that qu estion of parental rights in education and equal opportunity for the students that are attending schools -where did that go? lt was lost and we're still fighting it. Sure there was something brought in by the former 3670

Monday, 8 July, 1885 government; there was something brought in by this government. But what about this equity? We have a bill on equity - what about this equity? Can anybody in this House seriously tell me that there was equity and there is equity now? Was that solved by the former Premier of this province? I don't think so, and if my honourable friend thinks that it was, well then - (Interjection) - Oh, yes, you take the steps and this is a hundred years of stepping and getting nowhere, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker , I'm not here representing the government tonight. I'm speaking as an individual .

I'm speaking as, I told you that, as the MLA for St. Boniface. Now, Mr. Speaker , history is repeating itself with the French language rights. Again, I'm sure that many of them believe that something should be done, but again the temptation is too strong. What is it that we ask? What is so bad about that? You know, the former Premier of this province said it was up to the government to govern; it is not up to the courts. Remember during the constitution debate and so on, this was the statement that he made. I believe that, Mr. Speak er, and many of the other Franco Manitobans believe that.

But we wanted security because it was a duly elected government; it wasn't a dictator that passed laws in 1890 depriving us of our rights, but it was the guarantee that was in this act that enabled the courts to renew to give us these rights that had been denied us for too long. And again, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to resist the temptation of going out and talking again about Bill 2 to say that I warned you. But at that time, that was supposed to solve everything also. lt was a meaningless bill. The courts again decided that this bill wasn't legal at all. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Elmwood has been reversing his field all along. I remember one of his first statements, that he was present with a history professor years ago, early in his career, soon after he was elected here, that he had made some statement that he took exception to, and he said, "1 will go now more than ever. I am convinced that these people should be treated justly. I will go back and work with every member of my caucus to make sure that this is done." And what did he say in 1980, Mr. Speaker?

On April 16, 1980: "When you talk about linguistic rights, you are only talking about one small aspect of the whole question, that it's not good enough to tolerate one's neighbour. it's not good enough to say that the laws will be translated into one or more languages. What must be ultimately sought is a quality of opportunity. When people feel they are under attack, when people feel that they are not welcome, when people feel hostility, they resort to their hyphenated heritage.

When the milieu is warm and friendly, then the hyphens disappear and the Canadians come out in full force." That was the Member for Elmwood. What is he doing now? A couple of years ago he yelled, let the courts decide. He was warned about that, but that's what he wanted. And what is he doing today? Today, not satisfied with that but, again, trying to have the Franco-Manitobans, trying to blame them for what is happening now. If you don't believe me, look at all the silly questions he asked this year.

Even the members of the opposition do not give him any credit at all, not maybe like the 3671 support they thought they were giving a few years ago. Look on the Order Paper of Tuesday the 2nd of July, look at the Order for Return. What does he ask? So he can blame somebody for this, he asks - how many copies of bills translated into the French language were sold in the years 1980,'81,'82,'83,'84 and'85? How much revenue was obtained from the sale of bills translated into the French language in those years?

How many copies of acts translated into the French language were sold in the years 1980,'81,'82,'83,'84 and'85? How much revenue was obtained from the sale of that translated into the French language in those years? We know the answer to that. lt is ridiculous. Do you think that I am interested in seeing a translation of

an act to incorporate Melita or any of those other towns? In fact, I have some of those other examples.

An Act to Incorporate Miniota, Northwestern Railway Company. lt doesn't even exist at this time. The Masters and Servants Act and those kinds of acts. This is not what we want. Why should we be blamed for that, Mr. Speaker? But then again some very unfair people led by the Member for Elmwood are trying to turn this and use it against us, and he supported. all this. He supported this before, and now he is mad at the Premier of this Province. That's his business. But why in the hell when he wants to get even with him should he do it on my back and on the back of the Franco-Manitobans of Manitoba.

Now, the Member for Charleswood - when I say the Member for Charleswood I knew when he started, or early in this career, he certainly wasn't looked at as anti-French or a fanatic. He supported all the work that Roblin did, and Roblin pioneered in many instances in that. The Member for Charleswood supported Bill 113 also, but he was, as I say, against the court deciding. He thought the government should rule and should govern. As I say, what we want is the protection. We saw that without that protection we wouldn't have any rights at all now. Now two years ago he wanted the court to decide. Now he should be happy.

Do you remember what was said at the time? They said that it was the minimum that they wanted. Make sure that you only give them the minimum. That's the true spirit, I'm sure, of what the court decided. They should be very happy with that. The Leader of the Opposition also, he is a bright young man. I think he is a Jekyll and Hyde. He has a nice personality. He speaks well. He should have a bright future, but he's not getting off the ground. He's not getting off the ground because he follows, not the good things of the former Premier, but the former Premier who is bitter after losing an election.

He went out and would do anything - it doesn't matter who it hurts apparently - to prove a point or to defeat a government. I don't think that is fair. I resent that very, very much. Now the Premier and the government of this province, I think, showed very much inexperience when they brought this legislation, but I think they showed courage. There is no doubt that the party was badly hurt politically . The polls show that the NDP party was way down, and now it is going up. Now the two parties are neck and neck. But the election is coming, and there'll be tough decisions to make again.

What will the members do, all the members of this House? What will they do? I think they were shown that there are no

Monday, 8 July, 1985 winners when you engage in that kind of politics, of partisan politics. There are only losers. I don't really think that there is one member in this House who wants to punish the Franco-Manitobans or want to steal their rights away. But the temptation is too great, and I say that to all the members of this House. The first priority will be political expediency again. Now I'm getting a little tire d of being told that I'm a second-class citizen, that I'm not as patriotric as any members of this House, and that I should feel that I should apologize for being a Franco-Manitoban.

All of a sudden everybody was yelling scandal. There had been a deal with the Franco-Manitoban Socie ty. Now every day - (Interjection) - would you mind? Would you mind very much? Mr. Speaker, there was a scandal. There was a deal with the Franco-Manitoban commun ity. Every day we are told that we should have an open government. We should talk to the people. We should talk to the MMA. We should talk to the chiropractors. - (Interje ction) - We should talk for the fledg ling farmers. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If there are members who wish to conduct a private debate, perhaps they would cio so outside of the Chamber. I am trying to hear the Honou rable Member for St. Boniface. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Some of the members led by the Member for Elmwood would have us believe that we're practically traitors. I don't look at it like that. I think I'm as good a Manitoban -because I'm bilingual, it doesn't make me less of a Manitoban. I'm also, I think, a very good Canadian. I come from seven or eight genera tions of Canadians. There are not too many people in this House who can say that.

I served thr ee or four years on active duty during the war. I'm proud of that. I don't think it is a big thing. I've paid my taxes. I served 30 years or so in public service. I have never burned a flag and I don't even read HER izons. So I think that makes me just as good as the member for Sir, I don't intend to be part of anybody who is going to take over Manitoba. I can tell you that you are very concerned for nothing. The closest thing that we have to an army is probably a troup of scouts in St. Boniface and I don't think you'd go very far in that, Mr. Speaker .

As I said, some people would have Manitobans believe that we're not reasonable, we're completely stupid. The last thing we want -and I can tell you it is the last thing that the French-speaking Manltobans are intere sted in -is this translation of all the laws, because it is ridiculous; it is unwanted; it has no value; it is stupid. Then if it is done, it'll just get the people to turn against us. lt's something we don't want, but we will be blamed for it. lt's automatic; it's our fault. I think that this is very unreasonable. What did we want?

Again, the Member for Elmwood would have us spend all kinds of money and all of a sudden from one day to the other, that we want a bilingual province. There's about five to eight. percent Franco-Manitobans; we're not going to have it completely bilingual. That is not what we want. We will want some services -we would want to spend a fraction of this amount to get some services in French. Is that the end of the world? Will that divide the country if it is understood, or the province?

Now there's a chapter, it's not very long, it's one page, in The City of Winnipeg Act, that was never obeyed or lived up to by the city on the French rights. Is that asking too much? Now all of a sudden, they're talking about replacing everyone by bilingual civil servants. That is the last thing that I would want; that is the last thing that the French-Canadian wants.

I think that, fine, there would be some gradually that would come in and eventually would it be so wrong if to be a career civil servant - I'm not talking about the bottom of the line, but the people, that is prior to being in the top of the civil servants, if they were bilingual, would that be the end of the world? Don't you remember when we had two languages here in Manitoba before you could enter university? Could it be wrong? What are they doing in Europe?

When you study medicine, you study certain things that are needed before you become a doctor or you get your call to the bar; so then you'd have two language s if you aspire to be at the top of the civil servants, eventually . You wouldn't see all of a sudden people 50 - 60 years old that would be told, if you're not French you've got six months; you're going to disappe ar. That's ridiculous. That's not what we want at all. So, Mr. Speaker, it's time that we tell the people of Manitoba and tell the people of this House what we want; not have the Member for Elmwood tell.

I would believe in the real spirit of this country. The former Premier stated when he was in Opposition here, the Leader of the Opposition, that he felt that French as a language, as a su bject , should be taught in every school In Manitoba; that was the Member for Charleswood, yes. -( Interject ion) - Elmwood could have said it. He said about everyt hing on both sides of the issue, so it doesn't matter tha t much. Now, I say, Mr. Speaker, that I'd like to see us stop fanning the fires of fear and hate in this count ry.

I think we should work on the real intent of·the court and the court did not say, here, this is what you do, the minimum that you do. This is what they say. They left the door open. I don't think they had any option but to rule as they did. But they left the door open, to do somet hing about it. it's not too late to chang e what we're embarking on now, which is a ridiculous situation that will cost untold dollars, many millions of dollars -for what? - to divide, because that's going to divide the count ry. Again, we're going to be caught in the middle, if we like it or not. I quote from the court's decision, Mr.

Speaker. "The importance of language rights is grounded in the essential role that language plays in human existence, development and dignity. lt is through language that we are able to form concepts; to structure and order the world around us. Language bridges the gap between isolation and commun ity, allowing humans to delineate the rights and duties they hold in respect of one another, and thus live in soci ety. " This could be the last chance for the Members of this House to be reasonable and to be practical, and that's all we ask. We are not asking anything that we can't live up to.

I would like to leave my leader, the Premier of this Province, with some advice. I think the door is open; I think in the statement that I have studied very carefully 3672

Monday, 8 July, 1985 it was said by the Prime Min ister of this country that he would like nothing better than to discuss this with the provinces. Of course, I am not completely naive. I know that around election time there is not going to be a big movement from any side, not from this side and not from the other side. But if two years ago, Mr.

