Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have with us today from the Applied Linguistics Centre 12 English as a Second Language visitors under the direction of Miss Greta Gibson. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would wish the minister of Emergency Measures (Mr. Pitura) well. I would offer him a place to stay at my place, but I may be joining him very shortly. Our Deputy Leader, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), is offering a room to the minister if he needs that kind of accommodation. [interjection] Well, I think it was a nice gesture, and of course it is consistent with all of our co-operation here in this House.

An Honourable Member: Why did she not offer it to you then?

Mr. Doer: There is a difference between four people and one person, but perhaps I will explain that later to the Deputy Premier. I thank him for his usual nonpartisan and friendly advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a very serious question. As the minister has pointed out, evacuations are at an unprecedented level here in the province of Manitoba. Thousands of people, over 20,000 people, have either been evacuated or have been given notice to evacuate, and that continues, as the minister has indicated, on an hourly basis.

Regrettably in Ste. Agathe and Aubigny, Manitoba, we have had water through those communities and disasters that have been created with the flooding situation. These people join other members of Manitoba, other people in our province that have suffered loss of their homes on their farmsteads as this flood continues through our province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, a lot of people are asking us a very simple question. They have heard the debate about disaster coverage and flood coverage between the governments. They would like to know, very simply: What is the disaster assistance available to people who have lost their homes to this flood?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to the disaster assistance program that the province has in co-operation with the federal government with regard to the cost-sharing of disasters, with the determination of how eligibility exists with the various people who have been subjected to disasters, this has always been and always will be a joint partnership between the federal and provincial governments. However, I would add that with regard to disasters, as far as our government is concerned, when a disaster occurs, each time we take a look at the kind of disaster, the extent of the disaster, before any kinds of decisions are made with respect to provincial policy that may or may not be changed or kept in place or whatever it may be.

So I think that overall in regard to the disaster that is occurring now, right now we are attempting to do everything we can to prevent the disaster from being widespread or more widespread with more communities subjected to flooding. That is the main issue that we have in front of us right now. In the future, once the flood event is over, at that point in time we will have a very close look at the whole disaster and the extent of the damages.

* (1350)

Mr. Doer: I thank the minister for the answer to the question. We all agree that the priority must be, obviously, preventing disasters from taking place, but people have lost their homes. People have lost their possessions. People have lost their farm homes. People have lost their businesses. People want to know what these formulas and systems mean to them and their families as they try to rebuild their family life and their community life and try to make decisions in terms of what their future will be and how they will be dealt with by Disaster Assistance.

I would like to ask the minister: Are they reviewing the disaster assistance policy that is in place, the guidelines and funding formulas? I would like to ask the First Minister, because he has been here while these guidelines have been in place. Have they reviewed the existing guidelines, and what is the coverage for people that may lose their homes through these terrible disasters by floods?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I think it would be incumbent upon us to always review the guidelines and to ensure that they make sense given the disasters that we are facing and the circumstances. I can tell the member that, although there is the cost-sharing formula that clicks in based on various circumstances of a major civil disaster--the first dollar per capita spread across the province, it is, I think, all municipal costs. The next one to three dollars is split between the province and the municipality. Then the federal government takes in from three to five, and then the federal government is 90 percent after that.

There are some conditions, of course. One is that if a person has their own insurance, that is the first cost. I should say if it is an insurable loss then that is to prevail. There is also the limitation of $30,000 per individual claim, and I think that should be pointed out.

I am not certain--and perhaps the minister can confirm whether or not that is part of the federal disaster assistance program--whether those limitations as to insurable interests having to prevail and the $30,000 limitation are part of the federal requirement, but those are part of the conditions that are placed upon the evaluation of claims.

Mr. Doer: We respect the fact that insurance coverage would not allow for the disaster assistance but for people who do not have insurance, obviously, the disaster assistance formula is key. As the First Minister points out, there is a $30,000 limit, and there is an up to 20 percent waiver that can be waived by the province in respect to homes to cover the share of disaster costs. Has the Province of Manitoba and the Premier looked at the whole issue of waiving the 20 percent deductible for this provision?

Mr. Filmon: Just two points, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One is that if a matter is insurable but a person chose not to take out insurance, that too is a limitation that they would have self-imposed on themselves in terms of that.

