ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Mining Industry

Accidental Deaths

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the acting Premier or the Minister of Labour.

Over the last 18 months, we have been listening to people in occupations of mining who are very concerned about the fact that four miners have lost their lives tragically in Manitoba between May of 1993 and May of 1994. They are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that they have adequate protection and adequate safety measures to ensure that their safety will be protected in the mines of Manitoba. Four deaths is something which all of us, I am sure, are very concerned about.

I would like to ask the minister responsible or the acting Premier: Have any of these deaths that have been investigated by the Department of Labour and the mining department that reports to the minister, the mining safety department, could any of these deaths have been prevented with adequate safety procedures in place in our mines in Manitoba?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, who raises a very important set of issues in safety and health in the workplace, and I would report to this House that in many of these instances, yes, those deaths could have been prevented if proper workplace safety and health procedures had been followed often by the people who are killed in the accident or in the operation of the mine.

We as a department take these things very seriously and have been working with the unions and with the companies involved to ensure that people are fully aware of risk and at all times follow proper procedures to eliminate or reduce that risk.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with the minister's answer. Often people in occupations of mining have to follow dictates by the company and have to be backed up by the government's department of Workplace Safety and Health.

I have a report, Mr. Speaker, prepared by the minister's own Mine Inspection Safety Branch that says that the company agreed to certain safety procedures after the first death in January of 1994, the first fatality, but had not implemented them to avoid the second fatality. They had not implemented the policies five months after the government department had been involved in a fatality in January of 1994.

I would ask the minister: Why did the company not follow the instructions of the government Safety department dealing with mine safety? Why did we have a second fatality basically the same as the first fatality, Mr. Speaker, that was documented to the government?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right in indicating clearly to the House that following the first fatality at the mine in question orders were issued with respect to taking the proper precautions. I think, in the instance that the member is referring to, it was having a secure risk [phonetic] at the shaft where ore was being dumped in with a very large piece of equipment. Consequently, by not following through on those orders, that matter is currently with the Department of Justice, as we are preparing to take the appropriate legal steps for a breach of that act.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, these are mining incidents, four deaths.

The minister's first response was to talk about the fact that the workers themselves did not follow through on procedures. They, of course, are working for companies and must follow, unfortunately--or fortunately--the instructions of the employer and the companies.

Mr. Speaker, we had agreements in place in January of 1994 to have safety measures put in place to prevent future deaths that had occurred in January of 1994. The government's own department says that the company agreed to safety procedures after the first fatality but had not implemented them to avoid the second fatality.

I would ask the government: Where was the ministry, where was the department that the minister is responsible for? Why was this order and this agreement not implemented? Why did we not prevent the second death after we were well aware of the conditions that led to the first unfortunate fatality in a very similar situation?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that our Mines Inspection Unit, our officers in that particular branch are in the mines of Manitoba on a regular basis trying to ensure that regulations are met and complied with.

I will take as notice his question with respect to timing, because I certainly want to double check the information he brings to this House.

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that where in fact there has been a breach of that act, we take those things very seriously. In this case this mine has likely, if they have not already, been charged under that particular act.

With reference to one of the ongoing issues, not in this particular case but in some others certainly--and I have had discussions with members of the United Steelworkers of America, which is the union that represents many people in the mining industry, that there are problems with compliance due to the fact that often--not in this particular case--the kind of reporting back procedures that we need to alert us to a particular problem do not happen because the particular regulation creates an inconvenience in the workplace that often people are not prepared to live with. That is unacceptable and they have said to me that we have to work to improve that as well.

It is a multifaceted approach that is needed, Mr. Speaker.

* (1340)

Youth Crime

Prevention Programs

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, one year ago on December 4 the Summit on Youth Crime and Violence made 700 recommendations stressing prevention, a higher priority on programs affecting children and the family and the need to analyze every government decision to see how it impacts on families.

Since the summit, this government has just cut away at preventative programs. This government's policies are breeding crime in Manitoba, in fact, the highest rate of violent youth crime in Canada, the only province where crime is on the increase.

Mr. Speaker, given that there is no organization, no implementation committee, no co-ordinated effort to implement the recommendations of the summit, would the Acting Minister of Justice finally ensure that such a body is put in place?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Acting Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I can say first of all to the member for St. Johns that this government and my colleague the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey) take very seriously the issue of crime, and has worked very hard to put in place many of the types of things that government can do to deal with the crime issue.

