LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
March 24, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Sheila Inman, Sharon Anderson, Gwen Duguid and others, requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Olga McIvor, Lawrence Campbell, Brian Beauchamp and others requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
* * *
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
V. Gregg, L. Friesen, F. Kozak and others requesting the Minister of Labour
(Mr. Praznik) to consider holding public hearings on wide‑open Sunday
shopping throughout
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Frederick Harper, Cory Henderson, Elaine Marko and others requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Storie), and it complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and it complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Clif Evans), and it complies with the privileges and the practices
of the House and it complies with the rules.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for The Civil Service Superannuation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1992
Annual Report of the
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, we have, from the
Inkster Seniors Luncheon Club, 50 seniors under the direction of Mary Deibert.
This institution is located in the constituency of the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Government
Relationship
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the First
Minister for the last week and a half questions about the decisions that have
been made by his government, dealing with volunteer groups and organizations
and Manitobans dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Mr. Speaker, today on the steps of the
Legislature, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) made some very interesting
points about the number of kids who used to be in institutional care. Over a
thousand kids were in high‑cost institutional care 10 years ago. Under changes that were made to foster
parents and the kind of supports put in for foster parents and children, that
number has been reduced to under 200 in terms of acute institutional care,
whereas the foster kids have increased by up to about 2,500. Those numbers are consistent with our
material in the same area, that having a good foster parents system, with
strong supports, is good in terms of the emotional care for those children and
is very, very sound economically for the province, which is the ultimate
guardian for those children.
Yesterday, the Premier stated that foster
parents can be replaced, Mr. Speaker.
Now this, we believe, is not the tone to arrive at an agreement with the
very vital‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I know that the member opposite would not
want to leave on the record something that is patently untrue. Mr. Speaker, he has stated something that has
never been stated by me throughout any of my discussions with respect to the
foster parent issue.
I ask him to read Hansard, in which I
say: " . . . there are many, many
Manitobans who love and care for children and who will continue to provide that
service for the funding that is available."
At no time in my remarks did I say that
they could be replaced, and I would ask him not to continue with that
falsehood.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister does not have a
point of order. It was a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Premier to
many, many media statements yesterday and today, and let me‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier why, in
his comments about what he said in Hansard, he did not read out: "I regret the attitude that has been
taken by the foster parents' association, but we will indeed find foster care .
. . ."
He only read the rest of his sentence, Mr.
Speaker. The bottom line‑‑and
I accept the Premier's words, but what he has said to the foster parents of
I would ask the Premier to meet in
partnership with the foster parents' association and get a long‑term
agreement with the foster parents' association rather than having this
confrontation and rhetoric between the Premier and the foster parents of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, one of the first issues that we
as government were confronted with in 1988 was the woefully low and inadequate
rates that were paid to foster parents in the province of
We, in consultation with them over the
space of the last five years, have increased not only the rates to foster
parents but indeed the special payments that allowed for children who had been
previously institutionalized to be cared for because of substantial increase in
the special needs rates that were built into those. Even the basic rates were increased so
dramatically that today they are, even with the reduction that is being
protested, third highest in the country, because we care about the work of
foster parents. We care about the
contribution they make, and we care about the needs that are there for the
children.
I repeat, this is the
Foster
Families
Rate
Negotiations
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the
question. I asked the Premier whether he
would lower his rhetoric, lower his confrontation, lower his unilateral action
and meet in partnership with the foster parents' association of
Will the Premier agree to meet and
negotiate with the foster parents' association, negotiate with those people in
a partnership way, Mr. Speaker, rather than the unilateral, confrontational
approach that this government is taking with those very vital services for
Manitobans?
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is not I who is engaging in
rhetoric or confrontation. It is not I
who is threatening that foster parents will withdraw services. It is not I who is talking about hotels and
other accommodation. It is the Leader of
the Opposition who is fomenting that discontent and who is using that
exaggerated rhetoric and indeed that confrontational approach. I have never had that approach.
It is I and my government who met before
to settle the problems that were left for us by the New Democrats and who
entered into an agreement to raise the rates to levels that are now more than
comparable, in fact, well above those rates that are paid by most other
provinces in
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier
is: Why will he not meet and have a
partnership? Is "partnership"
rhetoric? Partnership is vital for foster parents.
We are just asking the Premier to sit down
with the foster parents' association and the foster parents of this province to
try to have a partnership for our children, because it is absolutely essential
that we not have confrontation between the Premier and the foster parents'
association, as we see right now in this province. [interjection] Well, the
government's own officials are now talking about the need for receiving homes,
hotels and other short‑term crisis measures rather than having the long‑term
emotional care which is much more cost‑effective for all of us than what
we have in place now.
So I would ask the Premier again: Yes or no, will he sit down with the foster
parents' association of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am not ignoring the association. We have a minister responsible for Family
Services who is responsible for the liaison and the dialogue with this
organization, as he is with any other organization that comes under the
responsibility of his ministry. That is
the term of minister responsible. He is
responsible for those areas.
In addition to that, of course, I will say
that if the purpose of the meeting is simply to increase rates at a time when
we do not have the resources to do that, Mr. Speaker, that will not‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, we are
paying rates that are the third highest in
* (1345)
Department
of Family Services
Reduced
Workweek
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, we have the budget of the
Department of Family Services. We see
that there is an increase in salaries while at the same time there is a
decrease in maintenance of children and external agencies of over $3
million. I believe this budget is not
well thought out. The staff are already
overworked. They have very high
caseloads, and studies show that they are 200 percent understaffed. Child and Family Services staff, because of a
decision and a bill coming in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), may be
forced to take 10 days off like other civil servants.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services if he has thought through and if he has a rational plan for deciding
how to deliver services to children and families with fewer staff working fewer
hours with high caseloads that they are having difficulty meeting now. What is your plan? How are you going to do it?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, last week I met with the board chairs and the executive directors of
the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agencies,. the central
Budget
Decisions
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House
how and where he plans to save $3 million on the maintenance of children when
there have been changes to child care fees, to nursery school fees, the
elimination of funding to the foster parent association, the Indian and Metis
friendship centres and MAPO, all of which are providing preventative services,
resources in the community, all of which are provided more cheaply, all of
which keep children out of care?
How does this minister plan to save money
when the alternative is better than taking children into care?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker,
we have indicated, in comments following the announcement that the Finance
minister made two weeks ago on some of the budget decisions, that we will work
with the communities to maintain the vital services that these organizations
perform‑‑and that your Leader has indicated the difficult decisions
and difficult choices that all governments have to make. We have made those choices where they will
not impact directly on the services provided for children.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that all of these
decisions are going to negatively impact on the lives of children. How does this minister plan to meet the needs
of children and cut the budget when the decisions of this government will
increase the cost, as children will be staying in care longer because, for
example, the courts may be closed on Friday, so children will be staying in
care over the weekend? Fewer parents
will be‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am pleased that the member wants to get into
the Budget Debate, and that is precisely why we presented that information here
in the House last week. I indicated in
my first answer that in meeting with the chairpeople of the Child and Family
Services agencies and the executive directors, they felt that they could work
with us to resolve some of the issues around salary for the staff who work
there and some of our other budget decisions and continue to have a very good
workable system here in
Foster
Families
Rate
Negotiations
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
I am going to quote from the Premier's own
words of August 24, 1988: "We are
providing an increase that will give foster parents of
My question to the Premier is: If he thought it was a good step in the right
direction in 1988 because it was cost‑effective as well as it was quality
care, why has he changed his mind?
* (1350)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I have not changed my mind. The fact is that we have raised the rates to
the level now where they do meet those needs that were not met before under the
New Democrats. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are
in a situation where, for a province whose cost of living is eighth highest in
the country, we are providing support that has them at the third highest in the
country. That is a reasonable balance;
that is a reasonable approach.
In addition to all of the increases that
have been made over the past five years, budget after budget, to foster care
rates, we have also increased special needs rates as well, and that provides
for the kind of support that we believe appropriate today and is a vastly
different situation than that which I was speaking about in 1988 on August 24.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): He was taking
pride in the fact that he thought his government was in the upper levels, in
the second place he talked about. He is
now quite deliberately making them third place, and he says that is good
enough.
Interestingly enough, if you listen to the
foster parents out there today, their major concern was not about per
diems. Their major concern was about
their association which provides them with support. Now if the Premier is in a tight financial
squeeze, why has he chosen to take away from these foster families the only
support they have, which is the Manitoba Foster Family Association?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a different approach
being taken by the Leader of the Liberal Party.
She is now talking that the priority is not care of the children, it is
care of the association.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Carstairs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Premier
knows full well that that was not the question I asked him. The question I asked him very clearly was why
has he taken away the support of these parents.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the second opposition
party does not have a point of order. It
is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we are and continue to be concerned
to ensure that the rates that are paid are sufficient to meet the needs of
caring for the children. That is our
first priority. That is what I have been speaking about in my answers to
previous questions.
I note that in today's Winnipeg Free
Press, or perhaps it was yesterday's‑‑no it was today's, Mr.
Speaker‑‑it lists the various functions of the foster parents'
association. It lists five of them. The first one is advocacy for foster parents
coping with false abuse. The second is
advocacy for foster parents in conflict with child welfare. The third is lobby group to negotiate with
province on reasonable rates. The fourth
is lobby group that negotiated the first damage compensation, and fifth is
training and education for foster parents.
It has already been said here in this
House, by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the funding
for training and education for foster parents‑‑special funding has
been earmarked for the Child and Family Services agencies, Mr. Speaker, to
ensure that that function is taken care of.
We are not talking about the care and the
nurturing of the children. We are
talking about advocacy and lobby as a priority over care of the children, in
the mind of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, Child and Family Services,
according to the Detailed Estimates on Child and Family Support, has been
reduced from $96 million to $92 million.
That is $4 million less, not more money, less money‑‑more
tasks, more functions, less money.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to the
foster families that they need support.
They need to have an organization to which they can turn to support
their needs as foster families.
Why is this First Minister, along with his
government, taking away that one support they have that provides them with
counselling, training, accepts 700 to 1,000 calls per month from foster
families seeking assurance and seeking support?
Why is he taking that away from them?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, we have said before that those
supports for counselling and training are going to be available through the
Child and Family Services agencies in
* (1355)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, last week I did something the
Premier has refused to do. I spoke to
foster parents in northern
Today I went outside of this Legislature,
as did many MLAs, and I talked to some of the foster parents, people, some of
whom were foster kids themselves, who are extremely concerned about what this
government is doing, former foster kids who are now foster parents. It is hard to express to the Premier the
sense of betrayal, Mr. Speaker, the anger of people who found out from the
media last week that not only were rates being cut to foster kids, but the
association which they have worked so hard to support has had its funding
eliminated.
I would like to just ask one question to
the Premier, and that is: When will he
end the emotional blackmail that is clearly the tactic of this government, Mr.
Speaker, stop the cuts to the Manitoba Foster Family Association and sit down
and work in partnership with foster families in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know that it is all well and
good from their position of irresponsibility for members of the New Democratic
party who, when they were in government, starved foster families in this
province and now, in their hypocritical fashion, try and take on the mantle of
being the champion of the foster families.
Mr. Speaker, that kind of lack of
credibility is why the opposition party is where it is, because they have no
integrity, they have no accountability and they have no credibility to be able
to make that kind of statement.
It is this government that increased the
rates of foster parents to the point that they are now third highest in the
country. It is this government that
remains committed to paying rates that are fair and reasonable to the foster
families of this province.
Mr. Ashton: This talk about integrity, Mr. Speaker, from a
government that silences groups that have the nerve to lobby and advocate and
express the views of the people they represent, he has no business lecturing us
on integrity.
Foster
Families
Rate
Reduction
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I want to ask a very specific question on
rates. I want to ask the Premier. He is asking foster parents to take two bucks
per diem away from children. I have a
list here of the specific breakdown of where the funding goes. It does not go to foster parents; it goes to foster
kids.
I would like to ask where the Premier is
saying that $2 should be taken from.
Should it be from food, should it be from health and personal care,
should it be replacement clothing? Where do the foster parents take that $2 a
day away from the foster kids, that this government is dictating they do?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the funding that is provided in other provinces is far less than is
provided for foster parents in
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not
understand. He talks about this being
tax free. It is not an income to foster
parents.
I ask the same question again, because the
foster parents want an answer. Where do
they take the $2‑a‑day cut from?
What do they cut out that they are currently providing to the foster
kids. What do they cut? Food, health care, what do they cut?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, those funds flow as a lump sum
to the foster parent, and the foster parent will have the discretion to make
whatever adjustments are required to provide for that child within that global
funding that is provided.
* (1400)
Child Care
Services Funding
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): You will be interested to know, Mr. Speaker,
that the Canadian Council on Social Development noted in a recent report that
perhaps the greatest impediment to employment outside the home is the lack of
affordable, accessible and flexible child care options for low income and
moderate income individuals, and that the lack of child care is the No. 1
barrier to self‑reliance for sole‑support parents receiving social
assistance.
So what does this government do, Mr.
Speaker? It brings in cutbacks to child
care that in fact act as barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment and
barriers to being self‑reliant as opposed to being on social assistance.
I want to ask this government: Why would it introduce child care cutbacks
and a policy that will actually result in increased unemployment, increased
numbers on social assistance and increased poverty?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, last fall I had the privilege and pleasure of being at a national
daycare conference in
We have the lowest turnover rate, and the
convention recognizes that
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: We do not expect the government to understand
the human impact of its cutbacks, but we would hope it would have some economic
rationale for its decisions.
I want to ask the minister then, because
we would assume that there was some kind of study done before embarking upon
these kind of cutbacks: Will the
minister table for the benefit of this House and all Manitobans the impact
study done of its cutbacks to daycare showing how many centres might be forced
to close, how many students would have to give up education and training
programs, how many low income earners would be added to welfare rolls and how
many more children will be forced into poverty?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the impact is that the funding
that is reduced in the grant level is replaced in the increased subsidies, and
we have asked parents who have subsidized children in care to pay $1.40 a day
for that care. Government provides, in
some cases, $7,000 or $8,000 for an individual child. Sometimes it is $12,000
to $15,000 per family to look after those children who are in care.