Premi er, we thought that this was the right way to go, I think we should at least look at it again, maybe discuss it with the Prime Min ister, maybe try to have a group of reaso nable people at the di fferent levels of government, including the opposition - look at some fair way, first of all, to save these millions of dollars, to save us from going through this ridiculous thing of translating 4,000 pieces of legislation, some of the m that don't exist, and to bring some modest services in their own language to the French-speaking Manitobans. Is that asking too much? Mr.

Speaker, I think that we can get back to sanity, to responsible government. As I say, mark my word, there was not a winner during the aid to private schools thing, but losers - and this is going to happen again. Again, we'll be caught in the middle. Let us fight; let the members of this House go and fight as they want the next election. But, Mr. Speaker, I implore them, please get off my back. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak today, obviously, but I find to be rather unusual the grievance of the Mini ster of Health, essentially, I guess, against the actions of his government, because although the Mini ster of Health spoke about his concern for the statements that have been made by various people in the Legislature, principally the Member for Elmwood, he took a great deal of time basically to try and separate himself from the position that is being taken on a variety of different issues by his government, his admi nistration, and principally his Premier. Mr.

Speaker, early on in the remarks which I was listening to prior to entering the Cham ber, I heard him talk about, for instance, the position that had been taken by former admi nistrations in this province with respect to aid to private or independent schools. lt's true that he has always been in favour of aid to independent schools and full recognition of private or independent schools in this province. But, Mr.

Speaker, I find it incredible that he would say that and totally ignore the fact that he has been a member of the Treasury Bench of two admini strations, the Schreyer admi nistration and the current Pawley administration, which have chosen not to act in any way to give full recognition and/or the funding that is being requested by independent schools in this province, Mr. Speaker, the kind of hypocrisy that says we really want to do this, but we don't think we can do it or, for various reasons, we can't do it and there is the politics of it - and all those things I find incredible.

We find the Premier sitting there, cowering in his chair, afraid that the Member for St. Boniface, the Minis ter of Health, is going to make some sort of commitment that they're going to have difficulty with in the next elect ion. If that's the case. Mr. Speaker, is the Memb er for St. Boniface going to run as an independent in the next election? He's going to have to if he wants to live up to the things that he is saying in this Cham ber. He obviously can't win his battles in caucus. He can't win his battles in Cabinet.

In two successive admi nistrations, he has been unable to convince the people who are presumably in the same party, in the same government as he is, that those lofty ideals that he is setting forward are ones that are shared by anybody other than himself. Mr. Speaker, I find it not only unusual, but almost in credible that he would even try and pull this manoeuvre to separate himself and see that his party could be on all sides of the fence: firstly, on the issue of aid to private and independent schools; secondly, on the French language issue in this province. In both of these cases, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for St. Bonlface, the Mini ster of Health, I think has done a disservice to his party, to his government, because he has undercut the Premier and the rest of the people with whom he speaks. He has declined, Mr. Speaker, to take the responsibility for the decisions that are made within his caucus. He's declined to be able to stand with those people, and instead he stands up and speaks as a private member here in the House tonight. Mr.

Speaker, I think that there is nothing for this but for the Mi nister of Health to resign, obviously, because he can' t acknowledge that he is a part of this admin istration that is doing things that he disagrees with, that he is fundam entally opposed to. Yet, rather than take the position of saying, this is a caucus decision, this is the way my colleagues are, he has to stand up, despite being a mem ber of the Treasury Bench, and separate himself from the rest of those people within his caucus and in the Treasury Bench. He wants to have the best of both worlds, but he can't have it. lt won't work, Mr.

Speaker. lt can't work because, just like the members of the Treasury Bench who attended at the American flag-burning ceremony , they can't separate their personal beliefs from their roles and responsibilities as members of the Treasury Bench. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work that way. You can't tell people that it's just a matter of how the government is. That's just a matter of how the Premier may like it, but I think that really they're being misunde rstood; that, really, the fact of the matter is we would all like to give full recognition to independent schools.

We would all like to give full funding to independent schools. But you can't have it. lt's either your party's policy, your government's policy, or it is not there. Mr. Speaker, no matter how much the Member for · St. Boniface, the Mi nister of Health, wants to talk about his druthers, his preferences - they're not there. They are not comm itted to by his party and they're not comm itted to by his government, Mr. Speaker. That's the case with aid to independent schools; that's the case with full recognition of independent schools, and that's the case with other issues. Mr.

Speaker, I'm surprised that he didn't bring forward the issue of abortion, because the NDP as a party on a national basis are committ ed to pro-choice. The people who surround him in majority are committ ed to pro-choice, abortion on demand, Mr. Speaker. That's what they are comm itted to. He is not. He said that. He tells us that. He tells people in various different 3673

Monday, 8 July, 1985 platforms that he doesn't believe in it, tha t personally he's opposed. But he sits in the Cabi net and he sits in the caucus, and he accepts the position of the people with whom he sits in that government. He can't have it both ways, Mr. Speake r. I am surprised though that he didn't raise that matter, because he is surrounded by people there who obviously don't agree with him. He might as well put that on the record.

He might as well put on the record that the Attorney-General has said pu blicly that he's pro-choice; that his party, the New Democratic Party has said that they are pro-choice. That is by resolution of their party, and they stand publicly on that. I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't tell us tha t he is in favour of NATO even though his party, the New Democrats and the people who sit with him, are not in favour of it. He made reference to his war service.

He must have had anxious moments when his party exorcised that portion of the amended resolution to do with the nuclear weapons free zone that removed any reference to the losses of those people, the anx iety, the suffering and sacrifices of those people who served In the Second World War with him. That was all removed from the resolution, because his party would have no reference to the Second World War, to the sacrifices, to the service of the veterans of the legions of people or even his service. They would n't have that in a resolution in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Yet, you know, he stands up and says, I served in the Second World War. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Mini ster of Labour on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition would like to rephrase his statement when he said that Min isters attended at a flag-burning ceremony. Mr. Speaker, he knows that is not fact. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Tha t un fortu nate in cide nt occurred without the knowledge, participation of any member of the government caucus.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition knows that, and I hope that he .has the integrity to withd raw that remark. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honou rable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I will be perfectly clear. Members of this Treasury Bench attended at a demonstration In front of the U.S. Consulate at which an American flag was burned. The record Is clear on that, and they can't squirm out from under it.

The Minister of Labour, the Deputy Premier, the Min ister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of the Environment -that will be a blot on their records and on the records of this adminis tration for all time and future. The Member for lnks ter wants to be included in that, eve11 though he isn't a member of the Treasury Bench, but he was there and he's smiling and he says he'll stand up for that at any time . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: . . . Mr.

Speaker, the Member for lnkster is obviously prouder of his attendance there and his participation than is the Min ister of Labour. Mr. Speake r, I will return to the point at which I was when I was interrupted by the Min ister of Labour . Mr . Speaker, the Member for St. Bonifa ce, the Min ister of Health, has attempted very skill fully to distance himself from a variety of different issues, and I know why, because he can't live with his conscience and be in the same Cabinet, in the same caucus as the people who are making the decisions. He doesn't agree with what they are saying, he says.

He doesn't agree with what they are doing. He doesn't agree with their policies, Mr. Speaker, and he is trying to distance himself so that he can face himself in the mirror. Well, it's going to take a little more than this, Mr. Speaker, for him to do that because the fact of the matter is that his party is on record as not extending any additional recognition, cert ainly not extending full recognition to independent schools and not extending full funding or additional funding as is being requested by the independent schools to them.

His party is opposed to the independent schools of this province, and he can try as much as he likes to distance himself but that Is the fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker. His party Is opposed to NATO. His party will not recognize NATO and will not acknowledge Canada's participation in NATO, and he cannot distance himself from that. His party believes in free choice, freedom of choice, pro-choice as far as the abortion issue is concerned, and he cannot distance himself from that, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I will turn to the matter that he addressed in the latter part of his remarks with respect to the French langua ge issue. I find this interest ing and again almost Incredible that he is saying that he believes that there should be some other solution to the French langua ge situation In Manitoba. Yet his Premier has said that a person would have to be a fool to proceed with any other settlement or any other form of solution to the French language proposal in Manitoba. He said that they are prepared to introduce anything to do with services.

He said that they are not prepared to introduce a constitutional amendment. He is trying to turn tail and run on this issue. But the Member for St. Boniface, sitting right next to him, says that he honestly believes that his Premier really would like to seek some other solution but it's just the politics of the situation. The Mi nister of Health earlier tonight said that the Franco-Man itobans weren't happy just to have all of the laws of Manitoba in translated form. Mr. Speaker, that's true. We said that during the long debates, that having the laws translated into French would not . HON. G.

LECUYER: ... you're lyingl MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I heard the Minis ter of the Environment say that I was lying. I'd ask him to withdr aw. 3674

Moncl•y, 8 July, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I would remind all members that just as the members must not use unparliamentary language when taking

part in debate, they should also not use unparliamentary language from their chair. The Honourable Minister for the Environment . HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw the use of the word because it's not allowed, but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is saying words that are far from the truth. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is never close to the truth when he speaks In this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I would ask the honourable member not to make such suggestions directly to another member.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health earlier tonight referred to the fact that Fran co Manitobans didn't want their laws translated, and I said in this House a year and a half ago that this was of no value to them, that this trade that they were making with this incompetent administration In favour of a constitutional amendment and Bill 115 was no trade whatso ever, because what they were offering up was of little or no value to Franco-Manitobans, and that's on the record. The Minister just said that.

Yet why did this administration proceed to give them everything they wanted and more? In fact, the former President of the SFM, under oath in court, said they were absolutely amazed when the Attorney-General proceeded to tell them that they were going to have the constitutional amendment to give them all of those things, because, Mr. Speaker, there was no trade-off there. There was nothing of value that they were going to be giving up because they didn't see the translated laws, all of those 4,500 laws, to have substantial value. Mr.

Speaker, we said that over and over and over again, that all that was important was the immediate 500 laws, the most commonly used laws of this province were all that really was of immediate value and those were the things that were committed to be translated and those were the things that the government had committed to translate a long time ago; yet this administration was willing to give up a constitutional amendment and a bill giving mandatory government services in French and English in all departments, and all Crown corporations for something that the Franco Manitobans admitted wasn't of value to them - at what cost?