I would remind members opposite that crime is not entirely an issue that government controls, that there are responsibilities that rest with the community. That was part of that whole summit.

I will take the rest of the member's question as notice. I am sure the Minister of Justice will have a greater detailed answer to the member's question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, even given that the Minister of Justice has made certain promises that commitments would be made to Manitobans to reduce youth violence and crime in Manitoba, would the acting minister tell Manitobans what ever happened to the provincial council on youth crime as promised by the Justice minister? What ever happened to her youth advisory council, as promised by the minister? What ever happened to her expanded mandate for Youth Justice Committees as promised by the minister? What ever happened to her military--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Order, please.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I will take the bulk of the member's question as notice for specific detail, but the member asks the question as if he has been out of the province for the last six months, because I can tell the member for St. Johns that in the area of improving the punishment and rehabilitation side of bringing in the youth camps and the work camps, they have been acted on.

In fact, I can tell the member there is one in my constituency right now, so I do not know where the member has been for the last six months.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, given only the government's unfulfilled nine-point plan, as the Justice minister called it, and given the Speech from the Throne, which did not even mention any of the recommendations from the summit report, would the acting minister, on behalf of the government, on behalf of the Justice minister, now apologize to those 500 people who gave their time and ideas at the summit a year ago, and now admit that along with the report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, the report on the war against drugs, the summit report has now been buried?

Mr. Praznik: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will again take this question as notice on behalf of the minister, but I have to say to the member, again, where has the member been? Many parts of that program have been implemented. They are there and I notice that--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister has said he is taking it as notice.

* (1345)

Manitoba Lotteries Corporation

Spending Criteria

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries corporation.

The Speech from the Throne tabled last week indicates at page 3: "Spending taxpayers' dollars smarter has been our guiding principle . . . . As a result, more of every tax dollar is directed to the highest priority . . . ."

The Conservatives have rejected our proposal for a child nutrition program across the province, a fetal alcohol syndrome initiative, a rural children's dental program. They have rejected all of those that have come forward.

At the same time, we have learned that they have sanctioned a $20,000 expenditure for a Winnie the Pooh statue for London, England for the London Zoo.

Where is it that that project of $20,000 for a Winnie the Pooh statue for the people of England fits into the criteria of spending for the highest priority areas?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Leader of the Liberal Party that the Manitoba Lotteries corporation raises the money. If you look at pages 17 and 18 of the most recent report it will show you that any surplus monies are turned over to the government of Manitoba. The government of Manitoba then determines in its budget process, dutifully outlined in all of the budget documents, Estimates, spending and so on, where it intends to spend its money.

So the Lotteries corporation is not spending any money on a Winnie the Pooh statue no matter how good a project it may or may not be. The fact of the matter is that the Lotteries corporation does not do that.

Mr. Edwards: I assume that the government does have control over the spending priorities of the Lotteries corporation, so that is why I am asking the minister. To add insult to injury, this $20,000 is going to a sculptor from Saskatoon, Mr. Michael Epp.

Where does paying a Saskatchewan sculptor $20,000 for a statue to go to England fit within the Making Good Things Happen brochure and ad campaign, which was handed out last week at the UMM convention? Where in this pamphlet is there a line, is there a program, that would sanction the highest priority, as the government says, spending $20,000 for a statue produced in Saskatchewan to go to London, England?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party did not listen to my first answer. I told him the Lotteries corporation does not spend that money. The money the Lotteries corporation makes goes to the government, sits in a trust fund within the Department of Finance, so let the member not try and confuse the facts as he does on a regular basis.

With respect to that brochure, it was he and the Leader of the NDP who called for a fact sheet. They want the public to know what the facts of the matter are, where the money is spent, and that is exactly what the Lotteries corporation did.

Mr. Edwards: If it was a fact sheet, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that money is being spent to pay sculptors in Saskatoon to send statues to London, England.

I have a final question for the minister. Mr. Don Leitch, the Clerk of Executive Council--whom we might call the Grand Pooh-Bah--told the sculptor in Saskatoon not to say anything publicly on this.