We have 10,000 subsidized spaces where the
government pays substantial amounts. In
this province alone, the amount dedicated to daycare has gone from around $26
million in 1988 to over $50 million this current budget year. Our commitment has been substantial. We have put millions and millions of dollars
into daycare, and we still maintain the highest standards of any daycare
operation in this country.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I am wondering if the minister is aware that
the percentage of families in
I want to ask him: Is this government intent on cutting daycare
to the point where one spouse of every two‑earner low income family may
be forced out of the paid labour force, which would result in doubling the
poverty rate and the number of poor families in
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, that 100 percent increase in
funding that daycare has seen over the last five years has created additional
spaces in daycare homes and in daycare centres.
It has allowed more and more people to access subsidies in this
province. We have over 10,000 children
now who are in subsidized spaces in daycare.
I would point out to you that our $50
million is a tremendous commitment on the part of this government towards
daycare, three times what the
Parental
Support
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
When you voluntarily take into your home‑‑Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the Premier to listen to this‑‑an abused child, you place
yourself and your entire family at risk.
The number of people willing to foster has
nearly doubled since the
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier
that question: Who protects the parents?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): As someone who has been a foster parent
himself, I can tell the member for Osborne, I do not need to be lectured to
about what foster parents do for children.
In his very political and sanctimonious way, Mr. Speaker, I think he is
denigrating the debate on this issue.
There continue to be avenues for‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will let the member ask his next
question.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not the only
person who has fostered in this province.
The people who do foster in this province are saying: It is not about rates; you can negotiate with
us. It is about support; it is about
protection; it is about training. We are
prepared to put ourselves at risk, but we need support.
I ask the Premier: Who provides that support now that he has cut
the association?
Mr. Filmon: As I have indicated before, funds have been
specifically earmarked with Child and Family Services agencies to be able to
provide‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, if the member wants me to
answer the question, let him listen instead of interrupting like a bully.
[interjection] He finds it funny. Maybe because he is now the big federal
candidate for the Liberal Party, he thinks he can get away with anything. The fact of the matter is‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think it is particularly relevant to refer to any member in terms of any
other aspirations they may have, but it is particularly not appropriate for the
Premier to talk about a member being a bully.
Let us deal with straightforward questions and answers in Question
Period and cut that kind of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, there is
money provided and specifically earmarked to Child and Family Services agencies
for the training functions and the counselling functions with respect to
questions. There will continue to be funding
provided for liability insurance, for Legal Aid assistance programs, for damage
compensation plans. There will continue
to be support provided for the various functions to foster families, and there
is in fact a Child Advocate within the
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the Premier missed the point in
'88, and he missed it again now. The
list he read off, the thing he took exception to in his first question was
advocacy. Advocacy, in this instance,
means protection. It is not training
support.
Who provides that when the agencies are in
conflict with the interests of the foster parents?
* (1410)
Mr. Filmon: I gave him the answer to that question in the
last one. [interjection] Yes, I did.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre
Meeting
Request
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, it is not only foster parents or
friendship centres or daycares that are under attack. The Minister of Family
Services announced some two weeks ago now that the crisis centre, the only
crisis centre in the province that has had its funding completely withdrawn,
will be closing.
My question is to the Minister of Family
Services. Will the minister attend with
me a public meeting dealing with the crisis that the community of Flin Flon,
the women of Flin Flon, abused and potentially abused families in Flin Flon are
going to have when this crisis centre closes at the end of this month?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I indicated in questions on this topic last week that we are looking
at a delivery system on a regional basis for Family Dispute Services. We have been in touch with, not only staff
from within our department of Family Dispute, but also the shelter directors
association. We feel that while there
will be reduced access in the immediate Flin Flon area‑‑and we have
also alerted the Province of Saskatchewan, who were the primary users of that
shelter‑‑there are services available. I also indicated to the member that the RCMP
have enhanced services there to make the connection with the shelter at The Pas
for anyone in need of those services.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been told in no
uncertain terms that that is nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, my question: Will the minister now come and explain to the
families who may be in crisis, to the women whose lives may be in jeopardy the
rationale for the closing of the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre? Will he explain to the women in that
community how they are going to access services some two hours away?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, one of the member's colleagues
invited me to go to The Pas today on another issue, and because of cabinet and
because of meetings here with the Foster Family Association at noon, I was not
able to do that. If I am not able to go,
we will have staff attend that.
Flin
Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre
Meeting
Request
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
This government has announced a zero
tolerance policy when it comes to abuse.
This government talks a great deal about the need for protecting
families who are victims of violence.
Will the Minister responsible for the
Status of Women attend the meeting in Flin Flon to explain to the families and
the women who may fear for their lives and the safety of their children how
this closure is going to protect women in that community?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, this government has great
concern about the safety of women and indeed children throughout the
As the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has indicated, we have had to make some very difficult decisions.
The shelter in Flin Flon/Creighton, in fact, that served the majority of women
from the
We have every confidence that we will
attempt in every way to ensure that the women in the Flin Flon and immediate
area are served through a regional process that has been put in place by the
Department of Family Services and the minister.
Point of
Order
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does the
minister know where Flin Flon is? Can
the minister explain‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I probably visited Flin
Flon more recently than the member who represents the area.
Street
Kids and Youth Program
Alternative
Programs
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government does not seem to
understand that the less support you have for foster families the more at‑risk
youth you are going to have, the more at‑risk youth on the streets. I have been asking questions of this
government related to the serious costs and problems of young people who are
out of work, out of school and living off the streets.
Today, I have the annual report from the
YMCA, which sponsors the Street Kids and Youth project, Mr. Speaker, which
shows that in 1991 there were 1,120 young people and in 1992 there were 6,600
young people who used the service of this agency, which this government is going
to allow to close.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is: How is this government going to meet the
needs of the ever‑increasing demand of the ever‑increasing number
of young people on the streets in
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, by continuing to fund the many, many organizations which provide
services to street children, whether it is the Family Services agencies,
whether it is places like the Children's Home of Winnipeg, Rossbrook House and
others.
We are not in a position to take on
additional responsibilities that other funders have started and now see fit to
reduce that funding. We will continue to
fund many of the organizations that we have funded in the past to provide those
services.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this government has the legal
responsibility‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson has time
for one very short question.
Ms. Cerilli: Is this government telling the House that its
bottom‑line budgeting process is more important than its legal
responsibility to provide food, shelter and clothing for minors in the
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call the motion going into Supply as part of the Interim Supply process.
DEBATE ON
PROPOSED MOTIONS
Mr. Speaker: On the motion of the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that this House, at this sitting, will resolve itself
into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty,
standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the second opposition party.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to speak yet once again on the Supply motion, to indicate that our
concerns remain exactly the same as they were yesterday and the day before and
the day before that and the day before that and the day before that and the day
before that and the day before that, when I have also been on my feet
discussing this particular Supply motion.
Our concern is very clear. I found it quite interesting in Question
Period where there was some heehawing coming from the opposite side when I
asked my questions, and a question in which I took some information from the
Detailed Estimates book of the Department of Family Services.
Mr. Speaker, I have made it perfectly
clear on a number of occasions that we have had Estimates from three
departments and it was one of those departments‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have made it perfectly clear that it is
not because we do not have Estimates of three departments, it is because we do
not have the Estimates of the remaining departments. We are not, as a political party, prepared to
break with, I would suggest to you, 300 years of tradition and to make
decisions based on 18 percent of the information which the government is
supposed to provide to us.
We do not have Estimates at this point in
time from over 70 percent of the Estimates that we are entitled to‑‑to
be absolutely exact, 82 percent. We are
being asked to examine the cuts to Family Services, and indeed they are cuts,
because while the overall budgetary line of Family Services undergoes a 4.5
percent increase, it is important to see that there is a decrease in funding to
Child and Family Services; there is a decrease in funding to Rehabilitation,
Community Living and Day Care. There is
a decrease in funding to Registration and Licensing Services.
The only increase to be found in the
Family Services budget is in the line which is for social security, for social
assistance, for people having to live on welfare because of the depressed
economy that we have in the
* (1420)
But there has to be fairness. We have been told by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) that the budget he presents on the 6th of April will be
fair. That is what we want to see. We want to see the statistical information
which is going to come down with that presentation of the budget or with the
presentation of the Main Estimates. He
can do either one. In that presentation
of that Main Estimates book we will know, indeed, if there has been fairness,
if the 45 members of the Premier's staff‑‑11 of which get over
$50,000 a year‑‑if they have seen cuts, if he has laid off one of
them? If he laid off one of them, he
could find the funding for the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
If he laid off a few more of them, he
could find the funding for the Manitoba Foster Family Association. That is the kind of fairness that we want to
make our decisions based upon. We want
to examine clearly whether or not there has been an acceptable level of
fairness across the Main Estimates of this government.
Even within the three departments that we
have, we see tremendous differences in the reduction of the administration and
finance lines. We know that in the
Department of Agriculture for example, they were able to cut out 10 percent in administration
and finance. In Highways, they were able
to cut out 6 percent, but in Family Services they were able to cut out less
than 5 percent. At the same time, as
they could only find 5 percent in administration, they could find 5 percent to
cut out of Child and Family Services budgets.
Those are exactly the same budgetary lines
that were being addressed by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today where he says they
are going to find all the additional sums of money, presumably, to support the
foster families who will no longer have that support from the Manitoba Foster
Family Association. Madam Deputy
Speaker, it does not make any sense. If,
in fact, the Child and Family Services agencies are going to have to pick up
all of these new programs, then presumably they are going to need an increase
in their budgetary line, but there is not any‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the members who are having
conversations at the back of the Chamber would either move to the loge or
outside the Chamber. I am experiencing
great difficulty in listening to the honourable member of the second opposition
party. Thank you.
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So we have an inability as opposition
members to make rational and logical decisions as to whether this government,
indeed, has been fair or not. The
tradition of this House is one which is of long standing.
When I was tracing for the government
members over the last few days, as well as the opposition members, the
historical significance of Supply, I indicated that the first budget in real
terms became a part of the British Constitution in 1689 with the Bill of
Rights. At that particular point in
time, it was declared very simply that an appropriation line, in this case for
the military operations of the Crown, had to be granted for one year and one
year only and that granting of that budgetary year for one year only or that
budgetary line for one year only, became the basis of the process that is
before us now, that once a year the government of the day presents to us two
documentations. One is called the budget
which shows where they are going to get their revenue from and where they are
going to make their expenditures. The
second document is the Main Estimates which detail department by department how
each government is going to spend that money that has been granted through the
budgetary process.
We indicated that we recognize that in
past traditions in this House there has been a process whereby the Main
Estimates were tabled in the House at a time different than the budget, but
that was only done up until 1983. After
1983, it was very clear that the budget and the Main Estimates would be
presented at the same time. But that is
only a 10‑year tradition, and we were prepared‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, it appears that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) has something she would like to say. Perhaps, she would like to say it on the
record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs, on a point of order?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am just responding to
the member's invitation. I am assuming
she meant it.
Mrs. Carstairs: No, no.
The invitation was to say what you are mumbling at your place loud
enough so it could go on the record.
Mrs. McIntosh: Well, that is what I am saying. I am not rising on a point of order. I am responding to the member's invitation to
be given the floor. She is offering to
give me the floor‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Regrettably, the honourable Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs may rise, or any member may rise, during debate
only on a point of order.
Point of
Order
Mrs. McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
member has put on the record that she is willing to let me have the floor. I am wondering if you could rule whether that
is a legitimate offer that is meaning she is willing to give up her time to
speak and let the floor come back over here.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a process that
has been violated, a process which has, to this year in time, been followed and
a process which is significant for all of us in terms of our parliamentary and
legislative responsibilities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a situation
in this province where the government of the day is facing financial problems,
financial problems, to some degree, of their own making, in that they have come
in year after year after year with very large deficits, but a circumstance
which, to some degree, is not of their making.
No one in my party at least, and I do not
believe in the New Democratic Party, has ever blamed the government for the
recession which not only impacts on Manitoba but impacts on all Canadians and,
to some degree, all of us in the western world. That recession is very real.
There is an unemployment rate which is
extraordinarily high in
We have seen an escalating rate of the
numbers of people who have turned to social assistance. That has caused the government to, this year,
have to increase its Income Security and Regional Operations line from some
$379 million to some $414 million. We
have over 50,000 people in the
* (1430)
At the same time, those who are still able
to hang on are either collecting unemployment insurance or are living on their
own revenues. Those individuals have
lost their ability to pay income taxes.
They have also lost their ability to purchase goods. So we have seen declines in real terms or at
least declines in growth in some cases in lines of the budget like corporate
taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, because if you do not have any
disposable income you cannot pay sales taxes because you cannot afford to
purchase goods. If you do not have any
earned income you do not pay any income taxes.
The result of that has been to move the
burden of those people in such a way that they cannot provide the revenues for
this government to spend. So we
recognize that the government is in a crunch.
The government has to make tough decisions. We find it very difficult that some of the
decisions that they are making do not impact on their budget lines whatsoever. The decisions they have made to threaten the
autonomy of school divisions do not impact on the provincial budget. It produces zero dollars for the provincial
budget.
It is a decision that in other provinces
has been left up to the individual universities. One would think that if one truly believed in
autonomy, one would leave that decision up to the universities. The universities of this province have chosen
to move along in that particular endeavour.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been informed
that there is a will on the part of the government to call Interim Supply and
to continue to call Interim Supply until such time as it is passed, at which
point there will be a further motion to go into Estimates. When that further motion is introduced, let
me assure the House that I will again participate in this debate, and I will
participate in this debate until the Main Estimates have been passed.
However, Madam Deputy Speaker, in that we
can now proceed with Interim Supply and call Interim Supply, I am prepared to
step down on this particular motion and allow the Interim Supply motion to be
introduced.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that
Madam Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Finance, seconded by the honourable Minister of Government Services, that
Madam Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
I beg the indulgence of the members of the
House that the question before the House‑‑due to the fact that the
honourable member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) has indicated she has
finished her debate and the question has not been called, so for the record I
need to revert back and call that question now: that the House at this sitting
will resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to
Her Majesty. Agreed? [agreed]
Now we read the motion by the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), seconded by the honourable Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Madam Deputy Speaker do now leave the
Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply
to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to
Her Majesty with the honourable member for
SUPPLY‑INTERIM
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. The Committee of Supply will please come to
order. We have before us for our
consideration a resolution respecting the Interim Supply bill. The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED that a sum not exceeding
$1,770,437,375 being 35 percent of the total amount as set out in The
Appropriation Act, 1992; Loi de 1992 portant affectation de credits, be granted
to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I am pleased to finally be able to ask some
questions which normally, I suppose, we would have been asking in Estimates,
but we have a chance before Estimates. We appreciate this opportunity. I am pleased to see that the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is here.