What an incredible deaL These are the bargaining agents who are bargaining on our behalf with respect to major development projects, resource developments and all those things, and they are giving away all sorts of things in return for nothing - something that the Franco-Manitobans saw of little or no value - they were giving away a constitutional amendment and Bill 115 in return for it. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that tells you what these ideologues were doing, what their understanding was of issues of this nature, and far more impo rtantly, their understanding of the people of Manitoba, to have proceeded on that basis, to give away all of these things to the Franco-Manitobans for, in return, something that they considered to be of little or no value. That's what got us into this whole situation, Mr. Speaker. The Member for St. Boniface, the Minister of Health, has indicated that Franco-Manltobans and his administration did not want a bilingual province. Well, Mr. Speaker, I accept that. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I did not say that I did not MR. G. FILMON: Then he is saying . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: You are absolutely wrong again. A MEMBER: He's changing his story. HON. L DESJARDINS: I did not say that A MEMBER: Read Hansard, Larry. HON. L. DESJARDINS: You read Hansard. MR. G. FILMON: He says that he did not say that they did not want a bilingual province. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I said you'll never have a completely bilingual province. MR. G. FILMON: Oh, he said, we'll never have a completely bilingual province. Mr.

Speaker, I believe, because I wrote down the notes as he was speaking, that he said they didn't want a bilingual province. We'll check the record. In any case, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is he acknowledged that much of the services were already being extended and could be extended. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they still can be extended by a government with the will to act . But this administration chose not to do that; it chose not to have an orderly system of extending services where there were demands and where there was good sense to do so.

Instead, it chose to take a path totally contrary to the wishes of most of the people of this province, that threw into convulsion the people of this province, that rent asunder the social fabric of this province and set back relations between Franco-Manitobans and Anglo-Manitobans for decades, Mr. Speaker. He's trying to say that wasn't their fault, that somehow, they wanted to do good things but they just didn't know how. He says that they were inexperienced and that they just didn't understand the circumstances, that they really just embarked on this without due and proper consideration. Well, Mr.

Speaker , that's a condemnation of his Premier and his incompetence. Mr. Speaker, he says all of that, but he doesn't recognize - he's trying now to gloss over everything that happened and say that, really, it was nothing; really, it didn't mean anything to this province; that we should forget about this . We should go on to the future, and we should try to do something that is reasonable to do. Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with that whatsoever. But why didn't he give that counsel back one and a 3675

Monday, 8 July, 1985 half ago? Why didn't he give those suggestions a year and a half ago? Why wasn't he trying to persuade and convince the people of his caucus a year and a half ago in stead of att empting to force thr ough the constitutional amendment on the legislation in Bill 11 5? Why wasn't he telling them, let's just be reasonable; let's go slow; let's take it easy; let's operate with common sense. Ins tead he wanted to hammer into the heads of the people of Manitoba, hold a gun to their heads and tell them that if we don't do this, we're going to have legal chaos.

We 're going to have all our laws struck down overnight. That's what his Premier and his Attorney General said when they were trying to force through the constitutional amendment. They said to the people of Manitoba that the Supreme Court was going to force us to give compuls ory bilingual services in all government departments. We ll, that didn't happen either, Mr. Speaker. They said that the Supreme Court was going to impose a penalty on the people of Manitoba for not acting on this situation, and that hasn't happened either, Mr. Speaker. Not at all, not at all.

All they have Is the translation of laws in an orderly fashion, the translation of laws which the Member for St. Boniface says Franco-Manitobans don't want anyway. MA. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. I am trying to hear the Honour able Leader of the Opposition. Other members will have the opportunity to enter the debate if they so wish. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, now the Member for St. Boniface, the Minister of Health, is trying to say that the Premier perhaps has just been frightened off on this.

Well, I want to tell you, the Premier turned tail on this situation. The day that the Supreme Court decision was issued, he stood up in this House and said, nothing happened, we're just going to go on with this and we'll abide by the Supreme Court decision and so on. But, Mr. Speaker, he said some other things. He was asked if this was his first choice then, because he agreed with it. He said, no, this wasn't my first choice; but when he was asked what was his first choice, he wouldn't answer. A MEMBER: He ducked� MA. G. FILMON: He wouldn't answer, Mr. Speaker. He wouldn't tell what his first choice was.

Is the Premier telling us what the first choice was? He's telling us that the first choice was the constitutional amendment and Bill 11 5, imposing compulsory bilingual services and he's nodding his agreement that that was his first choice. Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder then what made this adminis tration pull that bill. Why didn't they proceed? They had the num bers to proceed, and they didn't wait for the two weeks of the bell ringing agreement that had said that after two weeks the bells would stop; they didn't wait. They didn't wait, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you, because they panicked.

They found out a matter of about three or fours days before they walked into this House and aborted the whole French language proposal; they were presented with a proposal that I read from last Thursday night and that proposal was an analysis by the Manitoba Government Employees Assocation, an analysis of the staffing requi rements under Bill 11 5. Mr.

Speaker, that analysis, which I referred to last Thursday even ing told the story of how different the words that the Premier was saying, the words that the Government House Leader, that the Attorney-General were saying when they were promoting their solution to the French language issue -how different they were from the facts, because the facts are contained in the Manitoba Government Employees Association analysis of Bill 11 5. Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear. That bill would have required 1, 005 positions in the direct Civil Service of this province - 1, 005 positions.

That doesn't include -and I'll read from here what the exclusions are - because that doesn't include the services that are covered by the Department of Crown Investments, Red River Community College, Assiniboine Community College, Brandon Mental Health Centre, Selkirk Mental Hospital, Portage School for Retardates, Civil Service Commission, Headin gley Correctional Institute, the Winnipeg Remand Centre and every Crown corporation, MPIC, the Tel ephones, Hydro. With all of those corporations and their employment complement covered, Mr. Speaker, we would be well over 1, 500 positions in this province.

But I'll tell you someth ing further; I'll tell you why they turned tail and ran on this proposal, because they didn't know, they accepted the ball park estimate of 400 positions that was given to them by one of their civil servants and they didn't ever bother to have it analyzed or checked out. Mr. Speaker, this detailed position-by-position analysis shows that in rural Manitoba, for instance, there would be a requirement for 451 bilingual positions, just in government departments. In the Community of Dauphin, Mr. Speaker, 101 positions, 101 bilingual positions. Mr.

Speaker, In Selkirk, in the Premier's home, there were a considerable number of positions In Selkirk because he didn't realize that under the definition in his act that Selkirk became a service centre for the language services area of Lac du Bonnet, so all the government offices in Selkirk would have to be staffed with bilingual people. The Premier panicked and he turned tall on this proposal. Mr. Speaker, now he's in a fit of panic because he's been put on the spot by his Minister of Health who has now said that he disagrees with the government's decision not to proceed on this matter.

He disa grees with the government's position to turn tail and run on this situation. He grieves against his government, to tell his government that he thinks they should be acting on this matter, that they should be putting forth an alternative, a proposal. That's what this Minister of Health is telling us and his members all around him are squirming, Mr. Speaker, because now they've been put on the spot. They've been put in a position that they're going to have to take a position on whether or not they will proceed with this matter.

They're going to have to take a position for the people of Manitoba for the next election because there are several, obviously; the Mi nis ter of the Environment . . . The Premier has Indicated this wasn't his first choice. He won't tell us what he's going to do in lieu of that 3676

Monday, 8 July, 1985 but it wasn't his first choice. I trust the Min ister of Health. I happen to think that he would proceed in a reasonable manner, but the member who is shouting at me, the Mi nister of Environment, is a zealot on this matter. He's not a reasonable person. He's the person who would be forcing everything tha t he possibly could on the people of Ma nitoba as he did in 1983. He was one of the people who said we don't care what the people of Manitoba want. We're going to steamroller this over them and it doesn't matter. He hasn't changed a bit.

He's totally unr epentant, shouting from his seat all sorts of invectives, Mr. Speaker, calling me a liar. That's what the Mi nister of the Environment is doing. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEA KER: Order please, order please. If members could control themselves and allow the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to make his remarks, we would not have any unp arliamentary remarks, I'm sure. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, the Memb er for St. Boniface talks about reasonableness.

Does he believe that Bill 11 5, legislating over 1, 000 positions in the direct government departments, legislating more in Crown corporations and in other government agencies so that we would have in the range of 1, 500 bilingual positions -does he think that's a reasonable way to go? I'd like to know. If he thinks that's reasonable, Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba disagr ee with that. The people of Manitoba disagree emphatically and totally with that. I want to know what he thinks is the justification for proceeding on that basis. Is it because they were frightened because the SFM and Mr .

Bilodeau put a gun to their heads and told them what they were going to have all these adverse consequences to the Province of Manitoba? Is that why he acted on this matter? Is it out of defensiveness that his government went forward with this proposal? Why does the Premier still think that it's the No. 1 choice, that he would have preferred to have this alternative over what the Su preme Court said to us. Mr. Speaker, they have accused us of playing politics with this issue but I suggest to you that their motivation was pure, crass politics in proceeding on this issue.

When they got caught so badly out of touch with public opinion, they recognized that their political sensitivity was dead wrong and they tried everything possible to back out of this issue. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how this Premier deals with the issues.

Thurs day night in committee I asked the Premier for comments on this analysis by the Ma nitoba Government Employees Association, this systematic evaluat ion, position-by-position, office-by office, department-by-department, location-by-location, and his initial response was when I asked him whether or not he and his Cabine t had received or seen this analysis, he said, "No, Mr. Chairman"; that's on Page 3619 of Hansard. Then he said further, "Hon. H. Pawley: Mr . Chairman , I don't recall having received a submission to that effect ... " Mr.

Speaker, all that evening as I brought forward information about things that were being sent out of the Premier's Office and responses we were getting from the junk mail tha t they were sending out, the political propaganda that they were sending out of his office -every time I stood up to read something they said, table the document. Will the Leader of the Opposition table the document? I tabled tho se documents for their use. When I referred to that particular document that the Premier said that he had not seen, that he was unaware of, Mr. Speaker, he didn't ask me to table the document.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Something as crucial as that, an analysis as thorough and complete as that of their proposal on Bill 11 5, he didn't want to even touch, he didn't even want to get his hands on it so that somebody might question him about lt, Mr. Speaker. That's the way he looks upon this issue. He said no, he knew nothing of it; no, he was una ware of it, but he sure didn't want to have it tabled because he didn't want to become aware of lt. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that it's very interesting that just a little bit later, perhaps .20 minutes later during the discussion -this appears on Page 3620 of Hansard from Thursday evening, now speaking about the same document which I covered at greater and greater length, the Premier said, "I believe" -he's speaking to me in this case -"he should be informed tha t French Language Service, Mr. Turenne, who works in the department, examined that and was satisfied that it was ridd led with inaccu racy and that the actual amount was much less than that, of which many were already occupying positions within the government ...