My final question for the minister: Who is allocating this money within the government? Why is Don Leitch ordering this statue be produced in Saskatoon and that the sculptor not talk publicly about this?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the question of a Tourism project with respect to which the member refers falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) and on his behalf I will take that question as notice.

* (1350)

Health Care Facilities

Funding

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the chief accountant for the province announced a 2 percent cut to hospital fundings next year.

Can the Minister of Health advise whether this 2 percent cut for next year is in addition to the 2 percent as a result of Filmon Fridays last year, as well as the $20 million cut from two years ago directed towards the hospitals?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member claims on the one hand to be in favour of directing funds to community services in the delivery of health care and prevention services, and then he raises the issue about where that money is coming from.

There is no secret where that money is coming from. That money is being directed from the acute care sector into the community care sector. That has been the plan since the spring of 1992. It has been a plan that the honourable member purportedly supports. His Leader takes a far more constructive view of this thing than the honourable member does.

All of this is being done, Mr. Speaker, with the clear understanding between the Department of Health and all of the facilities that these changes will be carried out with the bottom line of care for patients not being compromised being that bottom line.

That is the understanding we have. Indeed, as we go forward into the budget process the honourable member will have laid out for him all of the various areas in the community where these dollars will be laid out, but the throne speech does give a few hints about where those dollars will be going.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister therefore can explain why, given this scenario to develop next year, that personal care homes will get less money even given the 1 percent increase that they have announced, will get less money even though they have to deal with more people, than they got two years ago from this government.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the long-term care program and the personal care component of that is much healthier in the last few years than it ever was under the previous New Democratic administration.

We have built hundreds and hundreds of new personal care home spaces for elderly and disabled people in Manitoba, and while we are pleased with our progress in that area we recognize and acknowledge that there is always going to be pressure on that system as long as we continue in society. Our older population and our disabled population are going to need that kind of care, and that is where you have seen a major emphasis on the part of this government.

I would not want to go back to the days when the honourable member's colleagues were in charge of the Health department.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary to the minister who just contradicted himself between his first answer and his second answer.

Can the minister indicate whether or not this year the department has on a one-time basis indicated it will pay the deficit of at least one city of Winnipeg hospital, and will it be paying the deficit for the other hospitals as well?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the hospital surpluses and deficits and ongoing financial relationship between them and the Department of Health is subject to annual discussion between the hospitals and the Department of Health, and those discussions will be going forward as we move into the next fiscal year.

I think it is noteworthy that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has attempted to be responsive to the concerns of the facilities in Manitoba by coming out earlier with a general description of where we expect to be going in the upcoming fiscal year.

Manitoba Telephone System

Rate Increase

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Manitoba Society of Seniors and the Consumers' Association filed a motion in Federal Court of Appeal against the proposed hike of local telephone rates. I will table a copy of the motion for the benefit of the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this increase in rates will unfairly impact upon seniors, low-income Manitobans and Manitobans on fixed incomes.

My question is for the minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. Will he support this court action?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity to explain to the member what process is going on. The CRTC is now the regulator of all the telcos across Canada with the exception of Saskatchewan. CRTC, in its wisdom, held a series of hearings across Canada over the last 21 months.

They came down with a ruling called 94-19, which the member is referring to, which said that telcos had the right to apply for a rate rebalancing process, which is $2 a month increase January 1 in each of the next three years plus an equal financial reduction in long distance rates, so that it will be revenue neutral for the telcos and for the majority of telephone subscribers who have both local charges and long distance. All phone bills average around $30 to $35, with the local cost being $15.

Every user of a telephone service will see a small rise on one side, a decrease on the other side. But, Mr. Speaker, I want the member to know very clearly, that is not a final decision. CRTC asks that the telcos apply in the course of December to determine whether their reductions in long distance rates are acceptable to CRTC. The Manitoba Telephone System has now made that filing to CRTC. [interjection]

If the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) would like to answer the question, maybe the member for Selkirk would ask it of him.

That process is ongoing. Right now we are in what is called a public process for CRTC to hear input from all citizens of every province of this country as to whether they should abide by the applications received from the telcos in each province. So it is an ongoing public process the member is talking about, and the application he is referring to, they should make that application to CRTC.

* (1355)

Mr. Dewar: It is unfortunate this minister and this government will not support seniors on a fixed income in the province.