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): On a point of order, we are in Committee of
Supply debating a resolution. We are
still in debate.
If the member wants to pose questions to
our ministers we will have to move down a few steps to where we are in
Committee of the Whole, at which time certainly the member will have full
opportunity to present the questions that he wishes.
Madam Chairperson, the way I understand it
right now, we are considering a resolution and we are involved in debate.
* (1440)
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Madam Chairperson, just on a point of
clarification, the minister is correct in pointing out that we are not debating
Estimates or expenditure, but we are debating. At this point, we are in
committee to discuss the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. I think it is reasonable to ask questions of
the minister on why he wishes the amount he wishes.
Are you ruling that we cannot ask
questions at this time?
An Honourable Member: No, we have to get it one step further.
Mr. Alcock: No, we are in the committee now, Harry.
Madam Chairperson: We are in Committee of Supply to consider the
resolution respecting the Interim Supply bill which indeed is debatable.
Is it the will of the committee to adopt
the resolution? [agreed]
The resolution is accordingly passed. Committee rise, call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mr. Ben Sveinson (Acting
Chairperson of Committees): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I beg to report to the House from Committee of Supply. It has adopted a certain resolution, directs
me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that
Madam Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a
committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted
to Her Majesty.
Motion
agreed to,
and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Ways and
Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the
honourable member for
SUPPLY‑INTERIM
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF WAYS AND MEANS
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Ways and Means please
come to order. We have before us for our
consideration a resolution respecting the Interim Supply bill.
The resolution reads as follows:
RESOLVED that towards making good the
Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenditures for the public
service for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994, the sum of
$l,770,437,375, being 35 percent of the total amount voted as set out in The
Appropriation Act, 1992; Loi de 1992 portant affectation de credits, be granted
out of the Consolidated Fund.
Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
have any opening comments?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): No, I do not.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the resolution be passed?
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Chairperson, I should start by asking
for a clarification, if I could ask questions of the minister at this stage?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Chairperson, I
would suggest perhaps‑‑and we are open in terms of where it would
be more appropriate and in terms of more convenient also for ministers, that
No. 17, Committee of the Whole stage could be considered. Is that the minister's preference for
questions? We are open in terms of which‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): On a
point of order, Madam Chairperson, I understand that we can ask questions on
this, can we not? So we are quite
prepared to ask questions at this particular line.
I know the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock)
was wanting to go ahead with the Department of Family Services because the
minister is there, so if this is the line, he is quite‑‑
An Honourable Member: He does not seem to want to do it.
Mr. Lamoureux: We will ask the questions. [interjection] Yes,
this is the time to do it, to the member for Agriculture.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, since we have had a clarification,
and we have been told we can ask questions at this stage, I will avail myself
of that opportunity.
As you know, Madam Chairperson, from
Question Period, we have many serious concerns about the budget allocation for
the Department of Family Services. To
begin with, I would like to follow up on some of my concerns from Question
Period today.
It is my belief that if this government is
providing less money to Child and Family Services and less money to external
agencies, as seems to be the case from page 78 from the Estimates of the
Department of Family Services‑‑then I would like to have some
specific answers to the questions. I
know that this minister has been anxious to engage in this process for some
time.
So I would like to know how this minister
plans to provide services to families and children when there is approximately
$3.5 million less money for the maintenance of children and external
agencies. Does this minister not realize
that if, for example, the courts are not sitting on Friday, children who are
apprehended on Thursday night may not be into court until Monday, and there is
an increased cost in keeping them in care over the weekend? That is just one example, I believe, of how
the costs are going to be increased when the amount of money allocated is
decreased, the amount of money is less.
So that is my first question. If the minister would first of all confirm
that I am right, that there is less money being allocated, and if he does not
agree with me, that because the courts are closed on Fridays, that this will
not increase the cost because children will be taken into care.
I have many more subsequent questions.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Chairperson, the member, of course, raises a whole host of questions within
that question on our budget.
Over the last number of years, as he is
well aware, the Department of Family Services has seen tremendous increases in
all of its budget lines. If you want to
talk about the services to vulnerable Manitobans, that in fact takes in our
entire Department of Family Services. I
sense the member wants to talk mostly about Child and Family Services issues‑‑okay.
The member is correct. There is a reduction in that budget
line. However, it seems to me that his
question is sprinkled with speculation about what is closed and what is not
closed on certain days of the year.
* (1450)
The decrease in the funding in the child
welfare line is largely funds that will not be flowing to foster parents
because of the $2 reduction a day. If he
looks at the detail of that in the Estimates, he will see that covers over $2
million of the difference that he sees within that budget line.
Another factor there‑‑and I do
not have my budget books in front of me.
We can get into more detail when we get into the Estimates, and of
course, we regret that we have not had the opportunity to do that over the last
couple of weeks. I recognize that my
honourable friend from Burrows was anxious to start Estimates and ready to
start Estimates. This is why we
presented the spending Estimates of the department, because we did make our
announcements some time ago and wanted to have the opportunity to discuss them.
The $3‑million‑plus reduction
in that budget line is made up, to a great degree, of the $2 reduction to
foster parents, also some of the funding that will not be flowing to that
organization which we have already talked about. As well, there were some reductions to other
agencies and organizations that fall under this particular budget line. So we can get into more detail on that.
I did mention earlier in my answer that I
have met with the CEOs and the chair people of the three main agencies who look
after child welfare in this province to talk about the workforce adjustments that
we have to make. One of the things they
asked is that they be allowed to have the flexibility to manage that workforce
issue by themselves and that government does not mandate, to any great degree,
how they will accomplish that.
I am inclined to say to them that we would
offer them some flexibility so that they can truly manage their agencies and
manage their resources. So those issues
that we have talked to them about, about a 4 percent reduction on their Salary
line, is something that they feel they can manage within their organizations.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, the Foster Family
Association has said that they would have preferred to negotiate and, in fact,
they did have an agreement that they were waiting for the government to sign
and then all of a sudden the rug was pulled out from under them. The emphasis on the rally today was not on
the 10 percent cut in the per diem, although that is certainly a very serious
concern, and they are saying to us and, I presume, to the government, where
should they take the money from? Should
they take it from food? Should they take
it from clothing? Where should they take it from? So I would like to put that question to the
minister.
Secondly, I have had people phone me with
concerns very similar to what the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) raised about
the important role that the Foster Family Association plays in being a support
to families. For example, a parent said
to me that they were accused of abuse and, in talking to the staff at the association,
they said that last year there were 65 families or incidents where abuse was
alleged. This parent said to me that if
it was not for the association, they do not know how they would have survived
this ordeal.
I think that is a very important function
of the organization and a very legitimate concern because, if the only
relationship that people have is with government, then it is one branch of the
government investigating and the parents are being paid from possibly another
branch of the government, maybe even the same branch of the government, whereas
the association is a nongovernment organization at arm's length. It seems to me that it is more appropriate
for a nongovernmental organization or an organization at arm's length from
government to provide support to families who are accused of abuse. We are very disappointed that they are going
to lose that function.
I would like to ask the minister if he
really feels that the Child Advocate and his office can really carry out that
function or whether that support is really going to be replaced by Child and
Family Services agencies and if the minister thinks that is a suitable
alternative and a better alternative than what is in place now.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, the member raises the question
of the function of the Manitoba Foster Family Association, and I do recognize
that there are many functions that the association carried out. We have indicated publicly that there are a
number of those functions which we have dedicated money to for legal services,
for insurance and for training, but the member is raising the question of the
advocacy work and the personal services that the association provided to its
members.
I am sure that the honourable member for
Burrows is aware that many organizations become self‑sustaining because
of the important work they do. In
talking to the president of the association earlier today and talking to the
executive director, and I have talked to them on many occasions, I am aware
that there is a strong bond between some of the foster parents and the
association, and I was told that the association will become stronger. I think it will also become more independent
of government and can be sustained by the thousands of foster parents who look
after children across the province.
I believe that the executive director said
publicly on Friday that the association will become stronger and, I think,
stronger and more independent of government as they get the support of their
membership to carry on that advocacy function.
The member asks, what will we do to
provide service to children and families, and in part answered part of the
question. Yes, we do believe that the
Child Advocate, who will have his office operational in the coming weeks, can
provide part of that answer.
There are other avenues as well. The directorate of Child and Family Services
also becomes involved, if necessary, in specific cases. I think the agencies will respond in a professional
way to provide not only the training and the recruitment of foster families,
but the agencies will be there on an ongoing basis.
The member raises the question of
conflict. All of the southern agencies
have someone who is responsible for the child and is there to represent the
child in terms of that placement, but also has somebody who works with foster
parents. You can make the argument that
they both are employed by the same agency, but there are other avenues as well.
I would say that the office of the
Ombudsman is another place where foster parents may go if there is a dispute
and need a dispute settlement mechanism.
There are other avenues. I do believe what the president of the
association has said and what the executive director has said, that the
association will continue with the support of its membership. In many ways, that is how associations,
whether it is the Manitoba Teachers' Society or other organizations, the MCCA‑‑how
they work is through the support of their members, and I do believe that that
will take place. [interjection]
The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is
still smarting because he was not recognized to ask questions, and I realize he
has a history‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are afraid to answer them. You do not know how to answer them.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I mean if the member wants to get into
a personal debate, I have tried to avoid recounting the member's checkered
history as House leader and Finance critic and executive director of Seven
Oaks, and foster parent and all these things.
I do not want to get into a personal battle with the member for
Osborne. I would prefer to stick to the
issues. Thank you.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, on this one small item the
minister and I agree, and that is that we both hope that the Foster Family
Association will continue.
I would like to ask the minister: How can the services that the association are
currently providing be transferred to Child and Family Services, if indeed many
of those services are transferred, when there are reductions in funding, not
only reductions to Child and Family Support that we have been talking about,
but on page 73 of his Estimates, Resolution 9.5 Child and Family Services,
there appears to be a reduction from $105 million to $100 million? How does the minister plan to have staff take
over these functions when there has been a reduction in the budget of $5
million?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated to the member that there has
been a reduction in the total Child and Family Services line, indicated that a
good portion of that is the $2 reduction to the foster families and other
reductions to various agencies that we fund.
Some of those agencies no longer will be getting full funding from the
province, and some will be getting 10 percent less. We will get into that detail when we have the
budget books in front of us.
* (1500)
I would say to you that we have dedicated
finances and funding within the Department of Family Services to look after
those specific things that I have mentioned, the Legal Aid services, the
insurance agreement and also the training of foster families. I can assure you that funding has been
earmarked within that budget, and when we get to the line‑by‑line
consideration of the Family Services Estimates I would be happy to point that
out to him.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, in answer to one of my
previous questions, the minister said that I was speculating about how the
workweek reductions would be worked out and mentioned that he has talked to the
chief executive officer and other staff about workforce adjustments. I would like to ask the minister, does this
mean that Bill 22, the government bill on The Public Sector Reduced Work Week
and Compensation Management Act, will this apply or will it not apply to the
staff of the Child and Family Services agencies?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The principles embodied within the proposed
legislation to do the workweek adjustment will apply to the agencies. The agency presidents and the executive
directors have asked if they can do some thinking about how they are going to
have that apply and wanted us to approach it with some flexibility. They wanted to have some time to think about
that and come back in the near future to discuss it.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I guess I need to be more
specific because my understanding is that civil servants will be required to
take 10 days off without pay. Does the
10 days off without pay apply to the Child and Family Services agencies, and if
so, will they be the same days that other civil servants take off, or will the
flexibility be that they can choose any 10 days they want during the year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The principle is to show a reduction in the
Salary line of the budgets within those agencies. We do have that expectation of the
agencies. We will work with them because
they felt that they wanted to provide us with some solutions which worked best
for them. When I met with them the
previous week to discuss this with them, their initial reaction is that they
can live with that, but they would like to have some flexibility and time to think
about it. We will be meeting again in
the near future to see what they can do to find that savings within the Salary
line of their particular agencies and yet provide the service in the best way
possible.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I would like to move just
for a minute to the Foster Family Association and the suggestion that they are
going to refuse to take new children into care. Apparently different chapters
of this association have been discussing this and voting on it, and several of
them, 100 percent of their members, voted in favour of not accepting new
children. My understanding is that this
is going to create a very serious problem because unless the existing Child and
Family Services agencies can find placements for these children in foster
families, they are going to pile up in institutions and in hotels and motels.
This is a very expensive alternative. In fact, I would suggest it is a much more
expensive alternative than negotiating in good faith with this organization and
keeping at least some of their funding in place so they can provide services.
The figures that we are provided with said
that it would cost at least $220 a day to keep a child in a hotel or motel when
you consider the food and the motel fee and the staffing cost for looking after
those children in those institutions.
So does the minister anticipate that this
is a problem and that this is a better alternative than keeping the funding in
place for the Family Foster Association?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I expect that the foster families will act in
a responsible way in providing the home and the guidance and work with the
agencies with those children as they have in the past. The member raises the
spectre of the use of hotel rooms in place of foster families. I heard the executive director of the
This is not, obviously, a preferable way
of dealing with the situation but one which has historically been used if a
family of four is taken into care at midnight or if there are individuals who
are taken into care whom they have not a family to match with. Sometimes that is an option that has been used
for a number of years.
I say to you, it is not a preferable
solution, but it is a decision that the agency sometimes is forced to make
depending on the individual circumstances that present themselves when those
children come into care.
Again the member is saying that various
branches of the MFFA are indicating that they may do this or they may do
that. I know from my experience with
people who are foster parents at the present time, and many of my colleagues are
familiar with foster parents, they will do what is right for the children.
Certainly in some cases they may present a
special challenge to the agency that has taken a child into care. The agencies have indicated they will work
very diligently to find appropriate settings for these children to be placed
in.
Also appreciate that some of the children
who are taken into care will require very specialized care that may not be
available the day that voluntary placement is made or the day the apprehension
is made.
The agency may decide to wait a matter of
a day, a week or two weeks before they make what they think is an appropriate
placement, because it is better to make that appropriate placement the first
time than to place the child in a foster home and then have to change if the
skills perhaps are not there or the match is not as desirable as the agency
would like it to be.
So these are challenges that the agencies
have always faced in taking children into care.
Again, I have every confidence that the foster families across
The recruitment of foster families is an
ongoing challenge that agencies face, and they will continue to do that. I know here in the city of
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, well, the minister and I
certainly agree in that we hope that families will come forward to provide care
in family homes, but the message that I am getting from foster families who are
calling me is that they are very angry and they are very disappointed and they
are saying, we are not going to do this because we are fed up with this
government. Now individuals, of course,
are going to make their own decisions.