" Two pages before he doesn't know anything about it, hadn't heard about it, didn't want to see it tabled, but two pages later in Hansard he says that you should be aware of the fact that Mr. Turenne has looked at it and it's riddled with Inaccuracy and it Isn't correct . Mr. Speaker, I say this furthe r. The Premier has not tabled an alternative analysis to this document because he has not done an alternative analysis. He has never been able to refute this; not to the MGEA and not to us on this side.

This document, as far as we are concerned, is the most accurate analysis, the most accurate review of Bill 115, and the most fact ual understanding of what the consequences of Bill 11 5 would have been to the people of Manitoba. Those consequences, Mr. Speaker, were a minimum of 1,500 bilingual positions in the Civil Service and Crown corporations and outside agencies -1,500 posit ions. Mr.

Speaker, if only one-third of them were dupl ications, and I believe that one-third had to be duplications because when you start to look at single positions and single opportunities to provide services - and somebody who is away for lunch or away for breaks, you have to have dupl ication from time to time -and even if only one-third were dupl icated, Mr. Speaker, tha t one-third at the current average Civil Service rates would have cost uf $15 million per year in this year's salary. Mr.

Speaker, just at the normal inflation rates, 10 years from now that would have been $30 million a year for those same 500 positions in the Civil Service, duplic ated bilingual positions. So that would go on and 36n

Monday, 8 July, 1985 on and on in perpetuity, adding and adding to the costs of government, well beyond even the one-time cost. One year would probably exceed the one-time cost of translating those other 4,000 statutes as a result of the Supreme Cour t decision. At the same time, they can't find adequate funding for personal care beds in Brandon. They can't find adequate funding for the School of Psychiatric Nursing at Portage la Prairie. They can't find adequ ate funding for crisis shelters for battered women.

They can't find adequate funding for day care for people in this province, for enough spaces; they can't expand them to meet the demands. But they were prepared to commit our province to that kind of expenditure on bilingual positions and now they're trying to say that the cost of translation was greater. Well, it won't work, Mr. Speaker, it won't work because it's not true and the people of Manitoba know and understand that.

But what is even worse Is that the Minister of Health should stand up now and try and separate himself from the rest of his government, from the rest of the Cabine t and say, just speaking as an MLA for St. Bon iface, I believe that we ought to be doing this and I'm sure that ulti mately we'll get to that point. Well, Mr. Speaker, If that's what he believes and if that's where he stands, and if th at is not in total contradiction with the position of his admini stration and his Premier, then he ought to resign. He ought to resign, Mr. Speake r. A MEMBER: Resign, Larry. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speake r, I would like to know who is setting policy on tha t side of the House. If the Member for St. Boniface can stand up and separate himself from his party on fundamental issues such as aid to inde pendent schools, and abortion, and the French langua ge Issue, I would like to know who speaks for that party and who speaks for that government. What can we expect from them if he's going to try and separate himself on so many fundamental issues from his Treasury Bench and from his caucus and Cabinet, Mr. Speaker? You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth. Mr. Spea ker, while I'm on my feet I'd like ... MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: . . . to talk about the prioritie s of this adminis tration who, during thei r first year of government, sought to reorder social relationships in this province and didn't spend the time on the bread and-butter issues, the economic issues of this province, but rather did such things as bring In farm lands ownership legislation; did such things as bring in The Election Fina nces Act -they brought that in so that they would line their own pockets after the next election to pay for their expenditures.

They brought in Th e Legislative Assembly Mana gement Commission Act so that people would get greater support services, greater expenditu res by all of the various different departments that effectively turned the Premier's office into a mailing room for the NDP Party; tens of thousands of letters going out, even in the last th ree months, at public expense, from his office because they saw that as a priority in their first year or two of government. Then, Mr. Speaker, the second year of government, they spent almost an entire Session on the French langua ge issue. MR. H. ENNS: That was the No. 1 issue. MR. G.

FILMON: The Premier said that was 58th on his list of priorities, yet we spent a full Session and more, on the debate of that issue. We convulsed the entire province; we tore apart the social fabric and we put people against people because the NDP proceeded with what the Premier said was the 58th priority out of 59 in his legislative timetable. That's what happened as a result of their proposal in this administration, in this government. That was the second year, Mr. Speaker. Now we're into the final stages - and what are dealing with as priorities, Mr. Speaker?

We're dealing with priorities such as paternity leave for people. Paternity leave. That's a priority of this admin istration; that's what we're spending a great deal of time about. Nuclear weapons free zone resolution -that's what we're spending hours and hours and hours debating. That's where their priorities are, Mr. Speaker. At the same time, Mr. Speaker ... MR. H. ENNS: Come on, Howie, let him speak. He's a free Manitoban. He's been elected to this House; let him speak. We'll support you, Gerard. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to observe that the Premier has now muzzled the Minister of Environment. The Min ister of Environment was getting ready to speak on this issue. He was preparing to speak on this issue, Mr. Speaker, but he has now been muzzled by his Premier. That's the way the Premier wants to deal with this issue. A MEMBER: One Mi nister grieving in a night is enough. MR. G. FILMON: So, for most of the four years of this admini stration, we have been debating and spending hours and hours of time in this Legislature on every issue but the economic bread-and-butter issues of this province. Mr.

Speaker, this province continues to have 16 ,000 more people unemployed today than when they took government In 19 81. This province, according to the Conf erence Board, is going to have the lowest growth rate this year of any province in the count ry. Mr. Speaker, this province continues to be in the bottom half of the country in terms of job creat ion. All of that, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we're starting up Limestone this year and despite the fact that we're going to be spending over $200 million in the Jobs Fund, we are still an economic dis aster because people canno t get jobs in this province.

People cannot get jobs In this province because of an anti-business attitude by this government. Mr. Speaker, we have head offices being moved out of this province; we have Tan Jay; we have Inter-City Gas moving out of this province because of the payroll tax, because of discriminatory labour legislation that is anti-business. 3678

Monday, 8 July, 1985 We have all of these head offices moving out of this province, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the attitude of this adminis tration that doesn't care about investment; that doesn't care about job creation; tries to convince the people of this province that they are the only ones who are involved in job creation In this province. They are not able to do it because all they are doing is driving private sector investment out of this province, driving the real job creators out of this province. They are the ones who are responsible for the economic disaster that this province is In right now , Mr.

Speaker, despite their att empts to spend taxpayers' dollars on advertising to try and convince people; $4.5 million on advertising this year; 132 staff positions as apple polishers as has been referred to by the President of the Manitoba Government Employees Association; their own advertising campaign, $80,000 of NDP money on billboards and radio. All of those things have been done to try and gloss over the true facts of the matter and that is that all of their initiatives, all of their actions have resulted in economic disasters for this province, Mr. Speaker. They have been wrong-headed.

They have been out of step with the people of this province. They have been out of touch with the real needs, wants and concerns of the people of this province. All of that, Mr. Speake r, is happening as a result of direct government action by the Premier and his Cabinet -and the Mi nister of Health has the audacity to try and separate himself from his caucus and his Cabinet on major issues to try and say, well, I wash my hands of it; it really isn't my fault; I'm a good guy speaking as an individual ML A for St. Boniface; I'm really not responsible for this; it's all of the rest of them. lt won't work, Mr.

Speaker. We have more to add to this whole debate, Mr. Speaker, because during the last two weeks we have just found out what their management of Crown corporations does to the people of Manitoba. We have found what it costs for an ND P adminis tration to be in charge of the very Crown corporations which they acquired and operated in the '70s. Now in the'80s, they are reaping the winds that they have sown in the past because - (Int erjection) - we are subsidizing at Flyer Industries every bus that goes out of the doors of that plant, over $90,000, Mr. Speaker.

Last year, in this province, we lost over $18 million In Flyer Industries alone. In the last fiscal year, the th ree Crown corporations of this province, McKenzie Seeds, Manfor and Flyer Indus tries lost $40 million one fiscal year ago. This present fiscal year, they are expected to lose $27 million, which is an improvement. This is the turn -around year and they're losing $27 million, but Mr. Speaker, it gets worse because Manf or is now going back from 9 million to an expected 15 million next year and there is no indication that Flyer is in any way improving its position. Mr.

Speaker, over the course of the four years of this administration, our th ree Crown corporations have lost $85 million. That's the kind of mismanagment that we have. That's the kind of incompetence that we have under an NDP admin istration, Mr. Speaker. All of their attempts to divert attention, to deflect the attention of the people of Manitoba on to every other issue over the past four years has not succeeded. The bottom line is that they've mismanaged and wasted taxpayers' money in Crown corporations; that they've mismanaged and wasted taxpayers' money thr ough out the government service.

In their four years of government, we have had four Bu dget s, Mr . Speak er. Those four Bud gets have accumu lated a total of $1.8 billion of deficit -just four Budgets of this NDP administration. That's absolutely incredible. They're putting us into the position of having the third highest per capita debt of any province in the country and it's all happening in such rapid fashion, Mr. Speaker. Manitobans aren't even fully aware what's happening to them financial ly. They know that we have had two successive reductions in credit rating.

The fi rst time In any single adminis tration that there have been two successive reductions in credit rating and the people of Manit oba are concerned and jus tifiably so, Mr. Speaker, because it tells them that their admin istration is mismanaging the fiscal and financial affairs of this province. They're not quite sure how this is happening, but they know it isn't good news when the financial rating agencies of North America tell this administrat ion that they're doing a bad job, that we're running adrif t and that our finances are out of control. Mr.

Speaker, the $1.8 billion of deficit that has been accumulated in just four Budgets by this administration, at today's interest rates would amount to -inter est costs alone -over 3 percent on the sales tax if we were to try pay for that inter est annua lly on the sales tax just there for Budgets. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those four Budgets amount to 140 percent increase in the total debt of the province, the total direct government debt that had been accumulated in over 100 years of government in this province. In four years, they exceeded that by 140 percent.

Four years of NDP maladmi nistration has resulted in that incredible statistic. All of that is the kind of evidence of just exactly what the priorities are, just exactly what the real competence is of this NDP admin istration. Yet, Mr . Speaker, they don't want to talk about those things. When we talk about those things, they say, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about something else.

When we asked them questions in the House today about the settlement that was made at Deer Lodge Hospital with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, they can't tell us what the added signing bonus of $300 per person per year In that union amounts to as a percentage of the payroll. They can't tell us. The Premier can't tell us; the Minister of Health can't tell us; the Minister of Finance can't tell us, Mr. Speaker , but they can stand up and talk about other things. They can say that's not important, what's important is it was $300 per person. lt's not important how much it was as a percentage of the payroll.