In 1990 this minister promised that there would be public input into any decisions regarding telephone rates.

My question is: Why has he not honoured this agreement?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to that member that we support seniors, we support all Manitobans.

We have information that shows, for people over 55, the majority of their phone bills are long distance. So we want them to have the savings. Our position is, we want to be sure that CRTC, in their process right now, make sure that the savings come back to average Manitobans, all Manitobans. That is the process we are in.

We, in our MOU, which the member says we are not abiding by, it requests a public process. That public process is going on right now. CRTC is receiving input from people who want to object to what the telcos have filed in regard to 94-19.

I will ask very seriously that CRTC be sure that all Manitobans are treated fairly and to be sure that it is a revenue-neutral option if they approve it.

911 Emergency Service

Rural Manitoba

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will table that information for members on this side of the House.

My final question for the minister is: When will rural and northern Manitobans receive the 911 emergency service?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, we have been going through a long process to try to have 911 service available for all Manitobans. We will, by the beginning of 1996, have the entire province digitalized and private lines in all homes. That is essential for an effective 911 service. There will be a cost for the process, and we will have to go through a process to determine if Manitobans will be prepared to pay that cost.

I congratulate the City of Brandon, which is looking at bringing more municipalities into that process out in that region of the province.

The fundamentals to have 911--[interjection] I think we will give the credit to the mayor of Brandon, not to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).

Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts

Renovations

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health released the MacIntosh report last week, which recommended offering the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts board money for renovations of the existing seniors housing so that in fact seniors would not be displaced.

In the meantime, however, the City of Winnipeg has also allowed a zoning variance for the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts so that they could continue or begin to develop their condominiums.

Can the minister tell this House if the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts board has accepted the offer of assistance for renovations from this government, and will they be proceeding with those renovations?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I am not able, Mr. Speaker, to tell the honourable member what the Metropolitan Kiwanis board has decided to do or not do to this point. However, I have urged the concerned citizens of St. James, and I have urged the Metropolitan Kiwanis board to get together and discuss the appropriate use for that property for the years ahead. I have also said that the province, the Department of Health will make dollars available to assist in implementing the third recommendation set out by Mr. MacIntosh in his report.

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet heard of the results of any discussions that might have flowed from the release of Mr. MacIntosh's report, but I do urge all the parties to dialogue and discuss and reach some agreements. I have made Mr. Dale Berry of our Capital Construction Branch available to all the parties to take part in the discussions to indicate what role and what level--negotiate if necessary what level of support would be forthcoming from the Department of Health.

* (1400)

Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the concerned citizens feel that the minister and his department need to get more directly involved and not only need to encourage a meeting between Metropolitan Kiwanis and the concerned citizens, but actually need to take the leadership in setting up that meeting.

Can the minister tell us if his office is prepared to actually set up that meeting so in fact we can find out exactly what is going to happen if those renovations will proceed with the assistance of the government?

Mr. McCrae: Through the efforts of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), Mr. Speaker, and my department, we have been very, very directly involved over a fairly long period of time. We indeed want to have the parties come together.

In fact, I believe that may be reason for some concern, that the parties indeed have not been to the extent that might be desired working as closely together as might be desired. So if there is some indication that my offices can be of any assistance, we will be of assistance.

But I remind the honourable member that it was the MacIntosh report she referred to in her first question, and it was through the initiative of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek and my office that we were able to obtain the services of Mr. MacIntosh, who did a lot of work to interview all of the various people involved.

So we have been involved, we are involved and we will be involved, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to the Minister of Health.

I heard the member for Sturgeon Creek indicate it was done, the meeting is done.

Can the minister then tell us: Will he ensure that in fact all of the concerned citizens and the lead members of that group whom I spoke with at one o'clock this afternoon are in fact told of this upcoming meeting and when it will be so that they are aware and that we can proceed with having the renovations done?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek and I--it was just last week I believe--met with the concerned citizens of St. James. The honourable member for Sturgeon Creek and I have met with members of the Kiwanis board.

So I think that with the help of the MacIntosh report we hope that we can see some progress. But, as I said to the honourable member previously, should there be some further role, appropriate role, considering that this is not a government project, this is the Kiwanis organization working with the community, I am quite happy to be involved, but I do not want to be more involved than we should be.