* (1510)
We hope, in the interests of children,
that they will still come forward and volunteer to take children. If they do not, then this province and this
government and this minister have a very serious problem, and I believe a very
expensive problem, because while 11 in hotels is a very small percentage of
2,700 children, if that grows then the problem and the expense will certainly
grow.
Since this minister is eliminating the
funding for the Foster Family Association and expecting Child and Family
Services agencies to be responsible for education and training and support, I
wonder if he could tell the House how cutting support to other external
agencies is going to help children and families and keep them out of care. For example, funding to Indian and Metis
friendship centres has been eliminated.
Funding for the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization has been
eliminated. Funding to child care
centres has been cut. Fees have been
increased. Day nurseries have had a big increase in fees.
There are many children who are in child
care centres, who are in day nurseries, who take part in programs at Indian and
Metis friendship centres who otherwise might be at higher risk, who otherwise
might be apprehended, who otherwise might be in care, and these programs and
services are preventative in nature. I
have been told that some friendship centres, for example, have healing circles
where people who have been wounded by our system are finding healing, and that
is a good thing.
If Indian and Metis friendship centres
cannot provide those healing circles any longer and cannot help people to put their
lives back together, then they are going to be more fragile. They are going to
be the responsibility of formal government systems instead of these external
agencies, and it is going to cost this government more money because, for one
thing, the staff are unionized. The
staff are civil servants or equivalent to civil servants, and these are very
expensive systems to operate.
So how does this minister plan to provide
those services when I believe more children are going to come into care, when
there are fewer preventative services, when there are fewer services at the
front end? What is going to happen is
that children are going to come into the system at the back end, at the
expensive end where children are institutionalized or where they are before the
courts. I do not see how the minister
can provide these services with fewer dollars in his budget.
So I would like to know what the
minister's rationale is for cutting what I believe are valuable and
preventative services in place of what I believe may end up being more
expensive services.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, the member really has asked
a very global question here about the entire department, bringing in daycare,
the social allowances and child welfare.
I am going to have to take a few minutes to respond to all of that.
What is so clear is that there is not one
area, and I challenged the member's Leader the other day to tell me what area
there is that we could save money within the Department of Family Services so
that we could have these increases in funding in other areas. I am still waiting for the Leader of the NDP
(Mr. Doer) to give us that answer. I can
recall challenging the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) on that issue once
before, and he said, tax the corporations more, yet his good friends in Ontario
reduced the tax on corporations.
I really am reminded of one of my
colleagues, who says very clearly and has said often, that there is always a
different philosophy of the NDP in opposition as compared to when they were in
government. I ask the member for Burrows
to think about that, because I know, given his background prior to politics,
that he is a very honourable man and that he knows that there are difficult
decisions to make out there.
I know that the Premier of Saskatchewan,
for instance, and his fellow travellers in
They do not take any delight, I am sure,
in
If you look at the budget of Family
Services over the last five years, we have seen dramatic increases in all areas
of our budget. In the area dealing with
foster care, we have seen increases of 50 to 70 percent in the money that flows
to foster parents. Let not members
opposite‑‑and, again, I know my colleague there who is now the
critic is an honourable man and will want to have the correct information on
the record because I know that he believes what he says should always be
correct and it should be the truth. I
admire him for that because he painstakingly finds out the facts before he puts
things on the record.
There was an editorial in the Winnipeg
Free Press very recently when the
I know that the editorial is referring to
politicians who are in government, but surely the same test must apply to
members who are in opposition. There is
no choice but to cut spending. There is no choice but to try and reduce the
deficit and attack the long‑term debt.
In all of the comments that I have heard
from across the way from my honourable friend and his fellow travellers over
there, it is to spend, spend, spend more.
I can tell you that it probably did not give Roy Romanow any delight in
having to put the sales tax up to 9 percent, but I mean the options have not
changed. Either you let the deficit run
wild, or you reduce your spending or you increase your taxes.
An Honourable Member: Have you seen what your government has done
to the deficit over five years?
Mr. Gilleshammer: My honourable American friend wants to get
into the debate and say that there are options.
Well, I can tell you that there are no options. Either we reduce the spending or we let the
deficit run wild and target our spending‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
* (1520)
Point of
Order
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Chairperson, on a point of order, I thought
I heard the Minister of Family Services suggest that my colleague the member
for
Go ahead.
Let us start with everyone.
Madam
Chairperson: It is not a point of
order, but I would caution that all members ensure that we understand that all
members in this House indeed are honourable members and should be referred to
as such.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would apologize if anyone took offence to
that. I referred to my honourable friend
because the member was the critic in this department, and over the last number
of budgets we did spend a considerable amount of time debating the Estimates of
Family Services. I regret if that was
misconstrued in any other way.
To get back to discussions on the global
picture that my friend from Burrows, the new critic in Family Services, has raised,
that we have to target our spending in some particular way within this
department. I do agree that we have to
provide the funding for those things that are really and truly necessary and
find the funds for the vulnerable people that this department serves, whether
they be in the area of social allowances or whether they are in daycare or in
child welfare. These are all really
important areas.
I know in that editorial it talked about
showing the way where other governments have now brought in their budgets and
have had to reduce spending to very, very vital areas‑‑and I can
appreciate the tremendous impact this is going to have in Newfoundland and in
Saskatchewan. I think you will see, as
other budgets come down, there is a realization on the part of governments that
we have to reduce our spending.
I suspect that realization is there in the
mind of the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) as well. All of us who read the local papers realize
what a difficult, difficult budget process the City of
I am pleased the Leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) indicated that a number of times over the last
week, that governments have difficult, difficult choices to make, and as a
result we have to spend less in some areas but, at the same time, protect those
vital services that we offer.
The member more specifically in his
question referenced organizations like the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization. I certainly appreciate the
valuable input that they have had, and I have indicated that there are other
organizations that do similar work.
The social allowance coalition of
So again my point to the member for
Burrows is, if we are going to create new programs and if we are going to
establish new programs and dedicate money to those specific needs, sometimes we
have to make those difficult, difficult decisions that if you reduce some
funding on one hand to create programs and increase funding on the other hand,
those are the tough choices you make in government. I know that the member for Burrows probably does
read the information coming out of other jurisdictions to see what difficult
decisions are being made. Things are no
different in
We are pleased that over five budgets that
we have not had to raise personal taxes.
Probably that is the greatest impetus for individuals to have more
spending money in their pockets today to encourage the economy and purchase
those vital goods and services that they need and to create jobs. The member also referenced the friendship
centres, and I have had the opportunity to attend some of them.
I regret that I was not able to go with
the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) today because of other commitments to the
Foster Family Association and to cabinet, but members from this side of the
House have had the opportunity to attend those centres. We have looked at a summary of their annual
reports, and the funding that we are withdrawing from that particular area
amounts to a little less than 13 percent of their global budget. Just as
businesses and industry and other organizations and government have to make
those downsizing adjustments, those friendship centres will have to make those
same commitments to change some of the things they do, and they have elected
and appointed boards in some cases. They
will look at the priorities that they themselves establish and determine how
they in fact are going to spend their money.
The member also referenced child
care. I have said before, and I do not
think members opposite can challenge that, that no budget line within the
Department of Family Services, in fact probably no budget line within
government has seen such a dramatic increase in funding as the daycare
line. I maybe could go into a little
more detail on the convention that I attended in
Again, one of the ways we judge the amount
of spending that we do across government is interprovincial comparisons. I think it is important that we, from time to
time, look at the amount of funding that we have and the amount of spending we
do vis‑a‑vis other provinces.
The
I have met frequently with the staff and
board members from the MCCA and the home‑based child care, and they
recognize that we have made tremendous strides in this area in recent years.
They recognize, and we recognize, that they have still some unfulfilled aspirations
that we will work on in coming years.
The other point I would make there is
looking at the turnover rate as it relates to the staffing in daycares, both
family daycares and daycare centres across the country. The national average is four points higher
than
I think perhaps, Madam Chairperson, that I
will stop there and we can get into some more of this when we get into the line‑by‑line
Estimates.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, the minister said his answer
was going to be global and it was so global he was all over the map, and he did
not answer the question.
I could summarize the question quite
succinctly for him. I was not talking
about spending more money. I was not
advocating that the minister spend more money.
What I did question was how does this minister plan to reduce the budget
in a couple of items, in Maintenance of Children and External Agencies and to
Child and Family Services agencies, and provide service for children when what
he has also reduced is funding to organizations like friendship centres and
increasing fees to daycares, which is going to discourage people, and capping
the number of spaces, actually reducing the number of spaces by 400, when the
results of these policies are going to be more children taken into care and
increased expenses?
Can the minister answer that very specific
question? How does he plan to reduce the
budget when the effects of these budget changes are going to be more children
going into more expensive care and an increase in cost?
* (1530)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The fact of the matter is, globally, we are not
reducing the budget. We have seen year
after year the largest increases across government within Family Services.
There are some changes restructuring in government this year where some parts
of the Department of Family Services will be found in other Estimates, but I
think you will see overall there will be an increase in the global budget
dedicated to Family Services.
I did not get around to talking about the
healing circles that the member raised before, but this is an area, of course,
that is of interest to him and to myself.
I think there has been some interesting work done there even in recent
weeks and months, and there are a number of initiatives that he may want to ask
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) about because of the funding arrangements
through the Department of Justice.
But I have indicated to the member that
there is going to be some reduction in the Child and Family Services budget
line because of the changes we have announced to the amounts that the foster
parents are going to get. There is a
decrease in the amount that a number of the agencies are going to get because
of workforce management. Also, grants to
some of the advocacy groups and some of the agencies are going to have their
budget reduced.
But the challenge of providing the service
that the Child and Family Services agencies provide, we have made that
challenge to the presidents and the executive directors. I have indicated that they feel that they can
live with those decisions and provide the tremendous services that they do to
the children who come into care.
I might also take the opportunity to talk
about some of the reforms that we have also brought into the system, one being
the Child Advocate that I know the member has always been very supportive of,
and that advocate has now been hired.
The Advocate's office will be up and running.
We have also accepted the work of
Professor Reid and his partner with the high risk indicators. This is a tremendously interesting innovation
that has come into child welfare as a tool for social workers to use. There is interest not only in other jurisdictions
in
It has been field‑tested because of
the Department of Family Services, and now it is being implemented not only in
Manitoba but in other jurisdictions and is seen as one of the more positive
things that has happened to the art and the science of social work across
Canada and the United States. So we have
been pleased with that.
We have also spent millions of dollars on
our new information system, and I would invite the member perhaps to avail
himself to look at a field test of that particular system.
Recently I was at the Central Manitoba
Child and Family Services agency where they were demonstrating the many
innovative approaches they can take to child welfare through this information
system.
I have said before, perhaps not when the
member was in the House, but I would say that one of the biggest shocks almost
three years ago when I became minister was to see the lack of technology and
the lack of automation in child welfare that existed. The fact that there were files lost and not
completed appropriately certainly affected the ability of social work
professionals and agencies to do their work.
We now have well on its way to practical
use a system that is going to provide instant information, perhaps not only at
the office level but in the car, so that social workers can instantly call up
very specific and needed information on a particular family and a particular
child and allow them to do that social work in a much more effective and better
way.
I can tell you that agency directors and
staff are excited about the new technology that is going to save them countless
hours and have that immediate recall of information that is going to be able to
allow them to dedicate more personal time to the child and to the family and to
the resolution of problems. So while
there is some reduction of spending going directly to foster parents, there has
been an increase in spending to bring these other reforms into place.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I am pleased to see that
the minister is interested in healing circles.
It is certainly something that I am interested in as well. While it may be in the area of responsibility
of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I would hope that the Minister of
Family Services and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) are all co‑operating
to see that the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry are
implemented and that more and more use is made of healing circles.
Several months ago I had occasion to be at
a conference that included people from the Hollow Water community. They were talking about the system of support
to families that they have in place there and apparently are doing an excellent
job, and we hope that can be replicated in other areas. My understanding is that at Hollow Water they
are responsible for the children on their reserve and that all the children are
staying in the community. If they leave
the community they are only going to aboriginal foster homes.
I am pleased to see that there seems to be
support from the provincial government for this community and for their method
of being responsible for their own community.
I hope this can be replicated in every community in
The minister made reference to the Child
Advocate and suggested that I support the idea of a Child Advocate. Well, our support, of course, is
conditional. We support the idea of a
Child Advocate but only one who reports to the Legislature, as the Ombudsman
does, rather than a Child Advocate who only reports to the minister. Of course, we are on record on that quite
extensively, so I do not think I need to belabour the fact.
I would like to move on to some of the
other parts of his budget, although I suppose some of them may be on the same
page that we have been talking about.
The elimination of funding to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization certainly concerns me, as it does many, many poor people in
I am wondering what the rationale was of
this minister. I know the staff were
very disappointed and shocked. I was the
one who phoned them and told them that their funding had been cut, because they
do not own a fax machine, so they did not get the letter I guess from the
deputy minister that other external agencies got on the same day, no doubt they
got it later in the mail. But they had
no warning that this cut was coming.
We disagree with the press release that
went out saying that the organizations that were cut were advocacy
organizations and that this government was going to continue to protect their
three departments that they think are the most important, I believe Health,
Education, and Family Services.
We think that they have abandoned that
goal of protecting those three departments and now the cuts are coming in those
departments as well. We have some of the
proof here in the cuts to External Agencies and the increase in daycare fees,
et cetera. Now the knife has been thrust
into this minister's department and we see the results of bleeding people and
organizations all over the place. Many
of the 56 organizations are organizations that cannot find funding from other
sources.
I would like to ask the minister: Who does he think should provide the
resources that are now being provided by the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization, and why indeed did he eliminate all of heir funding from his
department to that fine organization?
* (1540)
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, in
our discussions this afternoon I have challenged the member to give me some
ideas where we could save some funding, to redirect it within our department, and
I am still waiting for even one suggestion whereby we can reduce funding
somewhere to increase funding elsewhere.
I respect that perhaps the member needs more time to think about that,
and we will have an opportunity, I am sure, in the Estimates process, where he
gets a chance to bring those initiatives forward and to give that advice.
I am pleased that the member has visited
some of the native communities where healing circles are being used. I too have had an opportunity to visit some
of the northern reserves at an invitation of Chief Jerry Fontaine, who was then
chief responsible for child welfare.