I don't understand, Mr. Speaker, how any administration could come forward with a negotiated settlemen t, cou ld approve a negotia ted settlement for Deer Lodge Hospital without knowing what the consequen ces were in terms of a percentage of the payroll at that hospital, at that health care institution. Mr. Speaker, they say that they have no changed guidelines for settlement of the contracts with the unions in the various health care institutions. Mr. Speaker, they're settling, they're changing.

Everytime they come up with an agreement, they give them, apparently, whatever is necessary to settle and to settle qu ickly, 3679

Monday, 8 July, 1985 and to try and preserve that record that they've been talking about of the minimum numb er of days of work lost to strikes. We ll, Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to the radio this morning, almost every second item on the newscast was about a strike that has either just been settled , or about to take place in the Province of Manitoba, and th at's as a result of the kind of one-sided, discrimi natory legislation that they have brought in in the past thr ee years.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost and we're finding that, for ins tance, the Public Service Alliance of Canada was on strike, has just se ttled ; and now the In terna tio nal Union of Operating Engineers is threatening strike at eight health care institutions in this province, Mr. Speaker. We find as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Un ited Food and Commercial Workers' Union is threaten ing strike at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Can you believe the kind of situation that has occurred by virtue of the changes that they've made in legislation, that imply to the unions that now they have the upper hand and there's a free rein on the people of Manitoba; that they can even hit the hammer over the Blind Institute, over every health care institution in this province; that they can create chaos in the health care system of this province because they'r e encouraged to do so by this Premier and this admin istration, Mr. Speaker. That's where the priorities are of this NDP administration. Mr.

Speaker, I am very, very concerned to find that this adminis tration, which has mismana ged the affairs of this province so dramatically over the past four years, is now att empting to get out from unde r its responsibilities by putting up a Minis ter to say, well, we really didn't intend to do that; there are a lot of us here tha t really don't agree with all of that; we really think there's a better way but we get caught in the politics of all this, Mr. Speaker, we get caught in the politics of all these things. Well, Mr. Speaker, it won't wash. lt won't wash.

The people of Ma ni toba know the waste and mismanagement. They know the misp laced priorities of this adminis tration. They know the total incompetence of this adminis tration and, Mr. Speaker, Sid Green, a former member of this party, said that this was the most incompetent admin istration that this province has ever seen, and he should know better than anybody. Mr.

Speaker , I say to you that this government -and I shouldn't even call it a government because it doesn't deserve the name -this administration, under this Premier, cannot turn tail and run from the issues that it has brought forward. lt cannot turn tail and try and tell the people of Manitoba that they really aren't responsible for so many of the th ings that have happened. They are respon sible for the financial affairs that are so sad in this province. They are resp onsible for us having the lowest projected growth rate of any province in the countr y.

They are responsible for us having more people unem ployed toda y than were unemp loyed when they took government in 1981 and for having deficits on a per capita basis that are now the third highest of any province in this country and getting higher and higher and out of control, Mr. Speaker. They're responsible for all of those things and it will take more than a grievance from the Minister of Health to erase that from the minds of the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order. The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Lea der of the Opposition would sub mit to a question? MR. G. FILMON: I'd be happy to submit to a question. MR. P. EYLER: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition spent a great deal of time earlier in his speech talking about funding for inde pendent schools. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition can tell us whether it is his position and/or the position of his caucus to accept a formula for gove rning the funding of independent schools?

I'm not saying that he has to accept at face value the 80 percent which is requested by the Federation of Independent Schools, it could be less, maybe more, depending on the financial state of the province. I'm simply asking the Leader of the Opposition whether or not he accepts, in principle, the necessity for establishing a formula to fund inde pendent schools? MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I'm absolutely amazed at the Member for River East, who doesn't seem to follow things that are going on in the Legislature. MR. H. ENNS: We ll, he's relatively new to Manitoba. MR. G.

FILMON: He' s in government and if he wants to bring forward a policy on this matter, he can well bring it forward, Mr. Speaker. But I'll tell you instead, Mr. Spea ker, what we have is his Minis ter of Health stand up and say that some of us are in favour of it. Mr. Speaker . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: We have a Premier, who sits here grinning like a Cheshire cat, who doesn't have the guts to do anything on independent schools, even though his Minister of Health has stood up and said, some of us are in favour of it and some of us are against it. Well I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) - You know the "Minis ter of bafflegab" who sits there, from Radisson, is trying to tell me to answer a question. You get your chance in question period. I've been asked a question. I'll take as long as I want to answer it. A MEMBER: That's right. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, we are on the record, very clearly and very concisely. We were quoted in the newspaper - our chief critic for Education -but I'll tell you more than this. I will give you the contents of the letter which we have sent to everybody who has asked about our position on Independent schools and that in cludes what's in the minu tes of the Mani toba Federation of Indep endent Schools - (Interjection) Go ahead. The Government House Leader says he will read it to us, because the fact is that we are committed 3680

Monday, 8 July, 1985 to the establishment of a formula for the funding of independent schools. That is what we said and that is what we're going to do after we are in government in the next election, and that we will work with the independent schools and with the other people of Manitoba to ensure that that is imple mented fairly , reasonably , and that it meets the needs and the requirements of the independent schools to operate properly In this province. We're proud of it. We brought in public funding to independent schools. We brought in public support to independent schools.

We are committed to the establishment of that formula and we will carry it through. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Orderl QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the the Chair for the Department of Executive Council; and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Community Services. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - COMMUN ITY SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: Committee, please come to order .

We are considering Item No. 4.(c)( 1) , 4.(c)

(2) Seven Oaks Youth Centre, Salaries; 4.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures - the Mem ber for Fort Gar ry. MR. C. BIRT: The Estimates for the 19 84-85 fiscal year showed salaries of $1. 3 million and they're currently showing for this coming year of $1.7 million; it means a reduction of some $300,000.00. Could the Minister explain why there is this large reduction in Salaries in this Centre? MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Minister. HON. M. SMITH: The normal turnover of staff does produce some variations; the other could be the 27th pay period that was included in last year's salaries and doesn't appear in this year's. MR. C.

BIRT: Are the same numb er of SYs included in this year's Estimates as there were in last year's? HON. M. SMITH: Ye s. MR. C. BIRT: How many is that? HON. M. SMITH: Forty-three. MR. C. BIRT: Can the Minister tell how many children are in residence at Seven Oaks presently? HON. M. SMITH: I don't have the daily count, it is set up for 45. I can provide that a little later this even ing, in maybe 5 or 10 minutes. MR. C. BIRT: Were there any staff years tran sferred out of this sect ion of the Minister's Budget within the last year? HON. M.

SMITH: I can give those answers in a few minutes when we've checked the detail, if you'd like to go on with other questions while we're waiting. MR. C. BIRT: Can the Minister give a breakdown on the Other Expenditures? it's approximately the same as last year, this year. Just give a breakdown on roughly what they're being expended on? HON. M. SMITH: it's the basic operating costs of the centre. There's been an addition of $7,100 allowed to cover increases in food costs. lt is basic upkeep of operation of the centre. MR. C. BIRT: The increase in food costs, it's so minimal.

How did one arrive at it, or was this just an arbitrary percentage increase that was given? HON. M. SMITH: The increase was 4.5 percent. it's a guesstimate based on the cost for the past few years. I do have the information on the transfers out, a total of 10, because of gradual reduction in the size of the program. One went to Research and Planning; one to Commun ications; one to Perso nnel; three to Child and Family Support; two to Child Day Care; one to Family Dispute; and one to Special Children's Services. MR. C.

BIRT: If there were 10 positions transferred out, why was there not a corresp onding reduction in salary? HON. M. SMITH: This is the point we dealt with several nights ago. it's an adjusted vote, so that the salary money travels with the transferred SY and will show up in the other area. MR. C. BIRT: Te n positions surely would not take in say $200,000, or maybe they would. The estima ted budget for the department was $1. 3 million last year, and I see it's now set at $1.1 million, so roughly a $200,000 difference. Is that the cost of the 10 positions that were transferred out? HON. M.

SMITH: Ye s, I have the salary figures here and that's what it totals. MR. C. BIRT: Then the further reduction of $1 00,000, where does that come In? HON. M. SMITH: it's based on the staff turnover and some positions are temporarily vacant, and so on, or they're hired at the lower end of the salary scale. MR. C. BIRT: The Min ister indicated that the reason for the transferring out of the 10 people was a reduction in this type of a program. Is it the government's intention to phase out the Seven Oaks Youth Centre then? HON. M. SMITH: We intend to retain such a program, but the demand level has been going down.

MR. C. BIRT: What was the demand level last year and what is the demand level this year that you could move your 10 people out? 3681

Monday, 8 July, 1985 HON. M. SMITH: There are variations in this program through the year, but last year was averag ing around 50 and this year it was closer to 30. MR. C. BIRT: What's causing the reduction? Is it government policy to put them into other institutions or what is causing the reduction? HON. M. SMITH: We don't control the intake directly, it's a choice made by the cumulative affect of decisions by agencies; but the factors which could have contributed to this are greater use of the special rate foster care program, a wider range of foster care programs, and a greater variety of family supports. MR.

C. BIRT: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Ki rkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister said there are 45 beds. How often, given an average of 30 at the Seven Oaks Youth Cent re, is the centre overcrowd ed? HON. M·. SMITH: The centre has a flexibility because there are cottages which can be opened up if there is a high demand; we could go up as high as 60. When that happens we have core staff and then we have on call staff; so, in a sense, we can operate it close to the level of demand. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Could the Minister indicate how often the overflow or the overload has been needed, say, in the past three months? HON. M. SMITH: The normal peaking in the centre, from past experience, and again this year, is in the spring. We are down now to around 40, but again - you referred to overload ing. We said that the capacity could go up to 60 by opening cottages but, based on our expectat ion, we're saying that it is the centre for 45, but it can be expanded with extra staff taken on. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Has the centre had more than 60?

Does it ever hit a crisis spot where there are more than 60 teens, in holding I guess it would be? HON. M. SMITH: lt's been just above 60 for a period of time, but by the safety standards and so on that doesn't constitute overcrowd ing. it's just that we prefer to operate it at a lower level and the average is much lower. This is a short-term stay centre. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Ye s, the Minister has said it's been above 60 for a period of time. Is she indicating just at times, or is that the way it is now, or is that the way it's been for a while? When that happens, what is the cause for having that many people? HON.