With respect to the second issue of whether or not the 20 percent cost-sharing would be waived, that is a long-standing formula, and it prevails in virtually all disaster assistance programs because there are deductibilities in virtually every form of insurance. In fact, if you pay for an insurance policy, there will be a deductible on that insurance policy, a co-insurance aspect to it.

To my knowledge, there is virtually no program that gives 100 percent compensation, and that has to do with property loss of all natures, and, indeed, crop insurance and every other type of insurance usually has a co-insurance factor in it and a deductibility factor. That 20 percent is the product of, I think, countless years of experience. Certainly, as in anything, we will review the results of this as to the fairness and the functioning of the system, but I think it is unlikely that under any circumstances there would not be some form of deductibility or co-insurance in a claim for disaster assistance.

* (1355)

Mr. Doer: With a new question to the First Minister. We have been making inquiries to other provinces about this $30,000 limit that is cost-shared with the federal government. We have been informed, subject to any confirmation that the government might have, that in the Saguenay region last year in Quebec the limit was $100,000 for homes, that in Alberta just recently the claims were $100,000, that in British Columbia the guidelines are up to $100,000, whereas in Manitoba the guideline is to the $30,000 limit as indicated by the Premier.

It seems to us that it is only fair that Manitobans who suffer loss of home--and most homes cannot be covered by insurance for flood purposes--would be treated equally to other homeowners in other regions that suffer this same kind of disaster. Will the Premier review the $30,000 limit and look at a formula that is equitable across Canada with other communities, if in fact our information is correct?

Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that is a very positive suggestion. I think, though, given that we would expect 90 percent of it to be paid by the federal government, we would have to be assured that this was cost-shareable under their system. I think it is a very positive suggestion, and I am more than happy to follow it up. It was our intention to do so from the discussions I have had with our officials in the course of this unfortunate set of circumstances.

Mr. Doer: Certainly, we would support an initiative like that. It is our understanding that the federal government has cost-shared at 90 percent the $100,000 in the Saguenay region last summer. In fact, they had $2,000 available to people almost immediately. They cost-shared in the Peace River area of Canada, and they have done so previously in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question to the First Minister. The government has the authority, and, again, looking at the higher possibility in terms of fairness across Canada, the provincial government under their guideline assistance procedures has the authority to deal with cleanup and repair for an individual under disaster assistance, but that, of course, is a may be compensated for as opposed to a shall. In light of the horrific problems the flooding presents to a homeowner with the muck and materials that come into a farmhouse or to a home in a community, has the government looked at the issue of the discretion they have, and should not the word be "shall" for the purposes of flood and disaster relief with those unfortunate homeowners?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): All of that is a concern, of course, that we have been anticipating. I know that the minister has been in contact with the federal government with respect to creating some incentive for people leaving in place, where that is possible, dikes and seeding or sodding over them and creating permanent structures of them. Now that, of course, is not the case where you see, as the Leader of the Opposition and I did, houses that are ringed within a matter of a few feet of the dwelling itself with sandbags that literally block its entire view from the rest of the surrounding properties and so on. So there are going to be cleanup issues; there are going to be issues of devastation of yards and landscape and all those kinds of things.

There have been some creative suggestions coming in to us. In fact, one corporate leader has suggested that money be put together by corporations to fund, in essence, a summer employment initiative for students to participate in cleanup that would be funded by this corporate fund, and that, if the province were willing to manage it, they would see this as being something that could contribute to it. There would be lots of students coming out of university shortly and ultimately out of our public school system who would be looking for employment and could very easily be employed in the cleanup to assist many thousands of individuals who would have difficulty in that kind of activity--a lot of creative suggestions and all of them I think worthy of our consideration. Certainly, we are aware of the added burden of cleanup when the waters subside, as they inevitably will.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We note that the guidelines in place for the disaster financial assistance policy is a little bit dated, both in terms of limits and other issues, but one of the areas that is not available for compensation for purposes of homes and renovations and cleanup is the whole area of the GST. The GST, of course, was not in this country until just a few years ago, notwithstanding all the promises--and dare I say it; we do not want to be partisan here--about scrapping the GST. I do not want to get into that, so I will not mention it anymore, but the whole issue of the GST could be a large burden on people.

Will the Premier look at the guidelines on the disaster financial assistance and add the unfortunate update of the GST for compensation purposes?