There is no question that there are great strides being made in trying
to resolve problems on reserves. I
applaud the native community for that.
For sure the best solutions are solutions they find within their own
community.
The Child Advocate, again, the member
references. I was pleased to have the
support of all members of the House for this legislation and am pleased that we
will soon be able to have the office open and running later this spring.
Specifically, the member is asking about
the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization and their advocacy function on
behalf of social allowance recipients in
I would challenge the member when he says
they had no warning. That is
incorrect. We sent a cautionary letter
to them in the fall indicating that there may be some funding adjustments. I also met with them personally at their
offices some three, four weeks ago and said to them in very direct terms that
our budget this year was just an extremely, extremely difficult one and that
there were initiatives that we had funded in the past that we simply were not
going to be able to proceed with this year.
I could not give them any more direct information at that time, but they
certainly were aware of the difficult financial situation the province is in.
Again, I say to you, the changes that we
discussed earlier that Premier Romanow has brought in with reductions to
hospitals and schools and municipal corporations, universities, is not
something that the government of
I have indicated that there are a number
of other organizations who provide input to social allowance recipients. I have
met with the social allowance coalition of
There are functions that the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization provided in terms of their used clothing shop over there that is
also provided by other organizations. I
would suggest that maybe the church is one organization in the city of
So in these difficult economic times‑‑and
I know the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) has acknowledged the difficult
choices we have to make‑‑and with these difficult choices, there
are some advocacy groups that we are going to have to ask to do with less, and
I am sure there are other organizations and other groups within the community
that will pick up some of the shortfall in terms of the service that was
provided.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, the minister has suggested
that churches should pick up the slack from organizations that his government
has cut the funding to. I would say
that, in the past, churches have provided many different kinds of services to
the community which have then been taken over by government. This minister is
suggesting that we reverse that, that services provided by the government be
sent back to be provided by churches.
That is happening in the area of free food from Winnipeg Harvest food
bank. In fact, something like 75 to 80
churches and social agencies are distributing food from Winnipeg Harvest.
But I have a problem with that in spite of
the fact that I am a
You know, there are good things about
churches providing social services and charity and children's programs and the
many, many things that churches have always and continue to provide. It is good
to see volunteers caring about other people in the community. It is good to see people sharing. It is good to see waste food being
redistributed through Winnipeg Harvest, but there are many, many disadvantages
and many, many problems with meeting people's basic needs through charitable
means and through churches.
If we just take food banks as an example,
I am still very familiar with how churches are distributing food and the kind
of food that comes to them from Winnipeg Harvest, because I continue to drop in
from time to time to the North End Community Ministry where I worked for 10
years. They invite me from time to time
to be a part of their sharing circle before they hand out the food, but they
also inform me as to how inadequate this method is of feeding hungry people.
For example, the Sunday after Grey Cup
Sunday last year, they had the usual bread and doughnuts to hand out. They had limes to hand out and they had cakes
saying, Go, Blue Bombers, Go. That was
the kind of food that was being provided to hungry people the week after Grey
Cup Sunday in
Canned goods are in very short
supply. Canned goods are in short supply
all year round at Winnipeg Harvest, and so, nutritionally, people are not
getting good food. What they are getting
is food that is high in starch, high in carbohydrates and high in sugar. This is not a good way to feed people. They make appeals for the things that they
really need like baby food, but they never get enough baby food donated for
what the demand is.
* (1550)
I believe that what we have, or what we
had in society was a way of redistributing wealth so that people's basic needs
were met through the income tax system, through social assistance programs
which benefit from wealth redistribution in our society. In fact, the Canada Assistance Plan says that
Canadians' basic needs for food, shelter and clothing shall be met. That is the program which, as the minister
well knows, provides 50 percent of the funding for provincial social assistance
in every province.
So I believe that governments have a moral
responsibility and a legal responsibility to provide for our citizens in a way
that also not only meets their needs, but meets their needs in ways that
respect people's dignity and respect people's pride. There is no dignity and there is no pride
when people have to line up at food bank outlets.
I know that where I worked they started
off with 30 bags of potatoes a week and 15 people, and very, very quickly went
to 75 to 150 people a week and line‑ups and handing out numbers and
giving people numbers.
I would invite‑‑I have invited
the minister before, but we need to make an appointment to go across the street
to All Saints parish or to go to the North End Community Ministry and to be
there when the food is handed out and to see this system, which I believe is an
inadequate and an inferior system to providing decent incomes to people through
the social allowances system.
Now the minister was challenging me and
some of his colleagues on the front bench were challenging me to suggest ways
that this government could save money. I
think that is a reasonable question and challenge to me.
I have said, and I will say again, that I
believe that when this minister makes cuts to child care centres and day
nurseries, when there are fewer resources in terms of intervention and respite
and keeping families together and monitoring kids, instead of taking them into
care, it is cheaper to provide community resources and prevention than it is to
have children in care, which is very costly.
I believe the result of these cuts will be more children coming into
care. If funding is available for the
open end of the system, then there will be fewer children coming in at the
closed end of the system. That is where
this government has a choice in whether they spend the money in prevention and
resources in the community or whether they spend more money because more
children are coming into care. That is
my suggestion for where this government can save money.
I would like to move on now to the area of
student social allowance. We have a
legal problem here. If students are not
in school and they apply for city welfare, they cannot be going to school,
because when you are on municipal welfare in
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, I will get to the student
social allowances after I address some of the other issues that the member
raised in his preamble.
I am very pleased to hear the member say
there is a recognition that the community has a role to play, that government
cannot be everything and do everything for individual citizens. I heartily agree that there is a role for the
community, whether it is through the church or through other service groups.
I would say to him that I have been across
the street to the ministry. I have been
to Winnipeg Harvest, and I have been there when they have been open and
providing the services that they provide.
The member indicates that the government sort of took over the role of
the church. I believe in some cases that
is true. There was a certain philosophy
in government in
The member talks about his desire to
redistribute wealth. I would like to
read him a quote from Premier Romanow in January. I think my honourable friend
can relate to this. It relates to what I
said earlier. I hope the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will take the time to listen. He said:
For a New Democrat who is used to being in government when the economy
is expanding and who is used to redistributing wealth, to be changed to
creating wealth and to taking back concessions given to people in better times
is so darn difficult.
That is the challenge that is facing all
governments. All governments are faced
with the prospect of doing less and of being less involved in so many
things. Premier Romanow has recognized‑‑and
as you read the details of his budget, he has not only recognized it, but he
has acted upon it within that budget.
We too are in the same position that we
find ourselves with the need to have to do less in terms of providing all of
these services and all of these programs for people. This is where I think it is important to empower
the communities. If the churches, in
fact, that the member represents feel that government has in some way elbowed
them out of the way so that government is going to provide for all of these
needs, then we have to send that message not only to the community but to community
groups and to churches to encourage them to become active in ways that they
worked with the community in the past. I would be happy if the member would
take that message back to the people he serves, and we will certainly do the
same thing.
The member talks about meeting the basic
needs, and that is what our social allowance system does. It is the safety net to meet the basic needs
of people. In every province there are
social allowance programs which meet those basic needs, and
I think what the member is talking about
in terms of providing additional resources is a guaranteed annual income. I know the member has some interest in that, and
I also know that he realizes while the federal government has made some changes
in providing additional funding to families and to children, the whole thrust
of a guaranteed annual income really has to come from the federal level. I can tell you that the whole concept of
transferring funds, tax dollars and tax credits to individual citizens is a
very complex and complicated one not only in
Minister Bouchard has shown some interest
in bringing forward some ideas on a guaranteed annual income, and I would hope
later on in the spring or summer months that the white paper that they have
talked about will be brought forward either in this mandate or in their next
one, and we can get on with the discussion that has to take place between the
federal government and the provincial governments as it respects the guaranteed
annual income. There are so many
transfer payments that are in place now that flow to individual citizens,
whether they be on social allowance or off social allowance, and there are so
many complicated ways of putting that spending in the hands of people, a
guaranteed annual income could certainly simplify that. As minister, I would be interested in hearing
more detail on that from the federal government.
Finally, the member has raised the
question of the student social allowances.
I have indicated that we have at the present time a little over 1,000,
around 1,100 students who access the student social allowances. As has been indicated in recent weeks, we are
the only province in
* (1600)
So the question is, what will these
individuals do? Well, I think the answer
is, there are many answers to that. Some
of those students will be completing their training and going on into the
workforce. I have indicated some of them
who are 18 and 19 years of age may in fact be able to return home because they
have had an option of not being at home and probably better circumstances for
them.
I reflect on a couple of young people who
had their picture in the Winnipeg Free Press earlier this week and indicated
that at age 18 they suddenly discovered that they did need more education, and
that is not an unusual circumstance.
Many of the individuals who access this program are 18 and 19 years of
age and recognize at this time that‑‑I forget the exact wording of
that article in the paper, but it reflected on spending the last three years of
watching television all day and doing other things at night and now they want
to pursue that education. For some of
them, the option will be to go home.
Now there are many, many different
circumstances there. Some will go directly
into the workforce. Some will find other
means to continue their education, and we still have in the province that two‑tier
safety net that individuals can access if they are unable to find work and
unable to sustain themselves in school. I am sure that some of them will turn
to the Department of Education for some of the funding sources there to
continue in school.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, this minister would like
to debate the budget of
I am going to just ask a few more
questions. We had requested the Minister
of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)‑‑and I am sure he is nearby. Perhaps, we will have him as the next
minister if he is available. [interjection] He had a meeting. Okay. I will continue with my questioning in the
meantime.
I am interested in the fact that this
minister raised the subject of the guaranteed adequate income. You will notice that I call it guaranteed
adequate income and that the minister referred to it as a guaranteed annual
income. I prefer the expression
guaranteed adequate income, because one of the concerns that we have in the New
Democratic Party is that if a Conservative federal government or even a federal
Liberal government brings in a guaranteed income scheme that the rates that
people receive need to be adequate.
While we are on record as a political
party, both federally and provincially, supporting a guaranteed adequate income,
one of the conditions would be that the levels be adequate to meet people's
needs. We are also concerned that the
federal Conservative government might want to bring in a guaranteed annual
income, as they would call it, in order to subsidize low‑wage jobs, that
they would use this program to top up low‑wage jobs for employers. We would find this unacceptable. We believe
that people's income needs should be basically provided through paying
employment.
Madam Chairperson, I am going to yield the
floor to my colleague from Flin Flon, so he can ask some questions of the same
minister.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think the member has sadly missed the point
about the reference to other jurisdictions.
I was making the point that there is a recognition by governments
everywhere that spending has to be reduced, that deficits have to be brought
under control. I was giving some
examples from the
I also made reference to some comments
that Premier Romanow made which reflect that this is not the time when you are
going to be able to do a lot of work in terms of redistributing wealth but that
you have to control your spending. The
recognition that he gave and a recognition that the member for Concordia (Mr.
Doer) offered a couple of times earlier in this session is that these are very
difficult decisions.
On the issue of the guaranteed annual
income, the member says that it should be adequate. I mean, that is the point of debate.
Is there agreement from the member that
rates are adequate in all other provinces, but they are not adequate in
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My questions, I think, would begin by
directing to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey).
Madam Chairperson, the government has over
the last number of years been discussing with the local government district of
The government provided interim grants
from the Mining Reserve Fund to the community of
Sometime in late 1992, the government
indicated to
The community was given approximately a
month to put this five‑year plan together. The community undertook to hire a consultant
to assist them in preparing this five‑year strategic plan, again at some
cost to the community, and the plan was put together.
In a letter dated January 27, 1993, the
mayor of the community, Mayor Dulewich, wrote to the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), indicating that the five‑year strategic plan
had been prepared, and that the community was going to face a deficit in the
1992 fiscal year of approximately $115,869.48.
Madam Chairperson, my first question is to
the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), and that is, will the Minister
of Energy and Mines do as the community of Lynn Lake requested and recommend
that that deficit be supported through the Mining Reserve Fund?
* (1610)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): The more
appropriate minister who could probably answer the question would be the
minister responsible for the jurisdiction for which he is asking, which is the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), and he probably will want to
respond.
I can tell the member that we have
discussed this issue with a group of deputy ministers who are responsible for
the different jurisdictions, and it is being worked on. As to what stage it is at, I will let the
Minister of Rural Development speak to it, as it relates to this particular issue.
The member asked, am I supportive of
it? Until we have the work that is done
by the deputy ministers presented to us and recommendations, then I am not
prepared to comment. As I said, the
Minister of Rural Development may have something further to add that may be
helpful.
I can tell the member, we fully appreciate
the difficulties that the community is facing.
There is no question about that. They have not got the revenues. They have seen a loss of their base for their
community. So there is no question that
there is consideration taking place at this particular time but no final
decision to my knowledge, unless the Minister of Rural Development has further
information that he can add.
Mr. Storie: I recognize that the Minister of Rural Development
(Mr. Derkach) has a role to play in this.
However, the funds are being requested from the Mining Reserve Fund
which, at least initially, is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Downey) to direct, ultimately, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), who releases the funds, not the Minister of Rural Development.
Madam Chairperson, the question that was
asked is, will the minister be recommending that the millions of dollars that
are available in the fund, some $16 million or $17 million, we are led to
believe, is available in the Mining Reserve Fund, accumulated directly from
mining tax revenue. Will the minister
consider releasing approximately $117 million, which is only a very small
portion of the interest on the fund which came from mining taxes. Will he be recommending that those funds be
released so the community will not face tax increases of unacceptable
proportions in
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, the member knows very well
that those kind of decisions are made collectively as it relates to
government. The position which I will be
taking will be taken after full discussion and consultation has taken place
with the department, when it has taken place with the Department of Rural
Development.
Again, and I can only say it at this
point, we are certainly sympathetic to the situation that we are faced with,
although one has to be conscious of the fact that there are demands on
governments from every angle. This is a
little different because the mining fund, in fact, is in place. Again, as I indicated, that is part of the
considerations that are being taken at this particular time.
Am I supportive of this? I want additional information as to what the
alternatives may be before that final decision would come from me as minister
responsible.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, you will forgive the mayor
and the councillors in the LGD of Lynn Lake if they grow more frustrated by the
minute. They were asked for this on very
short notice by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and the
minister responsible. They were asked
for this, and worked very hard to prepare this plan. The government was in possession, and the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) cannot deny any responsibility
here. He was carbon‑copied on the
letter to the Minister of Rural Development.