M. SMITH: lt is down now at 40. We don't have a peak every year in the spring, but generally the highest time is in the spring. lt may have something to do with the moon and the sun and warm weather, but no one has a definitive answer. The pattern isn't exactly the same year by year. To the extent ther e is a pattern, it's high in the spring. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is· it possible that it's higher because of the beds that have been closed at some of the other centres? HON. M. SMITH: The beds in those other centres where there has been some gradual scal ing down are treatment beds.

Seven Oaks Centre is a short-term reception and assessment centre, so that they don't serve an equivalent purpose. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Just one last question. When the Minister talks about short term, approximately what is the term? HON. M. SMITH: 80 percent are there for four days or fewer and the outside at the other end would be possibly six months, but that's very rare. lt's a short term stay. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: There seem s to be an increase of children staying over here at the Seven Oaks Youth Centre. We have a reduction in staff.

We have an increase in Other Expenditures, even though it's only a small increase. Could the Minister tell me what the increase in Other Expenditures is? HON. M. SMITH: I've already answered that ques tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind mem bers about repe titious questions? 4.(c)( 1)-p ass; 4.(c)(2) - pass. 4.( d)

(1) Child Day Care: Salaries; 4.(d)

(2) Other Expenditures; 4.(d)

(3) Grants and Subsidies - the Memb er for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I wonder if the Min ister could tell us what new positions there are, if any, In Day Care. HON. M. SMITH: Thr ee new positions, and two transferred in from Seven Oaks. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Could the Minister indicate what the positions are? HON. M. SMITH: The three new SYs, one is the Winnipeg area day care co-ordinator; one subsidy clerk; and one secretary. The two transferred in, one is an assistant dir ector, and one is a qua lifications co ordinator. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What was the last one? HON. M. SMITH: A qualifications co-ordinator.

MRS. G. HAMMOND: What does the qualifications co ordinator do? HON. M. SMI TH: The Child Day Care Staff Qualifications Review Board developed a competen cy- 3682

Monday, 8 July, 1985 based assessment system and this co-ordinator helps assess the quali fications of day care workers. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, I noticed in the Community Options that in Spring 19 85 that Mr. John Shalagan, has been appointed co-ordinator of the Child Care Worker Training Program. I just want to make a point here.

Every time I look at an appointment in this department, or something related, I see that it's a male - I shouldn't say every time but a good part of the time -when I look at it here, are there no women, especially when day care is domina ted by women, I would think, are there no women that are available to take these positions? I would also like the salary of Mr. Shalagan. HON. M. SMITH: Well I point out to the member that the Assistant Deputy Minis ter in charge of this area is a woman and the two assistant directors are women. With regard to Mr.

Shalagan, he is employed under the Jobs Fund Training Program, so my colleague is the person responsible. Four of the 40, including regional staff in day care, there are 40 people of whom .four are men, so we were doing a little reverse affirmative action here. MRS. G. HAMMOND: If I may, that isn't what I see when I have been sitting here day after day. I've seen one woman and two tonight. HON. M. SMITH: There's four in the audien ce. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The Min ister is indicating there's four here tonight. This is the very first time that there has been an abundance of women from the department.

Mainly there's been men and I feel, especially in this department, I find that this is one of the areas that I really do feel I should be seeing far more women. I think this is one area that we could have very much of an equal opportun ity. I know it's supposed to be slow in coming, but how long do we have to wait, as women, to get these positions? I go back to the CAS directors again, too, and include them, and I know this isn't in that area and I'll come again to that when we deal with the Status of Women.

I just wonder if the Min ister could tell me are there not women available to take the type of job that Mr. Shalagan has in the training program. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be repetitive tonight. I did say that Mr. Shalagan has been hired by another department and another program, the Jobs Fund; that of the 40 people in the day care in our area, there are four men and 36 women. Again, I am happy to hear the support for hiring women, there is a lot to make up and it does take time.

I would say though, in the area like day care, that there are good arguments to be made to have both men and women involved since we're trying to promote shared parenting and not just prolong the myth of it being women's work only. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Could the Minister indicate how many subsid ized day care spaces there are? Mr. Chairman, is it possible to get a list of where they are? HON. M. SMITH: Of a total of 13,386 spaces, 9,387 are provincially funded. I can give you the num bers by region if you wish. MRS. G. HAMMOND: If it would be possible just to get a list, that would suffice. HON. M.

SMITH: I will make it available to you in just a moment If you'd like to carry on with your question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What kind of a waiting list, how many people are waiting for day care spaces? HON. M. SMITH: We keep a list of those wanting family day care, but the centres keep their own waiting lists. Our family day care's waiting list is around 700. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What do these families that are waiting for day care do in the meantime? Is there any study that is indicating where these people are going for day care? HON. M.

SMITH: We've given statistics on day care many times. There's 200,000 children of the age that might require it. Half of those probably raise their children in traditional ways and don't require it; another half of the remainder are able to make extended family and neighbourhood arrangements, leaving about 50,000, we feel, as the target group for day care. The system is now meeting the need of about one qua rter of those.

So, we are expanding the system faster than other social programs to close the gap and it's one of the reasons we've developed a proposal at the federal level to try and get some additional funding so that we can, in fact, close the gap faster. The program has almost tripled since 19 81, but we acknowledge that there still is a gap to close. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The Mi nister has indicated before about the gov ernment's position on pr ivate or inde pendent day care versus government-funded day care.

I was just wondering, when there's 700 people that are known to be waiting for family, plus the number that must be on the waiting list at day care centres - and I'm including the school ones also - and you have high income earners taking · day care spaces and, not getting the subsidies, but getting the subsidy that is given to a government-funded day care; is there not any disposition of the government to put some of the funding into the independent care where it would just be the su bsi dy for the child? lt wou ldn't be the maint enance subsidies and all the other that go into the government-funded day care.

HON. M. SMITH: The independents can be licensed now and there's no ceiling on the fees they can charge. When we consulted with them in the development of the standards, they felt that they could make it without public funding. The limit on the numb er of spaces is not because of the way we fund, but because of the total amount of money available for the program. We believe that the fairest and most qualitative way to go is to ration the spaces by geographical area and areas of greatest social and economic need. The best way to do that is through the non-profit centres.

Shifting subsidy to an independent centre would close down a space in another centre. 3683

Monday, 8 July, 1185 MRS. G. HAMMOND: My question to the Min ister, is not the funding in a government-funded day care centre, in total, more expensive than it would be to subsid ize a child in a private, in an independent centre? What I mean Is when you have someone who can well afford to pay the full cost and yet is taking up spaces In government-funded centres, they are taking some of the subsidy money. Whether it's the top end, the 11. 25, or whatever it is they've subsidized, not that part, but the part on the maintenance.

I can't see that it helps anyone to freeze out someone who might want to go into a day care situation which is handier to them just because it isn't government totally subsidized. I can't understand why there isn't room to balance the two, not saying all for one, or that all should be independent, or all should be government funded, but if there isn't room for the two areas to work side by side? HON. M.

SMITH: If we hadn't had a freeze on the number of spaces for two years after the 1977 election we would n't be in quite such a catch-up position now. lt's our belief that it's better social policy to avoid a two-tier system in day care and were we to have the money go to the family and let them choose, either the independent or community based, we believe that we would b·e developing a two-tier system.

That was a tendency before, that day care was at a minimal level for the poor and then whatever money could buy for the well-to-do. lt's our belief that it should follow more the pattern common to our public school system where there is a similar quality available across-the-board. We know that this system is not yet mature and able to meet the full need, but it's only been in a development stage for 10 years. Like Education and Health, which took quite a while to mature and achieved full coverage, the day care system will as well.

As I say, we've been moving it along faster than any other social program; with federal help, we could move it faster. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I understand what the Minister is saying in this, but I still think that, when you're talking about the public school system, everyone has to go. What Is happening to the hundreds of children that can't get day care, what you end up with -and I won't use "few" when we're using the term -but some are getting high quality day care and there's a lot that are getting no quality day care tha t we're aware of.

There's a lot of children out there, a lot of families, who need the day care and because the system now -and no one is suggesting that the regulations be loosened, except sometimes I think even the Mini ster has had to maybe loosen the standards a little bit because they have been found to be a little bit rigid -but that there's got to be a way of getting more children into the system. HON. M. SMITH: Standards cost money. Where public money is spent, I think we must face the social policy issues that are there. We're shifting a service that used to be given in the family , for free, to a public responsibil ity.

Meanwhile we are told by a federal government th at they In tend to cut the Canada Assistance Plan which is at least providing some support now, although it's not especially well-designed for day care, but to cut it by $2.2 billion In the next couple of years; cut it, rather than increase it. Again, if the member's suggesting that standards we have are too high, she said a little bit rigid. Again, I don't know whether the emphasis was on a little bit or rigid, but I think if she objects to any of the standards, I'd be interested in hearing it.

They were developed in consultation with the people involved in delivering day care and we may have to agree to disagree on this particular policy issue. MRS. G. HAMMOND: No, I wasn't. When I said that, I was under the Impression that there had been some leeway for some centres, and maybe it was just a matter of time to bring their standards up so that they were allowed some leeway in the standards.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree, but I just feel that when you have people, high income earners, using day care that is subsidized, when they could pay the full shot, that they're taking spaces of low income earners and somehow we've got to find a way. I don't know how people are chosen then to go Into day care centres. Are they chosen by income? Obviously not if we have high income earners. Maybe the Minister could explain that. HON. M.

SMITH: The system, as it was dev eloping, was rather ad hoc and at the first come, first served, and those centres which could get together and apply were at the front of the list. What we're now doing Is rationing the new spaces by geographical area to get some equitable coverage across the province, and also giving priority where the social economic indicators indicate the greatest need. We cannot undo all the pattern that was there before, but we are working gradually to provide the greatest support and public resource where the need is greatest.

Each centre keeps a waiting list and has its own system of admission. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairperson, I find this line of questi oning rather ludicrous In that when the day care program started in '74, some of the subsid ized spaces were grand parented into the program; and between '77 and'81 the former Conservative Government did not change that system, in terms of authorizing funding to private day care centres, so I find it rather curious that, all of a sudden, the opposition is advocating that it should be changed.

Also, in terms of the need, which we recognize totally, in fact the day care budget has gone from $8 million to $2 1 million, not counting all the additional money that's been spent through Jobs Fund Programs and the like to improve the physical qualities of the centres.