* (1400)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We will look at all of the burdens that are put on people, including taxation and other issues, and look at ways in which we can try and be helpful in relieving burdens. Obviously, some of those things are not within our direct control, but there have been expressions of great co-operation issued to us by people in the course of even the last few days from other levels of government. So we will take a look at how far that co-operation extends.

I note under the disaster financial assistance program that cleanup and debris removal, including allowances for persons undertaking their own cleanup, is an allowable cost, so we want to look at all possibilities of this.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the losses faced by people in the Red River Valley are very serious, and many have lost their homes. Our hearts go out to those people.

Many are also at risk of losing their livelihoods, in particular those who are involved in the agriculture industry raising livestock, whether it be cattle, hogs or poultry. Some livestock has been moved, and many farmers are still fighting to save their herds or flocks. The minister has said that we have to save property and lives first and deal with compensation later. However, these people have faced a dramatic loss and need to know some answers.

Can the minister responsible for disaster assistance indicate if there is compensation available for farmers who have had the misfortune of losing their livestock?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): With regard to the question of the honourable member for Swan River, within the area of agriculture, the items that are covered as eligible costs are the loss of uninsurable harvested or stored crops, livestock fencing, farm machinery and trapping equipment.

At the present time, livestock is not covered under the program. With regard to beef cattle, most of the beef cattle can be insured. I am not aware within the parameters of the hogs or the poultry in regard to insurance, but it is certainly something that I think, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated earlier, is within the context of the entire disaster that we are going to have to take a look at and study.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the minister, since the limit at the present time is $30,000 per household and some people will lose their households and they will lose their income as well, is there a $30,000 cap on the amount that is available for the household, or is the agriculture component rolled into that $30,000 as well, because if it is rolled into that $30,000 as well, that is not nearly adequate for what some of the farmers are losing in this disaster.

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the specifics to the question which the member asks, I am sorry I do not have an answer for you, but I would be prepared to find the information for you and supply you with that information as soon as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, with her final supplementary question.

Ms. Wowchuk: Since it is our understanding that in other provinces when they have faced disasters such as this livestock has been covered and has been considered part of the losses, will the minister responsible ensure that Manitobans are not short-changed in this issue and that when they are negotiating with the federal government we ensure that there is compensation for livestock operators, whether it be poultry or hogs or whatever component of livestock, and they will not be treated differently from other livestock producers in other provinces?

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course, in all of our discussions with the federal government, we certainly hope that we will be able to have an open dialogue with the federal government with regard to disaster assistance and the kinds of cost-sharing that can take place between both levels of government.

Certainly, the issue that the member raises will be one of the issues that we bring up in our discussions with the federal government with regard to cost-sharing and with regard to compensation. We will be pursuing that very actively.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have learned today that the limit on one claim is $30,000 for businesses or for homes that are lost or for livestock, for example.

I am wondering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the minister responsible could indicate whether the intention of the government is also to significantly raise that $30,000 limit. As a small-business person would know, there are many situations in Manitoba that cannot be covered with flood insurance simply because they are in flood-prone areas, and $30,000 will do virtually nothing to help small businesses re-establish.

So will this limit also be raised to a limit more consistent with Quebec's, Alberta's and British Columbia's levels?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Deputy Speaker, with regard to claims for eligible costs of disaster incurred by small businesses, that is an area of discussion I think that has to take place with the federal government because we get into the realm there of eligibility. In the disaster assistance policy there is a pretty specific definition for a small business and its eligibility and those businesses that are not. So, in regard to any discussions that we have, my staff are working right now to investigate some of the parameters that we have to discuss with the federal government with regard to eligibility of covering disaster costs by small businesses in Manitoba.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, could the minister indicate whether, in the situation of home businesses that are unincorporated businesses, the government will recognize that the business is separate from the home and at least allow that a claim can be made for both the home and the contents and the costs of getting it back in operation and the unincorporated business which was carried on from that home or from those premises, which is also in many cases now a total loss and in many cases was not insurable?

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in regard to the honourable member's question, I think that is something that we would certainly take a very close look at in regard to any kind of further investigation of the whole essence of the $30,000 limit because there are the varying definitions. Like, since the inception of the policy, of course, many things have changed over a number of years. For example, small business is often an incorporated business, and in terms of eligibility, corporations are deemed to be not eligible. What we have out in rural Manitoba is a lot of family farm corporations that have been subjected to disaster. So, within the realm of the definition of eligibility, those kinds of issues have to be discussed as well as the issue that the honourable member raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with his final supplementary question.