He received a copy of the five‑year strategic plan.
The question is, given that this letter is
dated January 27 and the fiscal year obviously and the tax level for the 1993 year
have to be set by the LGD, how late is the government going to wait? March 31 is fast approaching, and the
government has already had two months to look at this. Can either of the ministers tell me why it is
taking so long to get a straightforward answer, to access funds available to
northern mining communities that have suffered traumatic times?
Hon. Len Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Chairperson, first of all, may I say that I met with the community of Lynn Lake
in the fall of the year of 1992 and at that time the community was concerned
and frustrated because of the situation that has occurred in Lynn Lake. Not of their own making, but indeed it is one
of those circumstances that occur in a one‑industry town from time to
time.
Madam Chairperson, there was a request
from the town to release funds from the Mining Reserve Fund in order to assist
them with the operations of the town, but at that time it was agreed to
mutually by their town council and by staff in my department, and I was at that
meeting, that a more practical approach might be one where we could do a
strategic plan, or the community could do a strategic plan, to determine what
that community's strengths might be or are, and how that community might focus
on the strengths that it has in order to reorganize itself for the future. They understood very clearly that the answers
to the problems are not merely throwing dollars at the situation without any
kind of long‑term plan.
Madam Chairperson, the community itself
agreed that this was an important step, and they would proceed with that
action. They did proceed with that
action. Indeed, the time frame that they
had proceeded with was short because of the fact that we were in the fall of
the year and we were looking at a new fiscal year a few months down the road.
Madam Chairperson, the strategic plan has
been received by the department. The
department has indeed looked at it. Deputies from several departments are now
looking at how they can work with the community and look at different options.
Now, Madam Chairperson, those options have
not come forward at this time because I think there is still some work that
needs to be completed. When that work is
done, then we will be in a better position to make some decisions as to how
Madam Chairperson, I went through that
community, and I was shocked at the state of houses there, because of the
vandalism that has occurred in the houses that have been abandoned. The community centre was closed because of
the fact that there is not the population base there to indeed utilize those
facilities and to take advantage of supporting those facilities.
So they do have some very significant
problems that have to be dealt with, and they understand that those problems
cannot be solved overnight. It is not
just simply a case of throwing loads and loads and loads of money at the
problem hoping that it will somehow someway go away.
We have been in touch with the mayor of
Mr. Storie: Well, Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the
minister's concern about the community of
Madam Chairperson, the fact of the matter
is, this is not the kind of issue that the members were pleading earlier today
about government financing. The
financing is in place for this support.
The government is sitting on a fund that is capitalized. The interest from the fund could be used to
immediately relieve‑‑the government has a chance to relieve the
community of this burden right now, because if they do not, the taxpayers and
the property owners in Lynn Lake are going to be the ones that are left in
jeopardy.
The member talked about how difficult the
financial and economic circumstances are in
Madam Chairperson, a simple question: When can the LGD of Lynn Lake, the mayor and
council, expect a response from the government with respect to its proposal
that the government itself requested and was delivered on January 27?
* (1620)
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, I think I answered that
question previously when I said that when staff along with the community have
been able to put together some final recommendations and bring them forward to
myself and the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), at that point in time
we will be in a better position to make some decisions with regard to the short‑term
and the long‑term difficulties that are being faced by the community.
Madam Chairperson, I have to say that we
are very sympathetic to the needs and the situation that the community of
Indeed, as I said, I was shocked when I
was given a tour of that community. Yes,
we have great sympathy for the situation that community finds itself in, and as
soon as they are in a position to come to us with recommendations, then we will
be in a position to make some decisions about how we can move towards perhaps a
new structure, a different structure, an improved structure for that entire
community.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, I am going to forward the
remarks of the minister, in fact, of both ministers to the community of
Madam Chairperson, if that does not make a
mockery of the feigned sympathy from members of the government, I do not know
what does. I also want to ask the
minister how he can suggest that his department has been so concerned and so
active that they are working with the community to resolve outstanding
issues. I defy the minister to tell me
what the outstanding issues are. I defy
the minister to tell me because he does not know.
Not only does he not know what the
outstanding issues are‑‑[interjection] Well, the minister is going
to have a chance and list the outstanding issues from this strategic report
that the department has because the community of
What happened after that? Well, there were a number of calls to
ministers' offices which were not returned.
Now the department had agreed to‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, if the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) has specific information with regard to when phone calls were made to
either of the two ministers' offices which were not returned, I would ask him
to put that on the record and to table that evidence because any phone call
received in my office has been returned.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Rural Development does not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Storie: The only word from the Department of Rural
Development to the community of
An Honourable Member: To whom?
Mr. Storie: To the Department of Rural Development. On top of that, the community was promised
that Rural Development would have a staffperson in
The ministers have both stood up and said
how beleaguered the community is. They
understand the tax base is dwindling.
They face a deficit of $117,000 that is going to have to be borne by the
remaining taxpayers, as few as they are, unless the government provides some
assistance. The funds are available.
Multimillion dollars are available for supporting these kinds of
communities. This requires no addition
to the deficit of the
The minister says, he hears what I am
saying. It would not be difficult for
the minister to stand up and say, I will take some leadership on this, either
the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) or the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) stand up and say, I will take some leadership.
This is not an unreasonable request. It will be done. Will either of the ministers show some
intestinal fortitude, some integrity and deal with this community honestly? Will the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey), who
I believe at least on some occasions does show some leadership, stand up today
and say, this will be done? Please.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, I can tell the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) that, yes, there is going to be some action taken with
regard to the situation in Flin Flon. [interjection]
Madam Chairperson, if the member wants to
ask a question he will have his opportunity.
We have listened to the member for Flin Flon go on and on for 10 minutes
and not ask a question, so I would appreciate it if he would open his ears and
close his mouth and then maybe he can get some information about what is going
to happen in Lynn Lake.
I can tell the member for Flin Flon that I
met with staff just two days ago specifically on the situation in Lynn Lake
and, indeed, we have put an action plan forward where staff from my department
will be meeting with the community of Lynn Lake.
Mr. Storie: You said you knew the specifics. Tell me what is wrong with the strategic
plan?
Mr. Derkach: The member for Flin Flon says, what is wrong
with the action strategic plan?
Well, Madam Chairperson, I can tell you, I
have reviewed that strategic plan, and there are some very good ideas and very
good things in the strategic plan, but there is still some work required to
finalize that strategic plan and to put the finishing touches to it so that
indeed the community can then proceed in a very positive fashion.
Madam Chairperson, we will take positive
action in that regard.
Mr. Storie: Well, Madam Chairperson, we have just been dealt
a wonderful hand by the Minister of Rural Development. I said unequivocally that the minister did
not know what he was talking about, and I told him that he knew of no problems
with the five‑year strategic plan.
It is very clear what the community plans. It is very clear what they are proposing,
very clear what they require from the government in terms of interim
assistance.
Madam Chairperson, the question for the
minister is: Is he going to respond
before it is too late? Is he going to
respond before the LGD of Lynn Lake has to go to its own taxpayers to bear this
burden which they should not have to bear?
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, I guess the member was not
listening, but I indicated to him very clearly that action is being taken
presently.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell this
committee why then the meeting that was scheduled for Lynn Lake Thursday has
been postponed? When is the LGD going to
get the information they need from the government?
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, I do not know for what reason
the meeting that he refers to was cancelled.
That was a meeting with department staff but, Madam Chairperson, I can
find out for what reason that meeting was cancelled and report back to the
member, but I do not know the details of why that meeting may have been
cancelled. There may be a very
legitimate reason but I do not know that at this time.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, of course, time is running
out for the LGD of Lynn Lake. They have
to finalize their 1993 budget. Will the
minister commit to addressing the proposal and the request for support of some
$117,000 to relieve that community of its 1992 deficit immediately? Will the minister undertake to do that?
* (1630)
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, I will commit to
undertaking a thorough review of the trategic plan and ensuring that action is
taken on whatever issues within that strategic plan can be taken. At this point in time that is the only
commitment that I can give the member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, to the Minister of Energy
and Mines (Mr. Downey), will the Minister of Energy and Mines be recommending
that the 1990 deficit of the LGD of Lynn Lake be covered out of the Mining
Reserve Fund? Will the minister be
recommending that assuming that the review which is not going on but the
minister suggests is going on is finally completed?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, my earlier answer to that
question stands.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Chairperson, my question is to the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
I am wanting to ask some questions about
the instructions of the minister to the universities about differential fees
for students, and I noticed in the House on Friday that there seemed to be some
difference in the kind of response that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had given to a
question that the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) raised and the direction that
I understood the minister had given.
The minister seemed to be saying in her
press release and I understand in her letters to the university that the
government was requiring, was directing the universities to introduce a
differential fee.
As I understood the Premier's response on
Friday, he suggested, and I do not have the words in front of me, that he was
simply recommending to universities that this would happen.
I wonder, could the minister perhaps clear
up some of this discrepancy for us? What
is the situation that the government is requiring of the universities at the
moment?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
question that the member raises is one in which she is looking at two different
documents and wanting some clarification.
The government has established a policy of saying that there can be now
differential fees charged for visa students.
We did not have that previously.
In the letter that went to the
universities, it is stated to the universities that the government of
However, the paragraph which speaks about
the 5 percent cap on student tuition is a separate paragraph to the paragraph
speaking about surcharge for visa students.
The 5 percent cap direction was accompanied also with a penalty. Where universities exceed the 5 percent cap
on tuition, then universities have been told that money would be deducted from
their grant.
However, the direction and the policy
established regarding the visa students was not tied to that penalty. That allows universities, therefore, to then
make their own decisions regarding how they will apply, whom they will apply
that surcharge to.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, has that difference been
made clear to each of the universities, and does the minister have letters or
responses on that? How has it been
conveyed to the universities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, yes, the information has
been conveyed to the universities. First
of all, it was conveyed on the day of the announcement, and there was an
understanding on the day of the announcement.
In addition, there was a verbal discussion by the Universities Grants
Commission to the universities to clarify that there was an understanding, and
the information that we received back from those calls was, yes, the
universities did understand how they would be applying this.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, let me just follow this
up, to be absolutely clear. If I am to
understand what the minister is saying now, it is that the universities are
under no direction, under no compunction, there will be no penalty if they do
not apply differential fees to international students.
Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct. The penalty was not tied to the differential
fee. The penalty was tied to the 5
percent cap for students. However what
we have done by our policy statement is bring
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, again, I did not
understand what the minister is saying by bringing us into line as the third
province, the third level, with the application of a differential fee. If the minister is not applying a
differential fee, then what is it that she is saying brings us into line as the
third province in this area? I do not
understand the balance of the two.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Ms. Friesen: Again, Madam Chairperson, I am sorry to
belabour this issue, but I really do not understand what the minister is
saying. If she is saying that the
universities have complete free choice of whether to introduce a surcharge or
not, then why is she saying that there is an abstract number of a surcharge
that if it was introduced‑‑I assume that is what she is saying‑‑would
then bring us into line as third? Either
the people have the choice to do it or not to do it, or the government is
directing them towards doing a 75 percent increase. The minister seems to be balancing these in
both her answers, and I truly do not understand what she is saying here.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the member is asking if
the universities have the autonomy to apply this. Yes, the universities do have the autonomy to
apply this surcharge to visa students.
We announced what the level would be.
If universities wish to apply a level less than 1.75 or the .75
surcharge on visa students, they will make that decision. We as a province have set a level by policy,
which we believe within our province would be the most appropriate.
Ms. Friesen: So what the government then is advising the
universities is that there is the potential for the universities now to
introduce a differential fee, and that it should not be more than a maximum of
75 percent additional on top of Canadian student fees. Is that it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, that is the amount of money
that we, by policy, have said that we would state would be the amount of money
that universities would levy, a 75 percent surcharge.
Ms. Friesen: In suggesting this as a policy to
universities, did the government, through the Universities Grants Committee, or
through any other of its informal contacts with the universities meeting with
the ministers, did they investigate what the implications of such an additional
fee would be for universities in
* (1640)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as the member knows, some
universities in other provinces do have varying levels of application for a
surcharge for visa students. The
university presidents within Manitoba have a formal group in which they meet as
university presidents to discuss the issues, to discuss potentially the
implication of this surcharge, but the universities and the presidents of the
universities with their boards of governors will have the opportunity to have a
full discussion about how they will be implementing this, if they will be
implementing it, who will then be a part of their implementation process.
But there is a mechanism currently that is
available to universities, and I believe that the people, the presidents in
particular, may want to use that mechanism for themselves.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then suggest how she would
use the Universities Grants Commission?
I think there is an impression in people's minds that both in this case,
the issue of differential fees, and in the issue of the cap on university fees,
the government has by‑passed the Universities Grants Commission, and this
may, in effect, be pre‑empting the position that the Roblin report might
take in the future, perhaps as early as this summer. I think people are concerned about what is
the role of that commission, where does it sit in review of pricing policies
essentially for universities, and how does the minister view the Roblin
commission report if already she is taking actions which are by‑passing
that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, well, the Universities
Grants Commission has a very important function and it does, as the member
knows, relate to our universities and does have a constant contact with our
universities. It is the Universities
Grants Commission which determines the amount of money that each university
will get. Government determines the
amount of money available for university funding. The Universities Grants Commission then looks
at the budget of each of the universities which is submitted to the
Universities Grants Commission and determines how then that the amount of money
that government has allotted to universities will then be given out to the
actual universities themselves.
The Universities Grants Commission, I will
remind the member, had its chairperson and its vice‑chairperson with me
on the day of the announcement, also at a meeting that I held with the
presidents of the universities and the vice‑presidents of finance, the
chairs of the board and the chairs of the finance committees of the
university. Our relationship as
government is that we believe that, yes, it does have an important function in
My honourable friend has seen the mandate
of the Roblin commission. It will be
looking at the role and the mandate of universities. It will also be looking at the relationship of
the universities to the community. It
will be looking at universities' administrative function in relation to
government and to the community. As I
have said, it will look to the function of the universities. So the Roblin commission may bring forward
recommendations in relation to the structure and into how our universities will
operate. We look forward to those
recommendations. At that point, when we
see what the recommendations are, then government will look to see if changes
are to be made.
Ms. Friesen: I am sure that the minister knows there are
special concerns about the position of graduate students in the
I wonder what consultation she put in
place before she essentially issued a blanket recommendation dealing with all
students. Graduate students who come
here from overseas, as she knows, are unable to earn money. Many of them are in the middle of their
programs and are being faced with some very difficult choices to use page 1 of
the government's recent answer book.