If you added all tha t up, I don't think that there can be any fault put on the Minister for the progress tha t she has made over the last three years in providing just as many spaces, at the highest quality there's ever been in the province, as quickly as possible; and I would like to commend her on the work that she's done and the success that she's had In achieving as much as she has in these particularly rough budget times. I also would like to comment about high income earners taking up spaces In non-profit centres and, of 3684

Monday, a July, 1885 course, they would pay the whole daily rate. The Memb er for Kirkfield Park is concerned that that space gets a maintenance grant.

We ll I would hope that she would assist us in our efforts to reform the income tax system so people at that end of the income scale would be paying back their fair share into the provincial pot so that they, in effect, are assisting in that way to pay for the subsidy that we are giving to each and every centre in the province, so that the cost to parents, whatever their income Is, is kept at a reasonable rate. 1 think that high income earners can certainly afford, and in most cases we find that they do - they don't have their children as often in, if they're very high income earners - in public day care centres.

Those are the people that can afford to have a homemaker in and often do have a private babysltting arrangement - usually, of course, a women who is highly underpaid - but they use that system a lot more than they do the public day care system; and they can certainly afford to send their children to a private day care centre.

Of course if the Member for Kirkfield Park thinks that their standards and their quality of care is every bit as good, then I'm sure these high Income earners would also recognize their quality of care is every bit as good and would be quite willing to pay the high going rate that some of those private centres charge. 1 don't think that there should be a penny of taxpayers' dollars go into a centre that is existing with a dual role, either to provide care for children, but certainly to provide a profit for that operation, whether it's a small ind ependent centre or whether it's a corporate centre.

The small independent centres might take it out in their salary that they pay to themselves and it would be interesting to see how those salaries compare to the salaries of day care workers and directors in non-profit centres. But certainly I don't think that there should be a penny of public money going into the corporate kind of day care system like they have in other provinces, particularly Alberta.

I think, again, that the Minister should be commanded for the progress that she's made. 1 can go up and down the streets in my constituency and see the number of day care centres that we now have that we didn't have four years ago - not only new centres, but marvelously renovated older centres. All you have to do is drive along Broadway; see the day nursery centre and the condition that it's in; the work that's been done at St. Matthews-Maryland Church, the one on St.

Matthews with their brand-new building. 1 was also out at Carman and opened one of the nicest centres I've seen in the whole province, a brand new very large building, based on a large house desig n.

I was also in Morden and opened a day care centre there where they had, in both cases - the Carman and Morden one - had $65,000 of community assets money to build those facilities and the communities were ecstatic with the work that had gone on, not only in the regulations and the legisla tion, but also the improvements in the funding for operating the centres and the system under which they were operating and the new facilities and the improved facilities that they were able to get. So that's briefly the tirade that I'd like to go on.

I'd like to spend hours talking about day care, but I think the Mi nister has been extremely successful in comparison to any other province, dragging the Federal Government, kicking and screaming along the way, I hope. I think that we have the best day care system; the most spaces per capita; the best funded spaces in the entire country; the best legislation and the best program. I don't think splitting it up by giving money to the profit centres is going to improve the system for the children in our province one little bit. I know that there's always room for improvement.

I'm quite delighted to hear suggestions that the Member for Kirkfield Park might have for im provement. I don't think giving money to the profit centres will assist in any way. lt doesn't make one more space by putting a child in a profit centre instead of a non-profit centre, and I think that the fact that we all recognize the need is to work as best we can, as quickly as we can, to meet that need. I think we're going in the right direction. MA. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfleld Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I hope the Member for Wolseley doesn't mind if I still ask a few questions about the wonderful system.

I quite agree that there is a good system in place.

What I am trying to point out and sugge st is that there seems to be a mind-set and the Member for Wolseley says it time and time again when they talk about these profit centres, and when we're looking at independent operators, very often these are women and maybe their husbands, sometimes families who are operating the day care centre, but in most cases lt is the women. lt's an area that they can get into. lt's an area that they can feel some freedom to be their own boss, to have some freedom; but what you do find out when you go into your own business and what they find out is that you work 10 times as hard with your own business as you would when you're working for someone else.

I doubt very much that anyone is getting wealthy in the day care system, whether it's inde pendent or whatever, and I'm not talking at this stage even about what you might consider comme rcial day care. I'm talking about the small inde pendent neighbourhood centre, where you have women who have been teachers, who have been social workers, and because of their own family situations have chosen to take this route, and because there is an independent centre that sits in my neighbourhood, but I can't afford to go there because I can't get a subsidy to go there, and yet it is so convenient for me.

Everyt hing is · convenient. I have to go hop on a bus, hop off a bus, because the only funding I can get is at a government funded centre. This is the point I'm trying to make. Surely the day care, as wonderful as it is and the Member for Wolseley says it is and the regulations that are down - no one is disputing that, least of all, me. I know that the Member for Wolseley spent the first couple of years that she was in this Legislature running around doing - she did all the leg work for the day care - and no one is down playing that.

What I am saying is that surely there can't be such a mind-set that there isn't room for both and get away from all this profit that these people are making. 3685

Monday, 8 July, 1985 No one is going to get rich on day care. Let's start thinki ng ab out parents and childr en and the convenience, because the very people that need to use day care are the ones that have the least method of getting around. They don't have cars to drop their kids off; they have to hop buses. When I go down Portage I see parents hopping, trying to cross Portage to catch the bus to come out to the area where I live. lt's not an easy thing. What I am saying is there surely should be some flexi bility.

I think that the two types of day care could live together very nicely without giving up one bit of the regulations, because certainly the independent operators will be coming under the regulations, do come under regulations, are going to be licensed, all of them, and with the new bill that's coming in, there are going to be very few loopholes. I think this is a case of parents having a choice. MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Minister. HON. M.

SMITH: If we were at the stage of the mature day care system where there was enough supply to meet the need and there was enough budget money to meet the full need, then a lot of what you're saying might hold together. If the member would like to promote more day care services for the people of Manitoba, one action she might take is to get to the Minis ter of Health and Welfare in Ottawa who was going to set up a parliamentary task force on day care to try to make real some of the election promises. Moving on that might, in time, put more money into the system and enable a larger number of centres to develop.

Let's get back to the question of who is taking a rigid view. If our belief that a day care system doesn't lend itself to the business model because there really isn't a lot of money to be made, let's examine that a lot furth er. An independent operator today can overnight become a non-profit centre. They can set up a parent board so the parents are involv ed ; they can pay thems elves a salary; they can qualify for all the public subsidi es. Of course, they don't have unq uestioned freedom, they must work within the regulations; they might be able to work fewer hours.

What we're afraid of is the temptation to make profit on day care will lead people to, either pay the staff too little or, I guess again, if they can find a market of people who are able to pay. Our concern is that day care is costly and most people are not able to pay a really high fee for it.

We believe, since we're building a system that we want to hang together in the future and we want it to make the most use of public dollars, that the pattern that we are following is the one that is most responsible to the children, to the workers, and to the parents; and we know it will take time to meet the need, but that can best be accelerated by more total monies into the system. We believe we're doing our part provincially as a relatively poor province and that the other missing link in the whole development is the development of some federal capacity to help the day care development. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Could the Minister tell us what is happening with evening day care for shift workers? HON. M. SMITH: That's an area where there is more unmet need. lt can be met through family day care homes. There are homemakers through family services that can provide for some, and the downtown Y.M. is offering an evening day care, but it is an area that needs development. Priority has been given to the full time day but we're trying to move more into the even ing and services to meet the needs of shift workers. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What is the policy going to be on the evening or the night day care?

Is there going to be room for people to hire babysitters in their homes as they're having to do now? Is there going to be a subsidy for that type of care, or just what is the policy for the night day care? HON. M. SMITH: No, the family day care we already support and that Is where a person offers care in their home. They must meet certain regulations but they can provide it in flexible hours. There's already some capacity there. We are not anticipating paying someone to care for a child in their own home -not at this stage of development. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d )(1) -the Member for Kirkfleld Park. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: How exactly does it work right now, the family evening care? HON. M. SMITH: The homes that are interested in offering it are lis ted and they must meet the regulations in terms of staffing and basic safety. Then, again, depending on the areas where they are, the people would choose to use them, of course, would be dependent on them being somewhat located in their area. The family day care system is expanding just as rapidly as the day care centre system, so that it does offer a very flexible type of care. Again, we look at staffing ratios and numbers of children, type of program. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Say a waitress works from four in the afternoon to two-thirty in the morning, which is not uncommon, what kind of day care is offered to that person and how does it work? When would she pick up her child, or children, as the case may be? HON. M. SMITH: There are special regulations for evening day care. One of the reg ulations is that if it's after midnight then the child is not to be disturbed and is to be left for the full night's sleep. So that it's flexible in terms of the hour the child would be brought, but we don't want their sleep interrupted at night. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: What time are they talking about not to have the sleep Interrupted? HON. M. SMITH: After midnight. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d )(1) -the Member for Kirkfleld Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I was using an example that someone works from four to two-thirty. What time would be consi dered that they could be picked up in the morning? HON. M. SMITH: 7:00 a.m. 3686

Monday, 8 July, 1985 MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman. say we have a woman who is working as a waitress from four to two thir ty; she's got three children ages 7, 5 and 2. She goes to work at four; she doesn't have a car; she has to take a bus to drop her children off to a day care home, it's not right on a bus line so she has to bundle the children off. They're put in the day care somewhere around say three, three-thirty, to give her a chance to get back on the bus and get to work; she's off at two thir ty in the morning, goes home, gets -what? -four hours sleep and then up on a bus to pick her children up again.

Is there going to be no consideration and no common sense in the type of evening care that you're going to give women some money In their pockets so that they can help hire a babysitter for an evening because this Is what they need. Kids need to be in their own beds, they can't be having this type of thing. The mother's not going to see the seven-year-old who will be trotting off to school and back again. lt might work if somebody lives right next door or a block away, but I don't see this type of thing working at all. · Are they not going to give, Mr.

Chairman, any type of any thought to giving women money In their pockets so their children can be in their own beds at night and not have to be trotting all over town trying to get to HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Chairman, I do believe that the kind of expectations that the member is showing for care of the family at public expense is something that might occur in the year 2020 if we have New Democrat Governments who are willing to share the wealth more read ily and provide social programs; but from governments that talk about cutbacks and taxes that must be reduced, etc., etc., and social programs being frills, we won't even provide basic day care for the most needy. What you're describing is a woman with three children who wants to keep a job.

She could qu alify under the Family Services Homemaker Program, but we have never said that all the child care needs of families in Manitoba in 1985 are provided for by our child day care system. We have said it Is a developing system meeting the highest priority needs.