There are certain bounds of what is the right thing to do when you are dealing with a community organization. But we have certainly demonstrated by what we have done so far that we are prepared to take a role where that is appropriate to do in the interests of the seniors in that neighbourhood, Mr. Speaker.

Canadian Wheat Board

Government Support

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, for the last few months, the Canadian Wheat Board has been under a tremendous amount of attack, and we have not heard this government's position on whether or not they will defend the Wheat Board. Western Canadian farmers have spoken very clearly in the elections of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee that they do want the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board retained.

I want to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture if he will now state very clearly that this government will support the Canadian Wheat Board and stand with Canadian farmers who have stated very clearly that they want the monopoly of the Wheat Board retained.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Acting Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice for the Minister of Agriculture, but I will agree with the member opposite that the Wheat Board has done a good job over the course of some 60 years for the province of Manitoba and western Canada as a whole. Nobody is disputing that point, nobody at all and certainly not this government.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will comment further.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since farmers have spoken very clearly that they want the monopoly retained, but the federal government is proposing to hold consultation meetings to discuss the Wheat Board, will this Minister of Agriculture or Acting Minister of Agriculture communicate to the federal Minister of Agriculture that there is no need for consultations?

There is no need to hold these meetings. The farmers have voted. They have said they want the monopoly retained. Let us retain the monopoly.

Mr. Findlay: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think one thing I will say for this government, we believe in consultation. The NDP party says no to consultation.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is meeting with his counterparts across the country in about 10 days time, and I am very sure it will be a discussion point. Whether the federal Liberal government follows the member's advice remains to be seen.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was inaccurate in his statement, in saying we do not believe in consultation.

The farmers were consulted and the farmers have voted. Farmers want the Wheat Board retained, and we are asking you to state very clearly that you will also support the Wheat Board and stand with farmers. That is the position we are asking you to take, and this government has not taken that position yet.

I ask them if they will state clearly that they are behind the Wheat Board and that there is no need to make changes to the Wheat Board.

Mr. Findlay: Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question earlier, that we believe the Wheat Board has done a very good job.

As to the fact that there should be no changes, nothing stands still in this society. The Wheat Board has been changing too in response to what farmers want to see it do, so it is changing, evolving over the course of time.

I will ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) to put it on his agenda for his discussion with the federal minister. I am sure the results of the recent Wheat Board Advisory Committee vote will have some bearing on what will happen with regard to the federal government and that issue, but we agree certainly that the Wheat Board has done a very good job for farmers in western Canada for a long period of time. I will also tell the member it must continue to evolve as farmers need it to evolve.

Headingley, Manitoba

Capital Debt

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Urban Affairs.

As we know, the provincial cabinet has overruled the Municipal Board recently and has ordered the city to pay half the capital debt of the breakaway Municipality of Headingley which will cost the Winnipeg taxpayers over $300,000.

Why did the cabinet overrule the Municipal Board on this matter, or why should the residents across Winnipeg pay $300,000 in additional taxes to Headingley?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should indicate first of all that cabinet did not overrule. From the beginning, because of the uniqueness of this situation, it was always determined that the Municipal Board in this instance would recommend and that cabinet would examine the recommendations in light of the circumstances.

The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is the lead minister on this, and I will take that as advisement in case he wants to add more detail than I am able to offer here.

I can indicate that the item that the particular member is referring to was one in which there was a dispute over whether or not there should have been an operating grant or operating money or capital money, it being done one way municipally and another way as a rule in the city.

The decision of cabinet was to take the middle point between the two as a compromise for both positions, and that indeed is what happened, Mr. Speaker, a very fair solution, I believe.

Mr. Schellenberg: You are the Minister of Urban Affairs, therefore you are responsible. You have not given me real underlying reasons for this. The board has given its recommendation, and you have overruled it. Does your cabinet not have faith in the decision of this board?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that was imputing motives or not. I sincerely hope it was not, and I am not going to charge that it was.

I would just indicate that in this instance, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Board, which deals primarily with items coming before rural municipalities was asked to make a precedent type of decision in terms of dealing with divisions of assets and liabilities regarding the City of Winnipeg. This is not something that has historically happened.