I wondered what the minister had done to
confer with these students to understand what their situation was, and perhaps
to look at some of the practices that have happened elsewhere in other
provinces, which have, from time to time, introduced increased fees for such
students. What kind of planning has gone
on in the department on this?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, this was a government decision, as I
should remind the member, not specifically and only a departmental
decision. This was a government
decision. We as a government and members
of a government have constant contact with Manitobans and have had discussions
with Manitobans on many issues including university education. We were aware through those discussions and
also through research of the Department of Education that other provinces do
have a policy of a surcharge for visa students.
So we were able to see what was happening across
The member has, I think, asked another
question, and maybe she could ask the question again, and then I can provide
her with a full answer.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister was on the right
track. What we were looking for was some
indication of planning in the department, some indication of contacts with
universities and some indication that there was a recognition of the special
case, special needs of graduate students and the role that they play at the universities. I was wondering if the minister has
undertaken research which looked at how other provinces had dealt specifically
with graduate students.
Mrs. Vodrey: I thank the member for giving some additional
detail of the information that was being required. In terms of planning with the universities,
we do have representation, regular meetings with administration of the
universities and also with the student representatives of the universities. The students bring forward concerns of all
students within each of the four universities in
Those students do bring forward the
concerns of students in general and then specific concerns of undergraduate
students and graduate students. I have
had discussions with the student representatives of the four universities in
In addition, yes, we have had an
opportunity to look at other provinces as well, and we have had a chance to
look at how they have applied the visa surcharge and the variations that those
universities have applied the surcharge.
Sometimes when a government has made a
policy decision they have issued it and said, it should apply to only a certain
area or it should apply to only students starting at a certain time, and those
statements are somewhat more limiting and provide a very specific direction to
universities.
In our case our statement was a policy
statement, and universities will determine how they will apply that decision.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Chairperson, I have a question on
another topic.
I must indicate that I am concerned about
the move that has been made in terms of the application of differential fees to
foreign students, and I believe the height of naivete shown by the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Stefanson) in this House in suggesting that
there will not be any impact on the number of students enrolled is incredible.
I would say that whatever rationale the
government has for applying differential fees it certainly has to recognize
that visa students are going to look at a number of factors in terms of
enrolling next year and, if they are faced with a major increase in tuition
fees, it is very likely that a number of them will not re‑enter the
university system in Manitoba. That has
already been documented.
There are already people saying they will
not come back, and I think it is particularly unfair that the government is not
even phasing in the process. That is one
of the concerns expressed by a number of visa students. It would seem to be more logical if they are
going to proceed with this, Madam Chairperson, to phase it in, although I think
it is a mistake in policy.
I would note for the record that even the
Sterling Lyon government, even Sterling Lyon considered bringing in
differential fees and backed down because of the concern that was expressed
from the university community about the impact it will have particularly on
graduate programs and the real concern of the impact it is going to have on
future contacts with other countries at a time when we have a growing
globalization. We hear that term used a
lot.
* (1650)
I am concerned that we will lose visa
students, and I am concerned that the rationale that is being used does not reflect
the fact that many of the costs at universities are fixed costs. The marginal
cost of an additional student is far lower than the average fixed cost. So it does not necessarily even make economic
sense.
My specific concern is more local, and I
just want to ask the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) in regard to the
current situation of the BUNTEP centre in Thompson. I have written to the minister a number
times, and I realize that the minister is saying that it is out of her hands,
but I want to point to the most recent development, Madam Chairperson.
The BUNTEP centre in Thompson has been in
place for approximately 10 years. It was
in space in the Polaris building with other access programs. When KCC took over the space under the
reorganization brought on by this government, BUNTEP had to move out of its
space into current rented space, which is costing it $19,000 in the AFM
building in Thompson.
The problem is that the BUNTEP program
does not have the $19,000 for the space.
My understanding is that KCC does have space available in the Polaris
buildings, given some of the further reductions that have taken place in the
activities of KCC. The problem once
again in this case is, even though space is available and, in this case, rent
is not a problem, capital becomes a problem.
Madam Chairperson, this is the situation
with the BUNTEP centre. There are many
other educational programs in Thompson that each have their own particular
locations. The social work program, for
example, has a separate location quite apart from the others. One of the concerns that is being expressed
repeatedly in the North‑‑and it has been very clear in the Northern
Economic Development Commission's document which is being, I believe, finalized
and will be introduced in this House by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey)‑‑people are saying it is time for a northern university or
polytechnic and not for a new institution per se, but for bringing together
these various programs and sharing that cost.
Instead of having one in one location and one in another and then having
the BUNTEP with no particular location, there would be a pooling of resources,
both administrative and in terms of rents.
I am wondering, first of all, if the
minister can indicate whether there is any possibility of some sort of capital
funding being available to BUNTEP or to KCC to renovate the space that I
understand as being available, and second of all, perhaps more importantly,
whether there is any consideration being given right now to bringing together
many of the programs and getting the kind of co‑ordination that I believe
will result in better access to education in the North and cost savings for
government.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I just have a couple of
comments to make to the member. First of
all, in his discussion about differential fees, I would remind him that by
placing a cap on student tuition we have provided a degree of certainty on
student tuition which has not been there before. The surcharge then is applied on top of that
cap, but that cap, as I said, does provide a degree of certainty and students
have now a very good idea of exactly what that amount would be. That has not happened in the past.
Students, in terms of tuition fees, have
faced a great deal of uncertainty. This
year, particularly, recognizing the difficult economic circumstances of
Manitobans across this province, we have attempted to provide that degree of
certainty and to assist. It does assist
the visa students if the universities, as they determine how they will apply
the differential fee for visa students, will decide if it will apply to certain
groups of students studying at various levels or if there will be a phase in,
but they also have the certainty of the 5 percent cap on tuition.
Madam Chairperson, the honourable member
has written me a letter on the BUNTEP program.
I know he has an interest in that area, and I know that he has asked a
question about the issue of space. As he
knows, too, our community colleges are moving to governance. They are moving to governance April 1, and so
some of these decisions‑‑it may be important to remember that there
will be a new relationship between government and our community colleges coming
up in the very near future, and in fact it may be much more accessible. We are expecting, as we move to governance,
that it will be much easier for communities to discuss directly with community
colleges and also their boards what the needs are of their own communities.
The member has also expressed an interest
on a northern university, or in his most recent letter he talked about a
polytechnic, and he has asked about a consideration of that particular
project. He does know that the Roblin
commission is looking at university education in
So we will be looking forward to the Roblin
commission's report, which then might provide some further direction and also
might provide some further need that has been brought forward through their
public hearings on how that issue might be addressed more specifically.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Since the cutbacks to the 56 organizations
were announced a week or so ago, we have asked in this House a number of
questions about the rationalization, the reason behind the complete withdrawal
of government funds for the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre serving the women
and children and families of the Flin Flon area. We asked the minister if he had a rationale
for this, if he had a plan, if he had an internal study that was done, what
specific, clearly identified criteria were used to lead to the decision to
totally unfund a crisis shelter in the Flin Flon area.
The minister's response, Madam
Chairperson, has been that the Norman region has approximately the same type of
resources as other regions of the province do and therefore, by implication,
there is no loss of service to the women and children and families in the Flin
Flon area.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services if he can give me the square kilometrage of the Norman region and how
many families or how many individuals there are in that region that is now
being serviced by one fewer crisis centre.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, I do not have that
information here with me today to give the member the square kilometrage of
that particular region or the numbers of families in it. I can get that information for her.
The issue was brought up by her colleague
from Flin Flon last week. I indicated
that in the review of our department we made certain decisions and that we
reviewed the Family Dispute area as part of that overall Estimates review prior
to making budget decisions. I would like
to state for her information and for her colleague's information that at no
time did I indicate that we had done some formal review of that particular
shelter. What I did indicate is we
reviewed the services provided by the entire Family Dispute Services division
of our department and in looking at Family Dispute Services on a regional basis
felt that the Norman region could be served by the shelter in The Pas with the
other services that are available in that area.
I would point out, we had indicated that
recently the Victims Assistance Fund had provided the RCMP with funding to
develop a victims' assistance program, and the detachment in the town of
* (1700)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has been considering a resolution
regarding Interim Supply, reports progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 12‑‑Rural
Day Care
Ms. Becky Barrett (
WHEREAS recent changes to the daycare system
have eroded what has been considered a model child care system in
WHEREAS 50 percent of rural residents must
travel more than 15 kilometres to reach suitable child care services; and
WHEREAS the distance factor is highly
significant because the additional travelling time extends the length of the
working day; and
WHEREAS 39 percent of rural residents
depend on annual family incomes of less than $25,000 and find the costs
associated with child care beyond their means; and
WHEREAS many rural occupations are of a
seasonal nature, meaning that the need for child care services fluctuates
throughout the year; and
WHEREAS there is a serious lack of less
formal, more flexible, more accessible arrangements for child care services in
rural areas; and
WHEREAS the lack of adequate child care
services often means that parents are unable to work away from home, losing an
opportunity to bring in needed family income; and
WHEREAS this creates extra hardship for
both parents and children; and
WHEREAS an average of two
WHEREAS the Women's Institute has
recommended the immediate development of a special policy for rural child care,
including a close examination of ways in which subsidies and allowances are
allocated to child care services, ways to address the isolation of many rural
families and ways to address the shortage of child care spaces in rural areas;
and
WHEREAS the Lakeview Children's Centre in
Langruth is piloting a child care model which is sensitive to farm families'
needs for quality, licensed, flexible and extended hour care.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to
recognize the value of the Lakeview pilot project, which provides a licensed,
accountable child care program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
urge the minister to seriously consider expanding and fully funding the number
of licensed spaces at the Lakeview Children's Centre.
Motion presented.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak
today on this resolution on rural child care.
This resolution is fairly lengthy in its WHEREASes and, I think, speaks
very fully and completely to many of the important issues that are faced by
rural families in today's
I would like to speak specifically about
some of the elements of the resolution, in particular, to begin, Mr. Speaker,
the fact that what was once the model child care program for all of
This resolution deals specifically with
the delivery of child care services in the rural areas of the province of
Manitoba, areas that I and my caucus colleagues have visited on many occasions
in the past years and have heard from child care providers and from farm
families throughout the province about the need for flexible, affordable, high‑quality
child care, the same type of child care principles that are in the child care
act, the same principles that are being eroded throughout the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, there are specific and
special needs that face rural Manitobans when it comes to child care, and these
are outlined in the resolution; for instance, the whole issue of distance. The Minister of Family Services has
apparently not been cognizant of the enormous difficulties faced by rural
families in the
There have been some major structural
changes in the life of rural
The government needs to reflect in its
programming and in its service delivery through child care this new
reality. It needs to understand that
child care is not just an issue that has implications for children or for
mothers or parents. Child care is a
major economic component of a healthy farm rural economy, and it is not being
addressed by this government.
The farm family today is a far different
family than it was just a decade or two ago, Mr. Speaker, largely due to these
economic changes. The farm families
today have very little choice when it comes to who works on the farm, who works
off the farm. Two‑income farm
families are far more the norm than the exception today. The need for child care that recognizes the
specific needs of rural Manitobans has never been more apparent, and has never
been more apparent by the lack of those services being provided to rural
Manitobans.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) and other ministers in this government have spoken many times
about the need for families to have choices, and I agree. This resolution agrees that farm families,
just as families who live in larger communities and in the city of
It is no longer acceptable by our society
to have children going with their parents onto the farm machinery and into the
fields as it used to be. We now know the
hazards and the dangers of children being too closely connected to not only the
farm machinery but also the chemicals that are used to an enormous degree in
our modern farming methods.
Mr. Speaker, farming is virtually the only
occupation in the northern countries, in the developed countries where children
still are found at the workplace. It is
the only profession where that still happens.
* (1710)
It is potentially one of the most
dangerous professions in our country as well.
As the statistics relate, there are two children in
What we need in order to be able to
eliminate those tragic statistics from our farm families is an accessible,
quality, flexible method of child care.
The Lakeview Children's Centre in Langruth
is a pilot project that has provided exactly those services for the people of
This resolution is asking the Minister
responsible for Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), and responsible for child
care in the province of Manitoba, to recognize the value of what the Lakeview
Children's Centre has provided in the way of a pilot project, to recognize the
value of the services that Lakeview Children's Centre has provided to the
people of rural Manitoba, to fully fund that children's centre so that it can
continue to provide those services and to expand the concept into the rest of
rural Manitoba of child care such as is provided by Lakeview Children's Centre.
Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a pilot
project that is underway that is much more informal in scope than the Lakeview
Children's Centre. This resolution and
our policies as expounded in this House over the years recognize the need for a
range of child care service provisions, and nowhere is that range and that
choice more essential than in the rural parts of our province.
We are not for a moment suggesting that
the only form of child care in the rural areas of
This Lakeview Children's Centre is cost‑efficient. It is effective. It allows rural families to remain in rural
What this resolution asks the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and his government to do is to recognize
what they have begun to recognize in their support in a pilot project manner,
the Lakeview Children's Centre. We are
asking them to continue to support the Lakeview Children's Centre. We ask them to implement other kinds of child
daycare services in rural areas of
We ask this not just for the children of
Manitoba, although even if we were asking it only for the children, that would
be sufficient unto itself, but we are asking this in a broader context to
reflect the needs of the economy of rural Manitoba, to reflect the needs of the
families in rural Manitoba as well as the needs of the children of rural
Manitoba.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, the
hazards in not providing adequate child care in rural
Many of the members on the government side
are from rural
This government is talking about the need
to expand our economic base. The
government talks about the need to provide more jobs. The government talks about the need to
provide an infrastructure which will allow for more jobs to be created. Mr. Speaker, this government has talked a lot
about that. It has done very little, and
it has done even less in rural
To end, we have provided the government of
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to get up again this afternoon and talk
about daycare, particularly rural daycare. The member opposite said a number of
things we can partially agree to, that what Manitobans, particularly rural
Manitobans, want is flexible, affordable and high‑quality daycare.
The member talks about the erosion of
standards. The fact is that the
standards embodied in the legislation have not been changed, and those standards
are there. She talks about the erosion
of funding, yet the funding has been doubled on the daycare line in the last
five budgets.
One would seriously have to question how
the member analyzed this. If the
standards remain the same and the funding has doubled, it would seem to me that
she should recognize the tremendous advances we have made in daycare.