We're developing it as quickly as we can, but of course it's a long way from meeting all the needs of women who often share or have the complete load of parenting on their own, who often work at low-paid jobs, who haven't got, in some cases, training for jobs that would pay them enough to pay all these things; but the solutions are going to come only partly through a day care system .

They're going to come through better pay; they're going to come through full employment policies and they're going to come, as my colleague from Wolseley so eloquently put it, from very profound and extensive reform of the income tax system, because what we're talking about is sharing wealth on a very grand scale if we're going to have public support for every parenting need. lt may be a lofty goal but it's a very long way from where we are in 1985. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister can get indignant over what she sees as someone wanting a lot of money.

What I'm looking for is some common sense in this. During the day, if everyone gets to go to centres and family day care, that isn't as big a problem, but at night it's a totally different ball of wax, and to look at the same way is totally ridiculous. I think it's time that the department started to look at what the realities are out there for people that are working, and I'm looking at single parents In particular, who are working In jobs such as waitresses or nurses on night shift and they have more than one child.

Good heavens, it doesn't take a giant brain to un derstand just the difficulti es of getting from A to B and back again and dropping children off and picking them up the first thing in the morning, getting on a bus again. Where on earth is there going to be some common sense here? Everything cannot be done in government buildings or in somebody's home that is absolutely regulated; that just cannot be, and so some of these funds -and it wouldn't cost as much to help somebody pay a babysitter to stay the night with a child and they'd be In their own homes.

There's got to be some room for that type of care when we're talking about shift workers. This is a special type of day care and to talk about bundling kids up in our winters -and taking them out, picking them up at seven in the morning, dropping them off, they're never in their own beds, it just absolutely doesn't make any sense at all. I think this is the area that I'm talking about, not squandering money; I don't consider it squandering money, giving a subsidy to a woman who has got young children and is working. The Minis ter talks about homemakers.

Homemaker will only go in for one year and then they have to find their own care and it's almost impossible to come by. One of the areas that they use are family members and of course everyone throws up their hands; you cannot pay a family member, but it's pretty hard to ask a nieCe or a nephew to do tha t constantly for nothing, so what they're looking for is a small subsidy which doesn't have nearly the cost of centres. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Chairman, I think if the member sat down and added up all the monies that would be invol ved in providing subsidiz ed child care in an equitable basis to the people out there with need, and looked at the various ways of meeting that need, the tax credit or increased family allowance would be a much better tool.

I must say, I'm strongly in favour of vastly Increased tax credits for child care on the income tax system and for substantially increased family allowances that recognize the true costs, not only of out of pocket for children but the cost of supervision and foregone income if the person stays home with them. But I think to load it all on the day care system and think that by shunting the money from where we are spending it to the other place, I see no solution but that the member and I agree to differ on the prioritie s in the system. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chai rperson, I'd like to add to that. The Member for Kirkfield Park seems to be suggesting that someone we are forcing women to take their child ren out and leave them and go through all this hassle of bundling them up and taking all these 3687

Monday, 8 July , 1985 different buses, etc., tha t the government is forcing them, that they have to pick their childr en up by seven. The regulations say that they can't pick them up before seven, that's all, and it doesn't say that you have to make those kinds of arrangements. Sometimes a person has no other choice, and I would suggest that most women who are working those kinds of shifts make some kind of reasonable arrangements for themselves. They've been doing it for years and years and years, making some kind of arrangements.

They might not be the best arrangements in the world, but if they do find that the only solution for them is to take their child overnight to a family day care home, all the regulations say Is that you can't pick that child up between midnight and seven, that the child's sleep cannot be broken; that's all it's saying. it's not saying you have to take them there and you have to pick them up by 7 o'clock on the dot.

You could make arrangements and most people who are in those situations pay a flat rate that covers from the 3 o'clock until noon or whatever, until they're picked up and they can pick them up either at a time convenient to them, after they get enough sleep themselves or whatever; or they can get, if they have three children, like she was suggesting, and some are school age, they can get a homemaker to come in and help them over that period, so there are many options. They can get a teenager in to stay over, and lots of women do that.

Lots of women rely on neighbours; lots of women rely on family members. it's not like we're forcing these women to be there on the doorstep at 7 o'clock in the morning, whether they're awake or not, and drag the children out in snowbanks and haul them off on 16 buses. Women's struggle is really hard. There are an awful lot of women out there who are going through things to keep a job and a roof over their children's head and provide a good home and good care for their children that are doing a fantastic job under insurmountable odds. I think we both agree to that.

I think they should be given all the credit and all the support they possibly can, but I think the Minister is right in saying, as government, with limited dollars, we are trying the best we can in as short a time as possible - catching up on the four years of Tories doing nothing - to cover as much of the needs as we possibly can. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order is being raised. State the point of order please. MR. A. BROWN: The point of order is this, Mr.

Chairman. lt has always been the accepted practice within these committees that a member who was questioning was allowed to question until such a time as what she was discontinuing her line of questions. Now the Member for Woiseiey interrupted the line of questioning that the Member for Kirkfield Park was doing, so that's my point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have always carried our proceedings along that line and I hope that we are going to continue carrying them on that way tonight or else, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to guarantee you something - you're going to be here till the sun comes up. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I am not afraid to be here until doomsday. MR. A. BROWN: Okay, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: What I am trying to do is to give every member the due right to speak, as every other member has equal right in this committee. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, can I continue? I was Interrupted. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley may continue. MR. A. BROWN: So was that member interrupted. MRS. G. HAMMOND: She wasn't Interrupted. MR. CHAIRMAN: No argument. The Member for Wolseley may continue if she wants to. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

I don't really have too much more to add to this particu lar issue, Mr. Chairperson, but I do think it's important that we try our very best to meet all the needs as quickly as possible. I think that there are certain kinds of programs that will cover the situation that the Member for Kirkfield Park raised.

I just wanted to add that when my daughter was three years old, I was working on a job that required travelling all over Northern Manitoba, and I was very fortunate to find a woman in the community who would keep my daughter on a regular basis and sometimes, unfortunately, I was only able to get to see her on weekends because I was out of town. There are a lot of women that are in very unusual emp loyment situations. Now you make those choices. Obviously, at that stage I would not have been able to take that job which was a very good job; it paid $16, 000 a year in 1973,

whereas 1 was making $2. 16 an hour before, and it was a job that gave my child a lot of other advantages. I had to weigh those kinds of choices as to whether you take the disadvantages with the advantages. Luckily I found a family day care home that was absolutely excellent, kept her overnight, and I would pick her up when I was back in town for three or four days in a row, so we would make up for it. · But women have been doing those kinds of things and making special arrangements and making those choices for years.

I think it would be marvellous if we all had a day care centre on every corner - like a chicken in every pot - but sometimes you have to weigh whether you have a chicken In the pot or whether you have a day care that's across the road, so that you can go out and earn that chicken. Sometimes you have to - you know, the alternative is staying on social allowance in many cases and being home with your children yourself. So we're trying our best to meet each and every need that is possibly feasible as quickly as possible.

Before I was interrupted, I was saying that if we didn't have to, in three short years, try to make up for the inaction that the government of which the Member for Rhln eland was a member, and the lack of priority that that government gave to day care, we still wouldn't be near Utopia, but we'd be one hell of a lot closer. 3688

Monday, 8 July, 1985 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairperson pleads that all the members of the Commi ttee to state their point briefly; brief enough to cover the essentials, like a bikini suit. The Member for Kir kfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Wolseley seems to get very defensive when I ask or state a point of view about what's happening in day care.

What I am suggesting and what she has said is that the alternative for women is welfare, is social assistance in a lot of cases for these women and they don't like it. it's degrading and they want to work and very often maybe they can't make a lot of money, but they need a little bit of help for babysitting.

For the Member for Wolseley to just get all uptight because I am suggesting that money might go into the mother's pocket to pay for some babysittlng in her own home, rather than the department heading off into setting up night day care all over the place, which is going to be 10 times as expensive, doesn't seem to make any sense.

I would like to see that they would look at the idea of helping these women - and I know about homemakers - they can only go in for one year and this was brought up when certainly the act first came in, because I think the former Member for Fort Garry brought in an amendment to the act to see if we couldn't get some help for women who have different types of jobs, and that's the point I'm making. Certainly I'm not talking about picking them up necessarily at seven, it's the fact that they have to go somewhere and pick them up when they could be in their own home.

Certainly nobody would be forcing them, but if that's the only way they can get a subsidy, possibly it's the only route that they can go and it's not practical in a lot of cases, because these are the very women that don't have cars that just can't get to the spots. I'm not suggesting that there be a day care centre on every corner. I know that's not possible. What I'm stating is, why don't we utilize what we've got? And that's their own homes, in many cases, until they are in a position where their children get older; possibly their salaries get a little bit better; maybe they can go into another field of work.

Maybe this is all the care that they are looking for and it's not the most expensive route in the world to go but it's an area to look at, and that's what I'm suggesting is that the department take a look at that type of funding before they head off into structures or family overnight services. That may be good where there's someone that's got a car and is able to drop them off and pick them up, and it may suit the odd one, but I think children in their own homes at night is certainly the route that should be looked at in most of the cases. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.( d)(1) - the Member for Rhineland. MR. A.

BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are some concerns that I have in this particular area and to start off with I would like to say that more funding has been provided for day care and more fundin g is necessa ry. Day care is something, the problems that are going to be with us for years to come, there is no way that any government is going to be solving these problems imme diately. We have made tremendous steps in the last years and I would say there were steps made forward in the years under the previous admin istration.

There was great concern being shown about day care and we've all been working towards giving better service. However, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about one thing that is developing within this province. There is no way that the government can provide day care to all the children who are In need of day care. That means that the independents have a role to play because they are picking up much of that slack. As a matter of fact, I understand that about 40 percent of the childr en within this province cannot find any government-sponsored day care service so they have to turn to the private sector.

Yet, the government standards are being implemented on the private day care centres and here's where we come into a lot of discrimi nation within the government. The government is not doing any funding, really, whatsoever towards the private facilities, such as a $3,000 renovation grant, for instance, which is available to government-sponsored day care centres, but it's not available to non- government day care centres.

There is a $922 yearly maintenance grant per space which has never been available to government-sponsored centres, even though some of these independent centres have a 50 percent subsidy enrolment where the people are getting a subsidy. The $1 ,300 salary increase which the people who are working, the salaried people, within the day care are going to be receiving under the government-run day care centres is not available to private day

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-85b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 85b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ec66354728d82f3c2fbee24924450a3656b72487

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