* (1410)

Mr. Sale: Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the same minister: Given that the federal government officials whom we contacted indicated that the level of assistance was a provincial decision and was not something that had to be negotiated with the federal government and cited as evidence the fact that different levels exist in different provinces, the federal government pays 90 percent over their floor regardless of what the provincial level is, will the minister commit to the House today to raise that lower limit to at least the level, at least the level of Alberta, B.C. and Quebec in the Saguenay case and get the federal government quickly onside with the necessary changes to deal with the incredible scale of the loss in Manitoba?

Mr. Pitura: The honourable member brings up a good point with regard to the federal government indicating to the province that we can basically have any kind of assistance levels that we wish to have. However, one thing we have to bear in mind as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the fact that, while Ottawa is saying that on the one hand, Ottawa has to come through with an agreement to cost-share on the other hand. So any kind of move that we make with regard to assistance, we want to make sure that Ottawa is a full participating partner as they are right now in many of the programs that we have. We want to have that assurance from the provincial standpoint that Ottawa will participate. It is easy to say just jump in and do all the things that you want to do in terms of disaster assistance, but Ottawa may not just come along. So we want to make sure that our federal partner is with us all the way.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

What we have seen through the evacuations of thousands of people in rural Manitoba is that a lot of children are in fact being displaced, having to leave the school. It is important that their education continue on.

My question to the Minister of Education is: What role is the Minister of Education and her department playing in ensuring that the kids that are being displaced as a result of the flood are in fact going to be able to continue their education?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I thank my friend for that question. We have now several thousand students who are out of their home schools and into other settings. Many are in a transition stage right now and have not yet registered their new abode.

What we have been doing is two things for students in order to ensure the continuation of learning. One is that some teachers in some locations have prepared for their students' home-study sessions, home-study programs, which when they are relocated the students will be notifying their local school divisions through temporary phone numbers that have been set up as to where they are located. Teachers will stay in touch with them via telephone to ensure their lessons continue. Other students will be registering in neighbourhood schools where they are relocating. I wish to thank most sincerely all schools and superintendents who have indicated that they will bring the children in and make them part of the school in terms of not just the learning but the extracurricular activities, et cetera, and we are extremely grateful for that.

As students register in neighbouring divisions, the schools will be notifying the area superintendents. We are trying as much as we can to ensure that the local control is still there even though the students are dispersed, because it is the local authorities who know their students best.

I can continue with the next answer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am out of time.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would seek confirmation then from the Minister of Education on whether the school divisions, that are accepting the children who are coming in from the flooded-out areas or evacuated areas, are going to be compensated in any fashion for the additional numbers of students going in.

Mrs. McIntosh: It may be possible--and we do not have the latest figures in yet that would tell us exactly where all of the students yet are--to have teachers redeployed with students. So I think that question is a good question, but I think it is a premature question to ask. We have students, as I say, many in home schools. We have also indicated to schools, as has the Manitoba Association of School Trustees in conjunction with us saying to schools, see this not as an obligatory thing but as an opportunity to be of service to other people. I think that is the attitude with which almost 100 percent of the field is approaching this.

We are asking students--and this may be a good opportunity to have this word further emphasized for the public--that students who have not yet indicated to their home division where they have located--there is a series of temporary phone numbers for evacuated divisions that are published with our flood updates. We are asking parents, if they have not yet done that, once they have their location, to let the home divisions know where they are in addition to having the school divisions do it, because not all students will be in school. They will be home schooling.

Mr. Lamoureux: My final supplementary question is to ask whether or not the minister or her department has looked at the impact of the evacuation on the standards test that the government puts out on an annual basis. Is the government looking at any sort of exemptions? Is the government still planning on going ahead in the areas where it has been flooded out?

Mrs. McIntosh: Again, I thank my friend for a very good question. We have two aspects to that. One is the continuation of learning and the other is the exam policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I really think this is a serious matter, and I object to the member for Elmwood doing what he just did.

At any rate, as far as the learning experience is concerned, there will be disruption to learning; that is unavoidable. We are trying to continue it as best we can in a variety of ways. We are saying to divisions: When students return there are a variety of vehicles that they can use locally with appropriate parental involvement to try to catch the students up, so to speak.