Therefore, the decision was made that they would make a recommendation to cabinet, and cabinet would make the decision since the Municipal Board deals normally only with rural municipalities. The City of Winnipeg will sometimes use operating money for things such as drainage. Sometimes it can be treated as capital or operating depending on where the thing is located.

In this instance, there was a dispute over whether or not the money which was used for drainage should have been the operating versus capital. The cabinet took a look at that and decided that since there was merit in both arguments, it would take the middle ground, compromise 50-50, take it down the middle, and that decision, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is a very fair decision.

Mr. Schellenberg: Once again the cabinet is offloading on the inner city. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Handi-Transit, they do not believe in 50-50.

How much in additional property taxes will residents in Winnipeg have to pay because of this cabinet decision?

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Handi-Transit, the member knows full well that the City of Winnipeg was given a tremendous amount of money over and above what it received the year before--a 5.2 percent increase in total funding last year, with the additional monies still to come from the 25 percent, and that the city was told very clearly by me and by other members of this government that they had $4 million in unconditional VLT revenues from which they were free, in fact, encouraged by this government, but not ordered, encouraged to take $400,000 from that and apply it to Handi-Transit. The city chose not to do that.

The member wants me to start ordering them to do things in setting their budget for them, but let him tell me that he wants me to take over control of the City of Winnipeg budget and take away their local autonomy to make decisions. They have always argued for a block grant and a block grant is what they got. If they choose not to apply it to Handi-Transit, that is their decision.

I made the request. The money was there. They made a different decision. They will also make decisions regarding taxation for their citizens, and I hope that they will continue to be diligent in their efforts to arrive at zero.

* (1410)

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, our rules are quite clear that the government does not have to answer questions, but if they do choose to answer, it should relate to the question raised, which in this case was: How much will the city of Winnipeg taxpayers have to pay for the actions of this government?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In the preamble, as set out by the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), he quite clearly indicated about the Handi-Transit. I believe the honourable minister responded to that.

The honourable member does not have a point of order.

Taking Charge! Program

Implementation

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services.

Throughout the Fifth Session of this Legislature, the Minister of Family Services announced many, many times the joint federal-provincial initiative directed to the employment and training of single parents. The announcement predicted a start date for September 1994, but the project's community board has not yet been appointed.

Will the minister provide this House with a commitment as to when the community board will be appointed so that the project can begin?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we were really enthusiastic about getting the announcement made and the taking-charge initiative up and running. I know that we were ready as a province back in May, and there were some delays as a result of bureaucratic discussion between the two levels of government. Finally, the announcement was made at the beginning of September.

I am really pleased that we have had the opportunity, both Lloyd Axworthy and I, to discuss potential members to the board, and I believe that there will be an announcement made very soon regarding the composition of that board.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, will the minister provide this House with a firm date as to when the participants will be selected to come into the project?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as this is a federal and provincial initiative, it will be a joint decision between the federal government--her federal cousins--and my department. We look forward with anticipation to having the board up and running fairly soon and an office open and ready for business in the New Year.

Ms. McCormick: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister commit that the provincial funds promised to be committed in this initiative will be expended in the 1994-95 fiscal period?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this is a federal and provincial initiative. The funds will be expended on an as-needed basis as the office is up and running.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated this is a joint initiative, and maybe she should talk to her federal cousins and see whether their dollars will be spent in the 1994-95 fiscal year.

When the office is up and running, we will be spending the dollars that will be required to ensure that single parents are dealt with in a very expeditious and humane manner.

Manitoba Hydro

Corporate Housing--Taxation

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, last week, in Gillam, I had an opportunity to meet with the local residents there in a public meeting. They informed me that in 1991, Revenue Canada ruled that Gillam qualified as a remote worksite and, as such, employer-provided housing was not a taxable benefit.

Only last December, Revenue Canada said they would honour their 1991 ruling until the end of 1993. However, since then, Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada has now overturned that ruling and is now saying that employees in Gillam must pay taxes on corporate housing for the years 1991 to 1993 and present. For most residents affected, this will amount to as much as $4,000 each.

I want to ask the Acting Minister responsible for Hydro this afternoon: What action is he prepared to take to support the people of Gillam? If indeed the federal minister refuses to rescind this tax grab, what position will the minister take?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Acting Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that as notice on behalf of the responsible minister.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.