The member has indicated that she has
ventured outside the city to visit parts of rural
The Langruth daycare, as the member
mentions, has been a pilot project that was funded partially by the province
but more specifically by the federal government and at the current time does
have partial funding from the
The member does reference the special
needs that are out there in rural
By choice, many of us live in rural
* (1720)
The member talks about the need for
flexible daycare in rural
I might say to the member that it is an
historical fact that rural people are used to solving their own problems in
unique ways that work out best for them.
I applaud the Women's Institute for piloting a program for rural child
care safety and putting in place the rural child care registry in which
caregivers are matched with families who need care for their children during
peak periods of farm operations. Again,
this is a unique way of tackling a problem which is not a new one to rural
The pilot project was designed in co‑operation
with the aforementioned departments, and it was really in response to the
Federated Women's Institutes of Canada's national child care survey. The survey results indicated that child
safety has become a major concern as farm women assume more responsibility for
farm operations without the benefit of reliable child care that was readily
available and sometimes needed on the spur of the moment.
The child care safety registry was
implemented in the community of Glenella last fall for the first time. Six caregivers were registered, and a number
of farm families are utilizing that service.
The community plans to reactivate the registry in time for spring
seeding and again in the harvest season‑‑again, a community
response to a perceived need. We see
this many, many times in rural communities where service clubs, chambers, town
councils and other community groups including churches come forward and find
these innovative solutions that are required for problems that are unique to
rural
The member opposite has indicated that
often farm families have little choice, and I am glad to hear her say that people
who want to access daycare should have some choices about how they meet those
particular needs, because I think it was not that long ago where that member
and her party believed there was only one way to do things. I think her opportunity to observe how rural
Manitobans tackle a problem probably has some long‑standing benefits that
she can apply to other things that she may be interested in.
As well as that pilot project in Glenella,
we have some other communities, Minnedosa, Basswood, Stonewall, Melita,
I can recall in discussions with some of
the executive members of the Women's Institute that they indicated even within
their own communities that there were neighbours that they would feel somewhat
reluctant to approach, but through the registry process they felt these
families would come forward and that families who needed child care could then
access the registry and be able to access that daycare that they require.
This is an alternative that I think other
provinces are going to be looking to, because the daycare situation in rural
areas in
I have met with the Langruth daycare
executive in recent weeks to review the work that they have done. They have made some remarkable progress in
putting in place a daycare centre in a rural area. If my memory is correct, they are serving
some 42 children in a very, very small community where there is great community
co‑operation to not only staff the daycare‑‑and I believe I
was told that they had some 11 people who, in some way, were drawing some
salary from working in that daycare and serving those 42 children. The co‑operation of some parents taking
their children out of the daycare at times so that others could put theirs in
is something that we often see in relationships in rural
I think, while I can support a number of
things that are encompassed in the resolution, I am going to, Mr. Speaker, move
an amendment to the resolution which I think probably better reflects the
reality in rural Manitoba.
I would move, seconded by the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),
THAT Resolution 12 be amended by deleting
all words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the
following:
Child Safety has become a major concern as
more Manitoba farming operations have both husband and wife employed as working
partners; and
WHEREAS safety of children in rural
communities is a concern to families particularly during the long hours of
seeding and harvesting; and
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the Manitoba Women's Institute is
piloting a program for a Rural Child Care Safety Registry in which caregivers
are matched with families who need care for their children during peak periods
of farm operations; and
WHEREAS rural families support the concept
of a child care safety registry because it provides a safe alternative to
having children with them during peak farming periods which are normally
stressful periods for farm families.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba commend the Manitoba Women's Institute for
working together with the Manitoba Women's Directorate, Manitoba Agriculture
and Manitoba Family Services for designing the pilot program to enhance the
safety of children in rural Manitoba.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Well, Mr. Speaker, I‑‑[interjection]
Perhaps if the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) would care to listen he
will hear some things that might expand his understanding of what is happening
in daycare. He might hear a few things
about daycare that would make him stop and reflect upon the actions of his
minister and his government.
I frankly, and I of course would never
reflect on the Chair or the Speaker or a ruling of the Speaker, but it is a
little remarkable to me that we could amend a resolution that speaks about the
Lakeview Children's Centre in Langruth and never‑‑
An Honourable Member: Are you challenging the Chair?
* (1730)
Mr. Alcock: Oh, I am not challenging the Chair at all, I
am simply remarking on the resolution that is on the table before me.
In fact, I am looking at both resolutions
in my hand here, and I am noticing here in the original resolution that the
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) was speaking about rural daycare, that she
was raising concerns about the degradation of the system in North America, that
she was raising concerns about the safety of children, and that she was talking
about an innovative pilot project in Langruth.
I note that in the amendment that the minister has completely chosen to
ignore that.
An Honourable Member: Challenge his ruling.
Mr. Alcock: No, you know, I have such respect for this
Speaker that on an issue of this sort, I am prepared to accept his ruling
without challenging it, but I also wish to address what I see as hypocrisy
consistent with the policies of this government.
An Honourable Member: What hypocrisy?
Mr. Alcock: Well, when the minister spoke, and I realize
he has run screaming in terror from the Chamber, but when he spoke‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you
chastising the other members and calling them to order so that they can hear
what has occurred. I know that when you
reflect on what has occurred here, we have had a very, very unusual action
taken by this government, and I think when we reflect on this, we will discover‑‑[interjection]
Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the
speaking notes. I appreciate this. This will be very helpful. I now understand the basis upon which you
made your ruling, so I would like to focus the remainder of my time on the
remarks of the minister.
The member for
I heard the minister say exactly the same
thing. The minister said almost
precisely the same thing, that the circumstances in the rural areas are
different than the circumstances in the urban areas and, therefore, we need
differing responses.
What is different about the two
presentations is the member for
If I can commend the member for
As the government so often points out,
there are variations in rural communities.
You might try a registry in some areas, although there are also some
concerns about it. You might also try
centres. You might try a variety of
centres with different hours and flexible schedules as a way to respond to
different conditions.
I think that is all the member for
Surely what people are trying to do in
rural
Those are the words of the minister, and
why he would choose to dismiss one of a continuum of responses is, I think,
quite inconsistent with his own presentation, although inconsistency on the part
of this government and this particular minister is not something that we are
unaccustomed to.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, with those
brief remarks, I know the member for
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, yes, I appreciate the
opportunity to get up yet again to speak more specifically to the amendment to
this resolution put forward by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) and also to comment on some of the remarks he made after my
earlier comments on this issue.
The minister is speaking in his amendment
about the rural child care safety registry, which has been piloted over this
last season by the Departments of Agriculture, Family Services and the Women's
Institute. This is a concept which has
been, I believe, initiated originally in the
* (1740)
Mr. Speaker, in our original resolution we
talk about the need for child care services that recognizes the fact that the
rural economy and particularly the farming economy and the farming cycle is
variable. It fluctuates from season to
season. All members of this House are well aware of that and most certainly all
rural Manitobans are well aware of that.
We have stated our support for the concept
of a range of services which the rural child care safety registry is part of.
However, as the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has stated in his comments, the
amendment to the resolution on rural child care takes only one component‑‑actually,
it takes one problem and one component of a solution and discusses those, which
is exactly what we are saying should not happen in our resolution.
The minister talks about safety for farm
families, and we have talked about that as well. The horrendous statistics that face the
children of
We have no quarrel with any of the things
that the minister has stated in his amendment.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that it again speaks only to a very narrow
definition of child care. It speaks to a very narrow definition of the problems
that face farm families and rural Manitobans.
The Lakeview Children's Centre, as is the Rural Child Care Safety
Registry, is part of a continuum of service provision that must be available to
all families in
Our resolution speaks to the fact that,
while there are seasonal fluctuations in the farming communities, in particular
seeding and harvesting, Mr. Speaker, farming, as certainly all members on this
side of the House do know and all members on that side of the House should
know, is not a seasonal occupation. Farming takes place all year round. Therefore, it is not just at the peak seasons
of seeding and harvesting that child care is needed in rural
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that this
amendment neglects to address is the fact that many farm families, many rural
families no longer have the luxury of having one partner do the majority of the
farm work or the majority of the harvesting and seeding, and the other partner
in a more traditional way takes care of the children and the support for her
partner to do the major work on the farm of the harvesting and seeding. Today many, if not most, farm families are
obliged to have two partners working.
That means that the need is for either one or both partners to work
either full time or part time off the farm during the entire year or during
part of the year. This means that we
cannot have a child care system in rural
The minister also stated in his discussion
that the New Democrats when they were in government and continued almost up
until today, according to the minister, to think that there was only one form
of child care that was the best form of child care or the only form of child
care.
Mr. Speaker, as I have on past occasions
and as I will continue to do when the minister puts this inaccuracy on record,
I will correct his statements. The Manitoba
New Democratic Party governments in the early and mid and late '80s instituted
a child care policy that was a model for the entire North American
continent. One of the reasons that it
was a model was that it provided for a continuum of service. It provided for a range of child care options
for families.
Mr. Speaker, we have child cares in the
Our child care act put in force by the New
Democratic Party government in the province of Manitoba allows for not only
licensed child care services in a daycare child care setting, it allows for
nursery school services which are under enormous attack by this government at
this time. It allows for child care in
schools which this government has neglected to implement, and it allows for
family daycare. The New Democratic Party
when it was in government instituted a child care policy that provided the full
range of services to all Manitobans.
For the minister to stand in his place and
say that the NDP only knows one way to do things when it comes to child care in
Manitoba cannot go unanswered and will, Mr. Speaker, never go unanswered as
long as he continues to put those statements on record which are inaccurate to
say the least.
Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to
support the amendment put forward by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) to our resolution not because, as I have stated earlier, there is
anything wrong with the amendment per se, but it slices off only a narrow part
of the problem facing rural Manitoba families and the necessary child care
provisions for those families.
We must regretfully vote against this
amendment, as I have stated, because it does not address the real needs of the
people of
Mr. Speaker, again, the minister neglects
in his amendment to address the concerns that have been raised not only in
child daycare, but in other areas of his department about the geographical
reality of the province of Manitoba, which is that while 60 to 75 percent of
the people in the province of Manitoba now live within 45 minutes of the city
of Winnipeg, there are still 25 to 40 percent of the people of the province who
live outside that sphere of influence of the city of Winnipeg.
Services for those people must be maintained
and enhanced not only in child daycare, but in educational services, in
services to children with special needs, in services to adults with special
needs, in services to the frail elderly, in health care, in education, in
services, most particularly, Mr. Speaker, to families in desperate need of
safety.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has eliminated an entire crisis centre for women and children in
northern
We reiterate our concerns for the child
care system in rural
* (1750)
I would also like to rhetorically, if I
may, ask the Minister of Family Services if he is prepared at the end of the
pilot project funding for the rural child care safety registry to commit
ongoing operating funds for that registry in rural
So, Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks
in glowing terms about the pilot project of the rural child care safety
registry, we on this side of the House find the alarm bells ringing, because
there are a number of instances: The
Elder Abuse Resource Centre, Victims' Assistance money, crisis shelters, a
reduction in the subsidy paid to child care centres throughout Manitoba. We see a number of instances where this
government has paid only lip service to services for children.
We would ask the minister to give us some
assurance that child care provisions for all people in
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I am pleased to be able to participate in
this debate because I believe our former Family Services critic has put forward
an excellent resolution. I am
disappointed that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) was unable
to support it and in fact amended it so completely that it bears no resemblance
to the original resolution.
I would like to begin by asking the
question, why do we need daycare in rural areas, and can we justify the
cost? I think there are a number of
reasons why I can answer that in a positive and why we can justify this.
[interjection]
The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) said
he is opening a brand‑new daycare next week. I would be interested in knowing if it is
going to be open until 9 p.m. and whether it is going to provide special
services for children of farm families during harvest and spring seeding. The first rationale I think that we can use
to justify it is that people in rural Manitoba deserve the same level of
services that people in Winnipeg get; therefore, child care centres should be
accessible and affordable and available for people in rural Manitoba just as
they are in Winnipeg.
Secondly, I believe that the need is even
greater, particularly at times of year such as seeding and harvest, than it is
in other places. Of course, the reason
for this is that it is a safety issue.
As one of the articles from the Free Press
says, quoting Rita Roeland: The Manitoba
Safety Council says, farming is the only industry in the world where children
are allowed on the worksite.
That has dangerous consequences for
children in many cases. For example, we have statistics on farm accidents.
[interjection]
Well, the member for Emerson is asking a
rhetorical question, but I will answer it anyway. That is, yes, it is normal for children to
grow up on farms. Many members opposite
grew up on farms. I lived on a farm, and
I am aware that there are many benefits to growing up on a farm. There are many benefits and good things about
living on a farm and learning about hard work, but there are also risks. One of the risks is the danger of accidents.
There were things that happened on the
farm that I lived on that were not particularly safe. I remember my cousin Neil driving a tractor
when he was‑‑well, steering a tractor when he was three years old,
because they could not afford to hire help other than me. So he was needed at haying time.
The risks for children are great. To quote from this article in the Free Press
from October 5, 1992: An average of two
Manitoba children die every year in farm‑related accidents and 20 to 30
more require hospitalization largely because of inadequate rural child care
services.
Once again this is from the Manitoba
Safety Council.
The reason they are needed in rural
For example, at both seeding and harvest,
farmers are using grain augers. Grain
augers sometimes have safety covers and sometimes they do not. It is very easy for a child or an adult to
get their clothes caught in an auger, to get a limb caught in an auger. They are a dangerous instrument because
people can be maimed and injured, and children do get maimed and injured in
farm accidents in
The advantage of a child care centre is
that children can be in a safe place where they are not at risk and not in danger.
We also need child care centres that have
flexible hours and where people can take their children, especially during the
busy time. The Lakeview Children's
Centre at Langruth offers extended hours, the only one in
Statistics
They go on to say in their letter to the
minister: Today only the Langruth centre
is in fact piloting the kind of model which is most sensitive to farm families'
needs for quality, licensed, flexible and extended‑hour care. That is due to a federal initiative, the
Child Care Initiative Fund of Health and Welfare
So this was funding that they received on
an experimental basis. But, you know,
the federal Conservative government promised a child care initiative. I believe they promised it in the 1984
election and the 1988 election but did not deliver on that promise. I think the reason is that ideologically many
of their members do not believe in it.
In fact, I think the attack on child care in this province is because
there are many members in the Conservative caucus who do not believe in child
care.
I know from talking to one of the parents
who said she talked to her MLA in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).