As far as exams are concerned, we are not cancelling the provincial-wide exams, because there are many parts of the province that are free to write. We have not yet reached the figure, for example, of students who are unable to write the math exam. What we do have in place, of course, the model for June that was used for the math exams has already been announced for the June exams. As well, we have an exemption policy that is part of the government exam policy, and that exemption policy will be applied very sensitively, very generously and with a lot of compassion. We expect to see some schools wholly exempt as the schools and parents together decide what they feel they need to recommend to the government. So we are still working on that.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Early this morning we learned that water had come into the town of Ste. Agathe over a railroad track on the west side of town. Residents had been told that the railway track would be high enough at those forecasted levels to provide some protection for their community. I would like to ask the minister: Why was a railway line considered adequate to protect the town of Ste. Agathe? What ended up being the problem? Was it high waves or changes in forecasts that caused the problem for water to come up over the railways and flood the town?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, we were all saddened and disturbed to learn what happened in the community of Ste. Agathe this morning, but the Department of Natural Resources had on its own volition gone in and given levels to the community, indicated some suggestions that they thought would be appropriate in terms of dealing with the known level of water. This is a community that is not part of the ring-dike system where Natural Resources is responsible for the maintenance and operation of those dikes. We provided them with best advice, and they additionally hired consultants to work with them, so the member may believe he has the adequate information about what happened and what caused the failure, if in fact that is what occurred. We are waiting to receive more information before we make any comment on that. Certainly the level of water was still within the forecasted range, but there appears to have been problems in the structure that was being used as a wing.

* (1420)

Mr. Struthers: I would like to ask the minister: What further steps would this government take to make sure this kind of scene does not repeat itself in the communities north of Ste. Agathe that are also depending on temporary dikes?

Mr. Cummings: Well, let us be careful in how we choose our words. The community of St. Adolphe is behind a larger, more significant dike, and of course it is not over until it is over, but it is a much older and more stable structure and was augmented by the Department of Natural Resources in co-operation with the community to the predicted levels in the same manner that the communities of Emerson, Letellier and St. Jean were given assistance, and Morris.

Particularly in Emerson and Morris, the work has been demonstrated to have met the appropriate challenge to this point and will continue to be monitored there very closely because as the high water levels now appear to be approaching those first communities, then the long-term stability of the structure is now the critical factor.

We do believe that most of the dikes that have still not seen the total amount of high water closer to Winnipeg in fact were severely tested yesterday with the wind, and that should give a good indication of their stability.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Dauphin, with his final supplementary question.

Mr. Struthers: We are speaking of those towns that have temporary dikes.

The other report that we got out of the evacuation last night was that somebody did get minor injuries in the evacuation. Can the minister indicate whether the evacuation safety measures for remaining emergency personnel in these communities--can he tell the House how he will minimize those types of injuries?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that might be more appropriately answered by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), but I would remind the House that the EMO organization working with the local authorities and in close co-operation with those both elected and Natural Resources, RCMP, army, all of the resources are being made available, and what we are assured is that working through the provincial into the local network that every precaution is being taken to minimize any risk to human life.

I think that we did see a demonstration last night that an abundance of caution is important. There have been some criticisms about reduction of personnel in communities. I believe that the co-operative approach that is being used is the best one in order to determine those, and seeing the minimum number of people that had to be removed on short notice last night, I think that adds some weight to the question of levels of necessary personnel.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government on behalf of all Manitobans has recently signed an agreement with the federal government to accept the devolution of much of the federal responsibility for labour force training and development.

When questions were asked on this side of the House about that agreement, we were met with what might charitably be called a stonewall. Yes, they were discussing it, but no, they were not going to tell anybody about it.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: Would she table the full agreement at the next meeting of the House, that is tomorrow, so that all Manitobans can know what has been agreed to on their behalf?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I am a little surprised at the member feeling she does not know what is in the agreement. It was a big public announcement. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Prime Minister had a signing. We had a signing here between the minister and senior officials. The details were published in the paper. The agreement was the cause of some fanfare, media coverage, and I am puzzled by the question.

I am pleased to share the details of the agreement with the member, but I would have thought by now she would already know them, given we had a press conference and a press release, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Question Period has expired.